D&D 4E Worst Monsters in 4e

[AbdulAlhazred]

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).

It remains to be seen. I think they're going to give it a good try. Also I'm not sure they HAVE to have a system that is constantly being pumped. The beauty of a subscription based system is that as long as you have that decent sized core fanbase subscribing you can just keep making money. It might not be a mint, but its also very low risk and predictable. Keep putting out decent adventures and another supplement now and then and the game will keep cooking along. They can always produce other sorts of material like a 4e based MMORPG, CRPGs, possibly other things. They can also license out the system for other people's IP and have a revenue stream in DDI subscriptions for those as well.

Really the reasons there were edition rollovers before also had a lot to do with the mechanical weaknesses of previous editions. 1e and 2e were terribly limited and hard to customize to different settings and genre (and when they tried to extend 2e the system predictably pretty much fell apart). 3.x suffered from some of the same problems plus others. It did work pretty well in many respects but it also eventually collapsed under the weight of its own shortcomings. 4e seems to have been intentionally designed with a heavy focus on avoiding that kind of obsolescence. It certainly isn't the be-all and end-all of RPGs, but I think it finally gives D&D a core set of rules that can stand the test of time.

Heck just the fact that tweaking monster guidelines has such a great impact on play shows us that the game is capable of a lot of adaptation.

 

[KidSnide]

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.

I'm not sure I agree with your last paragraph. If nothing else, I think the exigencies of the market will make WotC (or WotC's successor) want to put out a 5th edition after 4e has been out for a decade or so.

Furthermore, I think many of the problems of 4e are reasonably apparent (skill challenges, rituals and non-encounter gameplay, too many small bonuses to track, difficult to run fast "non set piece" combat encounters, lackluster magic items, and epic level play), but we aren't yet at the point at which we've diagnosed why they don't work or what kind of system changes would improve them (without breaking something else).

I'd like to think that the next decade brings advances to at least some of those problems. Personally, I'd like it if the 4e to 5e change was closer to the difference between 1e and 2e (in terms of the level of changes - I'd like the changes themselves to be better considered). That would make it so that 4e material was still useful (and usable), but would allow the designers to focus on more fundamental design issues.

-KS

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm not sure I agree with your last paragraph. If nothing else, I think the exigencies of the market will make WotC (or WotC's successor) want to put out a 5th edition after 4e has been out for a decade or so.

Well, who knows what the RPG industry will be like in a decade? 4e might well be obsolete simply because people don't play anything like the sort of games that are played now. If 4e lasts another decade though it will be the longest surviving edition of D&D at that point and one of the longest running actively supported RPGs ever.

Furthermore, I think many of the problems of 4e are reasonably apparent (skill challenges, rituals and non-encounter gameplay, too many small bonuses to track, difficult to run fast "non set piece" combat encounters, lackluster magic items, and epic level play), but we aren't yet at the point at which we've diagnosed why they don't work or what kind of system changes would improve them (without breaking something else).

Well, the details of your list aside, notice that NONE of those are basic issues. Nothing in the design of 4e precludes a rewrite of whichever subsystem or game element is the problem. The rest of the game OTOH continues to stand as-is. Imagine making radical changes to any of the elements of 3.x, it would have been much harder.

I'd like to think that the next decade brings advances to at least some of those problems. Personally, I'd like it if the 4e to 5e change was closer to the difference between 1e and 2e (in terms of the level of changes - I'd like the changes themselves to be better considered). That would make it so that 4e material was still useful (and usable), but would allow the designers to focus on more fundamental design issues.

-KS

I think the point is that with 4e some changes can happen incrementally. Even some pretty basic stuff COULD be changed without wrecking the system, though they would make things incompatible so I doubt they'll happen. Anyway, time will tell, but I still predict 4e will be the most durable edition, if not the last one.

 

[Markn]

4e could very well be the longest lasting edition to date. Incidently, which edition has lasted the longest thus far? IIRC, 2e was 11 years. Is that the longest or was 1e longer? My 1e dates are pretty fuzzy by now.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

4e could very well be the longest lasting edition to date. Incidently, which edition has lasted the longest thus far? IIRC, 2e was 11 years. Is that the longest or was 1e longer? My 1e dates are pretty fuzzy by now.

Well, the dates for 1e themselves are a bit fuzzy. Do you count from the release of the Monster Manual (1978) or the PHB (also 1978 IIRC but months later, maybe into '79), or the DMG (1979)? If you go with 78 for the sake of argument then 1e lasted from 78 to 90 or 12 years. Call it 79 and its 11. 1e and 2e basically each lasted about the same duration. Of course some people would say UA (1985) was effectively 1.5 and Player Options was effectively 2.5, so...

 

[KidSnide]

I'm not sure I agree with your last paragraph. If nothing else, I think the exigencies of the market will make WotC (or WotC's successor) want to put out a 5th edition after 4e has been out for a decade or so.

Well, who knows what the RPG industry will be like in a decade? 4e might well be obsolete simply because people don't play anything like the sort of games that are played now. If 4e lasts another decade though it will be the longest surviving edition of D&D at that point and one of the longest running actively supported RPGs ever.

Certainly. In the past, the market has tolerated periodic new editions and the publisher can sell a lot more copies of Players Handbook #1 than of Psionic Power #3. As you note, if 4e makes it to the end of this decade, it will have had historic longevity. Although you can't know the future, it stands to reason that WotC (or whoever else owns the rights to D&D) will have a strong motivation to put out a new edition 8-12 years after 4e's initial release.

(At least that's what I was trying to say originally.)

Furthermore, I think many of the problems of 4e are reasonably apparent (skill challenges, rituals and non-encounter gameplay, too many small bonuses to track, difficult to run fast "non set piece" combat encounters, lackluster magic items, and epic level play), but we aren't yet at the point at which we've diagnosed why they don't work or what kind of system changes would improve them (without breaking something else).

Well, the details of your list aside, notice that NONE of those are basic issues. Nothing in the design of 4e precludes a rewrite of whichever subsystem or game element is the problem. The rest of the game OTOH continues to stand as-is. Imagine making radical changes to any of the elements of 3.x, it would have been much harder.

I think the point is that with 4e some changes can happen incrementally. Even some pretty basic stuff COULD be changed without wrecking the system, though they would make things incompatible so I doubt they'll happen. Anyway, time will tell, but I still predict 4e will be the most durable edition, if not the last one.

Well, I was trying to provide a list of non-basic issues. Maybe our definitions of "basic" are different, but I was trying to suggest a series of issue in which fixing them would require more fundamental changes to the system than you could easily do in an incremental manner. In other words, those are the sort of changes that you would need a 4.5 or 5e to fix. (Of course, you could do a Book of Nine Swords system in which new classes get access to a more complicated ritual / martial practice sub-system. But, if you do that 3 or 4 times, you're essentially created 4.5 without the benefit of selling a ton of new PHs...)

But that said, I sort of agree with you. My assertion that I hoped 4e->5e would be closer to 1e->2e than 2e->3e or 3e->4e in terms of magnitude of change was because I think the character/encounter fundamentals like at-will/encounter/daily powers are sound. If we refer back to my list, I tend to think that the foundational weaknesses of 4e are related to the parts of the game that weren't at the core of 4e's design goals. I would hope that an eventual 5e would maintain the advances in 4e's design while improving those other aspects of play.

Oh, and lest we get too off topic, MM1 hydras suck...

-KS

 

[Nymrohd]

I think there is a lot of potential in sticking with 4E and reprinting the core books with heavy errata after 4-5 years from their release each. The subscription model and the ability to errate the compendium and CB fast makes this all the easier. Few things are more desirable for a company as the steady and predictable income of subscriptions. Plus we don't really know how much WotC can afford to downsize it's D&D department. They have been firing a lot of people so at some point they may manage to be cost-efficient enough to generate reasonable profits on the long term.

 

[Stalker0]

Guys this is a great debate full of very interesting points...and is now completely OT to the OP imo.

Now that I have gotten in my daily quota of acronyms I bid you good day!

 

[LostSoul]

In the one encounter I had with wraiths - a Thunderspire random encounter - they worked well.

They were paired up with a gelatinous cube. The PCs had a bunch of freed slaves, some of whom had some combat skills. We were treating them as minions at the time.

The wraiths attacked the slaves - when they were closest - and started turning them into other wraiths while the PCs got stuck in the cube. It was a good fight; in the end the PCs ran for it.

I think the best way to run a wraith encounter is to do the 3-way encounter: PCs start fighting a bunch of guys heavy with minions, wraiths sneak up and start attacking the minions, and who knows what will happen next?

(3-way encounters are underutilized, I think, though it does mean the DM has to roll NPC vs. NPC at times.)

 

[Rerednaw]

Yeah I know this thread is old but...

I liked the topic.

Of course, there's suck (boring fights) suck (no flavor) suck (badly written as to be unusable) and suck (keep them away from me, I don't want to fight that thing...)

My personal list of "keep them away from me..." suck in heroic tier (level 1-10), when you are more likely not to have a lot of panic buttons or special "get out of jail free" abilities or goodies.

The errata'd Jello (Gelatinous) Cube: Very high defenses make getting out of it's enveloping attack extremely difficult. And much higher damage now. Fast track to TPK for a lowbie party.

Mad Wraith: what takes the cake for me is not the insubstantial (which I do agree sucks) but rather the aura 3 AUTO DAZING. That just sooo sets up the party for nice critters like Foulspawn Manglers which is next on my list.

Foulspawn Manglers. Not a terrible creature unless it's paired with a good controller (like the Mad Wraith). Then it's 4 attacks with sneak attack bonus in a single turn. Of course the new rules will also give multi-sneak to all PC rogues so it won't see as bad then...

Destrachan...let's see, blindsight, check, close blast 5 with decent damage, check (even better if you use the new damage expressions) and dazing...with a recharge 3 4 5 6? Oh my welcome to hatesville for the PC's. Really fun fighting one in heavy fog or total darkness. Or for that matter two, three, or four of them, since they aren't even elite.

Beholder Gauth. Yes...nice sleep power usable every round. Plus two damage ranged attacks...and it has fly (hover) so it doesn't have to worry about melee...only ranged. As most ranged are either Reflex defense (Int/Dex) or Will Defense (Wis/Cha) it's nice that the Sleep ray targets Fort. And stunning it won't make this eyeball of death fall (hover).

Fell Taint. Great flavor...except all of them coup de grâce! Not what I want to introduce new players to (as they are all low level creatures).

Black Pudding. If you are in a martial-heavy party this is THE suck. Infinite minions, just hit it. Great if your DM happens to hold a grudge against twin-striking rangers...otherwise no...just no. Just don't be wearing heavy armor so you can run.

Flameskull. Ranged 20 Area burst 3 3d6+6 (half on a miss). Four of these at your party in round one can really ruin your day. Fortunately only an encounter power. Oh yeah, fly 10 (hover) so good luck if your party is melee.

Firebats. Shift 4 with an attack that does damage plus ongoing 5? And this is an at-will? A pack of these will roast your newbie party. And fly 8. Not hover but still pretty nice...

There's more but that's what off of the top of my head.