PDA

View Full Version : Desert of Desolation: A 4E MM Preview



kpenguin
2007-10-25, 10:30 PM
WotC has released the gallery (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mg/dod)for the Desert of Desolation minis set. While the release of a new minis set would be of only passing interest to me, what makes this set special is that every monster except one in the set will be in the 4E Monster Manual.

Thoughts on inclusion?

Lord Iames Osari
2007-10-25, 10:43 PM
Not exactly on-topic, but the thread title immediately made me think of question #26 on Rinkworks's Fantasy Novelist's Exam (http://www.rinkworks.com/fnovel/):


Did you draw a map for your novel which includes places named things like "The Blasted Lands" or "The Forest of Fear" or "The Desert of Desolation" or absolutely anything "of Doom"?

((answering any one of the questions with "yes" results in having failed the exam))

brian c
2007-10-25, 11:15 PM
I really hope Farmer is in the MM. As a DM, I always want to pit my players against vicious farmers, but I've been lacking the stat blocks to do so.

Dhavaer
2007-10-25, 11:21 PM
Not exactly on-topic, but the thread title immediately made me think of question #26 on Rinkworks's Fantasy Novelist's Exam (http://www.rinkworks.com/fnovel/):

((answering any one of the questions with "yes" results in having failed the exam))

That test annoys me. Having a female warrior without parity between her swordcraft and cooking fails you. The hell?

VerdugoExplode
2007-10-25, 11:25 PM
Farmers!? Hell yes! I gotta collect 'em all, the farmers that is. Few things will put the fear of death into PCs like an army of irate peasantry wielding masterwork farming implements!

Tallis
2007-10-25, 11:28 PM
I wonder what the LA is for farmer?

reorith
2007-10-25, 11:34 PM
the seems out of place. couldn't they have included something a little less mundane in his place? you know that feeling when you pull a mini out of the box and it is something you'll never use? what is it going to be like for the person that has a box that is 12.5% farmer?

Wender
2007-10-25, 11:53 PM
That test annoys me. Having a female warrior without parity between her swordcraft and cooking fails you. The hell?

It's not the parity, it's that one is just a stereotype, and the other is just an inversion of that stereotype. Neither one is a character.

Skjaldbakka
2007-10-26, 12:11 AM
That test annoys me. Having a female warrior without parity between her swordcraft and cooking fails you. The hell?


Yeah, anyone who's played Star Ocean knows that cooking skill is directly related to combat ability! :smallsmile:

Kitchen Knife for teh win!

Gralamin
2007-10-26, 12:13 AM
I'm guessing its gonna be the Human Cleric of Bahamut. They never had Humans in the 3.5 Monster Manual.

kpenguin
2007-10-26, 12:15 AM
I'm guessing its gonna be the Human Cleric of Bahamut. They never had Humans in the 3.5 Monster Manual.

Perhaps, but didn't they say that they were going to have separate entries for races for play and races as monsters?

Miles Invictus
2007-10-26, 12:16 AM
That test annoys me. Having a female warrior without parity between her swordcraft and cooking fails you. The hell?

Recurring characters should not be easily summarized with one sentence.

TheOOB
2007-10-26, 12:19 AM
Farmers acually serve a purpose in D&D Minis, I'd be willing to bet they are dirt cheep and can be used by any alignment. That said I doubt they will be in the MM, and if they are their stats will be like this (a farmer is uncapable of doing any significant damage to a PC unless dramatically appropriate. They have 10 AC, and die/fall unconcious with a single hit.

kpenguin
2007-10-26, 12:23 AM
I think that specific monster/class/template combos like Halfling Enchanter will not appear in the MM. They probably meant the general monster type and templates will appear in the MM.

TheOOB
2007-10-26, 12:26 AM
I think that specific monster/class/template combos like Halfling Enchanter will not appear in the MM. They probably meant the general monster type and templates will appear in the MM.

I hope we don't get to many of those, It's really easy to add class levels to a creature, and I'd prefer my monster manuals to have more monsters.

Temp
2007-10-26, 12:26 AM
I just realized that we don't have cyclops yet. Somebody really dropped the ball in Monster design there and I really should have noticed earlier.

I also see they kept the spiked chain. Hopefully it won't be the Ultimate Weapon of Doom again in this edition.

TheOOB
2007-10-26, 12:29 AM
Cyclops are easy, take hill giant, and remove an eye.

Temp
2007-10-26, 12:45 AM
Yeah, I know. I'm just surprised that they came up with ten or so core giants and didn't actually go for the obvious one.

Seem to be a lot of drow... would they be one of the new core races, then?

Dhavaer
2007-10-26, 01:40 AM
Recurring characters should not be easily summarized with one sentence.

It doesn't say anything about summarising the character, says 'aptly describe'. Eowyn would fall under that description.

Cybren
2007-10-26, 01:42 AM
Not exactly on-topic, but the thread title immediately made me think of question #26 on Rinkworks's Fantasy Novelist's Exam (http://www.rinkworks.com/fnovel/):



((answering any one of the questions with "yes" results in having failed the exam))
There's one of those in that one setting.

What is it called? Reality? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea)

greenknight
2007-10-26, 02:46 AM
I really hope Farmer is in the MM. As a DM, I always want to pit my players against vicious farmers, but I've been lacking the stat blocks to do so.

That's really a Druid whose name is Farmer. Didn't you see the animal companion? :smallbiggrin:

Karma Guard
2007-10-26, 03:03 AM
I hope it's the drow. :smallcool:

But seriously, I agree with the Farmer call. Either that or Spined Devil. It sticks out even more than the poor farmer; it's the only really devilish thing there.

Tieflings don't count, they're PCs.

Irreverent Fool
2007-10-26, 03:12 AM
the seems out of place. couldn't they have included something a little less mundane in his place? you know that feeling when you pull a mini out of the box and it is something you'll never use? what is it going to be like for the person that has a box that is 12.5% farmer?

I frequently have call for commoners, especially angry ones with pitchforks and torches. My players tend to do things in 'the most efficient way possible' which doesn't always work out for the people who hired them.

Of course, they ARE the good guys, so the usually run away from that lynch-mob of angry peasants... when they don't, though I'd like to have it ready. I think I'll hang out around my local game shop when people pick up the new minis and pick up the farmers as they fly for the garbage can.

hewhosaysfish
2007-10-26, 04:34 AM
Sahuagin?! In the desert?!

Azerian Kelimon
2007-10-26, 06:25 AM
Seems like Bruenor is gonna be the miniature that doesn't get in...at least, not directly. Mordenkainen won't allow it, god bless his TN alignment.

Zincorium
2007-10-26, 06:28 AM
Sahuagin?! In the desert?!

Deserts can be coastlines, too. Granted, the sahuagin wouldn't exactly be comfortable for their brief sojourn, but that just makes them more likely to kill the villagers and leave them there instead of attempting to take the bodies back for food.

Mr. Friendly
2007-10-26, 07:25 AM
Sahuagin?! In the desert?!

In addition to Zincorium's answer, I would also point out that a tried and true location within the standard yellow sandy waste desert is the Oasis.

Which leads us to this equation:

Desert = Oasis = Water = Sahaugin, Kuo-Toa, Krakens, Aboleths

kamikasei
2007-10-26, 07:27 AM
Aboleths

That's one hell of an oasis. ...Pretty much literally.

Starsinger
2007-10-26, 08:44 AM
It doesn't say anything about summarising the character, says 'aptly describe'. Eowyn would fall under that description.

I coulda swore the whole frying pan thing was about Tika Waylan from dragonlance, who was like a level 2-4 fighter who used a skillet as a weapon cuz she was a barmaid..

Lord Tataraus
2007-10-26, 08:49 AM
the seems out of place. couldn't they have included something a little less mundane in his place? you know that feeling when you pull a mini out of the box and it is something you'll never use? what is it going to be like for the person that has a box that is 12.5% farmer?

I thought that of the warhorse as well. It just stuck out as so...normal.

Tengu
2007-10-26, 09:04 AM
That test annoys me. Having a female warrior without parity between her swordcraft and cooking fails you. The hell?

I think you're:
1. Taking it too literally.
2. Taking it too seriously.
3. Forgetting that this is a test for writing novels, not playing or running RP games.
4. Just annoyed that all your characters fall under that description. *runs away*

Swooper
2007-10-26, 09:38 AM
Wow, this IS interesting. Let's look at what's in there and see what we can deduce:

Blade Spider: Because they just couldn't use Sword Spider again, could they? :smallamused: Or is it different from Sword Spiders?
Animated Statue: I'd like to know the difference between those and golems.
Capricious Copper Dragon: Capricious? Is that a template?
Angel of Vengeance: That's an AWFUL model. Also, it tells us "Angels" will be a type of outsiders, likely replacing Archons (?).
Bar-Lgura: This is interesting. I always thought that was a capital-i and not an L there.
Cyclops: ABOUT TIME! The first time I looked through MM 3.0 I thought: "Wait, where's the Cyclops? They've got all these other greek-mythology monsters in here, but no Cyclops?" and it was never released for 3.x anywhere else but Deities and Demigods, I hear. Which is a book I have no interest in aquiring even if I could get it free - I never liked/used the D&D pantheons much.
Black Woods Dryad: Hmm, looks like one of the 'modified' base monsters, like all the zombie variants in the article. Looks like an evil dryad to me, so I guess it means we'll have a reason to fight them now.
Blood of Vol Fanatic: ...What? Why would we need a core-MM entry for Eberron specific cultists, which we could create easily as low level human adepts/clerics/wizards/whatever? And let's say 4E won't let us do that, what if we want a, say, hobgoblin Fanatic of Vol? :smallconfused:
Yuan-Ti Malison: Another variant monster - looks like we will have variants of humanoid monsters too. Which can't hurt, if we're doing them anyway. Or is it just a classed Yuan-Ti?
Bruenor Battlehammer: This must be the non-MM entry one. It's a named character from FR, damnit!
Cliffwalk Archer: Sounds like a classed elf to me. Bit redundant and odd, since a lot of people hated the MM4 for having too many classed monsters in it.
Demonweb Swarm: Heeeeey, these guys remind me of something :smallbiggrin:
Drow Blademaster: Another classed humanoid, drow sword-TWF-specced fighter by the looks of it.
Drow Spider Priestess: Remind me, why do we need these classed humanoids so much?
Dwarf Brawler: This is interesting, despite being another classed humanoid. This either means (I'm guessing) that fighters can spec in unarmed combat, or that monks are in. The first one sounds more likely, really.
Fire Archon: Huh? Is this an Archon (as per 3E) or a type of fire elemental?
Elf Conjurer: Thank you, I needed that. Looks like we'll still have the same old eight schools of magic. We still don't need classed humanoids in the 4E MM1 please.
Eternal Blade: Hmm, a fancy name for an elf swordfighter, or something to do with the ToB prestige class of the same name?
Gelatinous Cube: They couldn't leave that out, could they? :smallamused:
Farmer: Eh?
Macetail Behemoth: Behemoth sounds more fantasy-esque than dinosaur. Good call.
Halfling Enchanter: Another of the eight schools of magic.
Manticore Sniper: I always hated the 'Manticores SHOOT spines from their tails!' idea. Games Workshop has the right idea there, so does Blizzard despite calling them wyverns...
Nightmare: Nice barding.
Naga: And I still think Yuan-Ti should be called Naga and human-headed snakes dropped.
Rage Drake: Half-dragon dog? :smalltongue:
Shadar-Kai Assassin: If I were an Assassin, I wouldn't use a spiked chain. If I were WotC, I wouldn't include spiked chain in D&D, because it's silly, but let's not get derailed in a discussion about stupid double weapons now.
Sahuagin Baron: Hey, this guy looks interesting. Not just a sahuagin with class levels, but a four-armed sahuagin with class levels. Yay.


Right. I skipped the ones I had nothing to say about. Any thoughts on this?

Edit: Yeah, I know, maybe it's just the races and templates that will be in the MM, but for the sake of my own amusement I assumed that there will be classed humanoids in there, too :smalltongue:

Renegade Paladin
2007-10-26, 09:49 AM
Angel of Vengeance: That's an AWFUL model. Also, it tells us "Angels" will be a type of outsiders, likely replacing Archons (?).
Erm... Angels are already a type of outsider, not replacing anything. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/angel.htm)

Swooper
2007-10-26, 09:59 AM
Right, true. I think they were called 'Devas' or 'Celestials' in the 3.0 MM, and my group never bothered to upgrade to the 3.5 one. My bad.

That's still an awful model.

KIDS
2007-10-26, 10:23 AM
Fantasy novelist's exam has some insightful points but is overall way too sure of itself and reeks of arrogance from a mile away. I'll pass, thanks.

What are... Blood of Vol and Eternal Blade doing in there? I know about the adventure module but how did all of these things come into a single gallery? Otherwise that they look cool and promising - yep, they do.

Fhaolan
2007-10-26, 10:30 AM
I hope we don't get to many of those, It's really easy to add class levels to a creature, and I'd prefer my monster manuals to have more monsters.

In 3.x it's really easy to add class levels to a creature. My impressions so far with the 4th edition articles put on the WotC website is that they are actually going to make it more difficult to do that kind of thing. I'm probably wrong, but that is the vibe I'm picking up. Mainly from the comments about the new MM's creature entries not being usable to generate monster characters.

Miles Invictus
2007-10-26, 01:36 PM
It doesn't say anything about summarising the character, says 'aptly describe'. Eowyn would fall under that description.

We're treating short phrases and single sentences, instead of a few paragraphs, as proper descriptions. Summarization is implied.

An apt description needs to be sufficient as well as accurate. If I can read "Warrior woman who's more comfortable with a sword than a frying pan" and know everything I need to know about that character, that character needs to be developed further.

In the case of Eowyn, her interactions with Aragorn and Faramir, her subterfuge to join the battle at Minas Tirith, and her Macbeth-like twisting of an ancient prophecy are essential details that "warrior woman" leaves out.

See the last two questions; Lord of the Rings is exempt from the exam. It spawned or popularized most of the archetypes referenced.

bosssmiley
2007-10-27, 03:34 PM
WotC has released the gallery (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mg/dod)for the Desert of Desolation minis set.

Like the Umber Hulk + Gelblock, but most of the humans look a bit *meh* (retouching time...) And what have they done to the Sahuagin? That poor sea devil looks like a deformed WoW Meenlock. How the mighty are fallen. :smallfrown:

North
2007-10-28, 06:15 PM
Those look real cool actually. I might have to get me some!

deadseashoals
2007-10-28, 06:29 PM
I don't think that statement includes the humanoid race/class minis.

That said, I'm pretty sure the monster from DoD that will NOT be in the 4E Monster Manual is... the Large Fire Elemental. It was stated on the D&D podcast that one of the things they're doing away with in 4th edition is "elementals differentiated only by size and element".

horseboy
2007-10-28, 06:51 PM
I frequently have call for commoners, especially angry ones with pitchforks and torches. My players tend to do things in 'the most efficient way possible' which doesn't always work out for the people who hired them.

Of course, they ARE the good guys, so the usually run away from that lynch-mob of angry peasants... when they don't, though I'd like to have it ready. I think I'll hang out around my local game shop when people pick up the new minis and pick up the farmers as they fly for the garbage can.
From the looks of that mini, I'd say someone needs to save that pig from what ever that farmer is doing to it, that it's squealing that way.

Oh, and that Vol Fanatic guy, I'd say someone was playing too much Necromunda.

SilverClawShift
2007-10-28, 08:25 PM
Shadar-Kai Assassin: If I were an Assassin, I wouldn't use a spiked chain. If I were WotC, I wouldn't include spiked chain in D&D, because it's silly, but let's not get derailed in a discussion about stupid double weapons now.

I thought spiked chains were silly too. They seem obnoxious, clunky, ineffective... I was under the immpression that they were designed solely to look good in artwork (which they are very successful in, talk about groovy). I just couldn't picture how they would work once actually IN the hands of someone using them, regardless of the amount of training and dedication, I picture a lot of hangups.
But I said "thought" instead of "think"

Then I saw the Hills Have Eyes remake. I forget when it hit me, but the guy with the heavy metal thing wrapped around him, that he pops the car tires with? And then he gets stuck fighting one of the main characters, and uses the metal thing for slashing at him and even throws it like a 10 foot punch?
Watching the movie, I realized "...oh! that's the imagery fighting with a spiked chain is supposed to invoke."
Now I kinda like them.