D&D 4E Worst Monsters in 4e

[KidSnide]

At the same time, things that (at least I feel) need fixing don't get "fixed" after those playtests. Like classes. Sure, you can errata a feat or offer a new build, but the V frame classes (Cleric, Paladin, Warlock) are handicapped with the split nature of the class. Add the warlord to the list as far as "classes needing a revision". But you can't overhaul a class without, well, reprinting and such.

Personally, I tend to think that the V-shaped classes can be fixed by just providing enough powers in splatbooks that each side of the V effectively becomes its own special sub-class. And there are structural problems with classes that can be mitigated by allowing new builds (like the MP2 super-melee warlord, the beast ranger and some of the post-PH1 warlock splat).

That said, I agree with you that certain problems simply require a 4.5 or 5e to fix. For example, I think rituals and epic level play have some fundamentally conceptional problems that you can't fix by just providing more rituals and epic destinies. Nonetheless, I think WotC is doing a good job at fixing 60-90% of the material that doesn't work in PH1.

-KS

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I also think they are rather proud and don't want to admit that their original stuff that was playtested for years needs correction or at least that much correction.

Except it wasn't playtested for years. I recall very recently seeing a post somewhere that outlined the timeline of 4e development. There was precious little time in there for extensive playtesting. There was an initial prototype design in late 2005, followed in 2006 by a more fleshed out version which went through a few months of playtest and fiddling which resulted in a pretty much total rewrite that introduced a lot of basic 4e stuff like at-will/encounter/daily powers etc. Any testing that came before that would have told them very little about details like monster damage output. Given that it takes almost a year to go from a draft version of a book to actual release that means there were at most 6 months of testing that was in parallel with finalization of all the classes etc.

I agree with doctorhook, no amount of closed playtesting will ever iron out all the little issues with a system. Its just like with software, you can test it in-house till doomsday, you still won't release a perfect product. Most of the testing is being done by people that are close to the designers. Plenty of things may work reasonably well in the style of play they all fall into for instance. Once you release the product people with very different play styles pick it up and have issues, etc.

KS, I pretty much agree. V shaped classes are fine, they just need a full class worth of support for each leg of the V. At that point in some ways they're actually better than 2 A shaped classes. Also I think V shaped classes were partly a response to needing a lot of material packed into a fairly small package for PHB1. In theory they could have split them all in two, but that would have meant releasing a LOT of classes before they were really ready to fill in the class roster that much. It also would have meant diverging even more from previous editions. How would you have done a cleric that was focused on being both a support character and a potent melee combatant? Its not NECESSARY to have such a class, but it was EXPECTED.

The few things that really can't be fixed are luckily not super critical. The core of the system is pretty solid. I'd have preferred it if they'd ditched stat boosts for instance and that can't really be fixed, but they did a pretty good job of focusing on putting out a well designed core game that can handle just about anything you'd ever expect D&D to be able to deal with.

Now that we have things like MM3 and similar refinements I think the system is pretty much as good as its going to get. Personally I doubt we will EVER see a 5e. I think that was one of the main reasons for 4e, to design a system that fundamentally never needs to be rewritten. I think they pretty much succeeded.

 

[pemerton]

Depends - was there any real reason the wraiths fighting against the radiant party couldn't just fade away and come back a few rounds later?

A lot of monsters only approach their true levels of suck when play optimally. Like bloodfire harpies that are content to hang out at 20 squares away.

This is a fair point. In the combats that I ran, the wraiths had reasons to want to engage the party - in one case, being under an NPC's control, in the mad wraith's case reasons of vengeance (this was her third go against the party, after earlier being taken prisoner as a human mage and then being defeated after her first resurrection as a wight) - so I didn't have them disengage as much as they might have.

Also, I find that choosing when to disengage is a tricky artform in itself. Too early, and it seems irrational on the part of the monster - it's team is often winning, after all, in the early stage of an encounter - and too late and it dies from the opportunity attacks in any event.

So I suspect that I didn't play my wraiths to their utmost mechanical optimality, but I didn't completely gimp them - they used their phasing to advantage, for example - and I think I got about the best use out of them that I was going to, in terms of the balance between tactics, the flavour that comes from their powers and features, and the broader story flavour that they were part of.

 

[Steelwill]

I think the MM1 hydra has to take the ultimate prize for worst monster. This is the ultimate boring monster. Every stereotype of solo monsters and 4e "grind" is traced back to this culprit. Fortunately there are a bunch of other hydras that are cooler.

Black dragons are pretty boring. Low damage, and an ability that gives them full concealment. Really the only bad monsters I'm thinking about are solos. I can't think of any non solos that are that bad. Boring sure, but not terrible.

I don't have a problem with most insubstantial creatures - sure you do half damage to them, but they also tend to have very low hitpoints to begin with, so it's mostly a wash. Really a reward for characters that invest in magic items, powers, feats, etc that affect insubstantial as they wind up being the star that fight. Granted some of the insubstantial examples people were posting previously were not lurkers, which is bad design, so ok I'll agree there with earlier examples.

As far as the low damage but going through walls and regenerating, usually I don't use that to be a grindfest... I use it to have the monsters run away, regen to full and then spring out at the party as they are in the middle of their next encounter. Making them even more hated and feared, and thus enhancing their value and coolness. Yes, I can be a bastard.

I don't really have much of a problem with most monsters... I see them as tools, some to be used more sparingly than others. I see more a problem with bad encounter design than bad monsters... low damage monsters that are really hard to kill should be combined with high damage monsters, not encountered by themselves for example. For example teamed with an elite controller that enhances their abilities.

A low damage causing, sack of hitpoints, that does no meaningful conditions is "boring" but it's also nice to have a few of those when the encounter also includes really complicated monsters so the net tracking I have to do as the DM is not overloaded. It also puts more shine on the "interesting" monster, which for dramatic reasons is sometimes nice.

Here's a challenge - are there any monsters that are so utterly bad that you would never use them EVER, under any circumstances? I can't think of the top of my head a single non solo monster in any of the monster manuals that I wouldn't EVER use, given free reign to design the terrain and additional monsters that form the overall encounter.

The real problem are encounters where the party focus fires all their encounter powers on all the interesting monsters in the first few rounds and leaves the boring monsters, often still with full hitpoints, for cleanup at the closing rounds... when they are left with at will powers. This is something that comes up a lot, and is a challenge I have to anticipate and deal with regularly as a DM.

You may have nailed it! These monsters I think were designed to be found in mixed groups with other monsters in others complimentary roles. But I think its more likely DM's are throwing many of the same monster at parties in an encounter (i do that too sometimes because its easier than constantly flipping back and forth through one or more monster manuals for each monster in a given encounter), thus on their own, and just representing one role, they aren't very good. As for solo's, I think they are miss named, they should have been called bosses, because Solo leaves the impression that just that monster should be on the field, but many "solos" seem to assume there are lesser monsters and minions on the board with them. Orcus for example seems tailor made to hit the board with a few dread wraiths.

 

[Steelwill]

More like sensitive to their fanbase.

There are all ready people complaining about how there's too much Errata and that the PHB1 is obsolete because of it.

I suspect that many people wouldn't mind a significant errata to MM1/2, especially if it worked as something as simple as damage increase formulae based on tier.

I have been advocating from jump street that much of the revisions updates could have been handled more appropriately and elegantly from the monster side by buffing them rather than the nerfs that have hit player options, most despicably class feature nerfs. My opinion of course, but it looks like with MM3 they are moving that way.

 

[Aegeri]

It's a combination approach, you need to fix broken elements and bring monsters up. Monsters were actually way behind even with those nerfs and healers lore getting nerfed was - in the end - probably deserved. It still works extremely well on surge based healing and Wizards have decided to put a lot of a stop on non-surge based healing. I think that's pretty reasonable for the most part and is working out extremely well - powers like Font of Life aren't automatic "Nobody can ever die ever lol" powers anymore. This is a good thing.

But returning to the point MM3 creatures are now performing as paragon and epic monsters should perform. They haven't been boosted from okay against the party to "good", they've been boosted from completely and utterly useless at challenging the party to being challenging. The nerfs have just bought everything down to an expected line and this is a good thing.

I have a paragon and an epic game going right now. The effect has been fantastic, I can actually design encounters without torturous EL + 4 or higher grindy, boring combats that take 3 hours. I for one will celebrate the death of these encounters and dance upon their grave.

For example, I think rituals and epic level play have some fundamentally conceptional problems that you can't fix by just providing more rituals and epic destinies.

I would have agreed with you about epic a while ago, but actually I am finding its working brilliantly right now. The monster design in MM3 has finally caught up to the realization that epic PCs are actually pretty powerful! I really suggest playing epic for a while in a post MM3 world - it's a very different and very fun experience.

Like people can go on and on about maths, but the monsters design is better. Better designed monsters with more interesting powers is the true success here.

I'm still betting they will just give all the revised monsters slightly different names. So the existing wraith will continue to exist, but there will be a 'wraith pillager' or whatever the heck random name they give it. That way you'll have a new improved version in the vault and DDI but anyone that needs to use the original versions will still have access to them in DDI/MB and there will be no need to 'errata' the MM1 (it would be kind of a silly errata, here's a whole new book, we replaced every page!).

Yes, my understanding is that the monster vault has a lot of zombies, dragons and other classic monsters.

 

[Markn]

Now that we have things like MM3 and similar refinements I think the system is pretty much as good as its going to get. Personally I doubt we will EVER see a 5e. I think that was one of the main reasons for 4e, to design a system that fundamentally never needs to be rewritten. I think they pretty much succeeded.

Can't say I agree with this. Maybe in a perfect world, sure, but this isn't a perfect world. WotC needs/wants to make money. Like all previous editions of D&D, sales will eventually decrease - the edition will be complete if you will. Star Wars Saga is an example of this. You can only put out so many products before the public stops buying. Change is necessary to reenergize, reinvigorate and to stimulate the hobby. There will ALWAYS be another edition of D&D down the line. It's simple economics.

 

[keterys]

Depends - the subscription model lets you vastly increase the potential lifetime of the product.

 

[Markn]

Depends - the subscription model lets you vastly increase the potential lifetime of the product.

Extend it, yes, but still not infinitely. You can create a new edition and continue the subscription model into the new edition. You simply can't beat the hype that happens when a new edition is announced (some negative of course but by and large mostly positive).

 

[Zaran]

I wouldn't attribute that kind of motivation to them. If they thought everything that came before was perfect, why revise it for MM2 and MM3? Or have an employee suggest ways to fix MM1/2 monsters?

If anything, it's because of the promise there'd be no "4.5" no matter how much some of us would love it.

-O

They can get around that by just reprinting the books with the changes needed without saying it's a .5 . They did with Star Wars Saga. The latest Core Saga book has all the errata built in without change to the cover.