PDA

View Full Version : 4th Edition Monster Discussion



Conners
2008-06-10, 06:24 PM
I'm curious about what you folks think of 4th Edition monsters, and I'm curious about the monsters themselves.

This is a discussion about specific monsters from 4e as well as 4e monsters in general. You can also talk about monster X not being in yet, etcetera.

The main thing I'm wondering: Have they been good to gnolls?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-10, 06:33 PM
They're a nice all-round race. They don't shine as anything, but they're pretty good, and the extra damage that blood fury gives is silly at high levels.

Scintillatus
2008-06-10, 06:38 PM
Bugbears have GIGANTIC boobs, and it's really quite disturbing.

The Necroswanso
2008-06-10, 06:41 PM
Dude, bugbears are HAWT!



Anyway. I like the Yuan-ti. They originally looked sinister, but now they look more fantastic. Which fits the motif.
I absolutely LOURVE the new look of the Anethema. In the Fiend Folio they looked more like they fit in with demons than as a general abomination. Now, SNAKES FOR FINGERS!

Conners
2008-06-10, 06:44 PM
They're a nice all-round race. They don't shine as anything, but they're pretty good, and the extra damage that blood fury gives is silly at high levels. Wait, you mean they aren't restricted from being wizards and such statistically? That's both neat and strange... What are their statistics now, exactly (I'm also wondering about this "blood fury", it sounds cool)?

Thanks.


@Scintillatus: .... LOL :smallbiggrin:! I thought you actually meant that for a split-second XD.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-10, 07:01 PM
Wait, you mean they aren't restricted from being wizards and such statistically? That's both neat and strange... What are their statistics now, exactly (I'm also wondering about this "blood fury", it sounds cool)?

Thanks.


@Scintillatus: .... LOL :smallbiggrin:! I thought you actually meant that for a split-second XD.

They have +2 Dex and +2 Con. Dex makes them nice rogues, and Con makes them useful warlocks. Sadly, the two attributes don't synergize, so they don't make such a "I kill you, perform a naked ritual dance over your body, and laugh" as Drow, Bugbears, or Minotaurs.

Blood fury is completely awesome, though. It adds +2 to all of your damage when you're bloodied, and it increases to +4 at level 21. Consider a +4 to damage is the level 16 feature of the Kensai, a PP that has to compete with Swordmaster and Pit Fighter and it still manages to be competitive, and you see it's use. The damage REALLY piles up.

Moff Chumley
2008-06-10, 07:13 PM
Bugbears have GIGANTIC boobs, and it's really quite disturbing.

Yes, and they didn't delegate them to more deserving monsters. There isn't enough fanservice in 4e. I don't have the DMG, I hope thats better, but my expectations aren't high. I suppose we can only wait for MM2 and hope for nymphs...

Moff Chumley
2008-06-10, 07:31 PM
@Scintillatus: .... LOL :smallbiggrin:! I thought you actually meant that for a split-second XD.

He does. :smalleek:

RTGoodman
2008-06-10, 08:00 PM
I'm a little disappointed in the lack of a few creatures, and that some critters are still basically fodder (I mean, the highest level listed Kobolds and Goblins are level 4 Elites, I think). However, overall it's pretty decent as far as having a lot of different stuff.

My favorite part? The Boneclaw (my favorite undead) is now an official Core monster!

The Necroswanso
2008-06-10, 08:04 PM
Yes, and they didn't delegate them to more deserving monsters. There isn't enough fanservice in 4e. I don't have the DMG, I hope thats better, but my expectations aren't high. I suppose we can only wait for MM2 and hope for nymphs...

Here's a bit of off topic fanservice: In the DMG, the page/picture for the chapter Rewards, is a picture of a woman. ;)

KillianHawkeye
2008-06-10, 08:07 PM
Yes, and they didn't delegate them to more deserving monsters. There isn't enough fanservice in 4e. I don't have the DMG, I hope thats better, but my expectations aren't high. I suppose we can only wait for MM2 and hope for nymphs...

I was SO disappointed. I wanted to see her new picture. :smallwink:

Also, did anybody notice Cambions? It used to be another word for Tieflings, but they appear to be the new half-fiends (half-devils, anyway).

And why are dinosaurs now called Behemoths? And why did we only get two of them?

I haven't had time to do more than flip through, but my biggest disappointment so far is that a handful of monsters are still using 3.5-era artwork. I really expected every pic in the book to be new.

The Necroswanso
2008-06-10, 08:39 PM
Dinosaurs are probably called Behemoths due to Jewish mythologies.
It talked about the first three monsters created who were called Zyz, who ruled the air. Leviathan, who ruled the sea, and Behemoth, some sort of gigantic monster that ruled the earth.
Interesting note of fact, Bahaumut is the Hindi pronounciation of Behemoth.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-10, 08:50 PM
I like the new Hydra origin... spawned from the blood of a dying primordial during the war with the gods.

Lord Omberous
2008-06-10, 09:02 PM
I really like a lot of things. Here are comments:
Bog Hag - stole the picture from OA, and possibly the creepiest picture in the book.
Cave Bear - A Sabertooth bear? Really? Can we not just have brown bears and polar bears?
Yuan-Ti cultists - Look at the guy's staff in the picture. No, I do not want to fight Jafar.

Starsinger
2008-06-10, 09:28 PM
Satyr Pipers are pretty hot. Although the Satyr Rake could've stood somewhere else...

Lord Omberous
2008-06-10, 09:32 PM
Not monsters per se, but the Half-Elf picture in the PHB is awesome for two reasons. One, the guy is cool looking and pretty pleasing to the eyes, if you know what I mean. Also, their poses are like, "I'm going to kill you now, and so will my girlfriend" (or boyfriend if you read it from the point of the girl half-elf).

Enlong
2008-06-10, 09:42 PM
While I like a lot of things about the Monsters, there are a few complaints that I just need to get off my chest, just... real quick.

Lamias: I always thought that Lamias were these half-woman-half-snake creatures... or am I getting them confused with Nagas?

Golems: We only get Flesh and Stone golems, and no Steel or Clay golems.
Constructs in general: I kind of want methods for making them. A Ritual would be nice. Like the one alluded to in Eidolons and Colossi.

Elementals: We get four different Paraelementals, but no straight elementals.

Dragons: Don't get me wrong, Chromatics are the most important, most iconic ones there are, but I'd like to see the other ones alluded to in the same book (Catastrophic, Metallic, Planar, and Scourge dragons)

Lack of stuff like Nymphs and Faeries, and other monsters that I remember.

Oh, and reeeeealy nitpicky, the lack of the mechanical description of the Mindflayers' method for making more Mindflayers.



Now then, now that I've got that stuff off my mind, time to go to stuff I like.

The Terrasque, I think, is still freaking awesome. Its new powers are way cool. Not to mention that the idea of it living in the core of the planet makes it even more like Lavos the the old one.

I freaking love the fact that most of every creature has at least two types. It makes for nice variation.

I love the monster racial traits, and lack of stuff like LA. Oh, and Warforged. Warforged are always awesome.

And lest I forget... Freaking ORCUS! I think that nothing more needs to be said.

RTGoodman
2008-06-10, 10:05 PM
Here's a bit of off topic fanservice: In the DMG, the page/picture for the chapter Rewards, is a picture of a woman. ;)

That's the red-headed elf chick in the woods, I think? That's probably one of my favorite pieces of D&D art ever. :smallbiggrin: And you know what? That might be the first time I've ever liked anything to do with elves, too!

The lack of real elementals was something that I forgot to mention earlier.

The hydra I actually don't really like. I mean, I'm cool with the backstory and the lack of legs and stuff, but they've just written off (literally) the story about beheading and needing fire as "a myth." That's not faithful to either the older version OR the original mythology, and I'm not a fan of it. I mean, the 3.5 version was a pain in the posterior, but it was a cool once-in-a-while thing.

Xefas
2008-06-10, 10:10 PM
Bugbears have GIGANTIC boobs, and it's really quite disturbing.

I'm really glad I'm not the only one who noticed that.

Also, I think the succubus is finally hot. It's about time. I was kind of hoping for an incubus piece of art to go along with it, but meh, I doubt we'll ever get more than that one slightly humorous guy in the Savage Species.

All in all, I wish they hadn't included all the Lore stuff and instead used that space for more monsters. Similarly, I was hoping the descriptions would be a little more setting-generic, instead of referencing the Elemental Chaos or the Shadowfell every other word.

I really don't care what they have to say about each monster, other than a basic description of what it is on a fundamental level (Skull Lords. They're a humanoid skeleton with three heads, they lead undead into battle, are very intelligent, and like to carry a big stick to hit people with. The End.), because I'm probably going to change all the other stuff and use it however the situation requires in my own game, so all that fluff will go largely unused.

That said, even though that would be the optimal *for me*, I understand why others would want all that stuff, so I'm not really complaining. I can imagine my first DMing experience without all that helpful flavor text in the 2nd edition MM.

"It's an...Ixitxachitl...I think they're some kind of...fish. Atheist fish. They attack the cleric."

Sir_Dr_D
2008-06-10, 10:20 PM
The monster/race design is one of the best features of 4E, and I odn't think even the critics have disagreed with that.


Every monster is unique, and has something different in abilites and battle tactics. It makes for a much more interesting and varied game.

The Necroswanso
2008-06-10, 10:21 PM
Lamias: I always thought that Lamias were these half-woman-half-snake creatures... or am I getting them confused with Nagas?


And lest I forget... Freaking ORCUS! I think that nothing more needs to be said.

Lamia's, to my recollection didn't actually have a picture before, and yes, thatw as the Naga. It's nice to see what they actually look like.
And I have to agree, the Orcus, is sweet.

EvilElitest
2008-06-10, 10:22 PM
Bugbears have GIGANTIC boobs, and it's really quite disturbing.

ok, the book i'm looking forward to the most and that sounds kinda disturbing
from
EE

Enlong
2008-06-10, 10:28 PM
Lamia's, to my recollection didn't actually have a picture before, and yes, thatw as the Naga. It's nice to see what they actually look like.
And I have to agree, the Orcus, is sweet.
Hm. Looks like I wasn't mistaken. Lamia in the Greek myths is indeed a half woman, half snake. Like a centaur, except the horse half is a snake and the human half is always female. Dunno where Wizards got the idea that they're a sentient, woman-shaped swarm of scarabs.

Xefas
2008-06-10, 10:30 PM
Lamia's, to my recollection didn't actually have a picture before, and yes, thatw as the Naga. It's nice to see what they actually look like.

In second edition, there were two kinds of Lamia. One was half-woman half-lion. Like a Centaur, but with lions. The male form was called a Wemic, I believe.

The other kind was called a Royal Lamia, and it was half-woman half-snake.

I believe the original Greek myth of the Lamia was of a half-snake woman.

KillianHawkeye
2008-06-10, 10:30 PM
Lamias used to be kinda like evil centaurs, except they were chicks with the lower bodies of lions. Or something. There was a picture of them.

I don't know why they're completely different now.

HeirToPendragon
2008-06-10, 10:32 PM
ok, the book i'm looking forward to the most and that sounds kinda disturbing
from
EE

What's more disturbing is when you start thinking about the Bernstein bears while looking at the picture.

FoE
2008-06-10, 11:31 PM
Lamias: I always thought that Lamias were these half-woman-half-snake creatures... or am I getting them confused with Nagas?

Back in the First Edition Monster Manual — I still own ze books — they were actually half-lion. Then the Fiend Folio came out, and it introduced the notion of a "greater" lamia called the lamia noble, who was half-snake.

@V: Oh yeah ... I remember that too.

Hey, look at the section on Demons. Talk about unimaginative — they classified the Demons as Type 1, Type 2, Type 3, etc. Sure, they had names in brackets, but still ...

RTGoodman
2008-06-10, 11:36 PM
Back in the First Edition Monster Manual — I still own ze books — they were actually half-lion. Then the Fiend Folio came out, and it introduced the notion of a "greater" lamia called the lamia noble, who was half-snake.

Even weirder, a couple of weeks ago I found the 1st Edition AD&D (since I assume your talking Basic D&D) Monster Manual for $5 at a used bookstore, and it says that they have the top half of a woman and a lower half that "is that of a beast." The art even gives them one lion-esque leg and one goat leg, complete with a cloven hoof!

EDIT: @PirateJesus (below): All of the templates are in the DMG and are divided between functional templates (that give the monster a role, like Bodyguard or Demagogue) or class templates (which give PC class abilities). Adding one template ups the creature's difficulty (standard -> Elite -> Solo), so that two makes a regular creature a Solo creature. Roughly.

BizzaroStormy
2008-06-10, 11:37 PM
I was a little pissed about the lycanthrope entries. All they put in there were the Werewolf and Wererat. Nothing else, not even a template to apply to other things.

For that matter, I noticed a complete lack of templates altogether.

wodan46
2008-06-10, 11:58 PM
That's because the customization templates are in the DMG, not the Monster Manual. The templates go along with the instructions for how to resize monsters and the like, the whole section on customizing monsters goes from page 174 to 188.

Conners
2008-06-11, 12:35 AM
They have +2 Dex and +2 Con. Dex makes them nice rogues, and Con makes them useful warlocks. Sadly, the two attributes don't synergize, so they don't make such a "I kill you, perform a naked ritual dance over your body, and laugh" as Drow, Bugbears, or Minotaurs.

Blood fury is completely awesome, though. It adds +2 to all of your damage when you're bloodied, and it increases to +4 at level 21. Consider a +4 to damage is the level 16 feature of the Kensai, a PP that has to compete with Swordmaster and Pit Fighter and it still manages to be competitive, and you see it's use. The damage REALLY piles up. No bonus to STR :smalleek:!? That has always struck me as one of the defining traits of a gnoll, the bonus to strength and constitution (as well as natural armour)... I'm guessing it was either to make them better as PCs, or to make sure they weren't too tough to be enemies for low-level players, but still (do you guys think it is one of these?)...

Hmm... perhaps that's the reason gnolls don't have a STR bonus, this ability combined with a modified strength would be horrible to overcome.

Any ideas on how to customize the 4th Edition gnoll to have a STR bonus but to not be unbeatable?

Jack Mann
2008-06-11, 12:40 AM
I really like a lot of things. Here are comments:
Cave Bear - A Sabertooth bear? Really? Can we not just have brown bears and polar bears?

I'm sorry. If you can't understand why a saber-toothed bear is inherently awesome, there's no helping you.

Tyrael
2008-06-11, 01:12 AM
Having had a Lizardfolk Fighter in 3.5, I'm surprised and bitterly disappointed that they don't include any information about using Lizardfolk as PC characters.

How would we go about converting some of the unconverted monsters into PC races? Any ideas?

THAC0
2008-06-11, 02:00 AM
I'm sorry. If you can't understand why a saber-toothed bear is inherently awesome, there's no helping you.

Cave bears were totally sweeeet in 1e, too. I caused a lot of damage with Animal Friendship + cave bears. :D

Nermy
2008-06-11, 02:02 AM
Having had a Lizardfolk Fighter in 3.5, I'm surprised and bitterly disappointed that they don't include any information about using Lizardfolk as PC characters.

How would we go about converting some of the unconverted monsters into PC races? Any ideas?

Here's my attempt at lizardfolk:

Ability Scores: +2 Strength, +2 Constitution
Size: Medium
Speed: 6 squares
Vision: Normal
Languages: Common, Draconic
Skill Bonuses: +2 Acrobatics, +2 Athletics

Scaly Hide: You gain a +2 racial bonus to AC.

Hold Breath: You can hold your breath for a number of rounds equal to four times your Constitution score before you risk drowning.

Lizardfolk Equipment Proficiencies: You gain proficiency with all Simple Melee and Simple Ranged weapons, as well as Light Shields.

Tail Whip: You can use Tail Whip as an encounter power.

Tail Whip
Lizardfolk Racial Power
Encounter
Standard Action | Close Burst 1
Target: Each enemy in burst you can see
Attack: Strength + 2 vs. AC
Hit: 1d6 + Strength modifier damage
Increase to +4 bonus and 2d6 + Strength modifier damage at 11th level
Increase to +6 bonus and 3d6 + Strength modifier damage at 21st level

Tyrael
2008-06-11, 02:30 AM
Very, very interesting, but I'm not sure a Lizardfolk tail would have the same damage progression as a Dragonborn's breath weapon. At the same time, however, it's a big thick scaly thing slapping at your legs, so maybe a trip effect is in order? Also, I'm wondering if maybe it should be attack vs Reflex, not AC, because it's not like he's trying to attack through a suit of plate mail or anything, just whack at them to bruise or something. Plate mail doesn't prevent you from falling down. Then, in turn, if it's a trip effect, then maybe it still effects creatures in the area, regardless of whether they can be seen or not? An invisible rogue would still be tripped, methinks, unless he saves his Reflex and jumps above it.

Maybe like:

Tail Whip
Lizardfolk Racial Power
Encounter
Standard Action | Close Burst 1
Target: All creatures in area
Attack: Strength + 2 vs. Reflex or Constitution +2 vs. Reflex
Hit: 1d6 + Strength modifier damage
Increase to +4 bonus and 1d6 + Strength modifier damage at 11th level, opponents are knocked prone.
Increase to +6 bonus and 2d6 + Strength modifier damage at 21st level, opponents are knocked prone.


What do you guys think? I don't know if tripping is brokenly awesome in 4.0 anymore, so I'm not sure about it. Does it look balanced to you?

Conners
2008-06-11, 05:07 AM
I got the monster manual.... WHY do goblins get a +2CHR bonus O_O?!? I suppose you could put it down that because they're such cowards who weave their way out of things, they've learnt how to manipulate people. Still, I don't think they are in any way charming, ANY way, and would just give them a +2 INT so they have more skill points.
Crazier still: Hobgoblins get a +2CHR bonus TOO :smalleek:?!? Why not give them +2 Dex and +2 Con, like they were in 3.5? I don't see an ugly warrior race as being in any way charismatic.
I am also upset they gave kobolds a +2 bonus to Con, when they had a penalty to such in 3.5...

So, I think we should fix the strange stats.

What do you guys think of this?:
Hobgoblin: +2 Dex, +2 Con.
Goblin: +2 Dex, +2 INT.
Kobold: -2 Str, +4 Dex. +1 Natural AC.
Orc: +4 Str.
Gnoll: +4 Str, +2 Dex, +2 Con, -2 Int, -2 Chr. (+1 Natural AC?)

This is written up quickly, and I'm not sure if this would destroy the game in way X, or whichever--it's only an example. Any comments?

Starsinger
2008-06-11, 05:14 AM
Apparently, races with +2 to stats that work on the same save (Strength and Con, Dex and Int, Wis and Charisma) have that as a sort of negative thing to balance them being a little better than other races (See: Eladrin and Warforged).

Conners
2008-06-11, 05:22 AM
Apparently, races with +2 to stats that work on the same save (Strength and Con, Dex and Int, Wis and Charisma) have that as a sort of negative thing to balance them being a little better than other races (See: Eladrin and Warforged). So, having +2 Str and +2 Con is better than +2 Str and +2 Chr, etcetera? I was guessing that, but I won't bother with considering that in monster stats for the moment.


With the comments on the disturbing bugbear, I assume you already knew the one to the left is female?

Xefas
2008-06-11, 06:06 AM
I got the monster manual.... WHY do goblins get a +2CHR bonus O_O?!? I suppose you could put it down that because they're such cowards who weave their way out of things, they've learnt how to manipulate people. Still, I don't think they are in any way charming, ANY way, and would just give them a +2 INT so they have more skill points.
Crazier still: Hobgoblins get a +2CHR bonus TOO :smalleek:?!? Why not give them +2 Dex and +2 Con, like they were in 3.5? I don't see an ugly warrior race as being in any way charismatic.


Charisma isn't just your charm, or your ability to manipulate, and it certainly has nothing to do with your physical appearance. It's also confidence, inner strength (think Sorcerers gaining extra spells for high Charisma), and general badassery. When someone with low Charisma does something badass, everyone is either looking the other way and misses it, or they immediately quote a movie in which the exact same thing happened and then mock the person for being a derivative hack. A person with high Charisma can, say, eat a bag of potato chips, and epic music starts playing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noHySKemBzA&feature=related).

I will point out, however, that every sample goblin in the book has 8 CHA, except for the 1 Goblin Hexer, who has 18, and thus it probably has to do with his spellcasting.

So, I don't agree with giving Goblins the +2 Cha, either. I would probably give them +2 Wis instead, since most of the goblins seem to have a good wisdom score.

Jack Mann
2008-06-11, 08:06 AM
So, having +2 Str and +2 Con is better than +2 Str and +2 Chr, etcetera? I was guessing that, but I won't bother with considering that in monster stats for the moment.

No, it's worse. It means you're only getting +1 to one defense. Quite often, classes are designed so only one ability applying to a given defense is necessary for the class's features for this same reason. +2 Str and +2 Con only gives a +1 to your fortitude defense. +2 Str and +2 Cha potentially gives a +1 to both fortitude and will defense. However, the race might be a bit stronger than normal to make up for it.

Tengu
2008-06-11, 09:06 AM
Adding one template ups the creature's difficulty (standard -> Elite -> Solo), so that two makes a regular creature a Solo creature. Roughly.

I have issues with the Solo template. It should include Witty Remark as an encounter power.



Scaly Hide: You gain a +2 racial bonus to AC.


Stupidly overpowered, sorry. What do they have to make up for this huge bonus?


ok, the book i'm looking forward to the most and that sounds kinda disturbing
from
EE

Did someone say "disturbing"?

Bugbear Dominatrix
Level 6 Controller
http://ffrpg.republika.pl/bugbear.PNG

RTGoodman
2008-06-11, 01:39 PM
Regarding the Lizardfolk tails, how about this? It's a minor action, meaning you don't have to waste a standard to do it, and it does a little damage plus an effect. It would work well for Controllers (if someone gets near and misses, you can get away) or Defenders and Strikers (it's always good to trip people if they're trying to kill you, makes it easier for you to kill THEM).

________________
Tail Swipe..........................Lizardfolk Racial Power
An enemy's swing leaves him off balance, and gives you
just enough time to swing your tail around for a trip.
Encounter
Immediate Reaction..................................Personal
Trigger: When an opponent misses you with a melee attack roll
Attack: Str vs. Reflex or Dex vs. Reflex
Hit: 1d6+Str damage and the target is knocked prone.
[TAB]Increase damage to 2d6 at 21st level.
Miss: Half damage, and the target is not prone.
Special: When you create your character, choose Strength or
Dexterity as the ability score you use when making attack rolls
with this power. This choice remains throughout your character's
life and cannot be changed.
________________

Or something like that.


Conners: All PC races are now balanced to get +2 to two different ability scores, some minor abilities, and an extra encounter power, give or take a few of those things. For the sake of balance, I'd just keep stuff like that. Gnolls, for instance, seem fine to me (and their encounter ability is cool); if you don't like the lack of a Str bonus, just change the +2 Con to +2 Str, or give them +2 Str, +2 Con, and some other little ability. That should work, and you don't have to worry about balancing it to other races if you write up a whole new one with crazy stat modifiers (like you did above).

marjan
2008-06-11, 03:18 PM
That might be the first time I've ever liked anything to do with elves, too!


NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Don't fall for that man.

On-Topic:

As I can see there are no equipment-eating monsters (Gelatinous Cube at least doesn't do that anymore). I consider this a good thing.

Most of the art is pretty good decent IMO, except for the Dark One (though it's funny).

Nermy
2008-06-11, 11:25 PM
Stupidly overpowered, sorry. What do they have to make up for this huge bonus?


Haven't had much chance to test out 4e, but in 3.5 they got a +5 natural armor bonus, so I figured +2 wasn't much of a stretch.



What do you guys think? I don't know if tripping is brokenly awesome in 4.0 anymore, so I'm not sure about it. Does it look balanced to you?

I was thinking about the whole knockdown / reflex idea, but my rollplayer got the best of me and I went with the dragonbreath copy. I do like rtg0922's suggestion though, it seems pretty well-balanced.

Ned the undead
2008-06-12, 12:07 AM
http://ffrpg.republika.pl/bugbear.PNG

Bugbear Dominatrix.
EDIT: Damn the joke is in it's name.

RTGoodman
2008-06-12, 12:17 AM
Bugbear Dominatrix.
EDIT: Damn the joke is in it's name.


That's not the actual creature name in the MM, but it might as well be. I think it's the Bugbear Strangler.

Of course, some people are into that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoerotic_asphyxiation).

AslanCross
2008-06-12, 12:22 AM
I was SO disappointed. I wanted to see her new picture. :smallwink:

Also, did anybody notice Cambions? It used to be another word for Tieflings, but they appear to be the new half-fiends (half-devils, anyway).

I kind of prefer the term Cambion. It's more exotic than half-anything.



And why are dinosaurs now called Behemoths? And why did we only get two of them?

As was mentioned earlier, the Behemoth is a giant land animal. Depending on the interpretation of the Bible verses that mention it, it can either be an elephant or dinosaur.



I haven't had time to do more than flip through, but my biggest disappointment so far is that a handful of monsters are still using 3.5-era artwork. I really expected every pic in the book to be new.

QFT. I wish the Dragonborn Death Knight art in the DMG had been in the MM. (It does look awesome, though.)


While I like a lot of things about the Monsters, there are a few complaints that I just need to get off my chest, just... real quick.

Lamias: I always thought that Lamias were these half-woman-half-snake creatures... or am I getting them confused with Nagas?
You're actually correct on both accounts. The Lamia was a half-woman/half-snake creature from Greek myth. The Nagas are a race of snakelike beings from South- and Southeast-Asian mythology. They're depicted in many ways---sometimes they're dragonlike, sometimes they're hydralike (see Primordial Naga), and sometimes they have the torso and head of a human, like the Greek Lamia. No idea why the Lamia is Roachfey now.



Oh, and reeeeealy nitpicky, the lack of the mechanical description of the Mindflayers' method for making more Mindflayers.

What I didn't like about the Mindflayer description is that they have a Mind Flayer Soulknife in the illustration, and yet the entry only has two monsters---the infiltrator (which I assume Mr. Soulknife is, sans the soul knives <_<) and the Mastermind. Oh well.


The Terrasque, I think, is still freaking awesome. Its new powers are way cool. Not to mention that the idea of it living in the core of the planet makes it even more like Lavos the the old one.

I also like its Godzilla look now. It's definitely much better than the Turtle-Rex in the 3.5 MM.

JaxGaret
2008-06-12, 12:31 AM
If you're going to give the Lizzie a racial armor bonus, make it +1, max.

Instead of a Tail Slap, you could give Lizardfolk this racial encounter power:

Rip n' Tear Lizardfolk Racial Power
Encounter
Standard Action Melee
Attack: Strength vs. AC, two attacks
Special: You must attack with Unarmed attacks (claws).
Hit: 1d6 + Strength modifier damage. Increase the damage to 2d6 + Strength modifier at 11th level and 3d6 + Strength modifier at 21st level. If both attacks hit a single target, make a secondary attack.
Secondary Target: The same target.
Secondary Attack: Strength vs. AC
Special: You must attack with an Unarmed attack (bite).
Hit: 1d8 + Strength modifier damage. Increase the damage to 2d8 + Strength modifier at 11th level and 3d8 + Strength modifier at 21st level.

tyckspoon
2008-06-12, 12:36 AM
If you're going to give the Lizzie a racial armor bonus, make it +1, max.


Don't most of the races have +2-+4 total spread across all the defences? Like humans getting +1 to each.. a +2 racial bonus to AC doesn't seem out of line for 4E. It could be a little unbalanced if the other racial traits and/or power you give Lizardmen are particularly good, but I doubt it's going to be broken.

JaxGaret
2008-06-12, 12:42 AM
Don't most of the races have +2-+4 total spread across all the defences? Like humans getting +1 to each.. a +2 racial bonus to AC doesn't seem out of line for 4E. It could be a little unbalanced if the other racial traits and/or power you give Lizardmen are particularly good, but I doubt it's going to be broken.

Good point. I think only Humans get that big of a defense bonus, though. None of the other PHB races besides the Eladrin (+1 Will) get any, and the MM races only get +1 to a specific defense as well. I suppose you could certainly give a +2 racial armor bonus to the Lizardfolk, but it would necessitate trimming elsewhere (like the Human only getting a stat boost to one stat).

bosssmiley
2008-06-12, 07:30 AM
Also, did anybody notice Cambions? It used to be another word for Tieflings, but they appear to be the new half-fiends (half-devils, anyway).

Cambions were always half-fiends, all the way back to Iuz and the 1st Ed MM2. Cambions were the males, Alu-demons the females.

Tieflings were originally from "Planescape", wherein they were planar demi-humans with an unspecified something-dark-and-nasty lurking in the family tree.

Standouts in the new MM?
Well the new lamia is...interesting (but a bit of a knock-off of the worm-magus).
The bog hag is cool, recycled art and all.
The gnolls now look fittingly hairy, dirty and mad.
The reinforcement of the 'hobgoblins = Prussians' meme is nice.
Big Daddy T now has kewl metagame abilities (Earthbound Aura? *pfffft!*)
The trimming of the lycanthrope list down to the iconic were adversaries (-wolf and -rat) is long overdue.
The new hydras are fun-looking, although the lack of the old and much-beloved lernean, pyro- and cyro- breeds is weaksauce IMO.

The vaunted zombies? Less than expected.

paladin_carvin
2008-06-12, 01:16 PM
If you're going to give the Lizzie a racial armor bonus, make it +1, max.

Instead of a Tail Slap, you could give Lizardfolk this racial encounter power:

Rip n' Tear Lizardfolk Racial Power
Encounter
Standard Action Melee
Attack: Strength vs. AC, two attacks
Special: You must attack with Unarmed attacks (claws).
Hit: 1d6 + Strength modifier damage. Increase the damage to 2d6 + Strength modifier at 11th level and 3d6 + Strength modifier at 21st level. If both attacks hit a single target, make a secondary attack.
Secondary Target: The same target.
Secondary Attack: Strength vs. AC
Special: You must attack with an Unarmed attack (bite).
Hit: 1d8 + Strength modifier damage. Increase the damage to 2d8 + Strength modifier at 11th level and 3d8 + Strength modifier at 21st level.

Is this a reference to the Doom comic? ^_^

paladin_carvin
2008-06-12, 10:40 PM
All I have to say is there are no longer good monsters. I mean that by alignment. Seriously, the entire book there isn't any. That is a grave error. Even beyond the 'what will evil campaigns do'- which is pretty bad, there is something more... horrible. The lack of good aligned creatures means that there are limitations on what a DM can place in the world as NPCs. If all you do is fight in your games, then that is fine. But what about the friendly bronze dragon? The angles you meet in the afterlife? Unicorns that the druid fight along side with? If I just wanted to kill bad guys, I'd play a video game...

marjan
2008-06-12, 11:02 PM
All I have to say is there are no longer good monsters. I mean that by alignment. Seriously, the entire book there isn't any. That is a grave error. Even beyond the 'what will evil campaigns do'- which is pretty bad, there is something more... horrible. The lack of good aligned creatures means that there are limitations on what a DM can place in the world as NPCs. If all you do is fight in your games, then that is fine. But what about the friendly bronze dragon? The angles you meet in the afterlife? Unicorns that the druid fight along side with? If I just wanted to kill bad guys, I'd play a video game...

Not completely true. While there aren't good only monsters there are bunch of "unaligned" and "alignment any" monsters, which will serve for purpose of evil campaigns. Also note that there are still Unicorns and Angels, they just have different alignment (and concept of alignment has changed in 4e).

If we are to be completely honest D&D has been always better geared toward good campaigns (not sure if this is true for 1e and 2e though). Look through MM for 3e and you'll see that there are more evil than good monsters there.

As for Dragons, well I suppose we'll have to wait for 4e Draconomicon.

Enlong
2008-06-12, 11:13 PM
4th ed. Draconomicon? Hmm. Cool as that is... *sigh* the idea of it doesn't make up for the MM being such a tease. I want my Catastrophic, Metallic, Planar and Scourge Dragons! It's almost as bad as waiting for new Smash Brothers Brawl characters to be announced was.

Also, I'm a bit miffed by the fact that there's no longer any mechanic for severing a Hydra's heads and having it grow more. Though I am pleased by their Many Headed ability.

FoE
2008-06-12, 11:13 PM
All I have to say is there are no longer good monsters. I mean that by alignment. Seriously, the entire book there isn't any. That is a grave error. Even beyond the 'what will evil campaigns do'- which is pretty bad, there is something more... horrible. The lack of good aligned creatures means that there are limitations on what a DM can place in the world as NPCs. If all you do is fight in your games, then that is fine. But what about the friendly bronze dragon? The angels you meet in the afterlife? Unicorns that the druid fight along side with? If I just wanted to kill bad guys, I'd play a video game...

A few points I would make:

1) There have always been a scarcity of "good" creatures going back as far as First Edition, so this isn't exactly new. Nothing's stopping you from making the occasional "reformed monster," and there are creatures with dual natures, ie. angels, who serve the gods of good as well as those of darkness.
2) My experience is that good creatures are largely useless anyways. It's not as though you're ever sent out to slay a good dragon who's babysitting a princess, or prevent a benevolent wizard from opening a children's hospital. More often than not they take up space in the Monster Manual.
3) "Good" creatures don't quite fit in with the feel of the setting, which is a world of darkness with a few pinpricks of light. Fourth Edition assumes the heroes are the ones who stand as champions against the darkness, not some extraplanar do-gooders who shoot sunlight out their butts.
4) Even when I have run campaigns with "evil" PCs, most times you end up fighting evil opponents anyways. Evil looks out for its own interests and cares nothing about anyone else; if two evil characters meet in front of a pile of gold and one of them could slay the other with ease, they don't shake hands and divvy up the loot equally. If a villain is conspiring to unleash the hordes of hell on to the world, that's seriously going to hamper the neat little criminal enterprise you've set up for yourself.

And what the hell is wrong with the zombies, Bossmiley? I thought they were neat.

marjan
2008-06-12, 11:24 PM
And what the hell is wrong with the zombies?

Evolution?

Morty
2008-06-13, 05:17 AM
2) My experience is that good creatures are largely useless anyways. It's not as though you're ever sent out to slay a good dragon who's babysitting a princess, or prevent a benevolent wizard from opening a children's hospital. More often than not they take up space in the Monster Manual.

Well, unless your players are agents of evil forces and those benevolent wizards or dragons are sent to deal with them... or interfere in PC's masters' evil plans... or simply decide that PCs are doing too much evil and need to be stopped... yeah, never happens.:smallsigh:


3) "Good" creatures don't quite fit in with the feel of the setting, which is a world of darkness with a few pinpricks of light. Fourth Edition assumes the heroes are the ones who stand as champions against the darkness, not some extraplanar do-gooders who shoot sunlight out their butts.

Right, and that silly assumption is something that bugs the heck out of some people.


4) Even when I have run campaigns with "evil" PCs, most times you end up fighting evil opponents anyways. Evil looks out for its own interests and cares nothing about anyone else; if two evil characters meet in front of a pile of gold and one of them could slay the other with ease, they don't shake hands and divvy up the loot equally. If a villain is conspiring to unleash the hordes of hell on to the world, that's seriously going to hamper the neat little criminal enterprise you've set up for yourself.

Which doesn't mean there shouldn't be Good forces opposing Evil PCs.
In other news, orcs, goblins, kobolds etc. are still purely evil cannon fodder with no culture which doesn't justify slaughtering them en masse. Nothing new here.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-06-13, 06:26 AM
Having had a Lizardfolk Fighter in 3.5, I'm surprised and bitterly disappointed that they don't include any information about using Lizardfolk as PC characters.

How would we go about converting some of the unconverted monsters into PC races? Any ideas?

It's very easy. Let's see... Lizardfolk Greenscale Hunter, page 178. They have high Str and ... Dex, I guess? So +2 Str, +2 Dex. They have Athletics, Nature, and Perception as skills, so give PC Lizardfolk +2 Athletics, +2 Nature. They get Sidestep Attack as an encounter power (the Minotaur's at-will Goring Charge becomes an encounter power for PCs, too), and swamp-walk. Looks like +2 to initiative, too.

The same process works for just about any race. It's just eyeballing and giving them an encounter power and any traits shared by all members of the race (like Goblin Tactics for goblins).

Leshan
2008-06-13, 03:09 PM
All I have to say is there are no longer good monsters. I mean that by alignment. Seriously, the entire book there isn't any. That is a grave error. Even beyond the 'what will evil campaigns do'- which is pretty bad, there is something more... horrible. The lack of good aligned creatures means that there are limitations on what a DM can place in the world as NPCs. If all you do is fight in your games, then that is fine. But what about the friendly bronze dragon? The angles you meet in the afterlife? Unicorns that the druid fight along side with? If I just wanted to kill bad guys, I'd play a video game...

Actually untrue. Look at pg. 159 of the MM. The Celestial Charger. Alignment: Lawful Good. So the one good aligned creature is a horse.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-13, 04:12 PM
Well, unless your players are agents of evil forces and those benevolent wizards or dragons are sent to deal with them... or interfere in PC's masters' evil plans... or simply decide that PCs are doing too much evil and need to be stopped... yeah, never happens.:smallsigh:

Or there is a misunderstanding that leads to violence. Or, despite both being good they have diametrically opposed notions of how to go about doing the most good (think gunman example). Or, both sides were tricked by the BBEG into trying to kill eachother. Or...




Right, and that silly assumption is something that bugs the heck out of some people.

Like me!

EvilElitest
2008-06-13, 04:14 PM
I just got my books today, so this is only a first glance option, but........how could they possible have even less fluff, detail and interest than before. I mean the 3E MM has more description of these guys than 4E, and that is pretty sad. I mean the description is like, two sentences then a bunch of stateblocks. I mean, it is like the WoW Beastanry
from
EE

AKA_Bait
2008-06-13, 04:15 PM
I just got my books today, so this is only a first glance option, but........how could they possible have even less fluff, detail and interest than before. I mean the 3E MM has more description of these guys than 4E, and that is pretty sad. I mean the description is like, two sentences then a bunch of stateblocks. I mean, it is like the WoW Beastanry
from
EE

Some of us view that as a good thing. Less to white out...

EvilElitest
2008-06-13, 04:20 PM
Some of us view that as a good thing. Less to white out...

sarcasm?

No really, i mean these guys are just so......boring. I mean some of these ideas aren't bad, and are interesting. The new take on the snake folk, some of the new monsters, the updated monsters, the new "Types" of normal monsters, and yet no description at all. It is simplistic, shallow, and i freaking called it
from
EE

AKA_Bait
2008-06-13, 04:26 PM
sarcasm?


Nope. I'm being totally serious. The less fluff beyond 'it looks like this' the better for me. As I stated in other threads, I prefer not to have to beat notions about particular monsters out of my players heads that were put there by someone designing a different setting than mine.

EvilElitest
2008-06-13, 04:30 PM
Nope. I'm being totally serious. The less fluff beyond 'it looks like this' the better for me. As I stated in other threads, I prefer not to have to beat notions about particular monsters out of my players heads that were put there by someone designing a different setting than mine.

no offense, but that seems like very shallow game design. Monsters should be designed with a fluff concept in mind and fully fleshed out. That is what makes them interesting and worth focusing upon. Now if a DM or players feel like tweaking the monsters, thats great. Cool, good for you, but the monsters shouldn't be generic stat blocks
from
EE

Tengu
2008-06-13, 04:33 PM
At least every creature has a picture. And a picture is worth a thousand words.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-13, 04:37 PM
no offense, but that seems like very shallow game design. Monsters should be designed with a fluff concept in mind and fully fleshed out.

What? Snake haired woman who can turn you to stone with a look isn't enough of a fluff concept? Firey dwarves that were twisted by the Giants at the Dawn of Time not good enough?

Fully fleshed out is exactly what I don't want in my MM, which I consider the generic guide to monsters. If I want all that fleshed out, I'll buy a campaign setting.

EvilElitest
2008-06-13, 04:44 PM
What? Snake haired woman who can turn you to stone with a look isn't enough of a fluff concept? Firey dwarves that were twisted by the Giants at the Dawn of Time not good enough?

Fully fleshed out is exactly what I don't want in my MM, which I consider the generic guide to monsters. If I want all that fleshed out, I'll buy a campaign setting.


Of course it isn't enough. Is it intelligent. What is their general culture like? how do they behave generally? I don't want a full history, but i want a general concept. if players want to alter it, thats totally cool, but simply giving me the stats and two sentences? that is just shallow



At least every creature has a picture. And a picture is worth a thousand words.
That was the same in 3E and they had fluff. Also, while i really really do ilke pictures and tend to whien if they aren't in a description, the writing is more important in description
from
EE

AslanCross
2008-06-13, 05:14 PM
Of course it isn't enough. Is it intelligent. What is their general culture like? how do they behave generally? I don't want a full history, but i want a general concept. if players want to alter it, thats totally cool, but simply giving me the stats and two sentences? that is just shallow

I think intelligence is shown enough in the creature's statblock. While I partially agree with you, many people tend to homebrew the culture and society of entire races anyway. (I remember someone talking about Spanish orcs, which is awesome.) I think the mere fact that there are several versions of each monster to fill various niches is well done. The fluff is up to the DM.



That was the same in 3E and they had fluff. Also, while i really really do ilke pictures and tend to whien if they aren't in a description, the writing is more important in description
from
EE

Not all creatures in the 3.5 MM had pictures. I still have no idea what a Nightcrawler looks like. We only know what the ordinary Ogre looks like, but what about the 4th-level barbarian? There are no illustrations for Merrow and Aquatic trolls either. What do other animated objects look like? The only one the MM contains is the creepy Lumiere knock-off.

Don't get me wrong. I really would like to see detailed fluff (MM5 had lots of it for every creature), but I tend to see artwork as more important.

Furthermore, the 4E=WoW argument again. I'm getting really tired of this. Simplicity does not mean it is a video game.

Oslecamo
2008-06-13, 05:33 PM
I think intelligence is shown enough in the creature's statblock. While I partially agree with you, many people tend to homebrew the culture and society of entire races anyway. (I remember someone talking about Spanish orcs, which is awesome.) I think the mere fact that there are several versions of each monster to fill various niches is well done. The fluff is up to the DM.


Actually, I enjoy fluff being available. The monsters wich have a premade background are the ones I remember most foundly. I loved the lords of madness splatbook, wich explained the daily life of many horrific creatures like Mindflayers and Beholders.

Homebrewing is fine, but hey, I like some idea to start from. That spanish orc idea may be awesome, but it's ony there because that for years people have created new flavors for orcs. Since the bedstory monster wich eats bad children evolving to the rank and file of evil armies, pseudo samurais on Warcraft, goblin slavers in Warhammer, tree hugging Hippies in Eberron, orcs flavor has developed a lot. It doesn't change the fact if someone hadn't remembered to create an original great flavor for orcs, nobody would ever think of changing it.

Just look at all fantasy games and stories out there. They keep recycling the same monsters. Dragons, vampires, zombies, orcs, faeries, you name it. They may change their fluff in each situation, with dragons being mindless brute beasts here and sophisticated sages there, but it's the original fluff wich connects them.

Fluffless monsters are doomed to disapear. Monsters with great fluff keep coming back.

Tokiko Mima
2008-06-13, 06:03 PM
Speaking of recycling... was it just me, or did it seem like every third piece of art in the MM 4e was recycled from 3e? For example, I took one look at the succubus picture and thought 'where'd her sister go?' because that is half of a picture from an encounter in the Expedition to the Demonweb Pits adventure. I did like most of the new art though. :smallwink:

FoE
2008-06-13, 06:16 PM
Well, unless your players are agents of evil forces and those benevolent wizards or dragons are sent to deal with them... or interfere in PC's masters' evil plans... or simply decide that PCs are doing too much evil and need to be stopped... yeah, never happens.:smallsigh:

Alright, maybe I should have clarified this point better ... My argument, Mort, is that evil campaigns are so rare that good creatures are mostly taking up space in the MM anyways. And when people do play 'evil' PCs, more often than not they're facing off with other evil NPCs. (Quite often it's like Spike opposing Angelus in Buffy the Vampire Slayer; yeah, Spike's an evil bastard, but that doesn't mean he wants to see the world destroyed. Why would he? The world is his playground.) Yeah, they do face do-gooders, but those are usually adventurer-types that you have to build anyways. So yeah, most times those lamassus and lantern archons are taking up space anyway.


In other news, orcs, goblins, kobolds etc. are still purely evil cannon fodder with no culture which doesn't justify slaughtering them en masse. Nothing new here.

Switch to Eberron, buddy, that's all I gotta tell you. Goblins once ruled an empire that spanned the whole world! Orcs are the guardians of nature! Elves are bastards! It's great! :smallbiggrin:


Fully fleshed out is exactly what I don't want in my MM, which I consider the generic guide to monsters. If I want all that fleshed out, I'll buy a campaign setting.

The awesome thing is that it lets you adapt the monsters to your use and still be able to surprise a player who's read the Monster Manual backwards and forwards. :smallbiggrin:

Morty
2008-06-14, 05:39 AM
Alright, maybe I should have clarified this point better ... My argument, Mort, is that evil campaigns are so rare that good creatures are mostly taking up space in the MM anyways. And when people do play 'evil' PCs, more often than not they're facing off with other evil NPCs. (Quite often it's like Spike opposing Angelus in Buffy the Vampire Slayer; yeah, Spike's an evil bastard, but that doesn't mean he wants to see the world destroyed. Why would he? The world is his playground.) Yeah, they do face do-gooders, but those are usually adventurer-types that you have to build anyways. So yeah, most times those lamassus and lantern archons are taking up space anyway.

Indeed, evil campaigns are rarer. But does that mean they should be entirely discarded? No. Also, evil campaigns had issues in 3ed because the alignment system was badly designed and Good-aligned monsters were few and boring. 4ed instead of providing more options for an interesting evil-alinged campaigns that aren't killing sprees, entirely ignores them and tells the players they have to shut up and play do-gooders. And cliched, run-off-the-mill do-gooders by that. Not to mention that, as AKA_Bait mentioned, Good PCs fighting Good enemies is entirely possible.
To be short and plain: PCs fighting Good opponents might happen rarer, but there should be nevertheless an option to do so.


Switch to Eberron, buddy, that's all I gotta tell you. Goblins once ruled an empire that spanned the whole world! Orcs are the guardians of nature! Elves are bastards! It's great! :smallbiggrin:

If not for Warforged, lightning-powered trains, airships, dinosaur-mounted halflings(what were they smoking?) and the like, maybe I would.:smallwink:
On the topic of moster details: yes, fluff is something we don't want in MM. However, I wouldn't mind some more detailed description of monsters' behavior, enviorment, etc. It's not something I'd really miss though.

RTGoodman
2008-06-14, 06:58 AM
[...]dinosaur-mounted halflings(what were they smoking?) [...]
That's actually one of the only parts of Eberron I like... :smalltongue:


On the topic of moster details: yes, fluff is something we don't want in MM. However, I wouldn't mind some more detailed description of monsters' behavior, enviorment, etc.
That's sort of what I want more of. I don't care for, you know, three pages of detail on this one goblin, but I wouldn't mind if entries included maybe a read-aloud description (if not to read aloud, then at least to get a good idea for when you DO describe it to the players) and some info on environment and stuff. Maybe a paragraph on X in Eberron and X in the Realms or whatever, but I play those seldom enough for it to matter. Some folks like it, though, I guess.

JaxGaret
2008-06-14, 07:09 AM
That's sort of what I want more of. I don't care for, you know, three pages of detail on this one goblin, but I wouldn't mind if entries included maybe a read-aloud description (if not to read aloud, then at least to get a good idea for when you DO describe it to the players) and some info on environment and stuff.


IN COMMON PARLANCE, “GOBLIN” refers to a specific sort of small, ill-tempered humanoid, but the word also refers to related beings of various sizes, such as bugbears and hobgoblins. Goblins are as prolific as humankind, but as a people, they’re less creative and more prone to warlike behavior.
Most goblins live in the wild places of the world, often underground, but they stay close enough to other humanoid settlements to prey on trade caravans and unwary travelers.
Goblins form tribes, each ruled by a chieftain. The chieftain is usually the strongest member of the tribe, though some chieftains rely on guile more than martial strength.
Hobgoblins rule the most civilized goblin tribes, sometimes
building small settlements and fortresses that rival those of human construction. Goblins and bugbears, left to their own devices, are more barbaric and less industrious than hobgoblins. Bugbears are dominant in a few mixed tribes, but hobgoblins tend to rise above their more brutish cousins unless severely outnumbered.
A member of the goblin species has skin of yellow, orange,
or red, often shading to brown. Its eyes have the same color variance; its hair is always dark. Big, pointed ears stick out from the sides of the head, and prominent sharp teeth sometimes jut from the mouth. Males have coarse body hair and might grow facial hair.

Lore
The following information about goblins can be obtained with a successful Nature check.
DC 15: Goblins’ bellicose nature can be traced, in part, to
their reverence for the god Bane, whom they see as the mightiest hobgoblin warchief in the cosmos. Some of Bane’s exarchs are goblins. Maglubiyet, the Battle Lord, and Hruggek, the Master of Ambush, are most prominent among these.
DC 20: Hobgoblins once had an empire in which bugbears and goblins were their servants. This empire fell to internal strife and interference from otherworldly forces—perhaps the fey, whom many goblins hate.
DC 25: Hobgoblins developed mundane and magical methods for taming and breeding beasts as guards, laborers, and soldiers. They have a knack for working with wolves and worgs, and some drake breeds owe their existence directly to hobgoblin meddling. All goblins carry on this tradition of domesticating beasts.
DC 30: Given their brutal magical traditions, hobgoblins might have created their cousins in ancient times: Bugbears served as elite warriors, and goblins worked as scouts and infiltrators. The disintegration of hobgoblin power led to widespread and diverse sorts of goblin tribes.

What, that's not enough for you? If you read all that out loud to your players, you would bore the snot out of them.

It's more than you need.

And that's without going into the subsections on Bugbears, Gobbos, Hobgobbos, and the multiple types of each of those.


Maybe a paragraph on X in Eberron and X in the Realms or whatever, but I play those seldom enough for it to matter. Some folks like it, though, I guess.

Those will be in their respective campaign setting books.

hamishspence
2008-06-14, 07:14 AM
Flavour text takes up a lot of space. I did however like books which covered monsters in real depth: more than even in MMIV and MMV long articles.

Serpent Kingdoms, Fiendish Codex I and II, Lords of Madness, all were big favourites for me. But I do not expect MMs to have that kind of detail. I expect high depth monsters to get books to themselves. As it stands I can live with sparse flavor in the MMs, the lore descriptions can be built on.

hamishspence
2008-06-14, 07:17 AM
It also said there are exceptions to the general rule of alignments at the start of the MM. At leasts now, you don't have "always X alignment" and "X subtype" to argue over: can present a Good succubus and point to that bit in the MM without people saying The Evil Subtype makes her always evil in the eyes of the multiverse.

marjan
2008-06-14, 10:38 AM
Indeed, evil campaigns are rarer. But does that mean they should be entirely discarded? No.


And it's not totally discarded. It's would just be silly that 50% of the pages are filled with something that you use 30% of the time.


Also, evil campaigns had issues in 3ed because the alignment system was badly designed and Good-aligned monsters were few and boring.


I don't really see that they are that much different from evil monsters. This is personal preference, I know, but I don't see why would you consider evil monsters interesting.


4ed instead of providing more options for an interesting evil-alinged campaigns that aren't killing sprees, entirely ignores them and tells the players they have to shut up and play do-gooders. And cliched, run-off-the-mill do-gooders by that.


Well, what would you expect. D&D has always been leaning toward good campaigns.


Not to mention that, as AKA_Bait mentioned, Good PCs fighting Good enemies is entirely possible.
To be short and plain: PCs fighting Good opponents might happen rarer, but there should be nevertheless an option to do so.


And as has been said, there are. It's just that they are hidden in Alignment:Any creatures. Like I said D&D is promoting good campaigns and this is much better than good-only creatures since it gives you more flexibility in good campaigns and it doesn't reduce it in evil campaigns. Put it simpler you can use it however you feel like.

Morty
2008-06-14, 11:00 AM
And it's not totally discarded. It's would just be silly that 50% of the pages are filled with something that you use 30% of the time.

Well, maybe, just maybe, if there were more stuff about playing evil campaigns, people would play more of them. And even if they wouldn't, I don't see why the style less people play should be entirely ignored. Because I don't see how are evil campaigns "not totally discarded". Players are told they shouldn't pick Evil and Chaotic Evil alignments, evil gods don't have their Channel Divinity feats and aren't detailed in PHB, clerics' and paladins' prayers are rather holy in nature... I'd call this totally discarded.


I don't really see that they are that much different from evil monsters. This is personal preference, I know, but I don't see why would you consider evil monsters interesting.

Good creatures in 3ed MM are few and bland especially when compared to sheer amount of demons, devils and the like.


Well, what would you expect. D&D has always been leaning toward good campaigns.

Well, there was this thing about killing sacred cows and throwing the stuff from older editions out of the window, but that's apparently limited.


And as has been said, there are. It's just that they are hidden in Alignment:Any creatures. Like I said D&D is promoting good campaigns and this is much better than good-only creatures since it gives you more flexibility in good campaigns and it doesn't reduce it in evil campaigns. Put it simpler you can use it however you feel like.

Alignment: Any creature is equally likely to be Evil or Good. So evil parties don't get any more opportunieties than good ones here, which means they're still unfairly short on stuff to fight. Also, how do good-only creatures "resctict" you any more than evil-only?

marjan
2008-06-14, 11:13 AM
Well, maybe, just maybe, if there were more stuff about playing evil campaigns, people would play more of them. And even if they wouldn't, I don't see why the style less people play should be entirely ignored. Because I don't see how are evil campaigns "not totally discarded". Players are told they shouldn't pick Evil and Chaotic Evil alignments, evil gods don't have their Channel Divinity feats and aren't detailed in PHB, clerics' and paladins' prayers are rather holy in nature... I'd call this totally discarded.


I was discussing MM here, not PHB, though you are right about that.



Good creatures in 3ed MM are few and bland especially when compared to sheer amount of demons, devils and the like.


What I want to know is what makes those good creatures bland and what makes evil creatures opposite (what would be the word?)?



Alignment: Any creature is equally likely to be Evil or Good. So evil parties don't get any more opportunieties than good ones here, which means they're still unfairly short on stuff to fight. Also, how do good-only creatures "resctict" you any more than evil-only?

And as has been pointed out evil parties are more likely to fight evil creatures than good parties are likely to fight good creatures, unless you make it "good vs. evil" campaign, which would maybe happen in less than a half evil campaigns.

JaxGaret
2008-06-14, 11:28 AM
Look at is this way: if 4e seemed to encourage playing Evil characters, there would be a huge brouhaha (I was going to use a word that starts with dung and ends in storm) about it, and it might even hurt $ale$. Why would they want to risk that? Better to just make everything Good-oriented, and simply allow players that want Evil campaigns to easily create that type of campaign themselves. It really is quite simple, with the amount of neutral monsters in the MM.

Evil ends up fighting more Evil, proportionately, than Good fights Good, anyway - so if you combine that factor with what I stated above, it's easy to see why the vast majority of monsters in the MM would be Evil or Unaligned.

Mjoellnir
2008-06-14, 01:15 PM
The monster handbook ist the one big mistake in 4E. Why?

1. It retcons too many races. Tieflings become the children of a nation of infernal warlocks, angels become faceless mercenary-aliens, archons soldiers of some old over-elementals (armor with elemental body) instead of celestial beings (I want my lantern and my hound back!), Eladrin become high elves and loose all their cool abilities (and high elves get abilities they never ever had) I could go on for hours....

2. We lost nearly all good monsters, I've seen that some people here don't see it as a loss, but it is one, not only for evil campaigns. It steals many quest givers, allies and cohorts!

3. With the level adjustment gone we lost all rules for playing exotic monsters. And we lost the templates for making exotic offspring like half-dragons (if someone says that Dragonborn fill that role I'll roll a paladin and smite him!), half-fiends (I want to be able to mix my half-fiends with any race, not just a generic cambion entry, not mentioning that there's a spell in a FR-Sourcebook that adds the half-fiend template to the target) and half-celestials.

Morty
2008-06-14, 01:45 PM
What I want to know is what makes those good creatures bland and what makes evil creatures opposite (what would be the word?)?

Note that I'm talking about good outsiders here, something I should've clarified earlier. Their number is small when compared to Evil ones and they seem to be less fleshed out than them. It might be just my point of view, though.


And as has been pointed out evil parties are more likely to fight evil creatures than good parties are likely to fight good creatures, unless you make it "good vs. evil" campaign, which would maybe happen in less than a half evil campaigns.

I can't see how it's been "pointed out". Yes, people were saying that, but that doesn't make it true. Evil characters are very likely to be attract attention of good creatures, and on high levels those might even be celestials of some sort. After all, PCs in WoTC's preety little vision of how D&D sessions should look go after villains all the time, don't they? So why can't this work they other way around?
This actually raises another issue, namely that it seems stupid if there's noone beside the PCs to oppose all those evil monsters.


Look at is this way: if 4e seemed to encourage playing Evil characters, there would be a huge brouhaha (I was going to use a word that starts with dung and ends in storm) about it, and it might even hurt $ale$.

Who's talking about encouraging anything here? All I want is there to be an option to play evil characters without making stuff up or changing it. 4ed not only doesn't make it easier for me but actively hampers my goal by removing Good creatures from the MM and making all clerics holy and radiant by default.


Evil ends up fighting more Evil, proportionately, than Good fights Good, anyway - so if you combine that factor with what I stated above, it's easy to see why the vast majority of monsters in the MM would be Evil or Unaligned.

Majority I can accept. There being nearly no Good creatures in the MM I can't.

Indon
2008-06-14, 02:35 PM
I mean, it is like the WoW Beastanry
from
EE

Incorrect. The D20 WoW Monster Guide has significantly more details on many creatures than the most detailed flavor entries in the 4'th edition MM.

Even the shortest entries such as the Fire Elemental's (which boils down to, "they like burning things and are evil and hostile") is merely on par with many 4'th edition creatures.

marjan
2008-06-14, 03:41 PM
Note that I'm talking about good outsiders here, something I should've clarified earlier. Their number is small when compared to Evil ones and they seem to be less fleshed out than them. It might be just my point of view, though.


OK, you are right about numbers there. Though it's less obvious just using MM1, as most of the evil outsiders that are present in 3e now are from splatbooks.



I can't see how it's been "pointed out". Yes, people were saying that, but that doesn't make it true. Evil characters are very likely to be attract attention of good creatures, and on high levels those might even be celestials of some sort. After all, PCs in WoTC's preety little vision of how D&D sessions should look go after villains all the time, don't they? So why can't this work they other way around?
This actually raises another issue, namely that it seems stupid if there's noone beside the PCs to oppose all those evil monsters.


I assume that by "attracting attention " you think that you'll make someone wanna kick your but. If I'm wrong please correct me.

Yes, evil characters are going to attract attention of good creatures as well as the other way around, so we're same here. On the other hand evil characters are more likely to attract attention of the evil creatures than good characters attracting attention of good creatures.

Morty
2008-06-14, 03:47 PM
I assume that by "attracting attention " you think that you'll make someone wanna kick your but. If I'm wrong please correct me.

You're not, it's precisely what I meant.


Yes, evil characters are going to attract attention of good creatures as well as the other way around, so we're same here. On the other hand evil characters are more likely to attract attention of the evil creatures than good characters attracting attention of good creatures.

That's true; but Good vs. Good fights are still possible -by misunderstanding, different ideas on how good deeds should be performed, an evil plot to make good guys fight among themselves or simply different goals that have got nothing to do with alignment to name a few. So while Evil vs. Evil conflicts might be more common and Good vs. Good ones, the latter option isn't uncommon enough to entirely remove it from the rulebooks.

Arioch
2008-06-14, 03:50 PM
Hmm, flicking through the 4e MM....

Like I said in the "What's wrong with 4e?" thread, my only real gripes are with this book, and many of those are knee-jerk reactions to change. However, some info on crafting constructs and the like would have been nice.

Not really bothered about the lack of fluff. It was fun to read, but I never really used it. I don't like a lot of the demon and devil art, and I HATE the name "mezzodemon". It just sound ridiculous.

Probably my most extreme reaction was p27, "Bats". I was just "Wh-what? :smalleek: That's not a bat! That's a demon or something. Those little things flying around them? Those are bats, not that giant fiery evil hellfire thing!"

marjan
2008-06-14, 04:13 PM
You're not, it's precisely what I meant.



That's true; but Good vs. Good fights are still possible -by misunderstanding, different ideas on how good deeds should be performed, an evil plot to make good guys fight among themselves or simply different goals that have got nothing to do with alignment to name a few. So while Evil vs. Evil conflicts might be more common and Good vs. Good ones, the latter option isn't uncommon enough to entirely remove it from the rulebooks.

But it isn't entirely removed from rulebooks. Yes it would be nice if there were channel divinity feats foe evil deities, which will hopefully be corrected in 4e BoVD. Though you should note that paladins now aren't restricted to good characters. Also, Holy Avenger now can be wielded by any character.

marjan
2008-06-14, 06:10 PM
1. It retcons too many races. Tieflings become the children of a nation of infernal warlocks, angels become faceless mercenary-aliens, archons soldiers of some old over-elementals (armor with elemental body) instead of celestial beings (I want my lantern and my hound back!), Eladrin become high elves and loose all their cool abilities (and high elves get abilities they never ever had) I could go on for hours....


On some cases here I agree with you, but it is entirely matter of preference.



2. We lost nearly all good monsters, I've seen that some people here don't see it as a loss, but it is one, not only for evil campaigns. It steals many quest givers, allies and cheese!


Fixed. But as I was saying there are enough monsters for your purposes.



3. With the level adjustment gone we lost all rules for playing exotic monsters. And we lost the templates for making exotic offspring like half-dragons (if someone says that Dragonborn fill that role I'll roll a paladin and smite him!), half-fiends (I want to be able to mix my half-fiends with any race, not just a generic cambion entry, not mentioning that there's a spell in a FR-Sourcebook that adds the half-fiend template to the target) and half-celestials.

You see this as a loss, I don't. And here is the reason:

1. LA AKA suck in new and exotic way
You still have bunch of exotic races there, only difference is that they are no more stronger than any of the base races. And when you think of it, this was also the case in 3.x. When you compare Human Fighter to the same ECL Half-Dragon Minotaur guess which one is better.

2. Half-X AKA make a character whose race sounds like a genetic experiment (usually failed one).
Those are just new names for old monsters. And in the case of names I'd rather have Dragonborn and Cambions than Half-X X. As for stats look at my thoughts of LA.

Mjoellnir
2008-06-15, 04:58 AM
On some cases here I agree with you, but it is entirely matter of preference.

Not really. It should still be D&D and fit into all the settings that came before it. What would you say if Halflings in Tolkiens Hobbit would have been 3m-giants, and in Lord of the Rings the small Hobbits we know? I despise nothing more in a setting than retcons (that's why I really, really hate WarCraft). We have all those stories and games with Solars, Planetars, Hound Archons, Half-Fiends, Aasimar, the old Tieflings etc. What has happened to them now??? It would be a matter of preference if this was a new setting, next to normal D&D, but this is what we will get in the Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk etc...


Fixed. But as I was saying there are enough monsters for your purposes.

Not really, there are no monsters, that you can set in front of a PC and he will be pretty sure that it won't harm him. Most Monsters are standard enemys, nothing majestic like a solar, a ghaele eladrin or a gold dragon.


You see this as a loss, I don't. And here is the reason:

1. LA AKA suck in new and exotic way
You still have bunch of exotic races there, only difference is that they are no more stronger than any of the base races. And when you think of it, this was also the case in 3.x. When you compare Human Fighter to the same ECL Half-Dragon Minotaur guess which one is better.

2. Half-X AKA make a character whose race sounds like a genetic experiment (usually failed one).
Those are just new names for old monsters. And in the case of names I'd rather have Dragonborn and Cambions than Half-X X. As for stats look at my thoughts of LA.

The LA-System isn't really good, but it's not that bad either. It makes superhuman characters playable but gives them a drawback to balance them against the other characters.

1. Which exotic races are you talking about? Shadar-Kai? Goblins? Dragonborn? Dragonborn have nothing to do with half-dragons and their connection to sorcerers (anybody here who remembers the dragon disciple???), they are simply a race that looks like mutilated dragons who can spit something and don't fit in anywhere.
I would say, that the human is better, but that's not the point. The rules aren't perfect, but there are many cool things you can play with them.

2. I always found hybrids cool, if I don't play an elf, I play some kind of hybrid (in Star Trek Klingon/El-Aurian), in D&D they can sometimes make great NPC's or sometimes PC's. I think it's really great, that they eliminated the LA's of Tieflings and Drow by making all "normal" races as powerful as the latter, but there are things you can't play now. Cambions have too high ability scores to be a normal race, and the great thing about the "HALF-" was that the creature had abilities from both races. Now it's simply "devil-human-standard". What if I like to make a Drow/Demon Cambion? What if I like to play a half-celestial even if everybody else in the party will have more levels and powers than I? What if I want a real evil, demented overlord who has a bodyguard of enslaved Eladrin he augmented via ritual with the half-fiend-template, and which can teleport around the battlefield to protect him? The only template players can get is the lich template, why is there nothing for ghaele and bralani eladrin and for half-creatures?

Morty
2008-06-15, 05:11 AM
But it isn't entirely removed from rulebooks. Yes it would be nice if there were channel divinity feats foe evil deities, which will hopefully be corrected in 4e BoVD. Though you should note that paladins now aren't restricted to good characters. Also, Holy Avenger now can be wielded by any character.

Not entirely, maybe. But close enough. Yes, Paladins can be of any alignment now, but it's explictly said that Evil and Chaotic Evil paladins are supposed to be villains, and paladin's prayers need tweaking in order to fit a servant of an evil diety. They don't really fit Unaligned paladin all that much either. And of course, Good creatures are absent from MM.

Mjoellnir
2008-06-15, 08:12 AM
I just looked at the templates in the DMG, am I crazy or is becoming a lich seriously broken? (There's a complete description of the necessary ritual, so it's possible for player characters to acquire it and become lichs....) They, get either 8 or 6 hitpoints per level they already have and their constitution bonus for a second time.:smalleek:

Learnedguy
2008-06-15, 08:30 AM
2. I always found hybrids cool, if I don't play an elf, I play some kind of hybrid (in Star Trek Klingon/El-Aurian), in D&D they can sometimes make great NPC's or sometimes PC's. I think it's really great, that they eliminated the LA's of Tieflings and Drow by making all "normal" races as powerful as the latter, but there are things you can't play now. Cambions have too high ability scores to be a normal race, and the great thing about the "HALF-" was that the creature had abilities from both races. Now it's simply "devil-human-standard". What if I like to make a Drow/Demon Cambion? What if I like to play a half-celestial even if everybody else in the party will have more levels and powers than I? What if I want a real evil, demented overlord who has a bodyguard of enslaved Eladrin he augmented via ritual with the half-fiend-template, and which can teleport around the battlefield to protect him? The only template players can get is the lich template, why is there nothing for ghaele and bralani eladrin and for half-creatures?

People like you always freak me out:smalltongue:!

"Okay, I'm a human warlock."

"And I'm a dwarven fighter!"

"And I'm gonna be a half-demonic flying centaur minotaur hybrid!"

"...What:smalleek:?!"

Tengu
2008-06-15, 09:18 AM
I just looked at the templates in the DMG, am I crazy or is becoming a lich seriously broken? (There's a complete description of the necessary ritual, so it's possible for player characters to acquire it and become lichs....) They, get either 8 or 6 hitpoints per level they already have and their constitution bonus for a second time.:smalleek:

Templates are for NPCs only.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-06-15, 09:51 AM
Templates are for NPCs only.

And how. There's no mechanic for applying them to PCs, and no indication that it should be possible.

For PCs, becoming a lich would definitely be a paragon path or epic destiny (probably with Ritual Casting as a requirement).

... now there's an idea.

Mjoellnir
2008-06-15, 09:51 AM
)
People like you always freak me out:smalltongue:!

"Okay, I'm a human warlock."

"And I'm a dwarven fighter!"

"And I'm gonna be a half-demonic flying centaur minotaur hybrid!"

"...What:smalleek:?!"

Nono, I only play elves/eladrin. The worst I would do as a player character is a half-fey (feyborn). But I like to have options, and I don't mean such things like that abomination, or anything like it (http://www.feartheboot.com/comic/images/strips/009.jpg). But I have no problem with a half-dragon a bariaur and a slaad in the party.

@ Tengu

Then why describe the ritual for making a lich? Any ritual caster who gets the ritual book of a lich can become one at level 14. I think I have to nerf the template for player use. (And the others, so I don't get a whole lich party.:smallbiggrin: )

Tsotha-lanti
2008-06-15, 10:01 AM
Then why describe the ritual for making a lich? Any ritual caster who gets the ritual book of a lich can become one at level 14. I think I have to nerf the template for player use. (And the others, so I don't get a whole lich party.:smallbiggrin: )

There's no way to nerf it or balance it for PC use, since there's no LA. (Then again, it didn't actually work out in 3.5 either.)

Page 175 of the DMG does seems pretty explicit about it - you can add templates to monsters, and to NPCs (that's very specific - "you can also add a functional template to a nonplayer character").

Seriously, paragon path/epic destiny to balance it out. I have no clue why the ritual is in the MM; I can't see any need for the mechanics of it.

hamishspence
2008-06-15, 10:11 AM
I figure that the mechanics are there for the players to interrupt: they get wind of fact that Evil Wizard X is collecting the components needed to become a lich, arrive, interrupt the ritual. Similar with vampire. Best guess at the moment.

Mjoellnir
2008-06-15, 10:27 AM
Well, and evil party wizard (or even good elf wizard who wants to become something like a baelnorn) gets the ritual from the defeated would-be lich, and the necessary components?:smallfrown:

I think of balancing it for players by removing the hp-bonus, weakening some powers and allowing each player to earn a fitting template at 15. level.

Indon
2008-06-15, 10:46 AM
I just looked at the templates in the DMG, am I crazy or is becoming a lich seriously broken? (There's a complete description of the necessary ritual, so it's possible for player characters to acquire it and become lichs....) They, get either 8 or 6 hitpoints per level they already have and their constitution bonus for a second time.:smalleek:

You don't add the hit points for a template, you replace them.

See: Class templates. If your interpretation was correct, all NPC's with PC classes would essentially have double hit points.

On the other hand, isn't there a ritual detailed in the book?

marjan
2008-06-15, 10:50 AM
Not really. It should still be D&D and fit into all the settings that came before it. What would you say if Halflings in Tolkiens Hobbit would have been 3m-giants, and in Lord of the Rings the small Hobbits we know? I despise nothing more in a setting than retcons (that's why I really, really hate WarCraft). We have all those stories and games with Solars, Planetars, Hound Archons, Half-Fiends, Aasimar, the old Tieflings etc. What has happened to them now??? It would be a matter of preference if this was a new setting, next to normal D&D, but this is what we will get in the Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk etc...


And how is it that it doesn't fit in any setting? You still have half-fiends (and cambions were in 2e if I'm not wrong, while none of the Half-X were there), Tieflings are still there (only difference is that they are now in PHB), some are missing, but: You heard of a book Monsters of Faerun? It's 3.0, so I don't think it's unreasonable that we'll see one for 4e as well. And changing a fluff of the monsters is something that settings have done in past, so I don't really see a problem there.



Not really, there are no monsters, that you can set in front of a PC and he will be pretty sure that it won't harm him. Most Monsters are standard enemys, nothing majestic like a solar, a ghaele eladrin or a gold dragon.


Hold on. Your players beat anything that they don't find majestic enough? Or a monster will attack PC if it isn't majestic? Either way it's not the problem with monster it's the problem how monster (or PC) is used. There are enough monsters that can be used without fight. And even monsters that are evil don't always attack on sight.



1. Which exotic races are you talking about? Shadar-Kai? Goblins? Dragonborn? Dragonborn have nothing to do with half-dragons and their connection to sorcerers (anybody here who remembers the dragon disciple???), they are simply a race that looks like mutilated dragons who can spit something and don't fit in anywhere.


Shadar-Kai? Those weren't in MM1 anyway. Goblins? Not really exotic and included even as a playable race. Dragonborn? Why exactly are they completely different from Half-Dragons and what does Dragon Disciple class has to do with it? If nothing else DD makes Half-Dragons more idiotic - Half-Dragons are supposed to be byproducts of dragons screwing around and now you can become one by simply taking a class after you are born and have no connection to dragons.



The rules aren't perfect, but there are many cool things you can play with them.


Always been the case and will always be.



Cambions have too high ability scores to be a normal race

As do minotaurs, and yet they are playable race in 4e.



the great thing about the "HALF-" was that the creature had abilities from both races. Now it's simply "devil-human-standard".

If you are talking from role-playing perspective than you should be able to do it in 4e, too. Note that it's logical that cross-breading doesn't always give all the abilities of both races.

Simple example: halflings are small, minotaurs are large. Half-minotaur halfling won't be small and large at the same time.
For more complicated example take contradictory abilities or take a few lessons in biology.



What if I want a real evil, demented overlord who has a bodyguard of enslaved Eladrin he augmented via ritual with the half-fiend-template, and which can teleport around the battlefield to protect him? The only template players can get is the lich template, why is there nothing for ghaele and bralani eladrin and for half-creatures?

Note that fluff-wise you can do this by multiclassing said Eladrin into a warlock and making pact, you even get some abilities to reflect this. And that isn't ritual anyway in 3e unless you make up one yourself, so make up one yourself in 4e as well. The only rituals that I know of in 3e are for lich (in 4e) and dragonborn (from 3.5 splatbook).

Antacid
2008-06-15, 10:52 AM
I think of balancing it for players by removing the hp-bonus, weakening some powers and allowing each player to earn a fitting template at 15. level.

And to think a page ago you were complaining that 4e had taken away all the good options. You're already fantasising about letting your players all play Eladrin liches.

Psst... the DMG also says you can put multiple templates onto one monster, or in your case, player. I wonder if any of your players would like to play a Feyborn Deathmaster Demagogue?

Tsotha-lanti
2008-06-15, 11:37 AM
On the other hand, isn't there a ritual detailed in the book?

The ritual is in the MM, page 177 or somesuch.

Firestar27
2008-06-15, 11:56 AM
The Terrasque, I think, is still freaking awesome. Its new powers are way cool. Not to mention that the idea of it living in the core of the planet makes it even more like Lavos the the old one.

I actually couldn't find the Terrasque. What page is it on? It's not in the table of contents.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-06-15, 12:00 PM
I actually couldn't find the Terrasque. What page is it on? It's not in the table of contents.

I have no clue, but the Tarrasque is on page 13 (under Abominations).

Mjoellnir
2008-06-15, 12:27 PM
You don't add the hit points for a template, you replace them.

See: Class templates. If your interpretation was correct, all NPC's with PC classes would essentially have double hit points.

That makes sense, thanks a lot!:smallsmile:


And how is it that it doesn't fit in any setting? You still have half-fiends (and cambions were in 2e if I'm not wrong, while none of the Half-X were there), Tieflings are still there (only difference is that they are now in PHB), some are missing, but: You heard of a book Monsters of Faerun? It's 3.0, so I don't think it's unreasonable that we'll see one for 4e as well. And changing a fluff of the monsters is something that settings have done in past, so I don't really see a problem there.

I only play D&D-P&P since 3.0. The guys from wizards already said, that there will be three FR-books, one adventure, one campaign guide, and one player handbook, no monster book. And they maybe changed a bit, but after Baldur's Gate I met in 3E Solars, Devas, Planetars, they were all there. Now all old angels have completely disappeared.


Hold on. Your players beat anything that they don't find majestic enough? Or a monster will attack PC if it isn't majestic? Either way it's not the problem with monster it's the problem how monster (or PC) is used. There are enough monsters that can be used without fight. And even monsters that are evil don't always attack on sight.

My players don't do such things, but before 4E you could be relatively sure, that a Solar won't turn on your paladin of Lathander or betray him. Now an Angel can tell you that he was send by Torm or another good deity but the players have no way other than insight to see if he's lying and in reality a servant of Bane. In OOTS there was a good joke about dragons: color-coded for YOUR convenience. D&D always was pretty black/white, it's not a good idea to totally remake it.


Shadar-Kai? Those weren't in MM1 anyway. Goblins? Not really exotic and included even as a playable race. Dragonborn? Why exactly are they completely different from Half-Dragons and what does Dragon Disciple class has to do with it? If nothing else DD makes Half-Dragons more idiotic - Half-Dragons are supposed to be byproducts of dragons screwing around and now you can become one by simply taking a class after you are born and have no connection to dragons.

Well, maybe you could "use" Dragonborn as half-dragons, but they are very different from the fluff, look and powers. Of course, you can change the first two, but you will always get the same, regardless of making the child of a blue dragon and a human or of a golden dragon and a halfling. The template made beings where you could recognize the parents and which had real characterics from a dragon.
I think you didn't really read the flufftext of the Dragon Disciple, it's a class for people who have a dragon as an ancestor and want to bring out his powers in them. I hope that it comes back as a paragon path.


If you are talking from role-playing perspective than you should be able to do it in 4e, too. Note that it's logical that cross-breading doesn't always give all the abilities of both races.

Simple example: halflings are small, minotaurs are large. Half-minotaur halfling won't be small and large at the same time.
For more complicated example take contradictory abilities or take a few lessons in biology.

No need to get snippy, genetics is my favourite part of biology, I once tried to make half elves for every possible combination of humans with different elf races (an not by adding everything), and originally I would have calculated half-celestials for every possible combination (hound archon and human, ghaele eladrin and sun elf, solar and halfling etc.), but that would have been a real load of work, and now I see the half-celestial-template as divine magic. It doesn't matter which good outsider falls in love with a mortal, the child is always a perfected angelic version of the mortal parent-race, with additional divine abilities.


As do minotaurs, and yet they are playable race in 4e

Cambions are worse, and I liked the concept of the half-fiend template because of the same things like the half-celestial.


And to think a page ago you were complaining that 4e had taken away all the good options. You're already fantasising about letting your players all play Eladrin liches.

Psst... the DMG also says you can put multiple templates onto one monster, or in your case, player. I wonder if any of your players would like to play a Feyborn Deathmaster Demagogue?

I still think that 4E has taken away all the good options. Lich isn't good, not even if you're a Baelnorn who looks as good as the Srinshee. With good options I meant the half-dragon, the half-celestial and the half-fiend.

The DMG says, that you can put TWO templates maximum on an NSC, and that this makes the NSC a solo monster. I would never allow more than one for a PC. And no, no player that I know would like to play a Feyborn Deathmaster Demagogue. I have only one player who likes to play dragons and half-dragons (the first is pretty hard to balance I let him make a blue dragon whelp in WarCraft once, but normally he made a human dragon disciple, he doesn't really like the dragonborn), and myself, I like the idea of a feyborn eladrin fighter (but the "undeniable beauty"-power would only be usable against the opposite gender).

marjan
2008-06-15, 02:57 PM
I only play D&D-P&P since 3.0. The guys from wizards already said, that there will be three FR-books, one adventure, one campaign guide, and one player handbook, no monster book. And they maybe changed a bit, but after Baldur's Gate I met in 3E Solars, Devas, Planetars, they were all there. Now all old angels have completely disappeared.


I also have played only 3e. My experience with 2e is only from video games.
As for those monsters disappearing: Some of the monsters might be introduced in Campaign Guide, as they did for Eberron, so it's still early to judge what will campaign settings flora and fauna look like. Core books are supposed to be something you can use for every setting and if I want to play Eberron I really don't Faerun monsters and the other way around.



My players don't do such things, but before 4E you could be relatively sure, that a Solar won't turn on your paladin of Lathander or betray him. Now an Angel can tell you that he was send by Torm or another good deity but the players have no way other than insight to see if he's lying and in reality a servant of Bane. In OOTS there was a good joke about dragons: color-coded for YOUR convenience. D&D always was pretty black/white, it's not a good idea to totally remake it.


That's again the matter of preference. If you and your players want to play "black and white campaign" you can do so. But on the other hand if you want to play a campaign where not everything is "black and white" you can also do that, even if the alignment of monsters is static (just let succubus disguised as solar "come in name of Lathander"). It's just that you have to put little work into it. And, beside without some serious Knowledge check, how were you able to recognize something with wings as servant of your god?



Well, maybe you could "use" Dragonborn as half-dragons, but they are very different from the fluff, look and powers. Of course, you can change the first two, but you will always get the same, regardless of making the child of a blue dragon and a human or of a golden dragon and a halfling. The template made beings where you could recognize the parents and which had real characterics from a dragon.


Not really. You choose type of your breath weapon when you create your Dragonborn character. You basically did the same thing in 3e, so I don't see why is that a problem in 4e. Things you don't get are:
- energy immunity: which is too much for 1st level character and didn't bring anything special to game anyway
- huge ability boosts: this is balance issue, but I don't see a problem with it anyway



I think you didn't really read the flufftext of the Dragon Disciple, it's a class for people who have a dragon as an ancestor and want to bring out his powers in them. I hope that it comes back as a paragon path.


Yes, I have read it. It's just that I'm not big fan of magic rituals to change your character especially when it is in form of gaining new levels.



No need to get snippy, genetics is my favourite part of biology, I once tried to make half elves for every possible combination of humans with different elf races (an not by adding everything), and originally I would have calculated half-celestials for every possible combination (hound archon and human, ghaele eladrin and sun elf, solar and halfling etc.), but that would have been a real load of work, and now I see the half-celestial-template as divine magic. It doesn't matter which good outsider falls in love with a mortal, the child is always a perfected angelic version of the mortal parent-race, with additional divine abilities.


My apologies. That sentence didn't suppose to mean "Learn biology you moron", it was suppose to mean "there are bunch of examples in genetics that 2+2 isn't always equal 4 but I don't remember them so you might want to look it yourself". And, why doesn't it make sense that no matter what mortal race said solar falls in love with the child is always perfect cross-bread. This even brings more simplicity.



Cambions are worse, and I liked the concept of the half-fiend template because of the same things like the half-celestial.


Homebrew is your friend. Aside from that you can always use thieflings abilities and roll with different name. You cannot expect to have same abilities as 3e half-fiends in 4e since there is no LA. So you just need to water them down. As far as I can see Half-fiends didn't bring anything new to the table aside from the abilities and those would be to much for 4e.



I still think that 4E has taken away all the good options. Lich isn't good, not even if you're a Baelnorn who looks as good as the Srinshee. With good options I meant the half-dragon, the half-celestial and the half-fiend.


Those are still present, they are just hidden under a different name.



The DMG says, that you can put TWO templates maximum on an NSC, and that this makes the NSC a solo monster. I would never allow more than one for a PC. And no, no player that I know would like to play a Feyborn Deathmaster Demagogue. I have only one player who likes to play dragons and half-dragons (the first is pretty hard to balance I let him make a blue dragon whelp in WarCraft once, but normally he made a human dragon disciple, he doesn't really like the dragonborn), and myself, I like the idea of a feyborn eladrin fighter (but the "undeniable beauty"-power would only be usable against the opposite gender).

And again what is it about Dragonborn that makes them inferior to Half-dragons in representing what your players want?

Mjoellnir
2008-06-16, 07:10 AM
I also have played only 3e. My experience with 2e is only from video games.
As for those monsters disappearing: Some of the monsters might be introduced in Campaign Guide, as they did for Eberron, so it's still early to judge what will campaign settings flora and fauna look like. Core books are supposed to be something you can use for every setting and if I want to play Eberron I really don't Faerun monsters and the other way around.

If they want to introduce all the missing monsters, that will cost a lot of space, and they are not only faerunian monsters. All Angels, Archons, Dragons etc. belonged to nearly all existing settings, which would mean, that they had to write them into EVERY Campaign Guide. That's why they were core.


That's again the matter of preference. If you and your players want to play "black and white campaign" you can do so. But on the other hand if you want to play a campaign where not everything is "black and white" you can also do that, even if the alignment of monsters is static (just let succubus disguised as solar "come in name of Lathander"). It's just that you have to put little work into it. And, beside without some serious Knowledge check, how were you able to recognize something with wings as servant of your god?

A succubus that disguises itself is nice, but for that there were always things like detect evil, true seeing and other spells. For recognizing an angel you don't need a knowledge check, for which deity he works doesn't really matter, you knew, that he was a servant of good (fallen angels were rare). Now every angel looks the same, and they work for all gods. That this weird energy angels killed the concept of aasimar doesn't help either...


Not really. You choose type of your breath weapon when you create your Dragonborn character. You basically did the same thing in 3e, so I don't see why is that a problem in 4e. Things you don't get are:
- energy immunity: which is too much for 1st level character and didn't bring anything special to game anyway
- huge ability boosts: this is balance issue, but I don't see a problem with it anyway

Hm.... You know what? Maybe you're right. Maybe it's just how they presented it... As a common race with a civilization, that looks like dragondwarfs and desperately tries to separate them from the real dragons. I've thought a second time about it, and if I take all the fluff and the looks of the old half-dragons, and make one or two little rule modifications (ability scores +2 strength, and +2 to one ability score of your choice (to represent the other race), and exchange Dragonborn Fury for Dual Heritage (can take feats of Dragonborn and the other race) I could get real nice playable and balanced dragonborns. :smallsmile:


Yes, I have read it. It's just that I'm not big fan of magic rituals to change your character especially when it is in form of gaining new levels.

Well, that's a question of flavour then, I generally like such rituals, even, if I would never ever use most of them on my character.:smallbiggrin:


My apologies. That sentence didn't suppose to mean "Learn biology you moron", it was suppose to mean "there are bunch of examples in genetics that 2+2 isn't always equal 4 but I don't remember them so you might want to look it yourself". And, why doesn't it make sense that no matter what mortal race said solar falls in love with the child is always perfect cross-bread. This even brings more simplicity.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.:smalleek: Of course in genetics 2 and 2 doesn't make 4. Neither does 3 and 1. It's either 3, 1 or 2. If it was 4 we would all be gods.:smallwink:
I don't quite understand what you mean with a perfect cross-bread? You think it should always be something uniform like an anti-cambion, regardless of what the parents were?


Homebrew is your friend. Aside from that you can always use thieflings abilities and roll with different name. You cannot expect to have same abilities as 3e half-fiends in 4e since there is no LA. So you just need to water them down. As far as I can see Half-fiends didn't bring anything new to the table aside from the abilities and those would be to much for 4e.

Well homebrewing half-fiends would require a bit more, because they can (like the cambions) fly. At the moment I'm thinking of something similar the the half-dragon I mentioned above but there are some problems....


Those are still present, they are just hidden under a different name.

Well, with different pictures, different abilities, different background.... And there are really no half-celestials anymore.:smallwink:

marjan
2008-06-16, 03:21 PM
If they want to introduce all the missing monsters, that will cost a lot of space, and they are not only faerunian monsters. All Angels, Archons, Dragons etc. belonged to nearly all existing settings, which would mean, that they had to write them into EVERY Campaign Guide. That's why they were core.


Yes, some of those monsters are not in MM, but the campaign books aren't the only source of monsters, there are also additional MMs. Problem here is that some things changed in 4e (as Starsinger pointed out starpact warlocks make pacts with creatures of Far Realms so it would be fair to include some of those).



A succubus that disguises itself is nice, but for that there were always things like detect evil, true seeing and other spells. For recognizing an angel you don't need a knowledge check, for which deity he works doesn't really matter, you knew, that he was a servant of good (fallen angels were rare). Now every angel looks the same, and they work for all gods. That this weird energy angels killed the concept of aasimar doesn't help either...


Problem here is that even if succubus isn't disguised, how exactly do you know anything about it without appropriate knowledge check. Detect Evil and similar spells are what was ruining the game in some people opinion, so I always try to disregard it in arguments. You do need knowledge check since it isn't something you see every day (if you were playing differently nothing is stopping you from doing the same now). On the other hand, angels, solars and archons aren't always the only servant of gods. In BoED you have a god with Celestial Dwarf (not looking much different than ordinary dwarf) as his servant.



Hm.... You know what? Maybe you're right. Maybe it's just how they presented it... As a common race with a civilization, that looks like dragondwarfs and desperately tries to separate them from the real dragons. I've thought a second time about it, and if I take all the fluff and the looks of the old half-dragons, and make one or two little rule modifications (ability scores +2 strength, and +2 to one ability score of your choice (to represent the other race), and exchange Dragonborn Fury for Dual Heritage (can take feats of Dragonborn and the other race) I could get real nice playable and balanced dragonborns. :smallsmile:


That should work fine IMO. House-rules - DM's best friends.:smallsmile:
You should probably assign the second ability score yourself to avoid players abusing it.



I don't quite understand what you mean with a perfect cross-bread? You think it should always be something uniform like an anti-cambion, regardless of what the parents were?


By perfect cross-bread I meant they had all abilities of both races. Not necessarily something uniform, but the variations can be small enough to not bother naming them mechanically (just go with cosmetic looks).



Well homebrewing half-fiends would require a bit more, because they can (like the cambions) fly. At the moment I'm thinking of something similar the the half-dragon I mentioned above but there are some problems....


As far as I can see, most races follow almost same formula:
+2 to 2 stats, +2 to two skills, some minor trait (like limited proficiency or bonus to some defenses) and a racial power. Shouldn't be to hard to do it.

JaxGaret
2008-06-16, 07:48 PM
I just want to let everyone know that I am working on a system that will give players the capability of using any monster in the game as a playable PC in a 4e campaign.

It's still in the works, but it will be forthcoming.

marjan
2008-06-16, 08:01 PM
I just want to let everyone know that I am working on a system that will give players the capability of using any monster in the game as a playable PC in a 4e campaign.

It's still in the works, but it will be forthcoming.

Please let us know when you do so. I'd like to see how this will work out... and complain if you nerf some of my favorites too much. :smallbiggrin:

tbarrie
2008-06-16, 09:29 PM
You don't add the hit points for a template, you replace them.

See: Class templates. If your interpretation was correct, all NPC's with PC classes would essentially have double hit points.

No, you add hit points. Adding a template turns a normal monster into an elite, and elites are supposed to have roughly double the hit points of normal monsters.

And you don't use the class templates to make a normal NPC. NPCs are made with the NPC gudelines on page 187 of the DMG; the class templates are used to add class abilities to a monster, like a Minotaur Warlord or something.

Mjoellnir
2008-06-17, 08:37 AM
Yes, some of those monsters are not in MM, but the campaign books aren't the only source of monsters, there are also additional MMs. Problem here is that some things changed in 4e (as Starsinger pointed out starpact warlocks make pacts with creatures of Far Realms so it would be fair to include some of those).

The problem isn't the lack of monsters, but the replacement of them. Monster that aren't there can be added. But adding the monsters that were replaced through others is nearly impossible.


Problem here is that even if succubus isn't disguised, how exactly do you know anything about it without appropriate knowledge check. Detect Evil and similar spells are what was ruining the game in some people opinion, so I always try to disregard it in arguments. You do need knowledge check since it isn't something you see every day (if you were playing differently nothing is stopping you from doing the same now). On the other hand, angels, solars and archons aren't always the only servant of gods. In BoED you have a god with Celestial Dwarf (not looking much different than ordinary dwarf) as his servant.

I normally think that the characters which come from civilization "know" at least as much as a peasant in medieval europe, the otherworldly beautiful being with white-feathered wings is supposed to be good, and the one with goat legs, bat wings and carnivorous teeth is supposed to be evil.:smallwink:
I can live without detect evil, and I would still pull such tricks myself like as angels disguised villains or even neutral succubi, the problem for me is that the old angels and archons were replaced by beings that have nothing to do with them.


That should work fine IMO. House-rules - DM's best friends.:smallsmile:
You should probably assign the second ability score yourself to avoid players abusing it.

Thanks. If someone want to assign his score freely he has to take human (strenght is still a no-no :smallwink: ) otherwise he has to choose from the two scores of the mortal parent race. :smallamused:


By perfect cross-bread I meant they had all abilities of both races. Not necessarily something uniform, but the variations can be small enough to not bother naming them mechanically (just go with cosmetic looks).

Hm, I think I still don't understand.:smallconfused: A Sun Elf/Ghaele Eladrin would still be extremely different from a Halfling/Hound Archon, and nearly unplayable and with all the abilities of both races they would be unplayable on first level. :smallconfused:


As far as I can see, most races follow almost same formula:
+2 to 2 stats, +2 to two skills, some minor trait (like limited proficiency or bonus to some defenses) and a racial power. Shouldn't be to hard to do it.

Yep, that's how it works at the moment. The problem are only such abilities as natural flight. At the moment I think of making it an encounter power for such races (flying till end of encounter or for 5 minutes) and giving them an epic tier feat "Sustained Flight" which gives them flight as standard movement.