You don't like the new edition? Tell me about it!

[gonesailing]

From my brief skim of the DMG and the MM, I thought world-building would be, if not crushed, at least made more difficult by the near-total lack of environmental information on monsters, and the DMG apparently laying out who runs towns, cities, and etc (ie, towns have an absent noble lord and his local representative is a reeve). I could very well have missed the handy table of alternate styles of government, but I somehow I doubt it.

It just looked harder to "build a world" from the box without knowledge from previous editions or just making your own decisions (all my worgs live in swamps!). I know world-building is supposed to be all about making your own decisions, but it presumes a common language that D&D no longer provides.

That actually makes sense to me. There truly isn't that much information about creating "worlds" in the core books. It is still possible, but it will mean referencing many more other sources than these books. Not a bad thing necessarily but certainly a bar for newer DMs.

Also I agree about the Magic armor types. However, D&D has always been a little too high magic for me. I think we'll just chuck all that in the garbage and give the bonuses directly to the characters.

 

[mrswing]

Haven't seen this one yet:

Skill Challenges are not conducive to roleplaying (I'm talking about the social aspect of the adventure, not when the skill challenge is merely physical). Yes, there is a big example in the DMG on how the players try to influence a ruler. But why do you need (for example) 6 successes out of ten rolls to achieve that? Why doesn't the DM simply decide beforehand which arguments will have merit, which will be counterproductive (talking in a very general sense, obviously, the inventiveness or craziness of the players cannot be factored in completely), have the characters roleplay the conversation and if necessary use one roll with modifiers to see whether they achieve their task? Skill challenges as they are conceived of now are just disguised dice rolling fests.

Upping starting level hitpoints is a good idea - no one new to roleplaying relishes the idea of playing a weakling who cannot survive one encounter. But upping eveyone's hit points while reducing damage output is the very opposite of fun, and fairly guarantees combat lasting as long as it did before (or even longer). Which defeats the whole 'more fun, less chores' approach which apparently guided the design team.

Speaking of which: marking? Who demanded this to be in the rules? The designers or the playtesters? To me, this is a wholly unnecessary new level of complication. Just like tokens were a new, overcomplicated mechanic in Iron Heroes.

Some of the powers are stupid and have bad names ( the pit fiend's Irresistible command, for example). Others are cool, still others are meh.

Narrowly defined party roles are dull, limiting and pointless.

D&D no longer resembles fantasy fiction in any way or form save for basic subject matter. It's become its own thing completely. Which means that it's harder than ever to try and approximate the fantasy fiction experience with it.

The monster selection in the MM is bizarre. I don't miss the descriptive text - it was always hideously badly written and a waste of space. Especially since every creature is illustrated clearly (and a picture says a thousand words ). However, the absolute lack of story hooks and ecology make it a dull book (unlike the Iron Kingdom Monsternomicons, for example, which simply scream 'use me'!).

Too many changes were either ill-conceived or change for change's sake. Not necessarily with regards to 3e but with regards to D&D itself. Not that some changes weren't necessary or desirable (and some of the changes implemented are good ideas). But they went overboard and I am sure that in the months to come many quirks and problems will be discovered which were unforeseen.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

That actually makes sense to me. There truly isn't that much information about creating "worlds" in the core books. It is still possible, but it will mean referencing many more other sources than these books. Not a bad thing necessarily but certainly a bar for newer DMs.

The reason for this is because D&D is focusing more on the Adventure and less on the World.

You could run The Temple of Elemental Evil and it would be fun in any world. In fact, the details of the world it takes place in are entirely inconsequential to most of the mod except for some names. The idea is to concentrate on the immediate adventure: We must stop the wizard from attacking the city, we must rescue the princess, and so on.

The DMG gives a lot more information for focusing on these things.

 

[Imaro]

This...

I've glanced through the MM and flipped quickly through the DMG (got called away before I could look at the PH), but frankly, the MM bored me. Lists and lists and lists of stats. No descriptions. No environment, habitat, or anything. What exactly is that thing tucked in next to the worg? I went from a certain sale (albeit later this week), to an almost certain non-sale.

and this...

Agreement here. I haven't seen such a stark representation of monsters since the OD&D MONSTERS & TREASURES booklet. Except here, it isn't a good thing.

Plus some of the editorial decisions made with regard to the monsters themselves is...questionable.

The MM is the book I have the most problems with (so far). It is beyond bland. WotC gives us a system to make monsters that's simple and quick, why then do we need a book of just stats? I expected some inspiration, hooks, ecologies, etc. for the price of this book...not 5 variations of a goblin I could have easily made up, more than a fair share of reused artwork and a questionable selection of monsters. I reallly feel like this book was padded to semi-justify it's price.. give me 3 examples at the most of "variations" on one monster, and give me more monsters to work with... not the other way around.

I want a book that makes me want to use a monster because the game developers created something so cool and with so many hooks that I go damn, why didn't I think of that. For a good example I refer to WW's Changeling the Lost, they know how to create antagonists that make you want to use them.

I remember, when I was a kid, opening the monster manual on summer break and loving to read through it. Every time I read a description of a monster, a whole adventure would pop in my head around that creature...just don't get that feeling with the 4th ed. MM.

 

[Thunderfoot]

I have to 'defend' the Monster Manual for a second - I can completely understand the lack of ecologies, setting etc. If you read the DMG and the PHB its obvious that you don't have a setting with any real strength to it. They give you stats and 'roles' so that you can drop them in anywhere.

While as a DM that likes to screw with ecologies I can respect this, however, if I were new to the game, a white dragon in the middle of the desert wouldn't seem out of place, which of course is just badwrongfun...

I think the MM for what is is fine, especially if taken in context with the DMG, but as a stand alone book, yeah, I can see why most people are hacked off at it.

 

[thedungeondelver]

I have to 'defend' the Monster Manual for a second - I can completely understand the lack of ecologies, setting etc. If you read the DMG and the PHB its obvious that you don't have a setting with any real strength to it. They give you stats and 'roles' so that you can drop them in anywhere.

While as a DM that likes to screw with ecologies I can respect this, however, if I were new to the game, a white dragon in the middle of the desert wouldn't seem out of place, which of course is just badwrongfun...

I think the MM for what is is fine, especially if taken in context with the DMG, but as a stand alone book, yeah, I can see why most people are hacked off at it.

Speaking solely (likely so) for myself, it isn't so much "ecologies" - in my thinking "ecologies" aren't separate blocks of text, but cool stuff in the overall description.

The new MM is lacking those. For example, here's the new MM entry on the Sauhagin:

ALSO KNOWN AS SEA DEVILS, sahuagin are vicious sea dwellers
that share many traits with sharks. They slaughter and devour
anything they can catch, raiding coastal settlements in the
dead of night.

Now compare that to the column inches taken up by Steve Marsh's entry for them in the original MONSTER MANUAL for AD&D - which is copied from SUPPLEMENT II: BLACKMOOR, verbatim.

The MM has no ring to it.

 

[Imaro]

I have to 'defend' the Monster Manual for a second - I can completely understand the lack of ecologies, setting etc. If you read the DMG and the PHB its obvious that you don't have a setting with any real strength to it. They give you stats and 'roles' so that you can drop them in anywhere.

While as a DM that likes to screw with ecologies I can respect this, however, if I were new to the game, a white dragon in the middle of the desert wouldn't seem out of place, which of course is just badwrongfun...

I think the MM for what is is fine, especially if taken in context with the DMG, but as a stand alone book, yeah, I can see why most people are hacked off at it.

I think it stands out so much because it is so inconsistent with the marketing and tone of the other two books. I, as well as my players, after reading through 4e felt that it had been brought to a more simplistic level (in nearly everything) to make it more accessible to new players. In fact my brother chuckled a little after looking over the PHB and said "This seems like it's been written for someone who has never played rpg's before".

Ok taking that into consideration, the MM is woefully inadequate as far as setting up the new player with ideas and inspiration on how to use these stat blocks in an interesting hook that will actually get the PC's motivated enough to fight them. In fact it seems as if it was written from the standpoint of someone who has a previous MM to refer to.

Like I said earlier I could have easily done with 3 or 4 rather than 7 variations on goblins to get a more engaging and interesting book (or even a wider variation of monsters to build on). YMMV of course.

 

[SSquirrel]

The PHB should be written to allow as many people to easily get into the game as possible. They DO want to pull more people into gaming after all.

They are relying on the pictures to describe the monsters. How many times did we read examples of monsters and have the art woefully wrong? I can think of several personally. So skip the description. That description you gave for the new Sauhagin tells me several things I need to know and an easy hook to bring them into an adventure is a coastal town being raided/menaced by a group of them. Easy.

Several monsters have mentions of being from the Feywild or Shadowfell. What more do we need to know with that? Haven't been able to look thru my new books much yet, but aren't the basic areas talked about like that in some location?

So many people are always griping about settings like the Realms having too much detail on too fine a scale and how they wish they could get a setting from WoTC that had more breathing room. The PoL setting is just what those people asked for, and now some of them are unhappy (not pointing at anyone in particular in thread) w/the barebones setting and demand more world information.

The descriptions give me enough information to place them where I want. If someone puts a white dragon in the desert, ok but it isnt' wrongbadfun, it's their idea of something interesting. Besides, the MM does say "and primarily dwell in cold climates". So this could be an exception to the rule or they just skimmed over that part. The MM does include info on where it is typically encountered tho.

 

[Nellisir]

The descriptions give me enough information to place them where I want. The MM does include info on where it is typically encountered tho.

Just for kicks, can you give us the written description and info of the secondary worg monster, the one right after "worg" (I think it starts with a "Y")? Not the stat block, just the "fluff" text.

 

[Nellisir]

I have to 'defend' the Monster Manual for a second - I can completely understand the lack of ecologies, setting etc. If you read the DMG and the PHB its obvious that you don't have a setting with any real strength to it. They give you stats and 'roles' so that you can drop them in anywhere.

I think, and this is just my gut feeling, that WotC pretty well misjudged their audience for the MM. Previous MMs have had stats and flavor. It seems clear that this time around, WotC decided that people could provide their own flavor, and WotC would just bring the stats.

I know there are people that think that's great. But those are the people that didn't care for, or rewrote, or ignored, the flavor anyways. The flavor, IMO, was inspiring and evocative. I'm a good writer and good DM, but I have blind spots and I rely on other peoples inspiration to supplement my own (as everyone should, really). I don't need a surfeit of detail, but the 4e MM doesn't even rise to bare bones. It's the anti-Monstrous Compendium.

The stats are mechanics. They're mechanical. You can (and people have) written programs to generate perfectly good stats, or add templates to existing stat blocks. Good flavor is what's hard. Flavor is what draws you into a game. If I wanted a flavorless game based on random numbers, I'd play internet bingo.