|
This I like very very much ...
From Rodney Thompson:
I didn't know it, but at the time I was apparently channeling the 4th Edition design team when it comes to monster design. One of the things I've enjoyed about working on 4E and designing some adventures (for personal use only) is that it takes the other philosophy: take only what you want, and don't worry about the rest. If I want to create a brutish monster that has a ton of hit points but only level appropriate attacks and slightly weaker defenses, I can do so without also giving the monster hugely distorted stats. Sure, you might say that it's just a monster with super-high Constitution, normal Strength, and below-average Dex...but then the monster ends up with ludicrous Fortitude saves and is now hindered when making Balance checks. Changes to individual aspects of the monster don't bring a lot of trickle-down effects or baggage with them, which makes monster design so much easier.
|
Well, I do not need to use high Con to create said Monster. Ic ould use an extraordinary or supernatural ability. For example:
Bemclaine (Ex): A creature with the Bemclaine ability is extraordinary resilient. For every Hit dice the monster has, it receives an additional 4hp.
See, all possible in 3.5 edition!
|
|
Well, I do not need to use high Con to create said Monster. Ic ould use an extraordinary or supernatural ability. For example:
Bemclaine (Ex): A creature with the Bemclaine ability is extraordinary resilient. For every Hit dice the monster has, it receives an additional 4hp.
See, all possible in 3.5 edition!
And I can create whatever type of monster I want in 2nd Edition. So I suppose that makes 3e unnecessary?
|
|
This sounds interesting. I'd love to see an example of one of these creatures. Does this mean the Con isn't necessarily tied to hit points anymore? How does this compare with character creation?
Do you have any more info, CWM?
This was all that was posted on ENWorld. I think the general idea that you do not need to be so formulaic is the part that I find most appealing.
|
|
And I can create whatever type of monster I want in 2nd Edition. So I suppose that makes 3e unnecessary?
Nope, that simply means that the mechanics to create a brute are already there.
If I remember correctly, and I haven't played 1st or 2nd in ages, there were no set rules of monster creation or where there?It just bothers me, that the designers pimp 4th as if they just invented the wheel.
As I do not know the monster creation mechanics in 4th, only the propaganda, I can not say if it is indeed the wheel invented anew or if it is just another tyre.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
This was all that was posted on ENWorld. I think the general idea that you do not need to be so formulaic is the part that I find most appealing.This sounds interesting. I'd love to see an example of one of these creatures. Does this mean the Con isn't necessarily tied to hit points anymore? How does this compare with character creation?
Do you have any more info, CWM?
Yeah, it seems like this is evidence of the dual monster/player system that is going to be part of 4e. I think I read that they are also making monsters with a range of stats/abilities rather than pegged to a specific CR (or whatever it's successor stat may be). 3e had something like this in the form of the increase in HD or stacking on of class levels, but those required quite a bit of work. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out.
|
|
This was all that was posted on ENWorld. I think the general idea that you do not need to be so formulaic is the part that I find most appealing.And that is exactly what turns me off. I like that Monster invention is an art but that creating them in the rules is technique.
I guess its just a matter of taste. In my home brew I made up monsters on the spot. They did what they needed to do to keep the combat dramatic. they had just enough hit points to be dead when they needed to be and they did just enough damage to keep the players on the edge.
For me by-the-book 3E monster creation was far too restrictive and a tad boring.
And I can create whatever type of monster I want in 2nd Edition. So I suppose that makes 3e unnecessary?Nope, that simply means that the mechanics to create a brute are already there.
If I remember correctly, and I haven't played 1st or 2nd in ages, there were no set rules of monster creation or where there?
Not officially that I'm aware of, but the template for creating one in 2e is the same template the creatures in the MMs use. If a creature is so alien that it has no benchmark creature to compare it to, I pick something close to what it is and modify from there.
Edit: BTW, for the record, I've created my own template for creature conversion/creation which is for the most part 2e in origin, but does implement some 3e fields 2e should have included.
We don't need "set rules" to create monsters. I'm sure I'm not the only one who made up monsters on my own, often "on the fly" for games. Again, they tell you can do something "new and fantastic" like you've never done it before or figured it out for yourself. I wish the people buying fourth would just mail me the hundreds of dollars they're going to waste and I'll mock them until 5th comes out and Wizards does it for me.
|
|
We don't need "set rules" to create monsters. I'm sure I'm not the only one who made up monsters on my own, often "on the fly" for games. Again, they tell you can do something "new and fantastic" like you've never done it before or figured it out for yourself. I wish the people buying fourth would just mail me the hundreds of dollars they're going to waste and I'll mock them until 5th comes out and Wizards does it for me.
How many d20 books ya own?
What's "ya" point?
Even for a dwarf, you're thick-skulled - :) - I see earlier was just a good roll. It's something you'll have to figure out on your own. My post was about something a little more general than you applied it to. If you don't get it, let it go.
DD please, you didn't understand the post, which doesn't surprise me. Let it go... It wasn't addressed specifically to you anyway.
So now you get to speak for him? Guess he does need the help. And I'm not trolling - I'm merely pointing out he missed the point, and there's no sense going on about it. He likes to argue, I see that.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
So now you get to speak for him? Guess he does need the help. And I'm not trolling - I'm merely pointing out he missed the point, and there's no sense going on about it. He likes to argue, I see that.
And you like to troll.
I think what I will like best about the idea of Paizo switching to 4e is that toxic posters like yourself will have to find some new community to troll.
I'll be the better man and walk away, while you two think of a clever reply for the next 15 minutes, because you know you won't be able to resist.
Blows whistle>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>uncalled for baiting!
::chuckles::
Barrow wight 4e is aimed at a whole new generation of gamers; so these concepts while old to me and you and the others of these boards, will spark a young Dm imagination and help him or her create monsters such as chromatic dragonborns and lightning demons....4e is coming...you can't stop it
Yeah, apparently the designers found, again, something wrong with 3E monsters and the way to tailor them while people like me had a freaking blast with it!
Now 4E is going to make it impossible to upgrade your creatures the way you want to. Make your hill giant a sorcerer? Nope, sorry. Hill giants are "brutes" so too bad if you want to tack on sorcerer...too much work for the poor "target audience" we need to attract.
And what's with this stupid, video-game-like, tag on monsters in 4th Edition? "Brute", "Striker", "Solo", "Ranged", "Spellcaster"...it's horrible. It's like the monsters have bullseye targets on them now, the higher you get on your 20-sided, the more experience you peg on it when you hit. Ka-ching!
Whatever happened to the storytelling and RP aspect of monsters? Sure 2E monsters were freaking weird half the time, but they fit into a fantasy ecology and world. Not every creature needs to freaking be killed and needs to look as cool as possible when killing it. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't want the stats, either. Stats, to me, are only necessary when you, for some reason, need to know how well a creature can defend itself if it is attacked and what it can do in a combat situation. For example, angels. Sure, the times the PCs battle angels is almost never, but it helps to have their stats in case a PC does, or if one helps out, or if it's summoned, whatever! There's no need to make angels in 4E super-zealous and overly self-righteous so they have a reason to fight PCs (like they said the Arcadian Avenger was for) just so PCs can kill, loot, gain a level...
It's like...Mario Brothers when you stomp on Goombas and Koopas. I'm glad the 4E-lovers want D&D to be that way. I feel really sorry for you people. I mean, if you wanted 4E to be like this so much, go back to the Basic D&D set then...heck, go to Chainmail! That's where it began as this crap.
|
Back to the topic at hand....
I really miss the early Ravenloft stuff. Feast of Goblyns was one of my favorites and I also enjoyed the ghost ship one. Do not remember the name.
Those were the days.
I believe I started playing in about 1983. My first was Keep on Borderlands, then The Secret of Bonehill (I think my DM completely changed it). And then off to the Lost City. Now that was a classic. My character was the only survivor of Zargon but was then captured and enslaved by those living in the City under the pyramid. It was glorious.
Or course then I ran Castle Amber and the Castle of the Silver Princess.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I see this as meaning "Giving all monsters stats on the same scale as PCs was a mistake that we're removing. It is appropriate for some, but not for all"
Based on the spined devil, monsters will still have the 6 ability scores. But monsters won't follow the same rules (HD, feats, skills, etc) that PCs do.
Now 4E is going to make it impossible to upgrade your creatures the way you want to. Make your hill giant a sorcerer? Nope, sorry. Hill giants are "brutes" so too bad if you want to tack on sorcerer...too much work for the poor "target audience" we need to attract.
Hmm. Actually if you think about it Hill Giants are, at their base, brutes already in 3.5. And you can customize them as needed, like with your example of sorcerer.
No place in the literature I've read has there been any reference to being unable to customize monsters. Just because they are labeling something does not mean that it has not usually served that function before.
Also, quite the opposite of being unable to alter baddies as needed, I recall a blog post or some such blurb (maybe the podcast about monsters) that D&D is about being able to customize, and that 4e actually makes that easier because they are streamlining the process in which the DM can build whatever encounter he wants.
Really I was just wondering where you heard this information that you cannot customize creatures in 4e.
|
|
Now 4E is going to make it impossible to upgrade your creatures the way you want to. Make your hill giant a sorcerer? Nope, sorry. Hill giants are "brutes" so too bad if you want to tack on sorcerer...too much work for the poor "target audience" we need to attract.
Razz - the point is that you can do whatever you want even if that means deviating outside of a constricted advancement path. If you want a Hill Giant sorcerer just do it - 4E will be that flexible if the quote I posted is correct.
|
|
I would be interested to see how these monsters work when it comes to customisation. One of things I like about 3E is how the stats are the same for PCs and monsters and therefore you can mix those rules together - the aforementioned hill giant sorcerer. What I am hearing about 4E is that this won't necessarily be available now, as they have gone back to the 2E and 1E paradigm of monster being To Hit bonues, ACs and HPs and that is about it, with none of the other details. I kind of understand why that might be the case - adapting a monster can be a fearome amount of work under the 3E rules. But one of the reasons I really like 3E is the flexibility with the monsters. I would be disheartened if this is lost in 4E with the narrow categorisation of monster "role".
|
|
I would be interested to see how these monsters work when it comes to customisation. One of things I like about 3E is how the stats are the same for PCs and monsters and therefore you can mix those rules together - the aforementioned hill giant sorcerer. What I am hearing about 4E is that this won't necessarily be available now, as they have gone back to the 2E and 1E paradigm of monster being To Hit bonues, ACs and HPs and that is about it, with none of the other details. I kind of understand why that might be the case - adapting a monster can be a fearome amount of work under the 3E rules. But one of the reasons I really like 3E is the flexibility with the monsters. I would be disheartened if this is lost in 4E with the narrow categorisation of monster "role".
Why would it be harder to just bolt on a caster lvl in 4E as opposed to having to go through all of the level and feat additions in 3E?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I would be interested to see how these monsters work when it comes to customisation. One of things I like about 3E is how the stats are the same for PCs and monsters and therefore you can mix those rules together - the aforementioned hill giant sorcerer. What I am hearing about 4E is that this won't necessarily be available now, as they have gone back to the 2E and 1E paradigm of monster being To Hit bonues, ACs and HPs and that is about it, with none of the other details. I kind of understand why that might be the case - adapting a monster can be a fearome amount of work under the 3E rules. But one of the reasons I really like 3E is the flexibility with the monsters. I would be disheartened if this is lost in 4E with the narrow categorisation of monster "role".
I completely agree. The change to a two track model has concerned me since I first read it. 2e had all these weird effects that did one thing to a monster and another to a non-monster. Plus, you still do all the same work for a class leveled opponent, like a human wizard. I expect that the system will work and will be good, I can appreciate the need to reduce complexity, but the one size fits all element was something I really liked in 3e.
I would be interested to see how these monsters work when it comes to customisation. One of things I like about 3E is how the stats are the same for PCs and monsters and therefore you can mix those rules together - the aforementioned hill giant sorcerer. What I am hearing about 4E is that this won't necessarily be available now, as they have gone back to the 2E and 1E paradigm of monster being To Hit bonues, ACs and HPs and that is about it, with none of the other details. I kind of understand why that might be the case - adapting a monster can be a fearome amount of work under the 3E rules. But one of the reasons I really like 3E is the flexibility with the monsters. I would be disheartened if this is lost in 4E with the narrow categorisation of monster "role".Why would it be harder to just bolt on a caster lvl in 4E as opposed to having to go through all of the level and feat additions in 3E?
Because the system is calibrated and, as far as possible, balanced (though I admit there are issues with associated levels and non-associated levels which seem a bit rule of thumb). You are right that it isn't impossible and, as with all arguments like this, we don't actually know the details to really discuss it sensibly - it could be as easy as pie under 4E, but the mood music about monster "role" (which might simply be fluff) suggests otherwise. But integrating the class levels with the monster HD works quite nicely (at least in theory) in 3E as the stats are there and available to see for the monsters.
As a purist, I also like to know the stats of a monster - it makes them seem more integrated with the overall rules. If these details are left out - I dunno, it just seems to lack depth. But that is aesthetic more than anything else.
|
|
I can appreciate the need to reduce complexity, but the one size fits all element was something I really liked in 3e.
I think this is truly a first - i disagree.
Sure PCs and other humanoids should have similar modes of improvement. But should PCs and demons? PCs and dragons?
It never made any sense to me beyond the creation of intelligent humanoid opposition.
A blend of the two might be nice.
|
|
But integrating the class levels with the monster HD works quite nicely (at least in theory) in 3E as the stats are there and available to see for the monsters.
I hear ya but I like the point in the original quote - how do you make a critter with a bag o'HP without giving it a whopping huge fort save?
And the HD thing in 3E bugs me. HD per class assumes a human or near human. Should the HD change for a critter like a dragon just because they went wizard? The rationale for the D4 was that the wizards sit all day and study - they get pale and wimpy. Does that make sense for a dragon?
I like the idea that you can make a critter the way you want without having to jump through all kinds of combinations and permutations of hoops.
|
|
And the HD thing in 3E bugs me. HD per class assumes a human or near human. Should the HD change for a critter like a dragon just because they went wizard? The rationale for the D4 was that the wizards sit all day and study - they get pale and wimpy. Does that make sense for a dragon?
That is something that bothers me as well.
When customizing my 2nd Edition critters I may tweak the HD type base don the concept I'm going for but replacing them completely based on the class I'm having them emulate is something I don't do.
I'd like to note that Monsters will still have ability scores,feats, skills, and all that jazz. A monster stat block will still look like a PC stat block. They are simply changing the way that monsters are created.
Previously, designers would give a monster a certain number of HD, go through the leveling process according to its type pseudo class, assign special abilities, and massage everything so the numbers come out to what they want them to be, and then assign a Challenge Rating through play testing.
The new monster design process will probably work something like this.
- Work out a monster's conceptual details.
- Determine PC to Monster ratio.
- Determine what role it plays in combat.
- Determine an appropriate level for PCs to face the monster.
- Start generating monster statistics based on a series of benchmarks.
- Come up with special abilities to help a monster perform its role, compensate for monster to PC ratios, and enforce a monster's thematic elements.
- Assign the feats and skills the designer feels the monster should have.
- Play test the monster to make sure it fits its intended level and purpose.
- Verify that the monster feels like it should.
The general idea is to build monsters with results in mind, instead of basically jumping through a series of hoops that did very little to ensure that a monster would be able to fulfill the purpose it was designed for. Here's the biggest change I think they are making - decoupling things like hit points, attack bonuses, defenses, and ability scores from one another (for monsters). This is pretty much necessary if you want to design single monsters that can challenge a group of PCs effectively while allowing the PCs to reliably effect the creature.
One More Note: I'll track down the source later, but I believe Dave Noonan has confirmed that they'll be including their monster design benchmarks in a corresponding section of the DMG.
I hear ya but I like the point in the original quote - how do you make a critter with a bag o'HP without giving it a whopping huge fort save?
I guess you missed the second reply to your original post?
Bemclaine (Ex): A creature with the Bemclaine ability is extraordinary resilient. For every Hit dice the monster has, it receives an additional 4hp.
Easy as pie.
|
This I like very very much ...
From Rodney Thompson:
I didn't know it, but at the time I was apparently channeling the 4th Edition design team when it comes to monster design. One of the things I've enjoyed about working on 4E and designing some adventures (for personal use only) is that it takes the other philosophy: take only what you want, and don't worry about the rest.
Well that never was a problem for me in the first place at least for design. I designed monsters for years for my 1e / 2e campaigns without worrying about this ever.
And you can do the same with 3e too. Just throw away the premises and write the stats/powers you want. If you need a justification, take out the trump card : Racial Bonus. If that was a problem for WOTC, and they shot themselves in the foot for years, why would I care ?
The problem as I see it does not really come from the rules themselves, it comes from problem players learning the monsters creation rules while they have no reason to, just so they can bug the already rules-burdened GM in RPGA tournaments and cry unfair over the encounter APL calculation.
4 e : "We're fixing the problems you never had"
|
|
But integrating the class levels with the monster HD works quite nicely (at least in theory) in 3E as the stats are there and available to see for the monsters.
I hear ya but I like the point in the original quote - how do you make a critter with a bag o'HP without giving it a whopping huge fort save?
Not entirely sure why that is a problem - sounds more like a WotC straw man to knock down. Same with balance. But if it is a problem, yes, I concede it would be difficult to avoid.
And the HD thing in 3E bugs me. HD per class assumes a human or near human. Should the HD change for a critter like a dragon just because they went wizard? The rationale for the D4 was that the wizards sit all day and study - they get pale and wimpy. Does that make sense for a dragon?
I like the idea that you can make a critter the way you want without having to jump through all kinds of combinations and permutations of hoops.
I'm not sure if I have a problem with that either. But I agree that it isn't clear-cut. The main problem is with balance and determining the appropriate challenge, but I do concede that a few hp here or there is unlikely to have a huge impact.
|
|
I'd like to note that Monsters will still have ability scores,feats, skills, and all that jazz. A monster stat block will still look like a PC stat block. They are simply changing the way that monsters are created.
Previously, designers would give a monster a certain number of HD, go through the leveling process according to its type pseudo class, assign special abilities, and massage everything so the numbers come out to what they want them to be, and then assign a Challenge Rating through play testing.
The new monster design process will probably work something like this.
- Work out a monster's conceptual details.
- Determine PC to Monster ratio.
- Determine what role it plays in combat.
- Determine an appropriate level for PCs to face the monster.
- Start generating monster statistics based on a series of benchmarks.
- Come up with special abilities to help a monster perform its role, compensate for monster to PC ratios, and enforce a monster's thematic elements.
- Assign the feats and skills the designer feels the monster should have.
- Play test the monster to make sure it fits its intended level and purpose.
- Verify that the monster feels like it should.
The general idea is to build monsters with results in mind, instead of basically jumping through a series of hoops that did very little to ensure that a monster would be able to fulfill the purpose it was designed for. Here's the biggest change I think they are making - decoupling things like hit points, attack bonuses, defenses, and ability scores from one another (for monsters). This is pretty much necessary if you want to design single monsters that can challenge a group of PCs effectively while allowing the PCs to reliably effect the creature.
One More Note: I'll track down the source later, but I believe Dave Noonan has confirmed that they'll be including their monster design benchmarks in a corresponding section of the DMG.
Interesting - that makes me a bit more relaxed. Could you add some more back-up to your throw-away comment I have highlighted in bold? Specifically, what is necessary about it?
|
|
I see this as meaning "Giving all monsters stats on the same scale as PCs was a mistake that we're removing. It is appropriate for some, but not for all"
This is spot on I think!
I like to be able to individualize my monsters using the rules. I love templates, class levels and even PRCs for monsters.
This sometimes takes a lot of time but I like it.
Using monsters only with their "function" in mind does not work for me.
But I guess there are a lot of DMs out there who want it that way.
So suum cuique!
I hear ya but I like the point in the original quote - how do you make a critter with a bag o'HP without giving it a whopping huge fort save?.
This goes to the need for a redesign of the monster system. The 3e system was, in my opinion, a step in the correct direction. Instead of being discarded as unworkable it should have been examined for it's flaws and improved. For example, simply breaking HD from Level would free up plenty of options. Making Level and HD equivalent was probably one of the larger mistakes in 3e.
If I understand the concept behind the way Player Class are going to be done, this could have been applied to Monster types in the exact same way. Giving Monsters player like options in their own progressions. This includes 'Talents' for lack of better word that would either add extra HD or simply provide hit point boosts. Under a more Player-like class based system for monster creatures like the Hobgoblin Spellscourge, Warcaster, and Warsoul would not have to be separate monsters. They would be racial talents or feats for the base Hobgoblin.
I understand that there are DMs who don't have the time to write up their own advanced monsters. And for the life of me I don't understand why Wizards didn't restart the Enemies and Allies line for 3.5. It would have been better then packing Classed and Advanced monsters into the MM4. Turn that around for 4e, make the MMs the pre-packaged and simplified stats and run a secondary supplement line with the break-downs in the underlying mechanics for those of us (who are apparently in the minority like gnome players) who want to tweak the monsters within a rules structure.
But no alas, this will not be the case. No happy improvements, just backslides for supposed simplicities sake. :(
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'm not sure if I have a problem with that either. But I agree that it isn't clear-cut. The main problem is with balance and determining the appropriate challenge, but I do concede that a few hp here or there is unlikely to have a huge impact.
This is entirely out of my ass, but here's the way I think it could be different.
I want to design a new monster - the death dog. It explodes upon death, inflicting some amount of damage. I am considering making a version for my 2nd level campaign and my 10th level campaign. How do I do it?
3e
First, I look for a template that does this. Assume I can't find one. Now I need to futz around. For challenging the second level party, I could just take a regular old dog, add the explode ability, and then guess at the damage it should do. For the 10th level party, the challenge is a little harder. I can take a dog and advance its HD or maybe start with some other monster like the Shadow Mastiff. I will probably have to ignore the change in size that is written into the rules. Then, I guess at the damage the ability should do.
None of this is rocket science, though it does require that you ignore certain "rules" of monster design. I use "rules" in quotes because they are DM guidelines more than rules, which is what I expect from monster design.
4e (as pulled out of my ass and based in part on M&M)
I start with the challenge level I am seeking. That gives me a benchmark that I use to determine the damage on a once per encounter attack. I figure out how often I want the creature to hit a base AC equal to that of 2nd or 10th level characters (which, I assume, will be a more known quantity because it is based so heavily on level). I figure out how hard I want the save to be, again based on the saves of 2nd or 10th level characters. I figure out the other stats the same way: I start with the challenge I want and backfill the stats to get there.
The 4e method is similar to what I've seen discussed as that being used by designers and the Paizo staff as their preferred method for designing monsters. Instead of starting with a base and layering on templates or levels, you start with the CR and let that determine the stats. Obviously, you can do this in 3e and good DMs do. I assume that 4e will take these design methods and put them in front of the DMs from the get go. That way, even inexperienced DMs can create monsters using the "rules". The 3e method (including the special ability that just adds hit points) isn't really using the 3e rules set; it's just pulling the numbers out of your ass based on experience.
And, speaking of pulling out of an ass, I'll stop there.
|
|
I hear ya but I like the point in the original quote - how do you make a critter with a bag o'HP without giving it a whopping huge fort save?.
1) High HD in a creature type that doesn't have Fort as a 'good save,' such as Aberrations, Air/Fire Elementals, Fey, Humanoid, Monstrous Humanoid or Ooze. (Construct and Undead don't count, since they are immune to Fort saves anyway, so their poor Fort save isn't really a minus here.)
2) Low to average Con.
3) Specific bonuses to hit points, such as the use of Improved Toughness feats, the bonus to hit points that Constructs and some Undead get for size, the bonus hit point creature abilities that some critters have (Libris Mortis has a few that get extra hit points based on Cha x HD or something, Unholy Toughness?).
4) Specific reasons to have a lower Fort save vs. one or several effects. (Weak vs. spells, weak vs. necromancy, weak vs. poison.)
All solutions to the imaginary 'problem' (which never seemed to be a problem until just now) of how to make a monster with lots of hit points and Fort save that isn't through the roof.
As with about half of what I've heard from the design diaries, a non-existent 'problem' has been created whole cloth and blown all out of proportion into some unfixable obstacle to gaming that must be cleared away and replaced in 4th edition.
Or the even more egregrious, "Now that we've sold you the Magic Item Compendium, we've *just-this-second* decided that 'Christmas Tree Syndrome' needs to be addressed as it's messing up the game, 'cause obviously we didn't think it was a problem six months ago when we were clamoring for you to buy another book of magic items..." Pull the other one.
And the irony is that for all the designers *claim* that this will make monster design easier, it sounds like it would be much harder. The DM now has to create each and every single facet of the monster. It's damage now has nothing to do with it's Strength. It's hit points have nothing to do with it's Constitution. It's armor class may well have nothing to do with it's Dexterity. It's saving throws also may have nothing to do with it's ability scores. Every single aspect of creature design has just become a ballpark guessing game, which is great I guess if you're DM is Mike Mearls, but could be a bit less fun if it's one of the other 5 billion people on the planet who don't get paid to create new monsters for fun and profit. There's a selling point. "Buy the 4E Monster and do the work so we don't have to!"
Under this new paradigm, what does a Ray of Enfeeblement do? It can't reduce Str, because monsters may not have Str, and even if they do, their damage may be decoupled from that Strength score. It probably won't just reduce X damage, because different beasts may use wildly different dice, based on the creators whim, meaning that the spell will prove to be useless against some DMs monsters and overpowering against another DMs monsters.
If a player comes up with an idea to try and trap a beastie by dropping a door or tipping over a cart on it, what happens then? Does the beast's Strength score (if it even has one) have anything to do with it's encumbrance?