D&D 4E Worst Monsters in 4e

[Obryn]

What do you think are the worst monsters published so far for 4e?

The Dracolich thread seems to indicate there's a lot of agreement that Dracoliches, as-written, are among the worst.

I'll add Azers due to their utter boringness and utter weakness.

I'll also add Cyclopses (as-written) for being the lowest-damage mid-paragon large-sized creatures imaginable. (Really?! 1d12+7 on an axe? And artillery who do low-heroic damage?!)

MM1 Hydras are just big boring sacks of HPs.

As far as Named foes go, I can't imagine much less interesting than Doresain, King of Ghouls.

What else would you like to add to this list? Or do my choices suck?

-O

 

[renau1g]

I am using the Sliver Wraith Seekers from one of the Chaos Scar adventures and their damage is 1d6+2, target is knocked prone and can't stand (save ends). But what I find super boring about them is they are insubstantial and have no vulnerabilities so essentially it has well over 60 hps + a very boring and weak attack power.

level 3 controller

 

[LostSoul]

Human Bandits. They are an important monster and they just suck.

 

[med stud]

Wraiths, hands down. Insubstantial creatures that weaken? Not only that, but they can also phase through walls and regenerate (unless I misremember), so that they can always go through a wall to heal up and return if a fight goes against them!

Since they do low damage, they are almost impossible to kill but it's also almost impossible for them to kill anything. Just makes for a frustrating stalemate.

 

[keterys]

There are a bunch of 'meh' monsters - like human bandits, cyclopes, azer, all but a couple of the minions in MM1, etc... but I don't think they really hold a candle to the true suckfests like dracoliches, phanes, and wraiths.

 

[renau1g]

The meh ones you describe either have sucky attacks, sucky damage, or something else boring about them, but yeah the truly terrible ones have regeneration + insubstantial + weaken or stunning easy accessible powers, or things that generally make the game very, very grindy + boring for players. There's nothing heroic about saying "oh I'd love to do something this round, but nope I'm stuck watching...again..." I used a dazing effect on our party cleric who was sustaining Moment of Glory. It had a similar reaction as essentially he was in the same boat, "Well...I sustain again... *sigh*"

 

[renau1g]

P.S. Obryn...I miss your old avatar

 

[Obryn]

P.S. Obryn...I miss your old avatar

Hah! It may be back in July.


Anyways, I can't believe I forgot those damn sword wraiths. I hate those things with a vengeance. One in a combat might work, but I have no idea what the designers of P3 were thinking when they put FOUR in a combat. Like I said before, it's basically, "OK, so cut your damage in half. Then cut it in half again if I hit. Then I'll run through some walls when threatened, and regenerate 10 per round - which is really kinda like regenerating 40 per round if you think about it."

-O

 

[Badapple]

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.

 

[ourchair]

Any monster whose abilities can be summarized as Standard Attack, No Special Effect: XdY+Z damage and Encounter/Recharge Attack, No Special Effect, More Than One Target: AdB+C damage is a snoozefest to me.