I think a lot of this is a direction the 3.5 MMs were already heading in. I would say the idea is that a strange and exotic monster can't always be dropped into a world seamlessly, but an already existing race with some strange new training/abilities fits a bit better.
Note that I think the Hobgoblin Warcaster, for example, is found in the MM IV (or is it V?).
So overall, I don't think you're really going to see much change here, just a continuing of a path they were already on. If you haven't liked the direction they've been taking the MMs, you very well may not like the way they continue to do so in 4E.
Cheers! :)
A really strong trend emerges. Witness:
Dwarf - Warlord
Elf - Archer
Gnoll - Clawfighter, Demonic Scourge, Huntmaster, Marauder
Goblin - Picador, Sharpshooter
Hobgoblin - Archer, Warcaster, Soldier
Human - Bandit, Mage, Berserker, Guard
Kobold - Archer, Dragonshield, Skirmisher, Minion, Slinger, Wyrmpriest
It sounds like a deck list for Magic the Gathering!
It sounds like a deck list for Magic the Gathering!A really strong trend emerges. Witness:
Dwarf - Warlord
Elf - Archer
Gnoll - Clawfighter, Demonic Scourge, Huntmaster, Marauder
Goblin - Picador, Sharpshooter
Hobgoblin - Archer, Warcaster, Soldier
Human - Bandit, Mage, Berserker, Guard
Kobold - Archer, Dragonshield, Skirmisher, Minion, Slinger, Wyrmpriest
Are you crazy? Dwarves, Goblins, and Hobgoblins are red mana, Elves and Gnolls are green, Humans are white or blue, and Kobolds are black. Sure, you've got some cheap artillery you can get out quickly in the Archers, but you'll never get enough mana in the colors you need to bring out the Dragonshield, let along the Scourge or Wyrmpriest.
I'd refocus on red/black. Get the Sharpshooters out early for some fast damage, and then focus on getting the Kobolds out for some serious smackdown. You're still vulnerable to a denial deck, but you've got a chance of ending it before that becomes an issue.
I don't think this is a particularly a horrible thing.
The PCs all have different specialties/classes/etc. it would make sense that intelligent or at least moderately intelligent creatures...or creatures of similar physiology but from a different climate/situation would have variations as well.
These variations have existed through 3e also, but are not used as often as they probably should be because it requires adding a template, a class, or making your own variant stat blocks.
In 4e I could now have this variation without having to put an hour of work into a creature that might only live 10 minutes in the game. And given that the stat blocks/monster entries in the manuals are so much shorter your still going to have a lot of different creatures. Plus the fact that there are a ton of monsters in the various books that I own that have never and will never be used...this honestly seems a good move to me.
That said, my question with 4e monsters is that I hope that go ahead and give me an entry somewhere for these creatures full abilities besides what is in the combat stat block. I want to be able to use my beholders for social situations and for them to have abilities appropriate for that but not for combat, listed somewhere.
Was'nt Monster Manual 4 full of classic humaniod monsters with classes or templates on them?
This I actually dont mind.
Lets look at the original Monster Manual 3.5. The Skeleton and Zombie template has like 9 examples of assorted monsters with the template on them so you can use them as reference when making your own skeletal monsters. Plus its nice to have pre-made templated monsters right out the book and save you time.
Taking Goblins, Orcs, Gnolls and other humanoids and having pre-made examples of these monsters with classes is no different to me.
I like it.
There are a TON of reasons not to like 4th edition....a TON.
But I dont think this is one of them.
CNB, I think the complaint was best expressed by a poster who said, and I paraphrase, with 500 monsters there will be a lot more monsters in the 4e MM but with the new design style there will also be a lot more monsters who are left out.
And as I pointed out on the other thread, there are a lot of duplicate monsters in the Monster Manual. We get 6 varieties of Air Elemental. Are your players really going to remember the difference between that Greater and Elder Air Elemental (30 hp, extra +3 to hit, and Cleave)? I appreciate having 8 zombies to choose from, but troglodyte zombies and bugbear zombies are basically the same. Ditto Stone Giants and Hill Giants.
What 4e recognizes is, if you want someone burly to stand in front of the party and swing at them, they're going to look roughly the same no matter if they're a zombie or a giant or an owlbear. And whatever subtle differences they have stats-wise, it's going to be completely invisible to the players.
Instead, they're going through and making every monster distinct. When you fight a Wyrmpriest, you're not just going to be able to say "This is a cleric, so they'll have spell X and Y and Z." It's going to feel different than every other kobold and every other spellcaster.
That's a change from 3.5. And I'll gladly take it.
|
To be fair, 2e and even the old Dungeons & Dragons Cyclopedia did this with monster entries (a box-out full of stats for 4-8 variants filling half a page, then the monster description following), so it's nothing new at all.
True, but in my opinion this is a backwards step from what we had in 3e. I wrote something to the original poster when I addressed my game group a while back when I heard there were to be three different stats posted because one goblin wanted to be an archer, another a swordfighter and the other a goblin rider in 4e.
It does seem like a way to fill monster books more than anything. It also suspends my beleif that these are creations in a fantasy world and are otherwise just plastic pawns on a game board. It reeks, personally, of D&D minis.
Goblin Archer: "Ack! Me out and hurt! Take bow Goblin swordsman!"
Goblin Swordsman: "Me no take bow, me 'short sword goblin', remember?"
Goblin Archer then looks around as goblin rider, goblin strangler, and his brothers tripper, disarmer and bull rusher look on equally helpless.
No thanks from this DM.
-DM Jeff
There are rules for using bows - it doesn't necessarily mean they have proficiency in bow, and they certainly won't have the special training.
So it'll probably be just like
Ranger: Me out and hurt. Take bow Dwarf fighter!
Dwarf Fighter: Hell no, that's 3 less to hit for 4 less damage and I can't use any of my abilities.
Ranger looks at halfling rogue, human cleric, and his friends tiefling wizard, half-elf warlock, and halfling paladin look on equally unconcerned.
|
I like it. This opens up encounter design and allows for infinite variation based on cultures and settings. If a population of elves lives out on the plains and they ride horses then their version of a ranger/scout will be very different from one that live in a rain forest. With exception based design I can create those two to fit the setting. Flexibility like this is what I look forward to.
|
And as I pointed out on the other thread, there are a lot of duplicate monsters in the Monster Manual. We get 6 varieties of Air Elemental. Are your players really going to remember the difference between that Greater and Elder Air Elemental (30 hp, extra +3 to hit, and Cleave)? I appreciate having 8 zombies to choose from, but troglodyte zombies and bugbear zombies are basically the same. Ditto Stone Giants and Hill Giants.
Besides the fact that Stone giants and Hill Giants have always, in my head, been quite distinct, I have to wonder if you are missing the point on purpose? Yes - there is duplication in the 3e MM. That is besides the point. The point is that there will be monsters that will be left out of the MM#1 which some would like to see in there. There is fear that this is because instead of just 1 gnoll entry there will be 4 or 5 gnoll entries. It feels like every monster will have more than one entry.
|
I like it. This opens up encounter design and allows for infinite variation based on cultures and settings. If a population of elves lives out on the plains and they ride horses then their version of a ranger/scout will be very different from one that live in a rain forest. With exception based design I can create those two to fit the setting. Flexibility like this is what I look forward to.
You are right, though there is a counterpoint : it will take a lot more spaces, which could, IMHO, be taken better by entirely new critters.
Of course, that works for me as an established DM. A new DM will have an easier work with this.
I guess it just means you can't have everything.
If you can't use a monster without it being in the monster manual, then it's not hard to not use a particular monster in a campaign. It's downright easy, even. No frost giants yet? Okay, no keep of the frost giant jarl - I'll do slavelords and temple of elemental evil instead. Etc.
That said, it's crazy easy to design monsters so... just designing them... is also an option.
In the meantime, getting 2 Chuuls or Grells lets you use them over a wider level ranger (much wider, in the case of the Chuul) _and_ is in part a page count thing. They didn't want to split a monster over a page (half on one, half on another) so they added in Grell Philosophers and Chuul Juggernauts, etc, etc.
I actually think it's cool getting 6 distinct kobold types, myself.
|
Goblin Archer: "Ack! Me out and hurt! Take bow Goblin swordsman!"
Goblin Swordsman: "Me no take bow, me 'short sword goblin', remember?"
Goblin Archer then looks around as goblin rider, goblin strangler, and his brothers tripper, disarmer and bull rusher look on equally helpless.No thanks from this DM.
-DM Jeff
Ahh I have been wanting to say this very thing but circumstances here have conspired against me. Thanks for making this point , DM Jeff. It needed to be made and funny is always better where I am concerned.
I wonder what will happen when this arises in the game, or worse yet, when the enevitible meta-gaming starts in:
Fighter:"Hey Shifty, did you sneak into the goblin camp and steal their weapons?"
Shifty the Rogue: "No there were too many to carry. But I did something even better! I completely set them up for failure for our attack!"
Fighter:"How?"
Shifty the Rogue: "I took all the Goblin Guards' maces and put them next to the Goblin Footpads' beds and all the Goblin Footpads' daggers next to the bunks of the Goblin Guards. So..."
Fighter and Shifty (in unison): "...So neither one can use their daily or encounter abilities without a weapons exchange! Brilliant!"
|
|
You are right, though there is a counterpoint : it will take a lot more spaces, which could, IMHO, be taken better by entirely new critters.
Of course, that works for me as an established DM. A new DM will have an easier work with this.
I guess it just means you can't have everything.
Oh yeah. The core MM should be about lots of critters and a minimum of critter types.
Totally agree.
I was thinking more about setting specific MMs. There can be an Eberron MM with different variations on standard MM critters. I was thinking of it in the form of setting customization.
But, yeah, the core MM should stress a greater variety rather than type diversity for any one critter.
|
|
Oh yeah. The core MM should be about lots of critters and a minimum of critter types.
Totally agree.
I was thinking more about setting specific MMs. There can be an Eberron MM with different variations on standard MM critters. I was thinking of it in the form of setting customization.
But, yeah, the core MM should stress a greater variety rather than type diversity for any one critter.
Yep.
|
|
Fighter:"Hey Shifty, did you sneak into the goblin camp and steal their weapons?"
Shifty the Rogue: "No there were too many to carry. But I did something even better! I completely set them up for failure for our attack!"
Fighter:"How?"
Shifty the Rogue: "I took all the Goblin Guards' maces and put them next to the Goblin Footpads' beds and all the Goblin Footpads' daggers next to the bunks of the Goblin Guards. So..."
Fighter and Shifty (in unison): "...So neither one can use their daily or encounter abilities without a weapons exchange! Brilliant!"
Instant classic! Thanks for a good chuckle!
-DM Jeff
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I always loved the way Paizo products have classed/advanced/templated monsters and give them a new name. I suppose WotC also does this in their products as well. So, if you flip through, say, Redhand of Doom, the monsters there all have names like "hobgoblin soldier" which is just a hobgoblin fighter 3. MMIV did a lot of this too.
The pros of these builds is that you have a nice off the shelf monster to use. So, instead of Paizo always having to stat up a mid-power kobold every time they want to use one, they can just say "kobold skirmisher" or whatever and you've got a handy reference.
The cons seem to be that the good names get taken. So, if I want a 14th level kobold archer, I need to call him kobold super-archer or something. I'm sure there are other cons relevant to gameplay, but I don't have a strong enough reaction one way or the other to come up with something. This is just another continuation of an existing trend.
CNB, I think the complaint was best expressed by a poster who said, and I paraphrase, with 500 monsters there will be a lot more monsters in the 4e MM but with the new design style there will also be a lot more monsters who are left out.And as I pointed out on the other thread, there are a lot of duplicate monsters in the Monster Manual. We get 6 varieties of Air Elemental. Are your players really going to remember the difference between that Greater and Elder Air Elemental (30 hp, extra +3 to hit, and Cleave)? I appreciate having 8 zombies to choose from, but troglodyte zombies and bugbear zombies are basically the same. Ditto Stone Giants and Hill Giants.
What 4e recognizes is, if you want someone burly to stand in front of the party and swing at them, they're going to look roughly the same no matter if they're a zombie or a giant or an owlbear. And whatever subtle differences they have stats-wise, it's going to be completely invisible to the players.
Instead, they're going through and making every monster distinct. When you fight a Wyrmpriest, you're not just going to be able to say "This is a cleric, so they'll have spell X and Y and Z." It's going to feel different than every other kobold and every other spellcaster.
That's a change from 3.5. And I'll gladly take it.
Well, yeah... If you play them as nothing more than a block of numbers... I dunno, maybe I'm old fashioned and don't realize it, but an attack from a hill giant should feel totally different than a fight with a stone giant...
It's an RPG for a reason...
Well, yeah... If you play them as nothing more than a block of numbers... I dunno, maybe I'm old fashioned and don't realize it, but an attack from a hill giant should feel totally different than a fight with a stone giant...
In the 3.5 rules, how does it? And if it doesn't mechanically, why do we need stats for both?
True, but in my opinion this is a backwards step from what we had in 3e. I wrote something to the original poster when I addressed my game group a while back when I heard there were to be three different stats posted because one goblin wanted to be an archer, another a swordfighter and the other a goblin rider in 4e.
It does seem like a way to fill monster books more than anything. It also suspends my beleif that these are creations in a fantasy world and are otherwise just plastic pawns on a game board. It reeks, personally, of D&D minis.
Goblin Archer: "Ack! Me out and hurt! Take bow Goblin swordsman!"
Goblin Swordsman: "Me no take bow, me 'short sword goblin', remember?"
Goblin Archer then looks around as goblin rider, goblin strangler, and his brothers tripper, disarmer and bull rusher look on equally helpless.No thanks from this DM.
-DM Jeff
If you examine the stats for the various kobolds and hobgoblins (which are the two types of monsters with the most flavors released so far), you will see that many of them are equipped to do more than one thing.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
What if it isn't like that? (Ducks and continues)
All those roles could be listed somewhere with per level abilities, equipment etc. The monsters could all be distinct. Then when you want a bugbear with ranged attacks you can choose between say ranger, bola-specialist, spearchucker, archer, crossbowman, boomerang-master. dwarfchucker or whatever.
Just saying - we don't know.
What if it isn't like that? (Ducks and continues)
All those roles could be listed somewhere with per level abilities, equipment etc. The monsters could all be distinct. Then when you want a bugbear with ranged attacks you can choose between say ranger, bola-specialist, spearchucker, archer, crossbowman, boomerang-master. dwarfchucker or whatever.
Just saying - we don't know.
We've seen pictures of the monster manual. It does appear that under Kobold your going to get around 8 variations. Though Kobold is probably going to be one of the most prolific in this regard. Many creatures will get much fewer entries.
If this where 3.5 it'd be similar to including a number of different versions of the creatures. Some with class levels and some advanced etc. So long as its kept somewhat in moderation I got no issue with this approach.
I agree that its a bummer that were not going to get some classic monsters in the original monster manual but that has nothing to do with some kind of a need to make more versions of the kobold but simply due to wizards desire to convince more people to buy later monster manual books. My bet is they realized that they could sell the Monster Manual I and II as well as the Fiend Folio like hot cakes but their sales really plummeted with Monster Manual IV and V. I certainly never got around to picking them up. No classic monsters and the splat books and monster manuals already provided me with more monsters then I could use.
Withholding some classic monsters is marketing. They'd have probably done the same thing even if they decided to strictly adhere to 1 monster per entry. They'd simply pick and choose from among their current very large catalog of monsters and make sure that they kept back some old favorites for later books.
To be fair, 2e and even the old Dungeons & Dragons Cyclopedia did this with monster entries (a box-out full of stats for 4-8 variants filling half a page, then the monster description following), so it's nothing new at all.True, but in my opinion this is a backwards step from what we had in 3e. I wrote something to the original poster when I addressed my game group a while back when I heard there were to be three different stats posted because one goblin wanted to be an archer, another a swordfighter and the other a goblin rider in 4e.
It does seem like a way to fill monster books more than anything. It also suspends my beleif that these are creations in a fantasy world and are otherwise just plastic pawns on a game board. It reeks, personally, of D&D minis.
Goblin Archer: "Ack! Me out and hurt! Take bow Goblin swordsman!"
Goblin Swordsman: "Me no take bow, me 'short sword goblin', remember?"
Goblin Archer then looks around as goblin rider, goblin strangler, and his brothers tripper, disarmer and bull rusher look on equally helpless.No thanks from this DM.
-DM Jeff
Thank you, my feelings are exact. For each page littered with dozens of variants for the same creature, that's one less unique (and, maybe, converted creatures from prior editions) D&D creature I would've wanted in my game.
I've said it when MMIV and V came out and I'll say it again: I buy Monster Manuals for NEW monsters, not rehashes of the ones I have in my original MM. I can spend a few minutes and make my goblin from the Monster Manual however I want, I don't need WotC telling me how to do it.
I would rather have the base stats of a creature and given the liberty to do what I want with it. I don't need 20 pages of Goblin Cook, Goblin Bum, Goblin Wedgie-Giver...
And, to agree with you on another point, 4th Edition encounters and creatures are definitely just D&D Miniatures on a little more complex scale. Heck, I was at a friend's house showing a bunch of guys why not to get 4E (and, thankfully, the lot of them all immediately hated 4E just from like, three previews and decided to go 3.5e instead) and we were looking at the photographed Monster Manual pages on ENWorld...the first thought on half of everyone's mind that came out their mouth was:
"Those look like DDM cards on paper..."
At that, we took a solemn moment of silence for the eventual death of D&D as we know it and talked about the older editions of D&D for the next hour...something that could never be shared with 4e-players since the 4E has nothing in common with its predecessors except in name alone.
Withholding some classic monsters is marketing. They'd have probably done the same thing even if they decided to strictly adhere to 1 monster per entry. They'd simply pick and choose from among their current very large catalog of monsters and make sure that they kept back some old favorites for later books.
That's obviously what they are doing. I mean, they're already withholding some races and classes for future books. Gnomes, half-orcs, bards, druids, barbarians, monks, sorcerers. Heck, they said Bard was the first class they ever finished...but it's not in the core PHB.
*sniff* *sniff* I smell marketing schemes cooking.
Such melodrama.
I see good points on both ends, but I personally lean toward the individual varieties. Yes, anyone can make up their own kobold versions, that's not the point. Some people do not have the time to write up kobolds with levels (especially at higher levels where monsters-with-classes can take forever to make and are gone in 5 minutes), and this method helps that. I will dislike the loss of some more iconic monsters, but I think I'll still enjoy the variety of kobolds (and other monsters-with-classes) available to me. To be honest, I find a lot of monsters out of the basic MM to be quite useless and will not cry to see them go. Thoqqua and Tojinda, anyone?
As to the marketing thing, I agree. However, it is move that is both totally expected and totally acceptable. Companies need to make money after all, or they don't make material anymore. Even the wonderful Paizo markets its material in increments. The difference there is the quality, however, which I will agree is typically superior.
Something to keep in mind: We're not actually going to be seeing pages and pages of stat blocks for one monster entry if the Gnoll entry is any indication. They managed to provide stats for 4 varieties of gnolls on a single page with the second page of the spread being taken up by Lore information and a picture.
Such melodrama.
I see good points on both ends, but I personally lean toward the individual varieties. Yes, anyone can make up their own kobold versions, that's not the point. Some people do not have the time to write up kobolds with levels (especially at higher levels where monsters-with-classes can take forever to make and are gone in 5 minutes), and this method helps that. I will dislike the loss of some more iconic monsters, but I think I'll still enjoy the variety of kobolds (and other monsters-with-classes) available to me. To be honest, I find a lot of monsters out of the basic MM to be quite useless and will not cry to see them go. Thoqqua and Tojinda, anyone?
As to the marketing thing, I agree. However, it is move that is both totally expected and totally acceptable. Companies need to make money after all, or they don't make material anymore. Even the wonderful Paizo markets its material in increments. The difference there is the quality, however, which I will agree is typically superior.
Just because a monster isn't popular doesn't mean it's not "right" for D&D. Different strokes for different folks. Some people, believe or not, have found uses for the infamous "flumph" creature or the "giant space hamster", and, yes the thoqqua and tojanida, too. I use boggles, quite a few times actually, in my own games on different occasions and different D&D groups.
Since when did all D&D creatures have to be taken so seriously or have to be scrutinized to the full detail to make it "useful" in a D&D game? Isn't that the job of the DM? The "storyteller"? The person who's creating the world and campaign and what revolves around what? The very person in which D&D would not exist if one wasn't around to referee to the players?
D&D is an art-form, at least it WAS an artform until it got "WoWed", and art belongs to society once created and given to society. For WotC to dictate what's "cool", what's "not cool", and what stays and goes is not right at all.
3.x = here are the rules. Complete, balanced, and fair? mostly. They are however YOUR rules to do with as you please to create ANYTHING you want or need.
4.X = yeah yeah, snark snark, whatever. This description was voluntarily removed due to possible offensiveness regarding allegations of (but not limited to) spoonfeeding, infantism, mind control, and a small reference to full diapers.
I'm not trying to pick a fight, really. I just saw this on another gaming blog page, and thought it was pretty...interesting. At least more interesting than me ranting ineffectually at the coming dawn...or dusk.
In case you hadn't noticed by now, I LOATHE 4E. My game wasn't broken. Sure the engine needed a tune-up and (arguably) a new coat of clear coat, but it's been a great car. So it won't do 120mph without a dragster pushing it. So what? It was good to me. Now I am being told that while the manufacturers cannot legally take it away from me, they CAN stop making parts for it. But thats OK! They have a brand new sports car that they would LOVE us all to drive. It's so COOL that it even pumps it's own gas! No more worrying over gas mileage, it auto-calculates it! Need directions? Ask the car! It's all done for you. It's all been pre-generated and calculated and all it really needs is someone to open the door (We're working on that!) and sit in the seat (until we fix that too).
Problem is, I LIKE my car. In fact, I have had it so long, it is a part of my life. Someday I may give it away to someone else who needs it. But until then, it will stay right where it is.
Color me confused about what this has to do re: nose picking or butt scratching?
Confused? :)
Can i use sharpies?
lol, It was a cut/paste job into the wrong open tab. Apologies for disrupting your conversation, though all that talk about having all the work done for you kinda seems relevant here as well.
Can i use sharpies?
lol, It was a cut/paste job into the wrong open tab. Apologies for disrupting your conversation, though all that talk about having all the work done for you kinda seems relevant here as well.
Fair enough. I know I've had more tabs open than I realize quite a few times.
Cheers! :)
I can spend a few minutes and make my goblin from the Monster Manual however I want, I don't need WotC telling me how to do it. I would rather have the base stats of a creature and given the liberty to do what I want with it. I don't need 20 pages of Goblin Cook, Goblin Bum, Goblin Wedgie-Giver...
This is the EXACT OPPOSITE of how I feel. If 4th Edition can give me variants of many classic monsters, this helps me as a DM for many reasons. The most important one: TIME.
I DON'T have the time to sit around and write up new variants of old monsters because I don't run hack and slash games and my game prep-time is spent developing plot hooks, story twists, dialogue, and memorable NPCs.
I run Eberron and one of my favorite books is Secrets of Xen'drik because it's filled with an entire chapter dedicated to encounters. Drow are a large part of the monsters in Xen'drik and many of the write-ups are variants of the drow. Spellcasters, scouts, warlords, you name it. I love being able to flip through this book and grab a few different drow with specialized abilities and throw them all together in 5 minutes rather than having to use several drow who are all the same cookie cutter monsters or spending 50 minutes writing up a bunch of variants.
Thanks WotC for adding that to my 3.5 games, and I'm glad it's carrying over into 4th Edition.
Some brave soul has compiled a list of known 4e monsters here - http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/Monsters%20&%20More%20(4th%20Editi on).pdf
A really strong trend emerges. Witness:
Dwarf - Warlord
Elf - Archer
Gnoll - Clawfighter, Demonic Scourge, Huntmaster, Marauder
Goblin - Picador, Sharpshooter
Hobgoblin - Archer, Warcaster, Soldier
Human - Bandit, Mage, Berserker, Guard
Kobold - Archer, Dragonshield, Skirmisher, Minion, Slinger, WyrmpriestEach of the more common races are being given multiple individual monster entries based upon function or activity.
The list above is only what has been released to this point and is thus partial. It takes no imagination to think that the 4e monster manuals might be filled with literally dozens of variations on each racial or monster theme.
For example, the above list sports six sorts of kobolds. While the dwarf and elf entries sport only one sort, it is easy enough to imagine a Dwarven Rock Fighter, Dwarven Mountain Ranger, Dwaven Shield Warrior, Dwarven Nosepicker etc. Or Elven Forest Friend, Elven Forest Runner, Elven Forest Ranger, Elven Butt Scratcher etc.
What a brilliant design move for 4e! Imagine how easy it will be to fill monster manuals! Just think of the money that will need to spend to keep up!
If you add another adjective, things can only get better - Red Dwarven Nosepicker! Green Elven Butt Scratcher. As opped to the black, white and puce versions.
Just amazing design.
The high ratio of variant monsters stems from the fact that most likely you are going to be fighting a LOT of things that arent human, or drawn from the list of standard races.
Having six pre-statted kobolds not only saves the time of reverse-engineering and playtesting, but also allows for more dynamic out-of-the-box encounters. This is why I'm really pleased with the role-focused monsters: combat becomes more engaging because I as a DM how more things to do with my monsters than have them rush the nearest party member and hitting them. Frankly, only monsters with spell abilities allow for more creative options, and even then its often relegated to a handful of "useful" spells that you pick out.Of course, not all monsters are so focused as to be rendered helpless if they do things that arent their role-specific powers. In that case you just end up back where you were in 3rd Edition where you roll out a basic attack over and over.
So, you dont have to have your kobold slingers throw molotav cocktails, but then you didnt have to populate your encounter with them either (you could always just stick to skirmishers to maintain the vanilla kobold flavor).
I'd rather have a Monster Manual brimming with monsters that I am very likely to use, than one that runs the spectrum from highly useful to near-obscurity.
The high ratio of variant monsters stems from the fact that most likely you are going to be fighting a LOT of things that arent human, or drawn from the list of standard races.
Having six pre-statted kobolds not only saves the time of reverse-engineering and playtesting, but also allows for more dynamic out-of-the-box encounters. This is why I'm really pleased with the role-focused monsters: combat becomes more engaging because I as a DM how more things to do with my monsters than have them rush the nearest...
Amen!
|
|
It sounds like a deck list for Magic the Gathering!A really strong trend emerges. Witness:
Dwarf - Warlord
Elf - Archer
Gnoll - Clawfighter, Demonic Scourge, Huntmaster, Marauder
Goblin - Picador, Sharpshooter
Hobgoblin - Archer, Warcaster, Soldier
Human - Bandit, Mage, Berserker, Guard
Kobold - Archer, Dragonshield, Skirmisher, Minion, Slinger, WyrmpriestAre you crazy? Dwarves, Goblins, and Hobgoblins are red mana, Elves and Gnolls are green, Humans are white or blue, and Kobolds are black. Sure, you've got some cheap artillery you can get out quickly in the Archers, but you'll never get enough mana in the colors you need to bring out the Dragonshield, let along the Scourge or Wyrmpriest.
I'd refocus on red/black. Get the Sharpshooters out early for some fast damage, and then focus on getting the Kobolds out for some serious smackdown. You're still vulnerable to a denial deck, but you've got a chance of ending it before that becomes an issue.
Actually, the kobolds were 0-mana cards that counted as red. ;)
Thank you, my feelings are exact. For each page littered with dozens of variants for the same creature, that's one less unique (and, maybe, converted creatures from prior editions) D&D creature I would've wanted in my game.
It may have been one less creature that you may have wanted in your game. In a new edition some monsters were going to get the cut from the first run anyway. Having tinkered with some of the stat blocks and mechanics, it doesnt appear to be hard at all to convert existing monsters, even on the fly.
I've said it when MMIV and V came out and I'll say it again: I buy Monster Manuals for NEW monsters, not rehashes of the ones I have in my original MM. I can spend a few minutes and make my goblin from the Monster Manual however I want, I don't need WotC telling me how to do it.
I buy a Monster Manual for mechanics-laden content for well, monsters, that I can use to challenge my players in whatever way suits the encounter that I have in mind. If they pile four or more stat blocks on a page for pre-statted monsters of various roles, that great. The first book has like, 500 in it. I think I'll be MORE than fine with that number. Heck, I might not even need to get the second one when it comes out: I've barely scratched the surface on the sheer number of monsters available in JUST the official manuals alone.
The other good part is that by having them stat out stuff ahead of time, that saves you time (and also gives you a plethora of examples to draw from should you choose to stat out your own). That, and they are more likely to be both balanced and effective.
I would rather have the base stats of a creature and given the liberty to do what I want with it. I don't need 20 pages of Goblin Cook, Goblin Bum, Goblin Wedgie-Giver...
And you arent getting 20 pages of any one monster. I know that the section on dragons takes up some real-estate in the book, but thats for ALL the dragons and not just one. Some monsters get only two blocks (and still take up one page, even high-level monsters). So, they havent done all the work for you, and I'm certain that skilled players can come up with new ideas for existing monsters (like a chuul controller, or somesuch).
Again, pre-statted monsters both serve as examples and help ensure a balanced and functional critter.
And, to agree with you on another point, 4th Edition encounters and creatures are definitely just D&D Miniatures on a little more complex scale. Heck, I was at a friend's house showing a bunch of guys why...
Melodrama aside, the DDM game was born after the RPG, and since DDM is basically designed to be a "D&D encounter" this makes sense. I mean, stat blocks are essentially used for combat purposes anyway.
EDIT: I almost forgot, 4th Edition does have a lot of things in common with D&D in general: classes, levels, the same races, same monsters, same adventuring concepts, you use a d20 for in-game checks, etc. I could go on, but I just wanted to try and clear that up.
I DON'T have the time to sit around and write up new variants of old monsters because I don't run hack and slash games and my game prep-time is spent developing plot hooks, story twists, dialogue, and memorable NPCs.
You shouldn't have to sit around and write up new variants. Do you realize the sheer number of creatures available to DMs these days created from the past 30+ years? I've got no less than 7 300+ page Word documents of nothing but raw, unconverted d20 creatures I've collected from all over the place since the whole d20 revolution started in 2000.
One doesn't need a perfect stat block in order to run a creature in your edition of choice. Trust me on this. As a 2nd edition fan and DM that doesn't receive system support any longer, I've taught myself how to run the creatures of d20 using 2e rules, and it's not as hard as one might think.