# MM II Identity Parade



## Phaezen (May 9, 2009)

From rpg.net: here



			
				Springsboundlessthorns said:
			
		

> Get ready for the parade...
> 
> Abolethic Skum (ooze)
> Abyssal Eviscerator (demon)
> ...


----------



## Phaezen (May 9, 2009)

part the second



> Dagon
> Dark Mantle
> Death Shard
> Demogorgon
> ...


----------



## Phaezen (May 9, 2009)

Part Three



> Ice Troll
> Infernal Armor Animus
> Iron Dragon
> Iron Golem
> ...


----------



## Phaezen (May 9, 2009)

Part IV



> Razor Hydra
> Remorhaz
> Retriever
> Rime Hound
> ...


----------



## Phaezen (May 9, 2009)

And last, but not least



> Tempest Wisp
> Thrarak, Exarch of Demogorgon
> Tiger
> Tomb Spider
> ...


----------



## Derren (May 9, 2009)

So they really replaced brass & bronze dragons for some incomprehensible reason...

And what does "Humans" mean? Shouldn't that be "Human Knight" or "Human whatever" instead of just "Human"?

Nice to see that they add Tigers to the list, although they look a bit misplaced with all the compound word monsters.
Some names are also a bit strange. Sphinx Mystery doesn't even sound like a creature.
Its funny that (with some exceptions) you can clearly tell which monster is a port from previous editions and which ones are new by just looking at if it has a compound name or not.


----------



## Phaezen (May 9, 2009)

Derren said:


> So they really replaced brass & bronze dragons for some incomprehensible reason...
> 
> And what does "Humans" mean? Shouldn't that be "Human Knight" or "Human whatever" instead of just "Human"?
> 
> ...




Getyer humans here, luverly while they are still warm.



> Humans
> 
> Cavalier (lvl 7)
> Diabolist (lvl 20)
> ...




I don't know, Sphinx Mystery sounds... fun


----------



## Samuel Leming (May 9, 2009)

*Where's the Flumph?*

There's no flumph on that list!!!

WotC is dead to me.


----------



## ppaladin123 (May 9, 2009)

Hmm Couatl and gold dragons. Looks like there'll be some good aligned entries after all.


----------



## Phaezen (May 9, 2009)

Also,  Dagon


----------



## Derren (May 9, 2009)

ppaladin123 said:


> Hmm Couatl and gold dragons. Looks like there'll be some good aligned entries after all.




Don't bet on it. All metallic and otherwise previously good dragons we have seen so far are unaligned now.


----------



## Phaezen (May 9, 2009)

Samuel Leming said:


> There's no flumph on that list!!!
> 
> WotC is dead to me.




The Flumph is freely available here

Wotc Lives!


----------



## ppaladin123 (May 9, 2009)

Ohh....there are stats in the back of the book to play as a bullywug, a duergar, and a kenku. sweet.


----------



## Dannager (May 9, 2009)

Derren said:


> So they really replaced brass & bronze dragons for some incomprehensible reason...



I don't think the reason is incomprehensible at all - a lot of people just didn't find brass or bronze dragons as compelling as copper, silver or gold dragons.  Adamantine dragons are far more interesting, thematically, to me.  In fact, this reason seems pretty obvious; even if you don't agree that those monsters aren't particularly compelling, it should be clear that a lot of people would find adamantine dragons cooler than bronze dragons.

So, really, was this actually incomprehensible to you?  I mean, I was able to come up with a completely comprehensible reason after thinking about it for all of 15 seconds, so it can't have been that hard.


----------



## lutecius (May 9, 2009)

Derren said:


> So they really replaced brass & bronze dragons for some incomprehensible reason...



I think they wanted to get rid of "alloy dragons". Maybe they'll appear in future books, there's always room for more dragons. I don't think it's a bad move. The brass and copper often got mixed up and Iron Dragon sounds good. "Adamantine dragon" is terrible, though.



> Some names are also a bit strange. Sphinx Mystery doesn't even sound like a creature.



It's probably Mystery Sphinx or Sphinx, Mystery. Still cheesy but makes more sense.



ppaladin123 said:


> Hmm Couatl and gold dragons. Looks like there'll be some good aligned entries after all.



There is no guarantee they are good.



Phaezen said:


> The Flumph is freely available here
> 
> Wotc Lives!



Doesn't count. Some D&D editions are more Awesome than others 

I wonder what the new erinyes looks like. Another ugly angel? Or maybe an über harpy, like in mythology?


----------



## Derren (May 9, 2009)

lutecius said:


> I think they wanted to get rid of "alloy dragons".




That doesn't make much sense. The metallic dragons don't consist out of metal, so whats the problem with them looking like an alloy?

The other often stated reason don't make sense either.
Reason 1: Bronze, brass and copper look to much alike. Thats why we now have iron, silver, adamantine and grey dragons (AKA the grey squad).

Reason 2: Those dragons being uninteresting? Bronze dragons were among the most fleshed out dragon types in previous edition which didn't follow some generic cliches. Compared to the bronzes role (A see borne dragon species which are fascinated by war) iron and adamantine dragons are dull and boring. And I take a prankster copper dragon over some cliche and boring "Big dragons who hordes treasure and otherwise has no personality" every day.


----------



## Piratecat (May 9, 2009)

Derren, this is not the place for that conversation. Enough.


----------



## lutecius (May 9, 2009)

Derren said:


> That doesn't make much sense. The metallic dragons don't consist out of metal, so whats the problem with them looking like an alloy?



I don't know, not sticking to a theme? And looking at the adamantine's abilities, they may (at least partly) be made of metal.



> The other often stated reason don't make sense either.
> Reason 1: Bronze, brass and copper look to much alike. Thats why we now have iron, silver, adamantine and grey dragons (AKA the grey squad)
> 
> Reason 2: Those dragons being uninteresting? Bronze dragons were among the most fleshed out dragon types in previous edition which didn't follow some generic cliches. Compared to the bronzes role (A see borne dragon species which are fascinated by war) iron and adamantine dragons are dull and boring. And I take a prankster copper dragon over some cliche and boring "Big dragons who hordes treasure and otherwise has no personality" every day.



Grey dragon? Anyway, I agree the adamantine is too much but Iron sounds cool and could be the new species fascinated by war. 
I'm sure you have noticed the mm1 monsters weren't very fleshed out and 4e doesn't care much about the old fluff. Also, i've always had trouble associating bronze with the sea.

But it could just be another case of pimping the new stuff first and keep the old to sell future books.


----------



## Derren (May 9, 2009)

lutecius said:


> I don't know, not sticking to a theme? And looking at the adamantine's abilities, they may (at least partly) be made of metal.
> 
> Grey dragon? Anyway, I agree the adamantine is too much but Iron sounds cool and could be the new species fascinated by war.
> I'm sure you have noticed the new mm1 monsters aren't very fleshed out and 4e doesn't care much about the old fluff. Also, i've always had trouble associating bronze with the sea.
> ...




As Piratecat said, lets not continue with this.


----------



## lutecius (May 9, 2009)

Derren said:


> As Piratecat said, lets not continue with this.



yeah sorry about that. I left the page open and forgot to refresh before posting so i missed the warning.


----------



## fba827 (May 9, 2009)

You can see (what I presume to be) the current concept for 16 of these things at the creature competition on WotC's site.

Creature Competition:

If you scroll down past the bracket, you can see a small picture as well as the basic flavor text/concept for each of them that was given to help people vote, such as what the Sphinx Mystery is and what not. (Though, the description for that particular one is basic enough that it could be a generic sphinx, but maybe they just needed a way to differentiate it from the entry named Sphinx already in MM1).


----------



## Samuel Leming (May 9, 2009)

Phaezen said:


> The Flumph is freely available here



A flumph as unaligned instead of lawful good.

They fail at flumph. Pseudoflumph!



Phaezen said:


> Wotc Lives!



More like undead...


----------



## Hellzon (May 9, 2009)

fba827 said:


> If you scroll down past the bracket, you can see a small picture[...]




And if you click the small picture, you get to see a big picture. The wonders of the Internet!

No snark intended, just seemes like you missed it. It's a full preview of the art for those 16 creatures.


----------



## Nymrohd (May 9, 2009)

Dagon! Dagon! Woohoo! I love Dagon!


----------



## doctorhook (May 9, 2009)

Awesome awesome!

Sorry if I missed this, but is there a list of which creatures have NPC stats? I gathered that there's Duergar, Kenkus, and Bullywugs, but is there any others?


----------



## Kwalish Kid (May 9, 2009)

Nymrohd said:


> Dagon! Dagon! Woohoo! I love Dagon!



You mean the Acroyear warrior that betrayed the Micronauts?


----------



## Shemeska (May 9, 2009)

Derren said:


> Its funny that (with some exceptions) you can clearly tell which monster is a port from previous editions and which ones are new by just looking at if it has a compound name or not.




That would be mildly funny, except it's a trend in pretty much every 4e book to this point.

DM: A NounVerb Noun approaches!
PCs: We run!


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 9, 2009)

I see a stronger presence of earlier-edition goodness, which is a little encouraging. A lot of interesting old faves, a lot of things I'm keen to see what they'll do with in 4e (coatl!). 

I'm still afraid that it'll be statvomit whose interesting qualities rival that of a well-illustrated IKEA manual, but it is possible they learned their lesson from the MM1. 



> DM: A NounVerb Noun approaches!
> PCs: We run!




Well, in 1e, it would have been...

DM: A Xzqyx Approaches!
PCs: We run!

In 4e, it is:

DM: A NounVerb Noun Approaches!
PCs: We kill it!

4e is not a game of survival, it's a game of butt-kicking and murder.


----------



## Nymrohd (May 9, 2009)

Judging from all the previews, they did learn a lesson from MM1. All the new monsters seem to have great heroslaying-fu.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 9, 2009)

> Judging from all the previews, they did learn a lesson from MM1. All the new monsters seem to have great heroslaying-fu.




How can you tell how much damage they deal just by their names?

That's a neat trick.

But not really the lesson I was talking about anyway (it's easy enough to kill PC's with MM1 critters, if that's what you want to do).


----------



## Nifft (May 9, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> DM: A Xzqyx Approaches!
> PCs: We run!



 If words like that had any chance of making it into the official Scrabble dictionary, that would cinch my vote.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## AllisterH (May 9, 2009)

To this day, I still can't pronounce xilacholoi (Hell, I can't even spell it---the flying manta ray evil creature).

I'll take Sphinx Mystery and compound words ANYTIME.

At least I can pronounce the bloody name....


----------



## Hereticus (May 9, 2009)

Where are the elementals?

I want pure, standard elementals.


----------



## Nymrohd (May 9, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> How can you tell how much damage they deal just by their names?
> 
> That's a neat trick.
> 
> But not really the lesson I was talking about anyway (it's easy enough to kill PC's with MM1 critters, if that's what you want to do).




Ehm the previews of MM2 have been coming for weeks. We know a lot of monsters from MM2 and they seem to be doing higher damage, have more actions and less hp. Pretty much everything people commented on as issues of MM1 monsters has been adressed to some point on previewed monsters.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 9, 2009)

Nymrohd said:
			
		

> Ehm the previews of MM2 have been coming for weeks. We know a lot of monsters from MM2 and they seem to be doing higher damage, have more actions and less hp. Pretty much everything people commented on as issues of MM1 monsters has been adressed to some point on previewed monsters.




Those are all keen things but, again, not really the lesson I was talking about. 

Any preview show how the new sphinx actually challenges PC's with riddles? Or how the gold dragon can function as an ally or a patron for a party? Or how much neogi slavers are selling their chattel for? Or how what traps and pranks a copper dragon's lair might have? Or Skill Challenge (shudder) ratings for trying to talk a Silver Dragon out of his recent treasure acquisition?

You know, things that aren't statvomit? Things that encourage me to do more than kill the beast? Things that show me how to use them in a game, rather than just in a combat? 

Because otherwise, my fear of them not learning the lesson from the MM1 still stands. I hope they do have stuff like that, but I'm worried they won't, and, however they address the grind, I'll still end up with 200 pages of boring numbers if they don't learn that lesson. 

I'm excited to see some neat monsters in the MM2, and there's a lot of potential for giving me something that's not just stats, and I hope they follow through with that potential.


----------



## Inyssius (May 9, 2009)

I don't like your point enough to think about it any further (LA LA LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING), but I'm pretty sure that when you say something...



Kamikaze Midget said:


> How can you tell how much damage they deal just by their names?
> 
> That's a neat trick.




...it _becomes_ a thing that you're talking about, whether you want that to be the topic at hand or not.


----------



## Derren (May 9, 2009)

I wonder if WotC will errata the whole MM1 (guess not), or if there will be a noticeable split between MM1 and MM2 monsters, up to the point where nearly no one will use MM1 monsters any more as they are simply too grind heavy.


----------



## AllisterH (May 9, 2009)

Derren said:


> I wonder if WotC will errata the whole MM1 (guess not), or if there will be a noticeable split between MM1 and MM2 monsters, up to the point where nearly no one will use MM1 monsters any more as they are simply too grind heavy.




The elite and the normal monsters in the MM are fine and the MM2 doesn't change the HP for them at all.  Personally, I'm worried about the lack of HP. My group has gotten better and more familiar with both teamwork and the rules and those so called high HP solos get munched pretty damn quick.


----------



## Quickleaf (May 9, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Any preview show how the new sphinx actually challenges PC's with riddles? Or how the gold dragon can function as an ally or a patron for a party? Or how much neogi slavers are selling their chattel for? Or how what traps and pranks a copper dragon's lair might have? Or Skill Challenge (shudder) ratings for trying to talk a Silver Dragon out of his recent treasure acquisition?
> 
> You know, things that aren't statvomit? Things that encourage me to do more than kill the beast? Things that show me how to use them in a game, rather than just in a combat? _(snipped for brevity, not relevance)_



_

I couldn't agree more. In order to breathe life into the monsters it takes a lot of my own work, consulting 3rd party works likes Paizo's Classic Monsters Revisited, and a healthy dose of falling back on older edition material/memories. I feel sorry for new D&D players who want to use monsters in a non-combat capacity or to spice up their combat encounters - it feels like swimming upstream against the 4e tide.

I'm not advocating for 2e style habitat/ecology entries, but something more along the lines of what Kamikaze Midget describes with an extra page per monster with role-playing goodness.

Personally, I'd like it if there were less "fringe" monsters (kruthik I'm looking at you) to make more room for non-combat text._


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 9, 2009)

Quickleaf said:
			
		

> I couldn't agree more. In order to breathe life into the monsters it takes a lot of my own work, consulting 3rd party works likes Paizo's Classic Monsters Revisited, and a healthy dose of falling back on older edition material/memories. I feel sorry for new D&D players who want to use monsters in a non-combat capacity or to spice up their combat encounters - it feels like swimming upstream against the 4e tide.
> 
> I'm not advocating for 2e style habitat/ecology entries, but something more along the lines of what Kamikaze Midget describes with an extra page per monster with role-playing goodness.




Aaron!

You and me find a publisher, and we can write this thing.  

I'd love to add a "big book of encounters" to 4e. There's plenty of open design space for it.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (May 9, 2009)

So a Human Noble is 5th level, but an Insane one is 23rd...

What can an Insane Noble do?  Stomp all over buildings and breath fire?


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 9, 2009)

Just from them specificially using the term Insane, and Far Realm having a large impact in 4e. I am imagining a Noble who has made dealings with the Far Realm/been corrupted by them.


----------



## Shemeska (May 9, 2009)

Quickleaf said:


> II'm not advocating for 2e style habitat/ecology entries




I sure would . It's something that's been largely lacking for more than an edition now. The pendulum swung towards more crunch at the expense of in-depth flavor in 3e, and with 4e it swung even further in that direction (to an absurd degree IMO).

I want monsters that inspire me to use them, that give me ideas, and give new players and new DMs motivation and details to spur their imagination. I don't want a book of dry stats that gives me little to no reason to bother looking at it twice.


----------



## Dannager (May 9, 2009)

Shemeska said:


> I sure would . It's something that's been largely lacking for more than an edition now. The pendulum swung towards more crunch at the expense of in-depth flavor in 3e, and with 4e it swung even further in that direction (to an absurd degree IMO).
> 
> I want monsters that inspire me to use them, that give me ideas, and give new players and new DMs motivation and details to spur their imagination. I don't want a book of dry stats that gives me little to no reason to bother looking at it twice.



Given that plenty of people find the current layout of 4th Edition monster supplements completely acceptable (myself included), it sounds like 4th Edition probably just isn't your game.

So, whatever you end up playing, enjoy!  Me, I'm perfectly content with not wasting precious page space on fluff that probably will not get a second glance when it could instead hold useful monster information that will help me create interesting encounters involving compelling foes.  It's a lot easier coming up with solid fluff than it is coming up with solid mechanics, and it's a lot easier to integrate mechanics into your campaign than it is to integrate fluff.  Given the choice between the two, I'd much prefer that the professionals focus on the mechanics part.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 9, 2009)

Phaezen said:


> Fell Taints




[DIRTY MIND]Those sound terrifying![/DIRTY MIND]


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 9, 2009)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> I want monsters that inspire me to use them, that give me ideas, and give new players and new DMs motivation and details to spur their imagination. I don't want a book of dry stats that gives me little to no reason to bother looking at it twice.




We can totally do that without giving me 150 words of space that is wasted. 



			
				Dannager said:
			
		

> Given the choice between the two, I'd much prefer that the professionals focus on the mechanics part.




It's a good thing that this isn't a binary solution, so that you shouldn't have to choose between two extremes. I mean, given the choice between being set on fire and being drowned, I would instead choose to be well-hydrated and warm.  

I like a monster book that I can actually use, and thus the 4e MM's total lack of non-stat info and the 2e MM's expansive detail on the mating lives of rot grubs are useless, because I don't want to fight everything all the time, and I don't care about the exact length of a male grue's snout in springtime, either. 

It's not necessarily "more fluff" as much as it is "different types of encounters." Combat is all well and good, but my game contains more than just combat. Especially when things like sphinxes and gold dragons and coatl are involved.


----------



## Rechan (May 9, 2009)

I see a lot of monsters from various Dragon Mags/Adventures in there, too.

Also, very few fey. It surprises me too that they're going out of their way to make NPCs of the new races: Half-Orcs and Devas and suchlike. 

Looks like they're rounding out the Archons, too. 

However, this has made me pre-order the book. Hells yeah.


----------



## Tuerny (May 9, 2009)

Yeah, I really wanted to see more fey, particularly since one of my campaigns will be set there for awhile.


----------



## RefinedBean (May 9, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> You know, things that aren't statvomit? Things that encourage me to do more than kill the beast? Things that show me how to use them in a game, rather than just in a combat?




I found a link to something that might be up your alley, [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Dragons-Dungeon-Masters-Guide/dp/0786948809/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241904264&sr=8-1"]check it out[/ame]!

It's by a pretty small company, though, but they give hints and tips as to how to throw pretty much any creature into a fun campaign.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 9, 2009)

> I found a link to something that might be up your alley, check it outcheck it out !
> 
> It's by a pretty small company, though, but they give hints and tips as to how to throw pretty much any creature into a fun campaign.




Too generic, really. Why is it that I can have over 500 variations on combat, but only 12 variations when not killing things?


----------



## Rechan (May 9, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Too generic, really. Why is it that I can have over 500 variations on combat, but only 12 variations when not killing things?



Because combat sells?

Seriously. Everybody uses combat, but not everybody uses lots of non-combat stuff. So it's just a pragmatic move to make what is going to sell more.

Compare for instance the amount of 3rd party monster books and their sales, vs. the amount of 3rd party non-combat books and their sales.


----------



## Nifft (May 9, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Too generic, really. Why is it that I can have over 500 variations on combat, but only 12 variations when not killing things?



 Because every happy family is alike, while every unhappy family... well, it looks like I'm gonna need to know Mom's AC.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## RefinedBean (May 9, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Too generic, really. Why is it that I can have over 500 variations on combat, but only 12 variations when not killing things?




I'd say because situations that don't involve killing things are so incredibly diverse and up to the DM's imagination and storytelling, that the less guidelines or rules given, the better.  Combat, on the other hand, needs rules, and is also a reason that many, MANY people play D&D in the first place.

This is, of course, all a matter of preference and opinion.  

Anyway, no more threadjack, apologies all around.  I'm personally looking forward to seeing more oozes and slimes.  Can never get enough of those.

Also, Myconids!


----------



## Quickleaf (May 9, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Aaron!
> 
> You and me find a publisher, and we can write this thing.
> 
> I'd love to add a "big book of encounters" to 4e. There's plenty of open design space for it.



Heck yeah!  Only if Shemeska will join us though.




Shemeska said:


> I sure would . It's something that's been largely lacking for more than an edition now. The pendulum swung towards more crunch at the expense of in-depth flavor in 3e, and with 4e it swung even further in that direction (to an absurd degree IMO).
> 
> I want monsters that inspire me to use them, that give me ideas, and give new players and new DMs motivation and details to spur their imagination. I don't want a book of dry stats that gives me little to no reason to bother looking at it twice.



Totally agree with you. I used 2e's habitat/ecology as an example of the superfluous kind of information that rarely saw play. 

I'd like to see a focus on playability in the monster write-ups, allowing the type of information to change depending on the monster. In my mind this includes things like:
* culture 
* tips for role-playing the monster in social situations
* 3 sample origins of the monster
* 3 adventure hooks for the monster
* suggested lairs/traps/hazards/terrain suitable to the monster


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 9, 2009)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Seriously. Everybody uses combat, but not everybody uses lots of non-combat stuff. So it's just a pragmatic move to make what is going to sell more.
> 
> Compare for instance the amount of 3rd party monster books and their sales, vs. the amount of 3rd party non-combat books and their sales.




I think there's a deep horse-and-cart problem here. D&D players have long had to figure out how to make the cart go before the horse that they haven't really realized that you can do it the other way around, too. 

1e left this sort of stuff totally open-ended. All 2e had was NonWeapon Proficiencies. All 3e had was a skill system that had varying significance. 4e has less than even 2e, really. 

There's NEVER been a good mechanical system for handling challenges -- real, threatening, life-endangering, drama-making, interesting, climax-having, problem-solving non-combat challenges -- in D&D. 4e perhaps doesn't have the weight of making one, but they do have the weight of using what they do have, especially in the face of fairly keen criticism (even the fanboys confess that monsters don't have much meat on their mechanical bones), and especially considering its professed cinematic style (I've never seen a movie interested in five-foot increments or diagonal measurement or cubes instead of spheres). The complaints against a lack of monster-meat have been pretty consistent, and they can do a lot to fix it. 

I don't even necessarily need a "lot" of non-combat things (this is 4e, after all, not 2e. ).  Just, you know, ways to challenge the party that don't involve hitting their AC's for certain creatures where it might be likely that that's the sort of encounter I'll run. A way to have a sphinx tell a riddle (and for it not to be like every other riddle the party has been told) isn't, I think, asking for the world. 



			
				Nifft said:
			
		

> Because every happy family is alike, while every unhappy family... well, it looks like I'm gonna need to know Mom's AC.




Not every conflict is about beating things up. All other editions of the game fully realized this, from 1e's focus on survival to 2e's narrative shift, to 3e's magical arms-race of detection, landscaping, and manueverability, and even to 4e's underwhelming skill challenges and 4e's better things like rituals and traps and hazards and diseases. 

Use what you've got. When I pop open the Monster Manual, I want more than just a list of things to poke with swords. I want an array of difficult challenges for my PC's to overcome. Absolutely including combat, and lots of it, but also not entirely defined by combat.



			
				Refined Bean said:
			
		

> I'd say because situations that don't involve killing things are so incredibly diverse and up to the DM's imagination and storytelling, that the less guidelines or rules given, the better. Combat, on the other hand, needs rules, and is also a reason that many, MANY people play D&D in the first place.




Ech. Any book on writing a screenplay or a short story would go a long way to disagreeing with you. The basic "three-act" story structure is present in everything from a Wu-Tang Clan song through an ancient Greek play up to 90% of romantic relationships. 

Conflict of any sort only has two outcomes: One side wins, or the other side wins. 



			
				Refined Bean said:
			
		

> Also, Myconids!




I am kind of pumped about myconids, and I kind of want to play one.  



			
				Quickleaf said:
			
		

> Heck yeah!  Only if Shemeska will join us though.
> ...
> I'd like to see a focus on playability in the monster write-ups, allowing the type of information to change depending on the monster. In my mind this includes things like:
> * culture
> ...




I'd narrow it down even further to just "encounters with the creature." Sometimes you'll fight it, sometimes you'll challenge it to a spirited debate, sometimes you'll just try to stay out of its way while it rampages across Tokyo. 

But let's take this idea up elsewhere. I just want to make sure that I'm clear when I say that I hope the Monster Manual 2 isn't just a list of things and their stats, and that if it is, I won't have a lot of use for it, just like I don't have a lot of use for the first MM.


----------



## Nifft (May 9, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> When I pop open the Monster Manual, I want more than just a list of things to poke with swords. I want an array of difficult challenges for my PC's to overcome. Absolutely including combat, and lots of it, but also not entirely defined by combat.



 See, when I pop open the Monster Manual, what I want are *monsters*.

Those other things sound very nice, but shouldn't they get their own book?

I mean really, if you brought home Grim's Traps and it was full of monsters, would you think it a good product?

Cheers, -- N


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 9, 2009)

Nifft said:
			
		

> See, when I pop open the Monster Manual, what I want are monsters.
> 
> Those other things sound very nice, but shouldn't they get their own book?
> 
> I mean really, if you brought home Grim's Traps and it was full of monsters, would you think it a good product




Those things are linked to monsters, though.

When I meet a sphinx, I get a riddle. The riddle mechanics/skill challenge/minigame/ritual should be there, with the sphinx.

These types of things have been in MM's before, too. Celestials and "gotcha" monsters (aka traps with legs) and low-level humanoids of varying alignments and things like, say, the afanc, which is really an environmental challenge (whirlpool) with a monster attached to it. Scylla and Charibdis, Thunderbirds and Mad Kings, real Angels, trickster-fey, witches and shapeshifters, kelpies and sirens....these things have their place in MM's throughout all four editions, even if the main challenge in an encounter with one isn't how quickly you can fill it full of arrow-holes. 

If an encounter with a monster is going to involve more than just combat -- if I'm going to need to free a neogi's slaves before taking down the slave ring -- the mechanics for dealing with that should be right there, with the monster. 

If an encounter with a monster isn't going to be more than just combat, I don't have much of a use for that monster.

Monsters -- at least the good ones -- are more than just things to poke with swords, and the MM should reflect that.


----------



## avin (May 10, 2009)

I would like to subscribe for deep ecology monsters in MMs. 

It's my impression that MM4E pleases the kind of DMs who just put monsters by the sake of their strategies. A beholder in a door, a troll in the next, a dragon in another. Not saying this is wrong, it's just a playstlye that I don't really like.

"Monsters -- at least the good ones -- are more than just things to poke with swords, and the MM should reflect that."

Amen.


----------



## avin (May 10, 2009)

Nifft said:


> See, when I pop open the Monster Manual, what I want are *monsters*.




See, when I pop open the Monster Manual I want more than just stat blocks with no explanation, no soul, no reason to exist beyond "they are there for PCs to kill".

I want deep fluff. Variations, ideas, inspiration.

Are you wrong? Nah.
Am I wrong? Not really.

We just want different things


----------



## The_Fan (May 10, 2009)

The thing is, the Sphynx's riddle IS there, which is why that strikes me as a particularly poor example



> Sphinx’s Challenge
> The sphinx poses a challenge out of combat (see sidebar). If the challenged creatures refuse to answer or fail to answer correctly, the sphinx gains the following benefits until the end of the encounter: +1 action point, an extra use of second wind, a +2 bonus to attack rolls, and a +2 bonus to all defenses.




And the sidebar:



> Before placing a sphinx in your adventure, consider devising a suitable challenge for the sphinx to offer adventurers. Simple challenges are passwords or holy verses—the adventurers know them, or they don’t. Riddles are the classic test, of course; you can create a riddle or use a classic if you like (try looking for riddles online). Theological or philosophical arguments work well as interaction encounters using Arcana, History, or Religion as the key skills.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 10, 2009)

> The thing is, the Sphynx's riddle IS there, which is why that strikes me as a particularly poor example




"Consider maybe making up something" isn't good enough, I'm afraid, though I do enjoy the benefits listed there, and think that's further evidence that 4e certainly could go with this, if it had the cojones and the skill.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 10, 2009)

avin said:


> I would like to subscribe for deep ecology monsters in MMs.
> 
> It's my impression that MM4E pleases the kind of DMs who just put monsters by the sake of their strategies. A beholder in a door, a troll in the next, a dragon in another. Not saying this is wrong, it's just a playstlye that I don't really like.
> 
> "Monsters -- at least the good ones -- are more than just things to poke with swords, and the MM should reflect that."



The issue with me, is that I just look at the stats since that is what I have trouble making. As such fluff doesn't mean anything to me since it is likely to be something completely different in my game and only shares stats in common with the original MM monster.


----------



## Nifft (May 10, 2009)

avin said:


> See, when I pop open the Monster Manual I want more than just stat blocks with no explanation, no soul, no reason to exist beyond "they are there for PCs to kill".
> 
> I want deep fluff. Variations, ideas, inspiration.
> 
> ...



 Sure, but if you take your things out of the Monster Manual, it's still a manual of monsters.

And honestly, I disliked about 5/6 of the old monster fluff. A lot of it was contrived or clashed with my setting's lore.

The worst, though, were the monsters who were "Star Trek aliens" - "They're just like humans, but they have this one-trick culture! And ... uh ... blue horns!" Those "yet another humanoid" races wasted quite a lot of pages in my old MMs.

With 4e's minimalist statblocks, it's really easy to re-skin monsters to suit my needs. I already have plenty of flavor -- the hard work, IMHO, is testing out the mechanical balance of these critters. That's the work I'm willing to pay someone else to do.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## thatdarnedbob (May 10, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> "Consider maybe making up something" isn't good enough, I'm afraid, though I do enjoy the benefits listed there, and think that's further evidence that 4e certainly could go with this, if it had the cojones and the skill.




Well, maybe you'd prefer it if the Monster Manual had a page of riddles for the sphinx, another page for their dietary habits and manners, and yet another detailing the culture and history of the proud sphinx heritage, but I would prefer it if the book left how the monsters behave to me, the DM. I'm quite capable of making my own plots, thank you.


----------



## Jack99 (May 10, 2009)

avin said:


> I would like to subscribe for deep ecology monsters in MMs.
> 
> It's my impression that MM4E pleases the kind of DMs who just put monsters by the sake of their strategies. A beholder in a door, a troll in the next, a dragon in another. Not saying this is wrong, it's just a playstlye that I don't really like.
> 
> ...




Or maybe the 4e MM is for DM's who like to *gasp* make up their own fluff! When that is said, I do not mind good fluff. I would even pay for it. I just do not mind the absence of fluff in the case of monsters.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 10, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Or maybe the 4e MM is for DM's who like to *gasp* make up their own fluff! When that is said, I do not mind good fluff. I would even pay for it. I just do not mind the absence of fluff in the case of monsters.



Really I think this is what people should view Ecology articles and Draconomicon-type books for to pay for fluff.

I view the MM as a book of stat books with beginning fluff to be either taken away or used as a starting point. Those other books/articles are if you wish to dive into the PoL fluff and view of those creatures.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (May 10, 2009)

I think that the ideal amount of fluff, is a paragraph of general description, lore entries and a paragraph on adventure hooks.

The 4e MM1 had too little in the way of fluff, and I think it made it the worst out of the corebooks.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 10, 2009)

> Well, maybe you'd prefer it if the Monster Manual had a page of riddles for the sphinx, another page for their dietary habits and manners, and yet another detailing the culture and history of the proud sphinx heritage, but I would prefer it if the book left how the monsters behave to me, the DM. I'm quite capable of making my own plots, thank you.




...I think I've made the point, over and over again, that I want what I can use in the game. 

If I'm using a sphinx, and a riddle is likely to come up, a few rules on making and adjudicating rules for the spinx's riddle, right there with the spinx, are not too much to ask, especially if I'm going to be coming up with them ANYWAY.

That adds layers to the encounter, and a tremendous amount of playability to the game, and makes running the session easier, and all sorts of really good things that a simple list of stat blocks doesn't accomplish. 

Making up your own plots is all well and good, but DMs can make their own monster stat blocks, too, and yet we've got more than 300 of them (more than most people will use in a year of D&D).

A sphinx's riddle isn't background fluff. It's stuff I will use in the game, when I'm using the sphinx. Why withhold it? So you can fit in another five statblocks for afterthought monsters like the next Ythrak? Am I truly such a heretic for suggesting that they can use their pagecount better? That people will want to do more to monsters than stab them? And that with the monster is the proper place to put stuff that might happen in an encounter with the monster?


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (May 10, 2009)

Neogis, great!! One of my fave little bunch of SOBs


----------



## RefinedBean (May 10, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Ech. Any book on writing a screenplay or a short story would go a long way to disagreeing with you. The basic "three-act" story structure is present in everything from a Wu-Tang Clan song through an ancient Greek play up to 90% of romantic relationships.




Yeah, but this three-act story structure is ingrained in most of us from the beginning of formal education, to the point that when we're at the age we might pick up D&D for a spin, it's intuitive.  Along with stuff like Sphynx's doing riddles and what-not.  I don't need my MM or my DMG to go into crazy detail about all that, because I already know it.  Why spend bunches of pages on it?

I don't know, maybe things have changed?  I remember learning about the sphynx really early as a kid.

Now, the difference in damage between a Gray Render's claws and the stomach of a Purple Worm?  That wasn't part of my elementary education.  Sadly.

Also, fun thought:  Let's get Wu-Tang to play a D&D campaign and then write an album about it.  Have ODB be one of the gods.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 10, 2009)

Refined Bean said:
			
		

> Yeah, but this three-act story structure is ingrained in most of us from the beginning of formal education, to the point that when we're at the age we might pick up D&D for a spin, it's intuitive. Along with stuff like Sphynx's doing riddles and what-not. I don't need my MM or my DMG to go into crazy detail about all that, because I already know it. Why spend bunches of pages on it?




Same reason we spend a dragon magazine article on transparancy: not everyone has the same level of skill in this, and giving rules for it, where needed, will help people play the game. 



> I don't know, maybe things have changed? I remember learning about the sphynx really early as a kid.
> 
> Now, the difference in damage between a Gray Render's claws and the stomach of a Purple Worm? That wasn't part of my elementary education. Sadly.




Heh. Kids today are probably more able to name the three ranks of ninja in Naruto, or the elemental match-ups in Pokemon, or the story of WoW characters.  Not that the curious and the clever don't ALSO know the riddle of the sphinx. It is archetypal. So archetypal that when D&D doesn't give us rules for running it along with the sphinx, I am surprised and disappointed. 



> Also, fun thought: Let's get Wu-Tang to play a D&D campaign and then write an album about it. Have ODB be one of the gods.




Genius. I'd rather my D&D be Wu-Tang than Heavy Metal at this point, anyway.


----------



## doctorhook (May 10, 2009)

Since AFAIK no one has responded to my question yet, I'm reposting it:


doctorhook said:


> Sorry if I missed this, but is there a list of which creatures have NPC stats? I gathered that there's Duergar, Kenkus, and Bullywugs, but is there any others?


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 10, 2009)

doctorhook said:


> Since AFAIK no one has responded to my question yet, I'm reposting it:



So far I haven't seen anything else. So unless SpringsBoundlessThorns hasn't mentioned it yet, I am guessing that is all there is.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 10, 2009)

The monster manuals in 4e present the game itself in a contradictory light.

4e bills itself - and rightfully so - as being easy to pick up and play, especially for new players.  But that collapses when you hit the MM book(s).

The DMG was filled with advice aimed almost entirely at new DMs.  I don't see why the MM, on the other hand, is so frustratingly difficult for a new DM to use.  Even ignoring the desire for non-combat encounters, the MM is supposed to show these monsters in a "pick me!" light, so that Dms can flip through and find something awesome to put in their game.  When all you have is a stat dump, nobody is inspired by it.  New DMs aren't going to want to or be able to come up with brand new fluff right on the fly any more then they will brand new mechanics, and it strieks me as really contradictory to think it's ok to help with one, but not ok to help with the other.

I just don't see why we want to help new players and new DMs statistically, but if they ask about plot or monster fluff we just sneer and turn our backs.  That stuff's just as important, yo.


----------



## Invisible Stalker (May 10, 2009)

No Catoblepas? EPIC FAIL!!! 

MM2 does fill out a great deal of my shopping list though.


----------



## Squizzle (May 10, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The monster manuals in 4e present the game itself in a contradictory light.<br />
> <br />
> 4e bills itself - and rightfully so - as being easy to pick up and play, especially for new players.  But that collapses when you hit the MM book(s).<br />
> <br />
> ...



<br />
<br />

You're wrong.

I know because I'm a new DM--indeed, I'm entirely new to D&D. Prior to this edition, it never really interested me, at all. I am a new DM now, running a game for four players, two of whom are entirely new to tabletop roleplaying at all. I love the Monster Manual as it stands, because it _does_ inspire me. Looking at the stats and powers tells me a lot more about these things than any prose flavor does: I can see not just how it's described, but how it actually _behaves_. Is it a recklessly charging around? Is it skulking through darkness? When I know how something actually acts, I can slot it into an ecological niche that supports that behavior. I have no problem altering the powers to fit the niche I have in mind, either, so it's not like I'm boxed-in by the text--merely, as it goes, inspired.

(And I prefer they not steal space from statblocks or the wonderfully legible layouts with prose that I'm going to ignore anyway.)


----------



## Derulbaskul (May 10, 2009)

Fallen Seraph said:


> Just from them specificially using the term Insane, and Far Realm having a large impact in 4e. I am imagining a Noble who has made dealings with the Far Realm/been corrupted by them.




Sounds like the campaign I'm about to start in Cormyr in the Forgotten Realms....


----------



## Hereticus (May 10, 2009)

avin said:


> See, when I pop open the Monster Manual I want more than just stat blocks with no explanation, no soul, no reason to exist beyond "they are there for PCs to kill".
> 
> I want deep fluff. Variations, ideas, inspiration.




I want to fight monsters that think, not mindless berserkers. Monsters and villains that pose a strategic threat.

I also like to be in a party that thinks, without mindless berserkers.

Unfortunately I see a higher percentage of younger players who don't want to think, and by coincidence they are also usually WoW players.


----------



## Truename (May 10, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> "Consider maybe making up something" isn't good enough, I'm afraid, though I do enjoy the benefits listed there, and think that's further evidence that 4e certainly could go with this, if it had the cojones and the skill.




Guidelines for making up riddles & puzzles have already been published in the DMG, so I wouldn't expect it to be in MM2.

Perhaps you could provide an example of what would make you happy.


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 10, 2009)

doctorhook said:


> Since AFAIK no one has responded to my question yet, I'm reposting it:
> 
> Sorry if I missed this, but is there a list of which creatures have NPC stats? I gathered that there's Duergar, Kenkus, and Bullywugs, but is there any others?




Those are the only three listed in the back of the MMII book.

Yes, living in Japan, I just got my copy of the book.


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 10, 2009)

I would have to fall into the I-want-statblocks-and-no-fluff part of the MMII argument. 

When I started 4E, and was on the steep learning curve, I had no energy or concentration left for the fluff side, and the game felt dry and very mechanical. But, as I learned the rules, there became a lot more room for the fluff side. I find the MM and MMII to be very inspirational, and I like the fact there is little or no fluff for the monsters. I can do fluff. What I want to do when I go to the MM is to see a statblock, a picture, and nothing else because the fluff and such is done in a more freeform way, and once I open the book it is time for the crunch of combat.


----------



## doctorhook (May 10, 2009)

Dice4Hire said:


> Those are the only three listed in the back of the MMII book.
> 
> Yes, living in Japan, I just got my copy of the book.



Thanks for the response! It's a bit of a disappointing answer, but I'm still excited about this book nonetheless. I'd still like to see Lizardfolk NPC stats someday, but I suppose some bastardization of Dragonborn will have to suffice for now.


----------



## The_Fan (May 10, 2009)

Dice4Hire said:


> Those are the only three listed in the back of the MMII book.
> 
> Yes, living in Japan, I just got my copy of the book.



Dammit, how come Japan gets stuff so soon while Korea has to wait an extra week? It's not fair!


----------



## Jack99 (May 10, 2009)

Hereticus said:


> I want to fight monsters that think, not mindless berserkers. Monsters and villains that pose a strategic threat.
> 
> I also like to be in a party that thinks, without mindless berserkers.
> 
> Unfortunately I see a higher percentage of younger players who don't want to think, and by coincidence they are also usually WoW players.




Yes, because hack'n slash is a totally new concept due to 4e and WoW..

><




Dice4Hire said:


> Those are the only three listed in the back of the MMII book.
> 
> Yes, living in Japan, I just got my copy of the book.




That's it, I am moving to Japan!


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 10, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> That's it, I am moving to Japan!



My brother is in Japan right now so this is doubly annoying, *grumbles, grumbles*


----------



## Derren (May 10, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Or maybe the 4e MM is for DM's who like to *gasp* make up their own fluff! When that is said, I do not mind good fluff. I would even pay for it. I just do not mind the absence of fluff in the case of monsters.




I guess those people are completely incapable to ignore what the book says then?
Its strange that 4E is so much based around the idea of reflavouring etc. but as soon as the question of fluff comes up there seems to be a secret police who will storm your house as soon as you ignore a tiny little bit of fluff.


----------



## Jack99 (May 10, 2009)

Derren said:


> I guess those people are completely incapable to ignore what the book says then?
> Its strange that 4E is so much based around the idea of reflavouring etc. but as soon as the question of fluff comes up there seems to be a secret police who will storm your house as soon as you ignore a tiny little bit of fluff.




Nah. You can of course. As I said, I do not mind fluff for monsters, I even like it at times, for inspiration (I loved the 2e MM). But I do not see the need for page after page of it either. Of course, YMMV. My comment was a hyperpole in response to the rather ridiculous statement I quoted.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 10, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> ...I think I've made the point, over and over again, that I want what I can use in the game.
> 
> If I'm using a sphinx, and a riddle is likely to come up, a few rules on making and adjudicating rules for the spinx's riddle, right there with the spinx, are not too much to ask, especially if I'm going to be coming up with them ANYWAY.
> 
> ...




The toolkits for the DM are the DMG and the MM. Why should the rules for riddles - that don't just apply to Sphinx, but to various situations, be included in the Sphinx stat block? That sounds just wrong to me. I would want that advice in the DMG. And there is such advice in the DMG! If I'd want to use a riddle in game, but don't want a Sphinx, I shouldn't have to look up suggestions on how to handle riddles in the MM entry for the Sphinx, I should find such advice in the DMG. 

If you really want to put all those "monster non-combat situation special rules" in the MM, it will contain a lot less monsters, which restricts what kid of creatures I can use. Maybe my campaign doesn't even have room for a Sphinx, I'd rather have another, equal level monster that fits my Arctic Expedition adventure a lot better.


----------



## Belphanior (May 10, 2009)

I like fluff in the critter compendium, provided it's limited to setting-specific books. I like the Monsternomicon books for the Iron Kingdoms campaign setting, for example. As they're part of an established setting they're an important facet in fleshing it out.

But default D&D only has an implied PoL setting. And the monsters only have an implied PoL backstory to them. Little bit of description, little bit of lore. And that's good enough for me. In fact, I'd be almost insulted if they gave much more fluff in the MM. It would be a waste of paper and my money. I make my own setting, thank you very much. When I play Eberron or the Realms, I'll take a look at _their_ sphinxes. But until then the designers had better not waste pages on crap I'm going to have to weed out in the corebooks.


----------



## Nightson (May 10, 2009)

I like the 4e monster books just the way they are.  Nice statblocks with little nuggets of lore.  The MM gives the interesting info, it doesn't give us useless, boring info.  And when you try to make up that many ecologies then a lot of boring and useless info is going to slip through.


----------



## Dannager (May 10, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Making up your own plots is all well and good, but DMs can make their own monster stat blocks, too, and yet we've got more than 300 of them (more than most people will use in a year of D&D).



This, I think, is the crux of the issue, though.

Tons of DMs are great at making up their own plots.  All that requires is a halfway-decent imagination, which most DMs have.

Tons of DMs _suck_ at making up their own monster stat blocks.  That requires deep rules knowledge, in-depth play experience, a mind for math, and the ability to either playtest your creation or anticipate its performance in a tactical encounter.

Given this disparity, *it makes sense* to give DMs assistance where they need it most - in coming up with compelling, effective mechanics for monsters.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 10, 2009)

Hi all! 

Really looking forward to the Monster Manual 2 although looking over the list I am just wondering if the book meets the epic tier quota of the first book?

Outside of the Dragons and Demogorgon entry I am just wondering where the epic monsters are coming from? Also no abominations this time around is a bit sad, I was hoping for the Xixecal to be in there given the Frost Giants are present. 

In the previews we have seen the Ultimate Beholder Tyrant as well as the Firbolg in the Epic tier. I also heard mention of an Archangel.

Presumably Eldritch Giants, Neogis and the Primordial Colossus. Maybe a demon or a devil, but other than that it appears a tad 'epic-lite'.

*Can someone with the book confirm this is or is not the case? Thanks.*

Also did they make Demogorgon Level 34?


----------



## Klaus (May 10, 2009)

Rechan said:


> I see a lot of monsters from various Dragon Mags/Adventures in there, too.
> 
> Also, very few fey. It surprises me too that they're going out of their way to make NPCs of the new races: Half-Orcs and Devas and suchlike.
> 
> ...



Which monsters do you see that are from Adventures/Mags?


----------



## avin (May 10, 2009)

Problem is, guys, that "ecology" articles and books barely cover the basic monsters. Draconomicon, som Undead... but some monsters, let's say 3.5 Ibixian, just for the sake of example, never get good fluff.

Even if there's some good fluff around I would be paying more for what I want than DMs who just want stat blocks to use their own fluff or no fluff at all.

By the way, I always use my own fluff, I always change monster's fluff to adapt to some campaign or another, all creatures on my games have ecology variations, so I want inspiration.

The way it is, for me, MM is the bastard son of 4E. Fourth edition combat is a LOT OF FUN, and Wotc designers seem to have decided to reduce fluff on MM to insert more stats for combat.

I still think it was made for DMs who just put the monsters there to be killed, not minding about why they are there. Not wrong, not bad, just another playstyle


----------



## Rechan (May 10, 2009)

Klaus said:


> Which monsters do you see that are from Adventures/Mags?



Arbalester B.een all over the place - Draconomicon, Thunderspire - or Dungeon, I'm not sure.
Behir - Dungeon
Duerger - Thunderspire.
Firbolg - Dungeon
Ice Troll - Trollhaunt
Nothic - Trollhaunt
Troll VineSpeaker - Trollhaunt
Will-O-Wisp - Trollhaunt
Yochlol Tempter - Demon Queen's Enclave.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (May 10, 2009)

Would it be possible for those who want to criticize the fluff/crunch ratio in a MM to fork a thread next time? Its always the same posters and always the same arguments cluttering a MM content-discussion thread every time a new one comes out. 

This is just a nice plea, because i really don´t want to scan the MM III thread and have to sort through "conceptually, like WoW" and "why, more fluff would be puff" posts again. 

Thank you.


----------



## Hereticus (May 10, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Yes, because hack'n slash is a totally new concept due to 4e and WoW...




Your snide statement aside, hack'n slash is more often a characteristic of:
- New gamers.
- Young gamers.
- Gamers who do not want a storyline.

You're tactic of building a strawman does little to further this conversation.


----------



## Rechan (May 10, 2009)

Hereticus said:


> Your snide statement aside, hack'n slash is more often a characteristic of:
> - New gamers.
> - Young gamers.
> - Gamers who do not want a storyline.



Share with the class where you found your data.


----------



## Hereticus (May 10, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Share with the class where you found your data.




Experience.

Have you noticed different?


----------



## Klaus (May 10, 2009)

Easy, people, easy!

Yes, the 4e MM1 was heavy on crunch and light on fluff. Fiery Dragon took another route with the 4e Creature Collection, where the "Lore" entries are often the biggest part of a monster entry. When the MM2 comes out, we'll see how it compares to the MM1 and the CC.


----------



## Rechan (May 10, 2009)

No.


----------



## Hereticus (May 10, 2009)

No.


----------



## Rechan (May 10, 2009)

No.


----------



## Piratecat (May 10, 2009)

Ahem.

I have no doubt you can discuss the issues without resorting to personal attacks. You all know the rules, and I shouldn't have to be reminding you. Time to stop.

We have a nifty Ignore feature here. I suggest you use it if you can't be properly civil. It's generally preferable to being suspended.


----------



## Klaus (May 10, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Arbalester B.een all over the place - Draconomicon, Thunderspire - or Dungeon, I'm not sure.
> Behir - Dungeon
> Duerger - Thunderspire.
> Firbolg - Dungeon
> ...



Which Dungeon were the Firlbolgs featured? I'm trying to go through my files, but I can't make a couple of downloads work...


----------



## Vael (May 10, 2009)

This month's, there's a Firbolg or two in the newest Scales of War adventure.

I'll admit to some Warcraft influence with respect to Firbolgs, I expected some bear-like creatures.


----------



## the Jester (May 10, 2009)

Vael said:


> This month's, there's a Firbolg or two in the newest Scales of War adventure.




I would say that is more along the lines of MM2 support than a pre-appearing monster. When they were in print, Dungeon and Dragon would often have articles spotlighting new books or elements of them a week or two before the book came out.


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 10, 2009)

Way too little discussion of the MMII and way too much debate about what goes into such a book. Fork a thread please.


----------



## alleynbard (May 10, 2009)

Dice4Hire said:


> I would have to fall into the I-want-statblocks-and-no-fluff part of the MMII argument.




I fall into this line of thinking as well.  I want my 4e MMs to have about as much fluff as the 1e versions.  I think the 4e MM has just about that much spread over the lore entries.  

I tend to create a great deal of fluff for my monsters and I develop the way they interact with my world on my own.  I don't need origin stories, favoured gods, ecology, etc. because I will formulate that myself.  So a fluff light approach is great.

Now, I wouldn't mind seeing more ecology articles in Dungeon.  While I may not use all of that information I would certainly take what I need and shape it for my games.  In addition, that material would provide those who desire more fluff with the material they want for their games.

What I would like to see is an article that details how to place these creatures within your world.  Just a short essay (5-6 pages) on how to produce fluff for your games and what key thoughts to keep in mind.  Perhaps it can provide suggestions on how far to go based on what you need for your personal campaign in a manner similar to the transparency article.


----------



## alleynbard (May 10, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> Way too little discussion of the MMII and way too much debate about what goes into such a book. Fork a thread please.




Oops, sorry. I missed this.  I would have forked a thread if I had seen it.  My apologies. It was wise to suggest in any case.


----------



## darjr (May 10, 2009)

There was a thread around here asking people what they wanted to see in MMII from the fiend folio.

I got in late and others already mentioned many of my favorites, except the Retriever. I got my wish. The Retriever is even in the second round of voting in WotC's competition. Now it's facing the Remorhaz...


----------



## Inyssius (May 10, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Duerger - Thunderspire.




*Half *of the duergar. And I've reason to believe that even some of that half may be different; note that the Miner--the only duergar minion in Thunderspire--is gone from the MM2, and the Hellcaller is from a different tier than the Thunderspire guys (which is usually verboten, as MM group-entries usually describe a single level spread).


----------



## Primal (May 10, 2009)

'Insane Noble'... that was a joke, right? 

If that's true, flumphs may seem their title as the worst monster ever published...


----------



## Holy Bovine (May 10, 2009)

Samuel Leming said:


> There's no flumph on that list!!!
> 
> WotC is dead to me.




Dude, WotC released the flumph _for free_ over a month ago.  Check out the D&D April Fool's dungeon delve.

Dungeon Delve: Fool's Grove

I love the fact it is actually a decent monster too.


----------



## Dannager (May 11, 2009)

Primal said:


> 'Insane Noble'... that was a joke, right?
> 
> If that's true, flumphs may seem their title as the worst monster ever published...



I think what we're looking at is a nobleman corrupted and twisted by the Far Realm into something mad and frightening.  Just a prediction I've seen bandied about, though.


----------



## Primal (May 11, 2009)

Dannager said:


> I think what we're looking at is a nobleman corrupted and twisted by the Far Realm into something mad and frightening.  Just a prediction I've seen bandied about, though.




So every insane human nobleman is a level 23 "monster" corrupted by the Far Realms? Uh, I can see players going (after a couple of years): "Oh NO! the BBEG is... an INSANE NOBLEMAN! Run for your lives!". 

[sarcasm] I wonder why they dropped the 'Joking Jester', 'Belching Baron', 'Corrupted Count' and 'Delirious Duke' from the list, or maybe they'll be in MM 3? [/sarcasm]


----------



## Inyssius (May 11, 2009)

Primal said:


> So every insane human nobleman is a level 23 "monster" corrupted by the Far Realms?



  Of course they are.  And every human guardsman is level 3. Every single one.  Even the angelic city of Hestavar's Bright Guard.  You wondered how the Obsidian Dagger kept pulling off these horrible crimes in the middle of a divine metropolis ruled by not one but three greater gods? I'll clue you in: from low wind to latter doldrums, the _human_ Exalted are on shift.


----------



## Klaus (May 11, 2009)

Primal said:


> So every insane human nobleman is a level 23 "monster" corrupted by the Far Realms? Uh, I can see players going (after a couple of years): "Oh NO! the BBEG is... an INSANE NOBLEMAN! Run for your lives!".
> 
> [sarcasm] I wonder why they dropped the 'Joking Jester', 'Belching Baron', 'Corrupted Count' and 'Delirious Duke' from the list, or maybe they'll be in MM 3? [/sarcasm]



Not anymore than every human mage is a Level 4 character...

These are just descriptive names. They could very well have used "Far Realm-Corrupted Nobleman", but thought that was a mouthful...


----------



## OchreJelly (May 11, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Arbalester B.een all over the place - Draconomicon, Thunderspire - or Dungeon, I'm not sure.
> Behir - Dungeon
> Duerger - Thunderspire.
> Firbolg - Dungeon
> ...




And there's even more still.  I'm slightly disappointed by this.  I didn't think they were going to do much reprinting in this edition... ah well.  That being said, there are some pretty important monsters that folks w/o the modules would probably want.


----------



## Nebulous (May 11, 2009)

Klaus said:


> Easy, people, easy!
> 
> Yes, the 4e MM1 was heavy on crunch and light on fluff. Fiery Dragon took another route with the 4e Creature Collection, where the "Lore" entries are often the biggest part of a monster entry. When the MM2 comes out, we'll see how it compares to the MM1 and the CC.




i'll have to second the 4e Creature Collection.  For those of you wanting fat descriptions of monster and their role in the world, pick up the CC.  You'll like it. And the statblocks are damn solid too.


----------



## Voadam (May 11, 2009)

I thought the succubus had killed the erinyes and took her stuff since we didn't need two beautiful fiends differentiated by their alignment team and whether their wings were batlike or feathery.

Glad to see the reports of her death were premature.

Hopefully there will be a good demogorgon/dagon description section.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 11, 2009)

> I thought the succubus had killed the erinyes and took her stuff since we didn't need two beautiful fiends differentiated by their alignment team and whether their wings were batlike or feathery.
> 
> Glad to see the reports of her death were premature.




My guess (hope?) is that we're seeing more of a "furies" type of fiend, all feathers and rage and harassing you for killing your brother.


----------



## Voadam (May 11, 2009)

Belphanior said:


> But default D&D only has an implied PoL setting. And the monsters only have an implied PoL backstory to them. Little bit of description, little bit of lore. And that's good enough for me. In fact, I'd be almost insulted if they gave much more fluff in the MM. It would be a waste of paper and my money. I make my own setting, thank you very much. When I play Eberron or the Realms, I'll take a look at _their_ sphinxes. But until then the designers had better not waste pages on crap I'm going to have to weed out in the corebooks.




So what do the Realms books say about their sphinxes? I don't have the 4e Realms books, but I know their trio of 4e books are all out and they plan to not do any more. Does the Campaign guide include this type of monster info? If you want to use a sphinx in your realms game is there anything to flesh them out more than the MM entry?


----------



## Voadam (May 11, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> My guess (hope?) is that we're seeing more of a "furies" type of fiend, all feathers and rage and harassing you for killing your brother.




We'll see what the lore section says.


----------



## Primal (May 12, 2009)

Inyssius said:


> Of course they are. And every human guardsman is level 3. Every single one. Even the angelic city of Hestavar's Bright Guard. You wondered how the Obsidian Dagger kept pulling off these horrible crimes in the middle of a divine metropolis ruled by not one but three greater gods? I'll clue you in: from low wind to latter doldrums, the _human_ Exalted are on shift.




No, I can get the idea behind "typical" guardsmen/nobles/innkeepers, and I do not equate such examples as "written in stone". Rather, my comment was a sarcastic one, because that's a waste of pages in my books, if you need to stat out insane, corrupted noblemen as level 23 monsters. Also, I find the concept a bit silly for a MM entry... a typical/average nobleman would be alright, but this one feels just as laughable as 'Insane Innkeeper' or 'Mad Hatter' (with his mad, cool 'Hat Trick'-power ) or 'Belching Bartender' and so on.  

As to Hestavar, it's in a DDi-article, right? Sorry, can't comment on it, because I don't have a subscription.


----------



## Belphanior (May 12, 2009)

Voadam said:


> So what do the Realms books say about their sphinxes? I don't have the 4e Realms books, but I know their trio of 4e books are all out and they plan to not do any more. Does the Campaign guide include this type of monster info? If you want to use a sphinx in your realms game is there anything to flesh them out more than the MM entry?




It was not an example to be taken literally. I don't have the Realms books either so I wouldn't know what they say about sphinxes. I do know the 3e Eberron books included details about many critters, often with wildly different fluff than is default assumed (e.g. drow, dragons, all aberrations). I assume the 4e Eberron books will do the same, and other settings too where necessary.

Point remains that too much fluff in the MM feels like a waste to me.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 12, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> and harassing you for killing your brother.



They don't even have proof for that.

Mustrum "Actually, I never had a brother" Ridcully


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 12, 2009)

Upper_Krust said:


> Presumably Eldritch Giants, Neogis and the Primordial Colossus. Maybe a demon or a devil, but other than that it appears a tad 'epic-lite'.
> 
> *Can someone with the book confirm this is or is not the case? Thanks.*
> 
> Also did they make Demogorgon Level 34?




MMI
Level 21-25: 49 monsters
Level 26-30: 24 monsters
Level 31+: 1 monster

MMII
Level 21-25: 34 monsters
Level 26-30: 14 monsters
Level 31+: 2 monsters

And yes, The big guy is 34,


----------



## Phaezen (May 12, 2009)

Dice4Hire said:


> MMI
> Level 21-25: 49 monsters
> Level 26-30: 24 monsters
> Level 31+: 1 monster
> ...




The other 31+ appears to be Dagon weighing in at lv 31 if my sources are correct


----------



## Rechan (May 12, 2009)

Ooh, ooh, Dice4hire, I have some questions!

What level are the Spriggans?

What's the level and role of the following:
Barghests
Ambush Vine
Bloodthorn Vine
Greenvise Vine
Umbral Sprite Storm

What's a Wood Woad? A Fell Taint? I notice quite a few things with the term "Shard" (Death Shard, Storm Shard, Prismatic shard). What are Shards? 

Any low level devils/demons (aside from the Dretch)? 

How Badass is Demogorgon?

What's your favorite monster?


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 12, 2009)

Hey there Dice4Hire! 

Thanks for the reply.



			
				Dice4Hire said:
			
		

> MMI
> Level 21-25: 49 monsters
> Level 26-30: 24 monsters
> Level 31+: 1 monster
> ...




Very, very disappointing.  

MM1 has almost 50% more epic monsters than MMII.  

Still getting the book but that just sucks. Looks like its up to me again.



			
				Dice4Hire said:
			
		

> And yes, The big guy is 34,




One snippet of good news...in your face Orcus fans!


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 12, 2009)

Hello! 



			
				Dice4Hire said:
			
		

> MMII
> Level 21-25: 34 monsters
> *Level 26-30: 14 monsters*
> Level 31+: 2 monsters




Hate to trouble you again, but I am just curious where the Level 26-30 monsters are coming from...

Ancient Iron Dragon = L26 Solo 
Ancient Silver Dragon = L27 Solo?
Ancient Adamantine Dragon = L28 Solo
Ultimate Beholder Tyrant = L29 Solo
Ancient Gold Dragon = L30 Solo?

The other 9 spaces, are they filled by:

Arch-Angel, Primordial Colossus, Exarchs of Demogorgon (2), Eldritch Giant & Titan...?


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 12, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Ooh, ooh, Dice4hire, I have some questions![.quote]
> 
> What level are the Spriggans?
> 
> ...


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 12, 2009)

I'll summarize as I think I am saying too much.

26 are: A deva, one of Demogorgon's followers, a demon, an iron dragon, an iron golem and a winter wolf (spirit)

27 are: Copper dragon and retreiver

28 are: A Primordial colossus, and admantium dragon and another of Demogorgon's followers. 

29 are: Beholder and silver dragon

30 is: gold dragon

32 is : Dagon

34 is : Demogorgon


----------



## Rechan (May 12, 2009)

SWEET. All of those (well, except for the Ambush vine) are in line with one of my groups. All of it sounds fairly feyish. Exquisite. Wood Woad sounds cool too.

Shame about the devil though. 



> Where elemental chaos meets evil



Like on a blind date?


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 12, 2009)

There are a ton of nice fey in this book. I've never liked fey and never used them in previous editions, but 4E is starting to make me like them. 

As for the shard thing, I see it more like both of them wearing bags over their heads in bed. lol


----------



## Voadam (May 12, 2009)

Dice4Hire said:


> There is only one devil, a level 3 minion.




The erinyes? Or is she her own type of nondevil creature now?


----------



## OchreJelly (May 12, 2009)

Dice4Hire said:


> There are a ton of nice fey in this book. I've never liked fey and never used them in previous editions, but 4E is starting to make me like them.
> 
> As for the shard thing, I see it more like both of them wearing bags over their heads in bed. lol




The Will-O-Wisp is a real standout.  A small fey lurker that has a compulsion ability (pull 3), can life drain to get back hps as an encounter ability, and can teleport and extinguish their light to hide again.  Very nice flavor on those buggers.


----------



## chaotix42 (May 12, 2009)

I am jonesing for this book something _fierce_! Oh well, only have to wait until next Monday. 

For anyone interested in a closer look at ol' Demogorgon, a poster on the WotC forums was kind enough to give us a rundown of his powers: 

yay! i got my Monster Manual 2 just now....ask away - Wizards Community


----------



## Derren (May 12, 2009)

Metallic dragons are all unaligned (You likely know my opinions on this), are no different than chromatic dragons (WotC said they wanted to make metallics different) and an insane noble is just insane and has no connection to the far realm. Being crazy apparently means a huge power boost.


----------



## Rechan (May 12, 2009)

OchreJelly said:


> The Will-O-Wisp is a real standout.  A small fey lurker that has a compulsion ability (pull 3), can life drain to get back hps as an encounter ability, and can teleport and extinguish their light to hide again.  Very nice flavor on those buggers.



For the inclined, they are statted up in Trollhaunt.

For that matter, the stats were released on WotC's website here.


----------



## Intense_Interest (May 12, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> If I'm using a sphinx, and a riddle is likely to come up, a few rules on making and adjudicating rules for the spinx's riddle, right there with the spinx, are not too much to ask, especially if I'm going to be coming up with them ANYWAY.
> ...
> A sphinx's riddle isn't background fluff. It's stuff I will use in the game, when I'm using the sphinx. Why withhold it? So you can fit in another five statblocks for afterthought monsters like the next Ythrak? Am I truly such a heretic for suggesting that they can use their pagecount better? That people will want to do more to monsters than stab them? And that with the monster is the proper place to put stuff that might happen in an encounter with the monster?




I get what you're saying here, but I disagree with your example.

One of the major problems with including a list of Puzzles Riddles and other intellectual encounters is that they are predicated on surprise.  _And as soon as they are written down in a book_, they are not surprising!  Putting a riddle into a Sphinx monster entry is just asking for a Smart Guy to quote one at you.  How many "Four legs at dawn, two at noon, and three at dusk" classic riddles do you want to have to burn through before you find one that the Ex-DM who had the book forgot the answer to?

Yes, I wouldn't mind flavor-encounter set-ups in the MMII; I just know that there is a chance of them not being surprising, and plan/adjust them accordingly.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 12, 2009)

Derren said:


> an insane noble is just insane and has no connection to the far realm. Being crazy apparently means a huge power boost.



Do you have something to back this up?

Also, give us a break.


----------



## OchreJelly (May 12, 2009)

Rechan said:


> For the inclined, they are statted up in Trollhaunt.
> 
> For that matter, the stats were released on WotC's website here.





Yeah I was pretty much summarizing from trollhaunt.  What I really hope is that MM2 will have a variety of different leveled ones.  For some reason I've always liked that monster, but this is my favorite version so far.


----------



## Klaus (May 12, 2009)

OchreJelly said:


> Yeah I was pretty much summarizing from trollhaunt.  What I really hope is that MM2 will have a variety of different leveled ones.  For some reason I've always liked that monster, but this is my favorite version so far.



I'm assuming that the Will-o-Wisp and the Storm Wisp are versions of the same monster (a "Wisp", mayhaps)?

Also, there are monsters listed in the SRD as being from the MM2 that I haven't seen listed. I'm compiling a list for work reasons (>cough< counters >cough<) and I'm already in 215 monsters!


----------



## Derren (May 12, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> Do you have something to back this up?
> 
> Also, give us a break.




Wizards Community - View Single Post - yay! i got my Monster Manual 2 just now....ask away
Wizards Community - View Single Post - yay! i got my Monster Manual 2 just now....ask away

And silver dragons apparently don't shape into humans any more. That "fluff" is reserved for gold dragons only.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 12, 2009)

> an insane noble is just insane and has no connection to the far realm. Being crazy apparently means a huge power boost.




This is dumb and so are unaligned gold dragons.

The shapechange ritual is fine, IMO. 4e dragons are supposed to be less magic-pants, and rituals are a good cop-out for it. 

But man, looks like MM2 is filled with idiocy, too. I was kind of hopeful...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 12, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> This is dumb and so are unaligned gold dragons.
> 
> The shapechange ritual is fine, IMO. 4e dragons are supposed to be less magic-pants, and rituals are a good cop-out for it.
> 
> But man, looks like MM2 is filled with idiocy, too. I was kind of hopeful...



I can't wait to find out tomorrow afternoon.


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 12, 2009)

OchreJelly said:


> Yeah I was pretty much summarizing from trollhaunt.  What I really hope is that MM2 will have a variety of different leveled ones.  For some reason I've always liked that monster, but this is my favorite version so far.




Just the will-o-wisp in MMII. No storm wisp that I can see.


----------



## Klaus (May 12, 2009)

Dice4Hire said:


> Just the will-o-wisp in MMII. No storm wisp that I can see.



Oops, I meant Tempest Wisp.

Could you rundown this list I compiled and cross out what's not in the book?

[sblock]


> 1.	Abomination, Retriever
> 2.	Abyssal Marauder
> 3.	Abyssal Rotfiend
> 4.	Angel, Archangel (template)
> ...



[/sblock]


----------



## RefinedBean (May 12, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> This is dumb and so are unaligned gold dragons.




Maybe the more venerable good-aligned dragon stuff will come from the next Draconomicon?  It seems that for the core MM books, they're focusing on making sure that DMs can run them as enemies if need be.

Here's hoping, I like it when parties can work in tandem with good dragons.  Although it's way more fun to work with the evil ones.


----------



## Rechan (May 13, 2009)

> Vampire, Pennangalan



HELL YEAH.



> Infernal Armor Animus



 I believe this is a minion Devil. 

I personally have no problem with unaligned metallics. It certainly doesn't stop the PCs from working with them. (But then, I never aliked alignment based on color, either).

What do the Spriggans do? Grow and shrink? What about the Barghests?


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 13, 2009)

Rechan said:


> I personally have no problem with unaligned metallics. It certainly doesn't stop the PCs from working with them. (But then, I never aliked alignment based on color, either).



I never liked the colour coordination in general. There isn't Gold Dragons, Blue Dragons, etc. There is just Dragons they look whatever and have whatever powers.


----------



## Minigiant (May 13, 2009)

I  just want to know more about the half elves.  
And what each starspawn does.  
I can't wait, man.

All the dragons in my campaign are very annoying anyways so I really don't care what alignment they are, they're just buckets of trouble anyway.


----------



## Nifft (May 13, 2009)

Fallen Seraph said:


> I never liked the colour coordination in general. There isn't Gold Dragons, Blue Dragons, etc. There is just Dragons they look whatever and have whatever powers.



 Aside: I was working on a version of the Dragon monster that had four degrees of freedom:
- Age
- Environment
- "Color" (elemental affinity)
- "Class" (how does it prefer to fight; in 4e, this would probably be "Role")

It derived many attack benefits from its "color", but most of its spell-likes and some of its defensive features came instead from wherever it chose to roost. Dragons became incarnate preternatural spirits: beings of Elemental power, Fey "viridity", and Mortal (prime material) flesh all rolled into one nasty clawed package.

So you could have a sneaky ice drake living in a swamp, or a terrible fire warrior who terrorized the desert sands.

Maybe I'll drag that out and see if anything can be salvaged for 4e.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Rechan (May 13, 2009)

From the WotC thread:


> Erinyes are states as an embodiment of rage (almost)...and live for battle. If you break a pact with a devil, the Erinyes may be sent to hunt you down...


----------



## Emirikol (May 13, 2009)

Excellent work boss!  No giant crayfish from the new Village of Hommlet though  



jh
http://www.hafnerchiropractic.com[/url


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 13, 2009)

A few points:

Yes, there is a tempest wisp. But it is nothing like a will-o-wisp.

Sorry, that list is too long to go through.

Half-elves:
   Battle leader level 6 
   Con-artist Level 7
   Baleful Thaumaturge Level 24 (Can give he insane human a run for his money, lol)
The Star sApwn look pretty cool. There are three, level 15, 15, 17. They get some nice abilities when creatures near them spend healing surges. The Herald of Hadar has a blast 5 that prevents the targets hit from spending healing surges or regaining hit points (save ends ) Very nasty creatures all around. 

The spriggens don't have all that many special powers, butthey can gain some temp hit points when they reduce a creature to 0 hit points. 

The Barghast Savager can use (once an encounter) an at-will or encounter power it has seen used inthat encounter. It gets a flat +7 to hit vs AC and +5 vs other defenses. Nothing about damage though. Bit of an oversight. Maybe you jsut go with its own abilitiy scores? It does not say anything.


----------



## Rechan (May 13, 2009)

Dice4Hire said:


> The spriggens don't have all that many special powers, butthey can gain some temp hit points when they reduce a creature to 0 hit points.
> 
> The Barghast Savager can use (once an encounter) an at-will or encounter power it has seen used inthat encounter. It gets a flat +7 to hit vs AC and +5 vs other defenses. Nothing about damage though. Bit of an oversight. Maybe you jsut go with its own abilitiy scores? It does not say anything.



Thanks. Disappointing about the Spriggan, but the Barghest sounds cool. I imagine the damage would actually be the PC's damage. 

Can the Barghest do this multiple times, just has to emulate different powers, or is it an Encounter power to use someone else's power?


----------



## Jack99 (May 13, 2009)

Upper_Krust said:


> Hey there Dice4Hire!
> 
> Thanks for the reply.
> 
> ...



DDI has 286 epic level monsters listed currently. You might want to subscribe if you really need epic monsters.


----------



## Rechan (May 13, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> DDI has 286 epic level monsters listed currently. You might want to subscribe if you really need epic monsters.



Jack has also made a few epic monsters.


----------



## Klaus (May 13, 2009)

Dice4Hire said:


> A few points:
> 
> Yes, there is a tempest wisp. But it is nothing like a will-o-wisp.
> 
> ...



That's ok.

What are Poisonscales?

Also, the new Drakes sound awfully similar to some of Eberron's dinosaurs. Are the "drakes" the new name for dinosaurs, as opposed to the old "behemoth"?


----------



## Rechan (May 13, 2009)

Klaus said:


> What are Poisonscales??



If they haven't changed from 3e, then they're small sized lizardfolk.


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 13, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Can the Barghest do this multiple times, just has to emulate different powers, or is it an Encounter power to use someone else's power?




I read it as once an encounter. But a RELIABLE encounter. Interesting. I missed that first and second time through.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 13, 2009)

Hey there Jack99! 



			
				Jack99 said:
			
		

> DDI has 286 epic level monsters listed currently. You might want to subscribe if you really need epic monsters.




I have wrestled with the notion of subscription on and off for quite a while...however, that still doesn't excuse the dearth of epic tier content in Monster Manual 2.


----------



## Jack99 (May 13, 2009)

Upper_Krust said:


> Hey there Jack99!
> 
> 
> 
> I have wrestled with the notion of subscription on and off for quite a while...however, that still doesn't excuse the dearth of epic tier content in Monster Manual 2.




Of course not. I was simply trying to be helpful and point out that if you need epic monsters, there are plenty in the DDI.


----------



## chaotix42 (May 13, 2009)

Dice4Hire said:


> I read it as once an encounter. But a RELIABLE encounter. Interesting. I missed that first and second time through.




 A monster with an encounter power that has the Reliable keyword?! That's gonna freak my players out. 

Hey Dice4Hire, what's your impression of the metallic dragons? Are any quite as nasty as the elder adamantine dragon that WotC previewed?


----------



## Derren (May 13, 2009)

No one posted the stats for the NPC creatures yet?

Bullywug: +2 con, +2 dex
speed 6 squares (swamp walk)
Language: common, primordial
skill: +2 athletics
rancid air (poison) aura2 : any enemy that spends healing susrge within the aura are weakened till next turn.

duergar: +2 con, +2 wisdom
darkvision
languages: common, deep speech, dwarven
skill: +2 dungeoneering
infernal quills: use as encounter power. shoot them out, 1d8 damage + con modifier..damage increases at lvl 11, and 21

Kenku: +2 dex, +2 cha
low light vision

languages: common

skills: +2 bluff, +2 stealtb
flock: +3 to attack rolls against creature u are flanking instead of +2, and grant +3 to attack or skill checks when aiding another instead of +2.
mimicry: you can mimic sounds and voices. a successful insight check opposed by your bluff check allows a listener to determine that the effect is faked.

Bullywug doesn't look like PC material.


----------



## Voadam (May 13, 2009)

How does the depth of the demogorgon write up compare to that of Orcus in the MMI and Yeenoghu in the early 4e dragon write up?


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 13, 2009)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Of course not. I was simply trying to be helpful and point out that if you need epic monsters, there are plenty in the DDI.




I appreciate your help, wasn't meaning to sound snarky, although I reserve the right to complain since WotC are still getting my money for it. 

I have wanted to subscribe ever since I heard of that Thunder Serpent Primordial beasty, I almost subscribed again when they did the Bane article (until I heard there were no stats for Bane himself). But something about the subscription concept is putting me off so for the meantime I'll pass.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 13, 2009)

Klaus said:


> Also, the new Drakes sound awfully similar to some of Eberron's dinosaurs. Are the "drakes" the new name for dinosaurs, as opposed to the old "behemoth"?




I don't have MM2 yet, but it seems to me that "dinosaurs" have been split up so far into "behemoths" and "drakes".  The large herbivores, like brontosauruses, are behemoths.  The predators, mostly raptor types, are filed under drakes.  Although more traditional "lesser" dragons still seem to be drakes also.

That only leaves pterosaurs without a home yet, I think.  If we keep the categories broad.


----------



## Jack99 (May 13, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Jack has also made a few epic monsters.




Are you claiming that my wife and daughter are epic level?


----------



## Intense_Interest (May 13, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Are you claiming that my wife and daughter are epic level?




Wait, are you implying that you "made" your wife?  That's a claim that Eric's grandma would find _appalling!_


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 13, 2009)

chaotix42 said:


> Hey Dice4Hire, what's your impression of the metallic dragons? Are any quite as nasty as the elder adamantine dragon that WotC previewed?




They seem to be about as nasty. A variety of effects, including the ability to make saves against specific conditions at the beginning of the round in addition to the end. They could make player's lives harder. 

It is odd to see "Gold dragons that have selfish and evil tendencies...." in the writeup.

Selfish? Sure, that is a dragon.

Evil in a gold dragon ????????


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 13, 2009)

Voadam said:


> How does the depth of the demogorgon write up compare to that of Orcus in the MMI and Yeenoghu in the early 4e dragon write up?




It seems the same as in MMI for Orcus. Dunno on the Dragon writeup, I don't read dragon.


----------



## Derren (May 13, 2009)

Dice4Hire said:


> Evil in a gold dragon ????????




In 4Es world there must be a reason to fight it. Otherwise the monster would be useless. Can't waste space with unnecessary good creatures, can't they?


----------



## Hellzon (May 13, 2009)

Derren said:


> In 4Es world there must be a reason to fight it. Otherwise the monster would be useless. Can't waste space with unnecessary good creatures, can't they?




Image removed by admin. Feel free to ignore someone's posts if you don't want to read them, but please don't insult them. ~ PCat


----------



## Dire Bare (May 13, 2009)

Derren said:


> In 4Es world there must be a reason to fight it. Otherwise the monster would be useless. Can't waste space with unnecessary good creatures, can't they?




You say that like it's a bad thing.  If my PCs aren't going to kick its ass at some point, why do I need stats for it?

Plus, this is a very open change from older editions.  Earlier, gold dragons pretty much had to be good unless they were some kind of freaky rogue or insane creature.  Now the "standard" gold dragon is a lot like your standard "person", not good or evil, just doing its own thing . . . with inclinations towards being nice.  But don't piss it off.

If you just can't stomach the thought of neutral and evil metallics, how hard is it to simply change the alignment in your campaign . . .


----------



## Derren (May 13, 2009)

Dire Bare said:


> You say that like it's a bad thing.  If my PCs aren't going to kick its ass at some point, why do I need stats for it?




Because you can do other things with it than "kick its ass".







> Now the "standard" gold dragon is a lot like your standard "person", not good or evil, just doing its own thing . . . with inclinations towards being nice.  But don't piss it off.




Except that this wasn't the reason for making metallics evil. No "grand fluff plan" to make D&D more interesting. If it would then the chromatics would be unaligned too. No, its just that in 4E everything which moves must be killable. Having something that moves and is good doesn't fit that. And so they break another tradition just to have more creatures to kill.

If they had higher reasons for it then I would have no problem with it. Its just this focus on "making things killable" and "if its not for fighting its not needed" that irks me.

And if you also want something more tangible, every time WotC breaks with a tradition they invalidate older edition fluff, be it fluff from monster books or fluff from campaign setting. Again, if they had good reasons for it, it would be ok. But their reasons is, imo, far from good. I would even say its rather bad.

Besides, why must every creature think and behave like a human? (Unless the creature is completely evil and can be killed on sight. Thats also perfectly acceptable. But having something inherently nice and compassionate? Thats a big no).


----------



## gizmo33 (May 13, 2009)

Dice4Hire said:


> It is odd to see "Gold dragons that have selfish and evil tendencies...." in the writeup.




Agreed.  The record graphic was funny but I don't really see how it addresses the issue.  For one:  the chromatic dragons have an evil alignment.  Secondly:  gold dragons in the past had a more unearthly nature to them - dwelling with Bahamut behind the east wind and so forth.  Otherworldly creatures, like cacklefiend hyenas, get evil alignments.  

If there *was* a dragon that should have an alignment, I would think it would be gold.  They could have just saved some space by not writing a throw-away line that (AFAICT) has nothing to do within anything interesting.  A DM is perfectly capable of taking any good creature and changing the alignment to evil, I would think no permission from WotC needs to be stated in any particular monster's stat block.


----------



## gizmo33 (May 13, 2009)

Dire Bare said:


> If you just can't stomach the thought of neutral and evil metallics, how hard is it to simply change the alignment in your campaign . . .




Exactly why there was no reason to change it in the first place.  The original 1e gold dragons served a Lawful Good god and if they, as a group, aren't aligned with Good I think of any other creature that should be.  So far I've seen no artistic/conceptual justification for this change, just seems to be what Derren says.


----------



## Hellzon (May 13, 2009)

About those "good" dragons.



			
				AD&D2 Monstrous Manual said:
			
		

> Brass dragons are great talkers, but not particularly good conversationalists. They are egotistical and often boorish. They oftern have useful information, but will divulge it only after drifting off the subject many times and after hints that a gift would be appreciated.
> At birth, a brass dragon's scales are dull. Their color is a brassy, mottled brown. As the dragon gets older, the scales become more brassy, until they reach a warm burnished appearance.
> 
> Combat: Brass dragons would rather talk than fight. If an intelligent creature tries to take its leave of a brass dragon without talking to it at length, *the dragon might have a fit of pique and try to force a conversation* with suggestion or by giving the a dose of sleep gas. If the victim falls asleep it will awaken to find itself pinned under the dragon or buried to the neck in the sand until the dragon's thirst for small talk is slaked.




Brass dragons are supposedly chaotic good (neutral).  "Good" seems to have been very flexible when the writers wanted it to be. 4E Good actually means that, at the cost of shunting a lot of formerly "good" creatures down to Unaligned.



			
				Same book said:
			
		

> Copper dragons are incorrigible pranksters, joke tellers, and riddlers. *They are prideful and are not good losers, although they are reasonable good winner. They are particularly selfish, and greedy for their alignment, and have an almost neutral outlook where wealth is concerned.*




Oh hey. Coppers are listed as CG.

The others were decent dudes, though.


----------



## Derren (May 13, 2009)

Hellzon said:


> About those "good" dragons.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Most of that is more "highly annoying" than "not good"
Even good people can be a jerk sometimes and a evil guy can pet a puppy and not kick it once in a while.







> The others were decent dudes, though.




Not any longer and for imo no good reason. As it was said/implied, as easy as it is to make a unaligned creature good it is to make a good creature unaligned (or evil). So why destroy fluff, tradition and versimilitude for that?


----------



## Hellzon (May 13, 2009)

Derren said:


> Most of that is more "highly annoying" than "not good"
> Even good people can be a jerk sometimes and a evil guy can pet a puppy and not kick it once in a while.




Being buried up to your neck in sand in a hot desert until you talk is "highly annoying"? Hokay, bowing out now.


----------



## Derren (May 13, 2009)

Hellzon said:


> Being buried up to your neck in sand in a hot desert until you talk is "highly annoying"? Hokay, bowing out now.[/QUOTE
> My bad. I only read shortly past the bold part to the sleeping gas thing and ignored the rest.
> 
> Ok, burying him in sands is not that good. Still, that is no reason for the other dragons not being good and my other points still stand.


----------



## Klaus (May 14, 2009)

There was an opportunity to pay homage to the old D&D cartoon and have the gold be the only true "good" dragon (and therefore a "point of light" creature), but alas.

As for why have stats for a creature not supposed to be killed, a "Good" gold dragon could be (off the top of my head):

- magically controlled;
- duped into thinking the PCs are Evil;
- protecting its secret nest/hoard/shrine;
- honorbound to defend the evil Scion of Arkhosia.

Not to mention that if your PCs fight alongside it against a red dragon and its army of hobgoblins, you'll need stats for it. And then there's always the "Tarnished Gold Dragon" angle, with an Unaligned or even Evil dragon.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 14, 2009)

I wouldn't mind all metallic dragons being unaligned if they did the same for chromatic.  Without the chromatics being unaligned, it sticks out like a sore thumb, and it's not just bad fluff, but overall bad game design.


----------



## ferratus (May 14, 2009)

I think this whole debate is why hard coded alignment should have been pole-axed for 4e.  We don't really need it.


----------



## chaotix42 (May 14, 2009)

ferratus said:


> I think this whole debate is why hard coded alignment should have been pole-axed for 4e.  We don't really need it.




Agreed. In a system with alignments I'm probably going to make my monsters be whatever alignment I need them to be. If there was no alignment then they would just "be," which works fine too.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 14, 2009)

I am starting to wonder why they kept alignment around. I mean, if you never actually meet anything that's good, and no PC can ever be evil, then certainly it's only "us" and "everyone else." We shoot blue lazers, they shoot red, let's fight!


----------



## Rechan (May 14, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I am starting to wonder why they kept alignment around. I mean, if you never actually meet anything that's good, and no PC can ever be evil, then certainly it's only "us" and "everyone else." We shoot blue lazers, they shoot red, let's fight!



Because if they had nuked alignment, the outrage would have been mighty.


----------



## Hellzon (May 14, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Because if they had nuked alignment, the outrage would have been mighty.




Damned if you do, damned if you don't...


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 14, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Because if they had nuked alignment, the outrage would have been mighty.




How much alignment stuff really still exists? I know clerics must be similar in alignment to their diety, but I can recall few if any powers of magic items that trigger off alignment. Type, yes, there are a lot, but alignment?


----------



## avin (May 14, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Because if they had nuked alignment, the outrage would have been mighty.




I'd rather do that than this GOOOOOOOOD vs evil thingie. I feel dishearted by people saying "you can just change them back, from unaligned to good" when changing from good to unaligned and keeping evil around sounds like every D&D game should be "zealots versus evil dudes and we are done."

But I'm going back to the "I want monster more mechanic" vs "I want more fluff monsters" and this edition fluff, on monster manuals, has lost.


----------



## Rechan (May 14, 2009)

Dice4Hire said:


> How much alignment stuff really still exists? I know clerics must be similar in alignment to their diety, but I can recall few if any powers of magic items that trigger off alignment. Type, yes, there are a lot, but alignment?



My point is that it's still there. It's a vestigial thing, but it's still there for those that want it.


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 14, 2009)

avin said:


> "zealots versus evil dudes and we are done."




While I do not go that far, it is my basic playstyle, the good vs everyone who is not good. I do not run evil games, and I do not play in them. It is just not my preference. I am glad 4E does not support, and actively discourages evil characters.


----------



## Jhaelen (May 14, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Because if they had nuked alignment, the outrage would have been mighty.



From whom? I don't see it.


----------



## jdcash (May 14, 2009)

Dice4Hire said:


> While I do not go that far, it is my basic playstyle, the good vs everyone who is not good. I do not run evil games, and I do not play in them. It is just not my preference. I am glad 4E does not support, and actively discourages evil characters.




This!


----------



## Aeolius (May 14, 2009)

Dice4Hire said:


> I am glad 4E does not support, and actively discourages evil characters.




That is a DM's prerogative, in my opinion. It has nothing to do with a particular edition of D&D.

D&D has always been a game where players assume the roles of heroes. There are always the reverse dungeon one-shots, of course, but I've been playing D&D since Basic (before 1e) and have never felt that a particular edition encouraged the use of evil PCs.

While 3.5e encouraged the creation of "weird" PCs, it was not exclusive to that edition. 

If weird = evil, then I'm afraid we'd all be in prison by now.


----------



## Harlekin (May 14, 2009)

Derren said:


> Besides, why must every creature think and behave like a human? (Unless the creature is completely evil and can be killed on sight. Thats also perfectly acceptable. But having something inherently nice and compassionate? Thats a big no).




Evolutionary theory would suggest that a species that is inherently nice and compassionate to other species won't make it very far. So if you want you can say that gold dragons evolved to a better adapted species in 4th edition.


----------



## Nifft (May 14, 2009)

Harlekin said:


> Evolutionary theory would suggest that a species that is inherently nice and compassionate to other species won't make it very far. So if you want you can say that gold dragons evolved to a better adapted species in 4th edition.



 This is one of those few cases where I think it's more appropriate to talk about Intelligent Design.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Harlekin (May 14, 2009)

Nifft said:


> This is one of those few cases where I think it's more appropriate to talk about Intelligent Design.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




This may actually be one of the few cases where the two concepts are not contradictory


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 15, 2009)

> Besides, why must every creature think and behave like a human? (Unless the creature is completely evil and can be killed on sight. Thats also perfectly acceptable. But having something inherently nice and compassionate? Thats a big no).




I am not opposed to such a species, but that doesn't sound like a hoard-amassing metallic Dragon.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 15, 2009)

Harlekin said:


> Evolutionary theory would suggest that a species that is inherently nice and compassionate to other species won't make it very far. So if you want you can say that gold dragons evolved to a better adapted species in 4th edition.









EVOLUTIONARY THEORY DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.


----------



## gizmo33 (May 15, 2009)

Harlekin said:


> This may actually be one of the few cases where the two concepts are not contradictory




Why would someone's mistatement of one theory be expected to conflict with another?   

In any case, unaligned gold dragons were unable to adapt to the conditions in my campaign world and so they have gone extinct.  Had they been good-aligned, their altruism would have been recognized by another species (the DM) and that behavior would have helped them adapt to the new environment.


----------



## gizmo33 (May 15, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> EVOLUTIONARY THEORY DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.




Said the domestic dog to the gray wolf.


----------



## Harlekin (May 15, 2009)

gizmo33 said:


> Said the domestic dog to the gray wolf.




You show me a domesticated animal that is altruistic (ie gives up resources without receiving more resources in return). Especially modern dogs are pretty close to a parasitic species by most standards. And I love them for it.


----------



## Derren (May 15, 2009)

Harlekin said:


> You show me a domesticated animal that is altruistic (ie gives up resources without receiving more resources in return). Especially modern dogs are pretty close to a parasitic species by most standards. And I love them for it.




Its not the dog who breaks the theory, but the human who domesticated it.


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 15, 2009)

gizmo33 said:


> Said the domestic dog to the gray wolf.




Are you saying Gold Dragons are dependent on another species for their evolution and survival.

I just do not see it.


----------



## Harlekin (May 15, 2009)

Derren said:


> Ints not the dog who breaks the theory, but the human who domesticated it.




It doesn't, because the costs are not symmetric. What we provide for the dog costs us a trifle, but is of enormous benefit for the dog. Hence the dog only needs to be of minuscule benefit to us to break even. 

Also, every species will develop detrimental traits if they come together with more advantageous traits (creating a positive net sum). Humans are a prime example of that. Multiple traits negative traits on our bodies were swept along with the development of Intelligence. However in the long run, those negative traits will decouple from the positive traits and disappear.

For more reading I would recommend "The selfish gene" by Richard Dawkins.


----------



## gizmo33 (May 15, 2009)

Dice4Hire said:


> Are you saying Gold Dragons are dependent on another species for their evolution and survival.
> 
> I just do not see it.




Well you probably haven't seen a gold dragon around lately either.  

There's any given number of justifications for the existence (or lack of) for any fantasy species in a fantasy world.  Whether or not Bahamut ordered all non-good gold dragons to be hunted down and slain, and whether he was successful, is up to the DM.


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 15, 2009)

gizmo33 said:


> Well you probably haven't seen a gold dragon around lately either.
> 
> There's any given number of justifications for the existence (or lack of) for any fantasy species in a fantasy world.  Whether or not Bahamut ordered all non-good gold dragons to be hunted down and slain, and whether he was successful, is up to the DM.




Funny. Once someone comes up with a counter argument based on science, you ignore it for a fantasy explanation. If so, why bring up science in the first place?


----------



## Harlekin (May 15, 2009)

Dice4Hire said:


> Funny. Once someone comes up with a counter argument based on science, you ignore it for a fantasy explanation. If so, why bring up science in the first place?




I think I started with the science, albeit as a joke.


----------



## gizmo33 (May 15, 2009)

Harlekin said:


> You show me a domesticated animal that is altruistic (ie gives up resources without receiving more resources in return). Especially modern dogs are pretty close to a parasitic species by most standards. And I love them for it.




So if I tie a few diamonds to a stick and throw it, a dog won't bring it back because he'll be trying to calculate the net value of the transaction?  Does he do so based on current diamond values?  Or those from 10,000 years ago?  (If your campaign world is that old).  There's no real basis for measuring the altruism in the way that you've suggested.  The fact is that evolutionary theory does NOT support anything about selfish behavior being more advantageous than non-selfish behavior irrespective of the environment.  

I think the details of this are too many and our basis for discussing this almost doesn't exist.  My point was to say that there's no reason that a gold dragon's environment has to reward selfish/evil behavior more than good.  For example, the gold dragon's environment could have been one strictly controlled by very powerful divine beings.  

The environment where grey wolves were almost driven to extinction while domestic dogs were not is an example of an environment that rewarded certain adaptive social behaviors between species.  The analogy is to gold dragons, the gods, and so forth.


----------



## gizmo33 (May 15, 2009)

Dice4Hire said:


> Funny. Once someone comes up with a counter argument based on science, you ignore it for a fantasy explanation. If so, why bring up science in the first place?




It wasn't based on science.  The analogy was based on a mistatement of the theory.  The application was to a fantasy environment.


----------



## Harlekin (May 15, 2009)

I'm continuing this discussion only out of scientific curiosity, I totally agree that the alignment of Dragons in a game should follow the need of the game and not real-world science.



gizmo33 said:


> The fact is that evolutionary theory does NOT support anything about selfish behavior being more advantageous than non-selfish behavior irrespective of the environment.




I'ld love to see where you are getting this from as it seems to fly in the face of all mathematical models of evolution that I am aware of. 



gizmo33 said:


> I think the details of this are too many and our basis for discussing this almost doesn't exist.  My point was to say that there's no reason that a gold dragon's environment has to reward selfish/evil behavior more than good.  For example, the gold dragon's environment could have been one strictly controlled by very powerful divine beings.
> 
> The environment where grey wolves were almost driven to extinction while domestic dogs were not is an example of an environment that rewarded certain adaptive social behaviors between species.  The analogy is to gold dragons, the gods, and so forth.




However, under this model, you need ongoing intervention by the gods, otherwise an unaligned dragon will arise and outperform its brethren. And if you do have ongoing intervention, being "good" is not altruistic anymore, as there is clear net benefit to that behavior.

Edit: We may have different definitions of altruistic behavior. For me, altruistic behavior is an act that has more cost than benefit to an individual. In evolutionary terms, an act that reduces fitness, likely by reducing viability.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 15, 2009)

Harlekin, your entire model and theories are broken when you remember that *gold dragons are not unintelligent animals who lack sentience.

*Besides, my main gripe with dragons is that if some are unaligned, they ALL should be.

Which reminds me, your argument also breaks apart when you consider the existance of *ALWAYS EVIL ALWAYS ALL THE TIME* monsters.

Speaking of selfishness:



Dice4Hire said:


> While I do not go that far, it is my basic playstyle, the good vs everyone who is not good. I do not run evil games, and I do not play in them. It is just not my preference. I am glad 4E does not support, and actively discourages evil characters.




So wait, you're stating that you're glad that D&D goes out of it's way to crap on playstyles that aren't yours?  Look, I'm glad yours is supported, but that doesn't mean it's now _magically unable_ to support other playstyles.  It can be a game where you have good vs not good _and_ have rules for people who want to do otherwise.  Right now you're saying "HAH HAH I GOT MY GAME AND YOU DIDN'T.  NYEAH NYEAH NEYAH!"


----------



## Aeolius (May 15, 2009)

Harlekin said:


> You show me a domesticated animal that is altruistic (ie gives up resources without receiving more resources in return).



Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com


----------



## gizmo33 (May 15, 2009)

Harlekin said:


> I'ld love to see where you are getting this from as it seems to fly in the face of all mathematical models of evolution that I am aware of.




Which models of evolution don't define the successful behaviors for the environment?  One that predicts that a wooly mammoth would thrive in the ocean I suppose.  So far I don't recognize what you're talking about as being science.  



Harlekin said:


> However, under this model, you need ongoing intervention by the gods, otherwise an unaligned dragon will arise and outperform its brethren. And if you do have ongoing intervention, being "good" is not altruistic anymore, as there is clear net benefit to that behavior.




You have no basis to say that one type of gold dragon outperforms the other because you haven't even begin to suggest the relevant details of the environment in which these dragons exist.  A single unaligned dragon won't outperform it's bretheren in the evolutionary sense because it will never breed (it's single, remember)  

I'm asserting that there are environmental variables that are possible that will reward the set of behaviors that we define as "good" with no recourse to magical beings.  This, obviously, is a controversial opinion outside of science.


----------



## Harlekin (May 15, 2009)

Aeolius said:


> Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com




Cute story. However, even by risking life, the dog gave up less than what he received by domestication. (also, to protect someone carrying his genes, so the argument doesn't apply in the first place - this is well described by the selfish gene theory).


----------



## gizmo33 (May 15, 2009)

Harlekin said:


> Cute story. However, even by risking life, the dog gave up less than what he received by domestication. (also, to protect someone carrying his genes, so the argument doesn't apply in the first place - this is well described by the selfish gene theory).




There is no scientific basis to say this because you did not define a measure for value.  I can say that everything that a dog gets from people is worth 0.  And you can say it's worth 1 million dinars.  I find your premise to be undefined and unscientific.  Your instinct for assuming relevant facts without support (eg. the dog "gave up less") is par for course for the internets but is unscientific IME.


----------



## Harlekin (May 15, 2009)

gizmo33 said:


> Which models of evolution don't define the successful behaviors for the environment?  One that predicts that a wooly mammoth would thrive in the ocean I suppose.  So far I don't recognize what you're talking about as being science.




OK, let's break this down. Evolutionary fitness depends of viability and fecundity. I define altruistic behavior is an act that has more cost than benefit to an individual. In evolutionary terms, an act that reduces fitness, likely by reducing viability.

As we talked about altruistic behavior towards other species, there is no  gain for the altruistic "gene" by improving fecundity or viability of an other carrier of that gene for example. (*)

Assuming a deterministic model for evolution (not a good fit for dragons) the altruistic "gene" will be reduced in frequency at every generation. Assuming a stochastic model (Small effective population size, so that looks like a good fit) the change in allele frequency depends on the strength of selection, if the costs of altruistic behavior are really small, drift effects will outweigh selection and and the the "selfish" gene may not sweep through the population. However if the costs are substantial, the selfish gene will still become fixed shortly.

That's popgen 101. 

(*) I guess if you assume that one dragon's sacrifice gives dragons such a good name that other dragons will profit from it, this might work. I still doubt it, because the effect would probably be too diffuse and not benefit carriers of the noble variant over carriers of the selfish variant. It could lead to some equilibrium distribution though, where the selfish dragons mooch of the good reputation generated by the good dragons.


----------



## Harlekin (May 16, 2009)

gizmo33 said:


> There is no scientific basis to say this because you did not define a measure for value.  I can say that everything that a dog gets from people is worth 0.  And you can say it's worth 1 million dinars.  I find your premise to be undefined and unscientific.  Your instinct for assuming relevant facts without support (eg. the dog "gave up less") is par for course for the internets but is unscientific IME.




Would you please stop throwing that term around? this is a friendly discussion, so I don't always use the most technical language.

The evolutionary benefit is calculated by the increase in population size due to a behavior. the benefit dogs get from being pets is most easily evaluated by comparing the population size of dogs with the population size of similarly sized non-domesticated predators that would exist in the absence of humans. i would guess that there are a lot more dogs in the US than could be supported as predators by the local ecology. Hence collaboration with humans increases the population size of the animal.


----------



## Rechan (May 16, 2009)

Am I the only one who thinks Gold Dragon Alighment/Evolution needs to be forked? 

Because it's really distracting from talking about the MM2. While it has unaligned gold dragons in it, the developer's decision to turn everything "Good" into "Unaligned" goes beyond the MM2, so it is a broader topic than this book.


----------



## Rechan (May 16, 2009)

So, on the topic of monsters, Minions are a little bit more robust.

Slaad Spawn (level 17 minion skirmisher): they have a +2 to hit over the Podspawn.

But here's the _cool_ thing about Slaad Spawn; as an at will power, they get to jump several squares and make a basic attack. If they miss, they explode - and attack everything around them in a close burst 1 for slightly less damage.

What makes this extremely nasty? There's a template that you can apply to other Slaad; as an at will immediate reaction, they spawn a slaad spawn when hit.

Black Pudding also spawn a minion when hit - an 8th level brute. Now, their attacks are a little less accurate, but they're still pulling 10 damage a hit - for an 8th level minion. I think this is certainly suggesting a change in minion design, to say the least. The Black Pudding minions also ignore difficult terrain and opportunity attacks from moving.


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 16, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> So wait, you're stating that you're glad that D&D goes out of it's way to crap on playstyles that aren't yours?  Look, I'm glad yours is supported, but that doesn't mean it's now _magically unable_ to support other playstyles.  It can be a game where you have good vs not good _and_ have rules for people who want to do otherwise.  Right now you're saying "HAH HAH I GOT MY GAME AND YOU DIDN'T.  NYEAH NYEAH NEYAH!"




Gee, try the other side of the bed for a change. If you want that game, more power to you, enjoy yourself, have fun, and such. Wizards has expressed the preference for good parties from the get-go in this game system, and I'm not going to apologize for being happy WOTC has done so even stronger in 4E.

If you need an evil game, play it. No one is stopping you.


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 16, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Harlekin, your entire model and theories are broken when you remember that *gold dragons are not unintelligent animals who lack sentience.
> 
> *Besides, my main gripe with dragons is that if some are unaligned, they ALL should be.
> 
> Which reminds me, your argument also breaks apart when you consider the existance of *ALWAYS EVIL ALWAYS ALL THE TIME* monsters.




All caps plus all bold is very rude on the interwebs.


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 16, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Black Pudding also spawn a minion when hit - an 8th level brute. Now, their attacks are a little less accurate, but they're still pulling 10 damage a hit - for an 8th level minion. I think this is certainly suggesting a change in minion design, to say the least. The Black Pudding minions also ignore difficult terrain and opportunity attacks from moving.




I ahd not read those monsters, but good catch. I am glad that monsters will be using minions more as special power effects and less and 1/4 xp crowds. I found minions at levels 1-5 or maybe even 6-7 in my face to face to be a lot of fun, but they are just plain useless at higher levels. Other people's experience may vary, but minions just do not do the damage to be much of a threat. It is a shame, as it is such a cool concept. 

I'm glad to wee WOTC working on expanding monsters like they are expanding classes and such.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 16, 2009)

*New Minion Damage*

Hey all! 



			
				Dice4Hire said:
			
		

> I ahd not read those monsters, but good catch. I am glad that monsters will be using minions more as special power effects and less and 1/4 xp crowds. I found minions at levels 1-5 or maybe even 6-7 in my face to face to be a lot of fun, but they are just plain useless at higher levels. Other people's experience may vary, but minions just do not do the damage to be much of a threat. It is a shame, as it is such a cool concept.
> 
> I'm glad to wee WOTC working on expanding monsters like they are expanding classes and such.




I don't have MM2 yet to make a thorough enough analysis but I suspect that minion damage has went from being equal to the Minimum of the Low Column on the Normal Damage Expression Table to being equal to the Average of the Low Column Normal Damage Expression Table (round fractions up).

So that might change things as follows:

Minion Level, Old Damage, *New Damage*
1-3, 4, *7*
4-6, 5, *8*
7-9, 6, *10*
10-12, 6, *10*
13-15, 7, *12*
16-18, 8, *13*
19-21, 9, *14*
22-24, 10, *15*
25-27, 11, *18*
28-30, 12, *19*

Can anyone with the book confirm the above?


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 16, 2009)

> As we talked about altruistic behavior towards other species, there is no gain for the altruistic "gene" by improving fecundity or viability of an other carrier of that gene for example.




Altruism and selfishness are not genetic or hard-wired as much as they are learned, social behaviors. But regardless, talking about evolutionary alignment is pretty insane, IMO. Gold Dragons are "good" to show that not every dragon is there just to be killed, and to provide a different kind of challenge for a party, and to make a world in which there is one a richer place, and to provide homage to all the good, pure, sacred dragons in myth and legend, to give the party a powerful dragon patron, to represent the fantasy trope  of "it looks on the outside like it is on the inside (beautiful and good, ugly and evil)," etc., etc., etc.

A D&D game that doesn't want to represent basic fantasy storytelling techniques isn't a good game for my group, because that is important for my group. Being able to kill a Gold dragon without changing the alignment is NOT important for my group, really, in the slightest. I've lost something constructive, nothing constructive was added, this was an idiot choice from my perspective. 

And I really wonder why the 4e team even kept alignment in the game if it's just going to be "PC's Good, everyone else Not Good." If all you use the Good alignment for is to give PC's the right to stab things, it's not being used in a heroic or noble narrative context at all. May as well take the thing out of the game, especially given the mercenary nature of most PC parties.


----------



## Rechan (May 16, 2009)

Upper_Krust said:


> Hey all!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Kenku Ruffian, level 3 minion skirmisher, damage 5.
Bullywug Croaker, level 3 minion brute, damage 7.
Rupture Demon level 3 minion soldier, damage 5
Infernal Animus Armor level 3 minion soldier, damage 5



> 13-15, 7, *12*
> 16-18, 8, *13*



Aboleth Skum, level 18 minion brute, damage 16
Several minion skirmishers and one controller, level 15-*17*: 12 damage.


----------



## LightPhoenix (May 16, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Altruism and selfishness are not genetic or hard-wired as much as they are learned, social behaviors.




Kamikaze Midget brings up an interesting point, perhaps without realizing it.

There is a difference between altruistic behavior and symbiotic behavior.

The running example of dogs and humans is an example of symbiosis.  More specifically, the current theory is that wolves developed a commensal symbiosis with humans and evolution resulted in modern dogs. That relationship _may_ be considered mutualistic today.  I personally would consider it in between mutualistic and commensal.  In any case, the act of a dog defending its owner is at worst considered self-serving (protecting your niche) and at best an example of true mutualism (dogs and humans help each other).  None of that suggests altruism.  There are some who believe in reciprocity as a form of altruism - I would disagree on that fact.

However (and my apologies KM), altruistic behavior is not unheard of in biology.  Any microbiologist should be able to tell you about the concept of persistence - that some bacteria, in safe (non-challenging) conditions, will assume a dormant state to protect the whole of the colony in the event of a challengge (particularly in a biofilm).  There's no individual biological advantage to a bacterial cell doing this.  Yet it's very common.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 17, 2009)

Hey there Rechan! 



			
				Rechan said:
			
		

> Kenku Ruffian, level 3 minion skirmisher, damage 5.
> Bullywug Croaker, level 3 minion brute, damage 7.
> Rupture Demon level 3 minion soldier, damage 5
> Infernal Animus Armor level 3 minion soldier, damage 5
> ...




Thanks very much for posting a few damages. What we can see is that Minion Role now plays a part in assigning damage, although its possible some ability scores may be affecting numbers.

Ah well, I'll have the book in a few days time and then I can work it all out.


----------



## Derren (May 17, 2009)

Sorry to bring the metallic alignment up again, but Dragoncat just posted this on the WotC board and I think that this is a very good in game explanation for this.
And while I still don't agree with WotC design for 4E even I can accept this explanation so I think most others who are not impressed by unaligned metalics can too



			
				Dragoncat said:
			
		

> Maybe the entire point is that metallic dragons can _choose_ to be good.
> 
> 
> Let's face it.  Chromatic dragons?  They're jerks.  From the shell, they are little bastards, full of spite and vanity and destruction.
> ...


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 17, 2009)

That is quite good.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 17, 2009)

> However (and my apologies KM), altruistic behavior is not unheard of in biology. Any microbiologist should be able to tell you about the concept of persistence - that some bacteria, in safe (non-challenging) conditions, will assume a dormant state to protect the whole of the colony in the event of a challengge (particularly in a biofilm). There's no individual biological advantage to a bacterial cell doing this. Yet it's very common.




This is an interesting tangent, but weird from the context of D&D and the MMII conversation, which doesn't have much at all to do with altruism being instinctive or not, but more has to do with why the designers avoid the Good alignment in monsters as if it were plutonium. One assumes this is because they are under the wrongheaded belief that Good monsters aren't useful. 

The whole "Gold Dragons have evolved!" is a peculiar sort of excuse that seems to miss the more salient points entirely: the designers believe that "Good" is not a fun alignment in play for anything opposing the PC's goals. I would -- very much -- like to disabuse them of this notion. I'm not sure we need the galaxy of Good that the artificial symmetry enforced, but this is a baby-bathwater problem. There's a happy middle ground that reserves Good for truly iconic creatures (such as the Gold Dragon) and doesn't worry about having the occasional Good adversary or rival, as long as it is used in moderation. 

That bacteria display altruism is interesting, but doesn't mean a lot for D&D or the MMII.


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 17, 2009)

Man, if this thread had all the derailing taken out of it (including this post! ), it would lose half the posts!

Fork people! Some interesting discussions but a lot of talk about game design in fluff and crunch and evolution theory vs alignment. Interesting but certainly not why some are reading. 

Some are looking for those awesome tidbits of info about the monsters. 

For example, has anyone used these bad boys in the game yet? By default, some of them probably already have since there appears to be some reprints but any of the others getting used?


----------



## Rechan (May 17, 2009)

Another thing I've noticed; it seems the Devs want to split parties up. Because several monsters of different types, I note, have powers that let them drag people away. Check out the Ankheg - there's only one or two powers that severe, but there still exists a few; one demon can pull an Avenger - its schtick is teleporting a target, then teleporting beside said target. Another demon can snatch and fly its full speed with the target, without making Str checks.

There are a lot of demons and devils in the book. 



JoeGKushner said:


> For example, has anyone used these bad boys in the game yet? By default, some of them probably already have since there appears to be some reprints but any of the others getting used?



Tomorrow I'm using the Shadar-Kai Gloom Lord (been shown somewhere). However, I'm going to have to town it down (14th level Artillery in the book, 6th level artillery in my game); I'm having to water down one of the powers a hint, so it's less vicious. 

What's funny is that the 4 Shadar-Kai in the book have a similar effect; they all cause a target to be Shrouded in Gloom. A target who's Shrouded in Gloom takes a -2 to attacks and gains half HP from healing (save ends). Each has a nasty AW ability that requires a target be Shrouded in Gloom.


----------



## Jack99 (May 17, 2009)

Derren said:


> Sorry to bring the metallic alignment up again, but Dragoncat just posted this on the WotC board and I think that this is a very good in game explanation for this.
> And while I still don't agree with WotC design for 4E even I can accept this explanation so I think most others who are not impressed by unaligned metalics can too




I am glad you found something to make things work for you. And yes, it's not a half-bad explanation.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 17, 2009)

Dice4Hire said:


> Gee, try the other side of the bed for a change. If you want that game, more power to you, enjoy yourself, have fun, and such. Wizards has expressed the preference for good parties from the get-go in this game system, and I'm not going to apologize for being happy WOTC has done so even stronger in 4E.
> 
> If you need an evil game, play it. No one is stopping you.




You typed so much, and yet your response still remains "I'm so glad Wizards supports *MY* playing style!  *HAH HAH* THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT YOU!"

Once again I must ask: How would support for playing a non-good party take away from your good party?

Hey look, someone won a free thread-ban!  Don't be a jerk to one another, please. ~ PCat


----------



## Jack99 (May 17, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> You typed so much, and yet your response still remains "I'm so glad Wizards supports *MY* playing style!  *HAH HAH* THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT YOU!"
> 
> Once again I must ask: How would support for playing a non-good party take away from your good party?




Well, I guess you could argue that additional ressources would have to be devoted to making evil monsters and evil powers for players (or at least evil variants for some powers/class abilities). Maybe there had to be written some dungeon master's advice for DM's wishing to run evil campaigns.

Not that I see any of the above as a problem either way. While I doubt I will be running an evil campaign, I would welcome any material needed to do so.


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 17, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> You typed so much, and yet your response still remains "I'm so glad Wizards supports *MY* playing style!




Yes, I specifically said that. 



> *HAH HAH* THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT YOU!"




I did not say that. You have read that into my response twice now. 



> Once again I must ask: How would support for playing a non-good party take away from your good party?




I see no reason to defend a position I never took.

Since you are so worked up about this, support an evil party/campaign by making a 3PP product, why don't you? You sound like you have the enthusiasm for it. I won't buy or download it, of course, but it might make the game better for some people.


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 17, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Well, I guess you could argue that additional ressources would have to be devoted to making evil monsters and evil powers for players (or at least evil variants for some powers/class abilities).




If I were to answer ProfessorCirno's question, I would probably say this, but no need to answer it.


----------



## Piratecat (May 17, 2009)

Stop hijacking, please. That means no more alignment discussion in this thread.


----------



## Jack99 (May 17, 2009)

Getting back on track, I just want to say that the MM2 is absolutely brilliant. Although I am wondering why the centaurs get the potential to do unlimited damage.


----------



## Derren (May 17, 2009)

Any more information on the insane noble?

What is he by the way? Elite Soldier?


----------



## Jack99 (May 17, 2009)

Derren said:


> Any more information on the insane noble?
> 
> What is he by the way? Elite Soldier?




He is one of the few misses in the book IMO.

EDIT: Couldnt find my book earlier, but he is a lvl 23 skirmisher


----------



## Rechan (May 17, 2009)

One thing I think that is very dumb is the Table of Contents.

Look at the first few posts; that _Is_ the table of contents. The way this is different is that, instead of listing every monster group name, some will instead get ONE specific one of those types listed.

For instance, instead of just having Demon and Devil and the page number, it says "Assassin Devil" or "Bloodseep Demon". Instead of Vine, it lists Ambush Vine and then the page number.

I can't understand why they did that, and think it's just sloppy and stupid.


----------



## frankthedm (May 17, 2009)

Rechan said:


> One thing I think that is very dumb is the Table of Contents.
> 
> Look at the first few posts; that _Is_ the table of contents. The way this is different is that, instead of listing every monster group name, some will instead get ONE specific one of those types listed.
> 
> ...



 So is that an index style listing? Or do the monster  show up in that page order?


----------



## Rechan (May 17, 2009)

frankthedm said:


> So is that an index style listing? Or do the monster  show up in that page order?



No, they do it out of page order. Purely by alphabeticalness. 

For instance, you'll have "Windfury" in the Ws, but the monster is an elemental, and thus under the Elemental heading, and thus in the Es, at the beginning of the dang book. The Ambush Vine is under "Vine, Predatory", thus at the _back_ of the book. 

And it's not an index (because indexes list everything); the Bloodseep demon is the only Demon mentioned on the Table of Contents; the Ambush Vine the only vine, etc. 

I just have to wonder what crack the layout guy was smoking when he made this thing.


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 17, 2009)

frankthedm said:


> So is that an index style listing? Or do the monster  show up in that page order?




It is an alphabetical listing, but an odd one. Some monsters (like demons, dvils and star spawn) are listed by ah individual monster, while others, (like genasi, human and such), are listed by that broad group. It comes out as a jumble of numbers, and assumes you know what the monster's name is, which I do not like, as I tend to forget exactly. 

Also, why is Iron Dragon listed under the I, and Gold dragon under the G? Why not dragon, Iron, all together?

I agree it is annoying. If the book is organized by monster type, the table of contents should reflect this.


----------



## Rechan (May 17, 2009)

On the same topic of organization, I noticed a small but interesting (to me) change. MM2, like the first MM, has an index in the back with every monster by level and role. 

Minions no longer get their own little role section; instead, they are tucked into the role section of other monsters.

What you get is this:

Blabla1   6th level Skirmisher
Blabla2     6th level elite Skirmisher   
Blabla3     6th level solo Skirmisher
Blabla4     6th level minion Skirmisher


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 18, 2009)

*Pushing the envelope???*

I went through the MMII in mroe detail last night, and I really thought that the designers were pushingh te envelope on monster abilities mroe and more. Reliable abilities, more hindering abilities, like those triggering off characters making saves or spending healing surges and the like. 

Does everyone else agree? Are the monsters more varied and sophisticated this MM?

I think so, and I'm glad to see it.


----------



## Rechan (May 18, 2009)

I remember seeing a monster that had a reliable power, once (or rather, it 'recharges when missing with this power; encounter').

But I agree, they are definitely fairly varied. Like I said earlier, I saw quite a few monsters designed to snatch and drag a PC away. Apparently, someone in the Dev team liked the Avenger so much, he thought DMs should get to do it too.


----------

