# General Monster Manual 3 Thread



## Obryn (Jun 16, 2010)

I have to say... wow.  This is an amazing book of monsters.  By far, the best yet.  I dig the increased damage.  I dig the increased accuracy of Brutes.  I think those things together will encourage DMs to run level-appropriate encounters, and cut down on combat length as a result.

The monsters themselves are pretty insane.  I'm already planning to use the Banderhobbs in an upcoming session - and probably the Catoblepas, too.  In fact, I'm going to end up excising quite a few encounters from P3 and replacing them with new ones.

Some random thoughts...

* Sorry, WotC, but "page xx" errors are frankly inexcusable in a published product.
* Thank you for bringing back pure elementals!  Finally!  The only brokey ones I see are the Fire elementals - 15 Ongoing at Epic just isn't much punch.
* Lolth is awesome and badass.  Such a well-designed Epic creature.
* I think most Solos need something along the lines of Immortal Resilience.  I like that all the Named threats here have it.
* They weren't screwing around with the increased damage.  I was tentative on the "double the static bonus" fix, but having seen the new monsters, it looks just about right.
* For the first time, a 4e Monster Manual is good reading!  I was a big fan of the sparse layout in MM1 at first - but that was when I was using it in play rather than either DDI printouts or Masterplan.  Now that I have easy ways to keep the fluff from interfering with my crunch, I want fluff!

All in all, well done.  I was tentative about buying the book, and even cancelled my pre-order at one point, but I'm glad I ended up picking it up.

-O


----------



## Cerebral Paladin (Jun 16, 2010)

How useful is it for people who DM a Heroic tier game?  My current 4e game is low Heroic; it will probably be at least a year before we hit Paragon.  Will I get much value out of the MM3?


----------



## Lancelot (Jun 16, 2010)

Very useful for Heroic Tier. A lot of cool monsters for the lower tiers; typically with a lot more flavor than your average goblins and orcs. There are also many variations to existing creatures (ogres, gnolls, minotaurs, etc) that make them more interesting.


I agree with Obryn - this is probably the best pure Monster book I've seen since 1st edition (or maybe 2nd edition - I'm a huge fan of the Planescape monstrous compendiums with the diTerlizzi art). There's a ton of flavor in here, and a lot of it is old school. Shout-outs to the Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Isle of Dread, Temple of Elemental Evil, Blood War, Vecna, specific demonlords and archdevils... plus more detail on the unique 4e-isms (Dawn War, Primordials, Astral Sea, etc).


----------



## Obryn (Jun 16, 2010)

There's a good spread of monsters in MM3.  Judging by appearances, I'd say about 40% are Heroic tier.  The rest are at various Paragon and Epic levels.

-O


----------



## Rechan (Jun 16, 2010)

I am still upset about the ToC. WHY put individual monsters in the ToC, rather than just the subheading? Why bother having both 'Spawn of Kyuss' heading and then 'Wretch of Kyuss', a version of the Spawn of Kyuss monster, in the ToC?! 

It's just a waste, cluttering up the ToC.


----------



## Dr_Ruminahui (Jun 16, 2010)

Depends on what kind of monsters you want to face - sure, there is a lot of paragon and epic stuff in there, but there is some neat/useful heroic monsters too, for example:

For clarity:  low heroic = lvls 1-4, mid = 4-6, upper 7-10 -ish

Apes - mid heroic
Arcanian [an undead wizard] - upper heroic
Behemoths [dinosaurs, 2x tricertops, 1x pteradactal] - upper heroic
Cambions [half-devils] - upper heroic
Cave Fishers [ambush monsters] - low heroic
Chitine [drow abominations] - mid/upper heroic
Craud [giant crabs] - low heroic
Dark Ones [shadow halflings] - mid heroic
Demons - though most are higher tiers, there is one that is low heroic, and one upper heroic
Devils - as per demons, but one is upper heroic
Dragons - have some mid and upper heroic elite versions
Dread Warriors [bound undead] - mid heroic
Elementals - have low heroic versions
Foulspawn - 2 are upper heroic, one of which is a minon
Frogs - low heroic
Gargoyles - upper heroic
Ghouls - mid heroic
Gnolls - mid heroic
Gremlins - mid/upper heroic versions...

And that's just half the book... so yeah, there's a bunch of heroic stuff in there.

Myself, as an upper heroic DM (PCs just hit 8th), the thing I like about it is that the upper level monsters gave me a better idea of where things might go plotwise as the PCs climb the tiers... really had no idea what I would do for epic before.  Now I do, and can start laying the groundwork/plot hooks/foreshadowing now.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 16, 2010)

I used the Crauds in an encounter yesterday. They hit _hard_. One monster, the Brute, has an encounter power that does 2d12+10 and knocks the target prone. It did a solid 24 points of damage to the Warlord, would have dropped him straight to 0 had it not been for the Swordmage using a utility that let him reduce damage of an attack to an adjacent target. 

The Skrimisher has an AW power that lets it make two attacks, and if both hit, its encounter power recharges and it uses it for free. All three hit the same target and he went down.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 16, 2010)

Rechan said:


> I am still upset about the ToC. WHY put individual monsters in the ToC, rather than just the subheading? Why bother having both 'Spawn of Kyuss' heading and then 'Wretch of Kyuss', a version of the Spawn of Kyuss monster, in the ToC?!
> 
> It's just a waste, cluttering up the ToC.




I'm the opposite. For a book like an MM, I'd _rather_ they put each and every creature, including individuals and subtypes. Makes it easier to find things quickly, especially if you're dealing with a creature where the subtype name isn't as obvious a connection as the one you mentioned. (Also, for someone new to the game, they may not remember off the top of their head that "Spawn of..." is the proper heading; maybe they're thinking "Wretch of..." is the actual name, and can't find it under W.)


----------



## Bold or Stupid (Jun 16, 2010)

Very nice book, I'm using some of the frogs tonight, pairing them with some bullywugs. Should be fun.


----------



## Victim (Jun 16, 2010)

Our copy has some printing errors where some pages are missing a green ink - the headings are all blue instead of the normal color.

Providing terrible 'in character' stories instead of actual information about the monster is pretty dang weak.  Each monster doesn't get too much space for non-stat information, so it should really count.  A little story that's as much about people around the monster doesn't strike me as an efficient use of that space. 

I'm not sure about the new damage guidelines.  MM1 damage could be kind of flat - OTOH, there were often ways to exploit synergies between monsters or within their abilities to crank it up.


----------



## Phaezen (Jun 16, 2010)

Victim said:


> Our copy has some printing errors where some pages are missing a green ink - the headings are all blue instead of the normal color.




If you take it back to where you bought it they should be willing to replace it.


----------



## Victim (Jun 16, 2010)

Phaezen said:


> If you take it back to where you bought it they should be willing to replace it.




Yeah, we figured - but we just got it today, and then had our group over, so we haven't taken the time to do that yet.


----------



## Celisasu (Jun 16, 2010)

Overall I agree, this is probably the best designed of the MM books.  They're obviously starting to get a feel for how strong monsters are supposed to be and taking steps to deal with the solo problem.  A couple of monsters have required me to reread to make sure I'm understanding how their powers work correctly and I'm not sure about how viable a few of the monsters are, but overall I like this one a great deal.  I especially like the new format for the monster blocks.  

I'm mixed about the fluff.  I like to have fluff and I'm glad that they're doing more than they did in MM1 and MM2 but the fluff I've read has been less than inspiring.  Well I did like the banderhob ones.


----------



## Hammerhead (Jun 16, 2010)

The banderhob entry (well, the fluff) was utter excrement. I liked the core concept of the creature: abductor monsters who swallow people whole, then regurgitate them later in another plane. But the style of the fluff was just horrible: writing about how some watchmen gets eaten in the tactics section of the monster? Horrible.


----------



## Jack Jericho (Jun 16, 2010)

I do not think Lolth is as tough as many people seem to think.  Someone with the Lord of Fate destiny would make 4E Lolth cry as she spends the majority of the encounter dominated.


Overall, I think the monsters in the book are nice.  Having a little more fluff is nice.  I know many people want rules in place of fluff, but sometimes MM1 was so sparse with fluff that I was unsure what a creature was even supposed to be.  A few of the older monsters had neither descriptive text to tell you what the creature looked like nor a picture.  Fluff for a monster should be about the monster though.  Stories and excerpts from a campaign or an encounter that someone ran is something that should be reserved for an ecology of article or -at best- a sidebar.


The change in damage is interesting, but I am not sure what this means for D&D overall.  I do believe the damage increase was needed, but I have two concerns about it.

1) Many of the damage increases were done with increased static damage instead of adding more dice of damage.  While it is a good thing to allow higher level monsters to do more consistant damage, I feel that such a sudden increase in guaranteed damage is something which probably was not playtested as much as it should have been.  I also feel that more variable damage would make monster critical hits seem more special.

2) The current books really are starting to seem quite different from the first batch of 4E.  While I am glad work is being done to improve the system, I think there comes a point when the new design direction of 4E seems different enough from where 4E first started to give someone a little concern about how well mixing and matching old and new elements will work out.  I have a feeling that Essentials and the Rules Compendium will bring more change than I originally anticipated.  


The book is good.  I had a chance to look through it at the store and then again when looking through a copy owned by a friend.  I am waiting to buy it until I see if one of the local stores here has a copy with better physical quality.  A few of the ones I looked through at the local book store had some rather noticeable physical defects.  It surprised me to find this because it is not a problem I had noticed since the first three books.


----------



## MrMyth (Jun 16, 2010)

As far as the fluff/rules thing goes, I enjoyed the extra fluff in the MM3, but did feel it was a bit much at times. The Banderhobb is a good example. They are probably my favorite new creature in the book. On the other hand, I don't know if they needed short pieces of fluff both before _and_ after each entry. Having the story part first, then the creature presentation, then some brief tactics - I think that would be the best of both worlds. 

Overall, though, I agree with most everyone else. This is pretty much my favorite monster book yet, and I hope is a good sign of standards for thigns to come.


----------



## Aegeri (Jun 16, 2010)

A couple of comments on what you wrote Jack:



> 1) Many of the damage increases were done with increased static damage  instead of adding more dice of damage.  While it is a good thing to  allow higher level monsters to do more consistant damage, I feel that  such a sudden increase in guaranteed damage is something which probably  was not playtested as much as it should have been.  I also feel that  more variable damage would make monster critical hits seem more special.



Monster critical hits are a joke at epic, for one thing penalties can ensure many of their critical hits are negated outright in some cases and the other problem is that PCs can negate critical hits with powers or abilities. This means the effect of criticals on a battle is basically irrelevant. Damage that has a good solid static modifier is more reliable, consistent and much less easy for a PC to deal with. Additionally it means that most monsters are going to be doing damage roughly around what they should be, with the dice providing a bit of variation towards the "bottom" and "upper" levels.

Thus far what I've played of paragon and epic with the new damage it's a great improvement. Combat is more challenging but actually predictable. When a monster hits it has a significant effect: Rather than being a crit to do anything at all to begin with or just an insignificant housecat scratch otherwise.



> 2) The current books really are starting to seem quite different from  the first batch of 4E.   While I am glad work is being done to improve the system, I think there  comes a point when the new design direction of 4E seems different enough from where 4E first started to give someone a  little concern about how well mixing and matching old and new elements  will work out.  I have a feeling that Essentials and the Rules  Compendium will bring more change than I originally anticipated.



I agree entirely. I hate to admit this, but the MM1 creatures take a lot of work to make as viable with MM3 than say MM2. MM2 has better power and creature design, just doubling a MM2 monsters static damage does the trick. The creatures in the MM1 though often not only need the math fixes to damage they really need someone to rejigger their powers.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 16, 2010)

Celisasu said:


> I'm mixed about the fluff.  I like to have fluff and I'm glad that they're doing more than they did in MM1 and MM2 but the fluff I've read has been less than inspiring.  Well I did like the banderhob ones.



I knew this complaint would surface as soon as WotC made more fluff for the monsters.


----------



## Victim (Jun 16, 2010)

Rechan said:


> I knew this complaint would surface as soon as WotC made more fluff for the monsters.




The sort of style mishmash makes it especially jarring.  If you have some book where pretty much everything is described on an in world level with quotes and stories (the DL SAGA monster book), then it may be good or bad in execution, but it's a consistent concept.  Or you could have the MM 1 or 2 style technical manual of monsters with some omniscient 3 person writing.

But using both styles at once doesn't seem to strongly appeal to people preferring either approach.


----------



## Aegeri (Jun 16, 2010)

I'm a crunch man myself and to be honest I don't really care about the fluff. The fact is the monsters in the actual book have awesome, creative and very well put together stat blocks. In the end if the fluff they had put in had made the stat blocks suffer in some manner I would be upset, but IMO they have put more fluff in to try to appease some people and the stat blocks haven't suffered at all.

I'm honest when I say the MM3 monsters are the best monsters to date they have published. I don't care what outside of that they do with future monster manuals or books. Keep up the standard of quality of those stat blocks (Crunch) and I'm not going to care.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 16, 2010)

Victim said:


> The sort of style mishmash makes it especially jarring.  If you have some book where pretty much everything is described on an in world level with quotes and stories (the DL SAGA monster book), then it may be good or bad in execution, but it's a consistent concept.  Or you could have the MM 1 or 2 style technical manual of monsters with some omniscient 3 person writing.
> 
> But using both styles at once doesn't seem to strongly appeal to people preferring either approach.



The Banderhobb is the ONLY monster that had its fluff like that. Let's not blow it out of proportion as an actual common problem.


----------



## Victim (Jun 16, 2010)

Rechan said:


> The Banderhobb is the ONLY monster that had its fluff like that. So saying it's a problem is a bit of an exaggeration. The Banderhobb is a single case, an outlier.




The autumn nymph has an entry like that, as does some type of ghast IIRC.  It's not especially common, but there are other entries like that.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 16, 2010)

Victim said:


> The autumn nymph has an entry like that, as does some type of ghast IIRC.  It's not especially common, but there are other entries like that.




The Ghast has a normal one... 

I get the feeling the more esoteric entries are reserved for the monsters that the author intended for less of a "fight this" role, and more of an "interact with this" role.


----------



## Smoke Jaguar (Jun 16, 2010)

Sounds like I need to buy this.

Not trying to hijack the thread or anything... Where would this rank in books to buy for a DM?  (I don't actually have any of my own yet.)


----------



## Aegeri (Jun 17, 2010)

Smoke Jaguar said:


> Sounds like I need to buy this.
> 
> Not trying to hijack the thread or anything... Where would this rank in books to buy for a DM?  (I don't actually have any of my own yet.)




At the top and easily. This feels like their best Monster Manual and it is definitely the way to go forwards.


----------



## Victim (Jun 17, 2010)

The Ghast has a story about some rogue sealing up from ghouls and then coming back years later.

It seems like there are a ton of monsters that dominate and/or force people to make attacks against their allies.  I guess that's one way to get around a monster damage problem - just have them use PC damage.  However, Dominate is one of the less satisfying conditions when your character is on the receiving end.  The Spring Nymph, for example, is only like level 5 and has a reusable dominate attack.


----------



## Zaukrie (Jun 17, 2010)

I love the fluff. Otherwise, they are just pictures and stats. This is especially important for newer DMs. As a loooooooooooooong time DM, I also enjoy it. 

For the most part, do people actually use the detailed tactics sections? I'd like something that is a combo fluff/tactics. There is no reason that part can't be more enjoyable to read than just Use power 4, then use power 2, then action point, then use power 5.


----------



## fba827 (Jun 17, 2010)

So I asked this question when MM2 came out and I'll ask it again since I enjoyed everyone's answers that time ...


What handful of monsters in MM3 really caught your interest/attention (for whatever reason - be it mechanics, fluff, picture, 'is just too perfect timing for what you happened to need in your game' etc)??


----------



## malraux (Jun 17, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> At the top and easily. This feels like their best Monster Manual and it is definitely the way to go forwards.




How about for a DM that uses DDI heavily?  Is the non-crunch stuff worthwhile?


----------



## Aegeri (Jun 17, 2010)

Victim said:


> The Ghast has a story about some rogue sealing up from ghouls and then coming back years later.
> 
> It seems like there are a ton of monsters that dominate and/or force people to make attacks against their allies.  I guess that's one way to get around a monster damage problem - just have them use PC damage.  However, Dominate is one of the less satisfying conditions when your character is on the receiving end.  The Spring Nymph, for example, is only like level 5 and has a reusable dominate attack.




This isn't new, two creatures that can dominate exist at level 4 and 6 and both are at-will 



Spoiler



Brain in a Broken Jar (4)
Brain in a Jar (6)



So this isn't actually breaking any new ground. Neither is dominate at high levels. What is new is the dominate powers of the Astral Kraken and one other monster I forget right now. Both actually can order a PC (without expending) their highest level encounter power on another PC. Now that can be a bit of a shock.



			
				malraux said:
			
		

> How about for a DM that uses DDI heavily?  Is the non-crunch stuff  worthwhile?




That's a hard question for me to answer, because I'm a crunch person but I do find the fluff they include useful. For example most of the time they focus on explaining what a creature does and adventure ideas (particularly for the cultists of the various elemental evils). So they're really making a case for "How can I use this monster" as opposed to descriptions like "It lives in a forest and poops tree bark" or whatever. This makes them pretty useful for generating ideas - some people though complain this fluff isn't actually really telling them things about the monster itself like the old MMs did. 

There is a lot more of it and one reason I like having the books is to tell what various monsters actually are. Determining what some of the more random monsters actually look like from a stat block isn't actually that easy. So I would recommend buying the book for the stat blocks, the art and yeah the fluff is good as well.

But if the art and fluff isn't really a huge priority for you, I honestly don't think other than maybe some neat ideas for using a monster or some possible adventures you'll miss a lot.


----------



## Lancelot (Jun 17, 2010)

fba827 said:


> What handful of monsters in MM3 really caught your interest/attention (for whatever reason - be it mechanics, fluff, picture, 'is just too perfect timing for what you happened to need in your game' etc)??




Mechanics?


No specific monster, but there are multiple (at least 6 different types, from ogres to banderhobbs to meazels to cave fishers) that have an "abduction" mechanic. They lunge in, grab a character, and immediately begin tugging him away from the rest of the group. That can set up a nice dynamic with appropriate terrain, such as trying to drag the poor victim into a pit, or down a pitch-blach shaft. Very tense for the others, desperately trying to mount a rescue attempt.
There are several "choice" mechanics, such as: "You can either take 20 psychic damage, or choose to charge one of your own allies" or the nymph's Whisper Game: "save vs this effect and it passes to one of your allies... whoever has it last suffers a really punishing effect when the nymph dies". These all add suspense within the fight.
There are several monsters that make really good use of minions. The paelyrion (corruption) devil has 5-6 different types of minions, and each has a radically different impact on the battle (lethargy, lust, carnage, greed, etc). The oblivion moss can target PCs with its powers and form minions based on their role: defender, striker, leader, controller. Again, these have different impacts on the battle depending on their type.
There are 4 big bad solos: Lolth, Imix, Ogremoch and Allabar (basically, a Lovecraftian Old One), plus some very powerful "lesser bosses" such as Eclavdra, Elder Brains and so forth. There are new Epic-level yuan-ti and drow, and some of the latter could be campaign-ending villains as well. All of them were very nicely differentiated, with some very flavorsome powers.
Fluff-wise...


Yeah, the banderhobbs. Everyone is talking about them. I guess is because they bring that whole "monster-under-the-bed" vibe (explicitly mentioned in the flavor text). The art is great, the powers are evocative. It's rare that I see a new creature that has never appeared before in D&D and immediately think: "That's a classic".
There's a genuine "old school" feel to the book, with a lot of classic creatures updated.
Excellent selection of demons and devils (always my favorites). Ultroloths (...sory, ultrodemons), nalfeshnees, cambions, molydei, babaus, paelyrions, quasits, narzugons, klurichirs, etc. They seem to have covered off all the outstanding big name demons/devils from previous editions; much more so than MM2, which largely introduced a bunch of "new" demons/devils that had never appeared before.
What didn't I care for?


The new 4e norkers didn't do much for me. I never associated norkers with paragon-tier elemental creatures before, so that was a bit of a let-down. However, the new 4e xvarts (sorry, xivorts) are buckets of fun. Great art, too.
Having both the Forsaken and the Tulgar was maybe a little too much. I know they're radically different, but they both struck me as: uber-epic, humanoid, enemies of the gods. Throw the weavers into the mix as well (they also meet the description) and there seem to be a few too many high epic-level humanoid races around. I'd rather see classic enemies (krakens, demon lords, abominations) in the high epic-levels, rather than: "You walk into a room. There are 4x 27th level forsaken/tulgar/weaver guards here, and a 29th level leader-type" It's not really... epic, you know?


----------



## Rechan (Jun 17, 2010)

Lancelot said:


> Mechanics?
> 
> 
> No specific monster, but there are multiple (at least 6 different types, from ogres to banderhobbs to meazels to cave fishers) that have an "abduction" mechanic. They lunge in, grab a character, and immediately begin tugging him away from the rest of the group. That can set up a nice dynamic with appropriate terrain, such as trying to drag the poor victim into a pit, or down a pitch-blach shaft. Very tense for the others, desperately trying to mount a rescue attempt.



That was common in the MM2 as well. Ankheg, several demons (the nycademon and another level 8 lurker), and a few others. 






> Having both the Forsaken and the Tulgar was maybe a little too much. I know they're radically different, but they both struck me as: uber-epic, humanoid, enemies of the gods. Throw the weavers into the mix as well (they also meet the description) and there seem to be a few too many high epic-level humanoid races around. I'd rather see classic enemies (krakens, demon lords, abominations) in the high epic-levels, rather than: "You walk into a room. There are 4x 27th level forsaken/tulgar/weaver guards here, and a 29th level leader-type" It's not really... epic, you know?



You have to fill 10 levels of epic level fights. If everything's a god etc, you're going to run out of stuff to fight, or you're going to go through the entire multiverse slaughtering everything just to fill the 10 levels worth.

You also forgot that the Yaun-Ti and Drow in the book were epic level.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 17, 2010)

fba827 said:


> 'is just too perfect timing for what you happened to need in your game' etc)??



Crauds, cave fishers.


----------



## Wik (Jun 17, 2010)

I agree with Rechan - both of those caught my eye pretty quickly.  Meazels are also high on my list - their mechanics are particularly cool (they more or less snipe and pull away).  

Low level elementals that consist of one element type are great to see.  And it's real awesome to see the Nagpa again!


----------



## Scribble (Jun 17, 2010)

malraux said:


> How about for a DM that uses DDI heavily?  Is the non-crunch stuff worthwhile?




Yeah I agree with Aegeri on this one... 

I found it worth it, and I never use the actual books for their stats, as the DDI/Monster builder makes it so much easier. I liked the flavor though, so that's primarily why I bought it.

I thought they did a decent job of including flavor, yet still keeping the book "easy to use" at the table.

I DO wish though that they had still broken up the knowledge section... If only into different DC levels of info you might know.

Shrug.


----------



## Zaran (Jun 17, 2010)

So there is no Donkeyhorse?  Not even in the Epic tier?


----------



## Stoat (Jun 17, 2010)

malraux said:


> How about for a DM that uses DDI heavily?  Is the non-crunch stuff worthwhile?




I uses the DDI heavily.  Indeed, I never check the books for stats.  

I think the non-crunch stuff in MM3 is quite worthwhile.  It's more evocative, and the "encounters" section is more useful.  Also, WotC put most of the "traditional" monsters in MM1 and 2.  In some cases, the fluff in MM3 is necessary just to explain what the monsters are. 

Banderhobs, Tulgar and Forsaken come immediately to mind.  Without flavor text, I wouldn't have any idea what they were.


----------



## the Jester (Jun 17, 2010)

Zaran said:


> So there is no Donkeyhorse?  Not even in the Epic tier?




I understand it got bumped to MM4 because of space. They had to either cut it or the Imix entry; I guess they figured that the various donkeyhorse entries couldn't be thinned down any more than Imix and his cultists could be.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 17, 2010)

Yeah... if you're looking for like habitat and society type stuff like from the old 2e Monstrous Compendium... This isn't it.

But here's kind of a breakdown of how stuff works:

The first part is an overview of what the monster group is in general, along with a short history and  kind of how they relate to each other and the world. 

Some are a little more storyish then others... This seems to come up mostly when I think they're trying to make the origin/history a little more unknown...

Like the Cloaker and the Banderhob. It's explained that they exist, and kind of how they interact with the world, but no history or specifics.

The Lore section is a chunk of info a character might know, from a sort of in game perspective. 

Encounters is kind of like if you took the encounter groups thing from the other MMs  but then expanded on WHY these various things might be  hanging out together, and took out the numbers. Basically it gives ideas of what the heck might be happening when the PCs encounter the monster.

Each version of the monster is given a brief intro, which kind of gives you an idea of their role in the world... For the creatures that seem less like an opponent that you would just jump into a fight with, they tend to be more story like, and more about how they might interact with someone when you first encounter them... (Like the Nymphs.)  For others it seems to be an overview of their role in a fight. (And by role I mean they defend the lair, or they are the shock troops, as opposed to game role...)

The in combat section seems to be like a high level overview of how they behave in combat, as opposed to a primer on actual tactics.


Sometimes they have sidebars- these run the gamut but are usually additional interesting stuff about the monster group.  Like about their lairs, or in the case of spiders, how to do spiderwebs as a hazard...



Overall I like it... The flavor gives me ideas for future adventures which is primarily why I bought it, and in my opinion enough info to bring each monster to life, and make it feel more like a "living thing" but without getting bogged down into weird minutia. 


The stats I'll just be using via the DDI.


----------



## malraux (Jun 17, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Encounters is kind of like if you took the encounter groups thing from the other MMs  but then expanded on WHY these various things might be  hanging out together, and took out the numbers. Basically it gives ideas of what the heck might be happening when the PCs encounter the monster.




That sounds promising.  Guess I'll add this one to my list.


----------



## ArcaneSpringboard (Jun 17, 2010)

Wik said:


> I agree with Rechan - both of those caught my eye pretty quickly.  Meazels are also high on my list - their mechanics are particularly cool (they more or less snipe and pull away).
> 
> Low level elementals that consist of one element type are great to see.  And it's real awesome to see the Nagpa again!




There are some great monsters from BECMI, and I'm glad they're starting to tap into those.

Where's my Brain Collector though?


----------



## Drammattex (Jun 17, 2010)

The real key to understanding how the MM3 monster entries were written lies in this DDI article, for those with access. Regarding the In Combat section, this is the essence of it:

_Mike Mearls: The tactics section has transformed into the “… in Combat” section to give writers more flexibility. It can talk about specific tactics, illustrate roleplay hooks, present storytelling methods, and offer other interesting ideas for bringing a monster to life in the campaign. Think of this paragraph as advice on the best way to make the creature an interesting foe. That can be uses of a power combined with specific terrain or tactics, general guidelines on how these guys prefer to fight, or roleplaying advice on battle cries or how to otherwise depict the creature. It should reveal something about the creature’s nature and how that nature is reflected in combat. As an example, the skulk entry highlights how these creature go after downed foes to satisfy their bloodlust and ties that into their hatred for civilization and cities. That’s a unique tactic which grows out of the skulk’s backstory and makes them unique foes._

So, when looking over the In Combat section think of it in those (flexible) terms. In the banderhobb, nymph, and yeti entries, that section illustrates the mood, feel, or tone of one or more of the creature's powers. For those particular creatures it's a narrative aid to key the DM in to how this creature feels or behaves in combat or how one or more of its powers work story-wise. It's really just a quick illustration of a power or two, to communicate its mood--_not_ an arbitrary piece of short fiction.

In my experience, a monster's tactics are greatly influenced by the encounter's terrain, its allies in the encounter, and whatever is happening in the story. Since the new stat blocks give you a pretty solid idea of what you generally want to do with the creatures, I chose to go the illustrative route to show how the monster and/or its powers behave rather than write a script for what attacks it uses and when, since in games I've run those tactics have often been rather circumstantial. I understand that point of view won't make _everyone_ happy, but I'm not sure there's a right choice that would (heh, though not for lack of trying, believe me). Since the Compendium and Monster Builder are my primary resources when putting an adventure together, I typically consult the Monster Manual for a creature's story and flavor--and that's why I tended to lend more focus to those mood, flavor, and story aspects.

@ Scribble: the dark master and history of the banderhobb is for you to determine. For me, the ambiguity made them creepier.  Perhaps someone will define those things in a product someday, but I don't know that anything can ever be as cool as the way a DM interprets them and sets them in his or her own campaign. By way of example, I think I was happier with LOST  before the show started answering questions, especially if I found out I didn't like the answers.

That's my three and a half cents on the why's and the wherefore's of MM3 "fluff," at any rate.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 17, 2010)

Victim said:


> However, Dominate is one of the less satisfying conditions when your character is on the receiving end.




I disagree vehemently! It can lead to great stories of fun (like the risk-averse wizard who is always WAY back suddenly being chased down by the defender and knocked unconscious). It can be rather inconvenient, but being stunned, Imobilized (if melee) and blinded generally suck more because you can't usually do anything but make a save. You can at least laugh when the most damage a character takes in a fight is from a crit by his own teammate.

I love the book and the Catoblepas might be my favorite monster in the entire 4E game right now.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 17, 2010)

Drammattex said:


> @ Scribble: the dark master and history of the banderhobb is for you to determine. For me, the ambiguity made them creepier.  Perhaps someone will define those things in a product someday, but I don't know that anything can ever be as cool as the way a DM interprets them and sets them in his or her own campaign. By way of example, I think I was happier with LOST  before the show started answering questions, especially if I found out I didn't like the answers.




Oh- I hope I didn't come off as disliking that?

I was just saying kind of got the feeling that some of those things were done that way to intentionally convey the "feel" of the monster, or heighten the mystery (ie the Banderhobb) as opposed to being just poorly done or something.

I agree with you about LOST... It was still my favorite show, but once the questions started being answered, part of the fun of debating about what the meaning of everything was went away.


----------



## Otterscrubber (Jun 17, 2010)

I was a bit skeptical about the monsters doing significantly more damage for the simple reason that we run smaller groups sometimes and this requires us to have a leader that is good with healing.  But I suppose we can always tweak the monster levels there.  One thing I do like though is now we can run a decent fight with 9th level monster for a 9th level party.  Before to make a fight interesting it always had to be a few levels higher than the party level or it was a cakewalk.  This resulted in the PCs levelling faster than I had intended for my campaign. I actually found myself saying "wow, they are 9th level already?"  I think this will allows for the type of level progression intended by the designers and for plot development.


----------



## Drammattex (Jun 17, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Oh- I hope I didn't come off as disliking that?
> 
> I was just saying kind of got the feeling that some of those things were done that way to intentionally convey the "feel" of the monster, or heighten the mystery (ie the Banderhobb) as opposed to being just poorly done or something.




Oh, not at all! I'd seen one or two other posts here and elsewhere from folks who very much disliked the In Combat text, and others who seemed confused or conflicted about the purpose or direction of the er... fluff. I can't speak for all the designers, but I can at least clarify my own direction/goal based on the info Mike provided.



Scribble said:


> I agree with you about LOST... It was still my favorite show, but once the questions started being answered, part of the fun of debating about what the meaning of everything was went away.




Indeed. I think Battlestar Galactica suffered the same kind of fate. I liked it though.


----------



## Teemu (Jun 17, 2010)

The kraken caught my attention. It looks like it could work really well in that classic "ship attacked by the kraken" type of scenario. Plus it's level 10, which means a cool, epic encounter even at heroic.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 17, 2010)

Drammatex - Did you work on the stat blocks, too?  If so, do you have any non-NDA-protected insight on the new formulae or tables for monster damage?

-O


----------



## Quickleaf (Jun 17, 2010)

After reading all the reviews and tidbits in this thread I'm excited to see the new monsters - it sounds like there were some creative minds behind the MM3. I will definitely be picking it up once my FLGS gets it in stock! 

One question: How in the world did solo stun-lock and low damage get thru playtesting? Within my first 3 or 4 games as DM both these issues became glaringly obvious. After a little longer I began to notice solo fights needed more excitement, which I think was later described in DMG2 as "when bloodied" effects. But it was obvious, and this was my first time DMing 4e and most of the group's first time playing 4e. It makes you really wonder just what goes on during playtesting!

I too would like to see older monsters revised to account for these fixes. Maybe some revised versions of iconic MM1 monsters could be released thru DDi or one of the Essentials supplements?


----------



## Drammattex (Jun 17, 2010)

Obryn said:


> Drammatex - Did you work on the stat blocks, too?  If so, do you have any non-NDA-protected insight on the new formulae or tables for monster damage?
> 
> -O




I did the stat blocks for all my monsters and created all of their abilities and powers, but unfortunately I don't have any non-NDA-protected insight on the new formulae or tables for monster damage. 

Thank God for the new stat block, though. In retrospect I'd been a little terrified of trying to run the kraken, with the number of powers I gave it. But if you take a look at the way it's laid out in the stat block, I think you can actually wrap your mind around it. When the PCs grow up a few levels I'll do it. But what to use for a mini... If only I could get my hands on those RPGA ship tiles.


----------



## Dr_Ruminahui (Jun 17, 2010)

I really like the new stat block, though I do have one small complaint regarding triggered powers - I wish they put what type of action it was at the front in bold, rather than at the end in normal.  Personally, the first thing you want to know with a triggered action is what type it is, and having to read to the end of the power to find out is kind of a pain.

Also, (and on much more minor note) it makes more sense for me if triggered actions had been right below traits, as for me they seem like "passive" benefits like auras and such, and as such it seems natural that they would be grouped close together.

I guess when I'm used to the new stat blocks I'll get used to how to jump around within the stat block and the power descriptions to find what I need - part of the problem with my second point is that other than auras, I'm used to looking for "passive/reactive" things at the bottom, so now that some are at the top and some at the bottom its not intuitive to me yet where to look for them.

That said, I do hope in the next MM that they incorporate my quibble about Triggered Actions.


----------



## IanB (Jun 17, 2010)

I think the lore stuff has been a move in the right direction - the prior 2 books were terrible at including much other than the combat details of the monster.

I am still vexed by the lack of a text description of what the darn things actually *look like*. Just providing art (and not for every entry at that) does not do it for me.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 18, 2010)

Herschel said:


> I disagree vehemently! It can lead to great stories of fun (like the risk-averse wizard who is always WAY back suddenly being chased down by the defender and knocked unconscious). It can be rather inconvenient, but being stunned, Imobilized (if melee) and blinded generally suck more because you can't usually do anything but make a save. You can at least laugh when the most damage a character takes in a fight is from a crit by his own teammate.




I agree wholeheartedly; domination, if used sparingly, can be a great boon for characters story-wise (if not in the immediate moment.) I haven't had much 4e experience with the condition, but in 3.x, I hit the party's paladin with a domination and he almost killed the female cleric he had sworn to protect. You can believe that memory stuck with him his entire career.

And as a player I also second the notion that at least your character's doing something. There's just as much tension and excitement hoping to miss or low roll damage than there is hoping to hit or roll high.


----------



## Celisasu (Jun 18, 2010)

I don't have a problem with dominate/stun/unconscious as long as it's within reason.  I'd probably never throw more than one monster lobbing that around at a time as having an entire party that's disabled is definately not fun for the players.  


And now I have this horrible debate to decide.  Lovecraftian campaign or Dark Sun campaign when our current campaign where I'm a player ends?  *Will be the GM for our next campaign*  I love Dark Sun, but we also have enough cool Lovecraft style monsters that I can do fun stuff with that too.  


The lack of real tactics doesn't bug me because in all honesty if you look at a monster's powers it should be obvious how they work.  The only thing that bugs me is the page XX errors that I've seen more of in MM3 than I did in MM2 and MM1.


----------



## Aegeri (Jun 18, 2010)

Drammattex said:


> I did the stat blocks for all my monsters and created all of their abilities and powers, but unfortunately I don't have any non-NDA-protected insight on the new formulae or tables for monster damage.
> 
> Thank God for the new stat block, though. In retrospect I'd been a little terrified of trying to run the kraken, with the number of powers I gave it. But if you take a look at the way it's laid out in the stat block, I think you can actually wrap your mind around it. When the PCs grow up a few levels I'll do it. But what to use for a mini... If only I could get my hands on those RPGA ship tiles.




As you made the Kraken and are here I feel the need to congratulate you on it. It's one of the most well made and interesting solos in 4th edition Dungeons and Dragons. Not to mention you accomplished this feat with a creature at high heroic/low paragon. That's great.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 18, 2010)

Am I the only one amused by the fact the volcano dragon doesn't have fire resistance?


----------



## Aegeri (Jun 18, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Am I the only one amused by the fact the volcano dragon doesn't have fire resistance?




Fire elementals also don't have fire resistance. 

Personally I am not unhappy with generally reducing the resistances across the board. At the same time it doesn't take a lot to give your average creature 5 resistance X damage type per tier.

Edit: In my experience, your average PC is usually more confused about a lack of general vulnerabilities on various creatures than if a Fire elemental is resistant to fire.


----------



## fba827 (Jun 18, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Am I the only one amused by the fact the volcano dragon doesn't have fire resistance?




Amusing? yes, actually, now that you mentioned it, it is.

Though I'd probably chalk it up to "they can withstand intense/extreme natural temperatures.  but not magical fires, etc"

edit: I say this without actually having seen the monster writeup and going solely by what was specifically quoted.


----------



## Aegeri (Jun 18, 2010)

fba827 said:


> Amusing? yes, actually, now that you mentioned it, it is.
> 
> Though I'd probably chalk it up to "they can withstand intense/extreme natural temperatures.  but not magical fires, etc"




Personally I think it is to promote attacking them using fire keyword spells - you don't need resistance when you're already punishing attackers for using fire based spells with extra damage.


----------



## RodneyThompson (Jun 18, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Am I the only one amused by the fact the volcano dragon doesn't have fire resistance?




Actually, one of the things we tried to promote in this MM (at least in the case of the volcano dragon and other catastrophics) was that they have elemental deterrents instead of resistances. It's still a bad idea to hit the volcano dragon with fire, it's just not a "I wasted my time with that spell" bad idea, but instead, "Well, I hit him with fire, and so he did damage to everyone in the aura."

This helps not only eliminate the "wasted turn" feeling that resistances to cause, but also helps speed up combat; instead of reducing one target's hit points by less, both sides got their hp decreased.


----------



## Aegeri (Jun 18, 2010)

I love it when I speculate on something and then a wizards designer just comes in and has my back.

Quick Moridin, let's pose as a team...

_...cause  just got real_.

Incidentally that's something I really like as an attitude for design. I've never been that much of a fan of resistances and immunities. For example the new aboleths I made damage enemies when they are hit by an attack with the psychic keyword - as opposed to giving them psychic resistance of some kind.

Edit: If I have a complaint though, it really does feel to me we desperately need a DMG 3 or something where all the new creature design rules are put in one place. We've changed so much in MM3 from what I can see:

1) Maths of damage and accuracy has changed for most monsters

2) Power design has changed conceptually (controllers exerting control effects on a miss, soldiers marking or similar on a miss etc)

3) The previous changes to solos hit points and damage.

4) Minions gaining roles and how they are being used now.

5) The backing away form giving monsters blanket resistances and instead other more interesting mechanics (this is a really great idea - one I've wanted for a while).

Really we need all of this collated into one place as the original DMGs monster creation guidelines are way out of date now.


----------



## fba827 (Jun 18, 2010)

Moridin said:


> Actually, one of the things we tried to promote in this MM (at least in the case of the volcano dragon and other catastrophics) was that they have elemental deterrents instead of resistances. It's still a bad idea to hit the volcano dragon with fire, it's just not a "I wasted my time with that spell" bad idea, but instead, "Well, I hit him with fire, and so he did damage to everyone in the aura."
> 
> This helps not only eliminate the "wasted turn" feeling that resistances to cause, but also helps speed up combat; instead of reducing one target's hit points by less, both sides got their hp decreased.




nice!  i (personally) prefer effects based on certain types as opposed to just a resistance (such as given in the above example).

For previous monsters, several of the monsters with resistance that i've used in my own games were houseruled to have side effects from that damage type rather than resistance itself.  

so in this way, i like this change in focus for this book.


----------



## fba827 (Jun 18, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> Edit: If I have a complaint though, it really does feel to me we desperately need a DMG 3 or something where all the new creature design rules are put in one place.
> (snip)
> Really we need all of this collated into one place as the original DMGs monster creation guidelines are way out of date now.




Yeah, I'd really like this too -- I do a lot of custom monster tinkering and "monster creation" section in the DMG is one of the most used sections for me, so having updated guidelines (for hp, damage, etc) is something i'd really like to see.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 18, 2010)

Moridin said:


> Actually, one of the things we tried to promote in this MM (at least in the case of the volcano dragon and other catastrophics) was that they have elemental deterrents instead of resistances. It's still a bad idea to hit the volcano dragon with fire, it's just not a "I wasted my time with that spell" bad idea, but instead, "Well, I hit him with fire, and so he did damage to everyone in the aura."
> 
> This helps not only eliminate the "wasted turn" feeling that resistances to cause, but also helps speed up combat; instead of reducing one target's hit points by less, both sides got their hp decreased.



Yep, I definitely prefer this approach, too. It just keeps things more interesting. 

"Boyah! I crit with my Fireball on that monster". "Ah, okay, he takes 5 damage thanks to his resistances". " There goes my Daily!"

"Boyah, I crit with my Fireball on that monster." "Ah, okay. he takes 30 damage, and all people within 5 squares take 15 fire damage, 10 ongoing (save ends)." " There goes the Rogue. Oops."

Neither sounds good for the team, but I know which one sounds more fun.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 18, 2010)

On the downside, the stock of any power, feat, item or class feature that centers around lowering enemy resistances will be taking a nosedive. I don't know what percentage of features that entails, but it's greater than zero.

Granted, it's definitely a design concept I can get behind, _for the most part_. There are a few exceptions I can think of, here or there. For instance, I buy the idea of fire powers hurting a volcano dragon (the difference between natural heat/lava and magical fire is significant and appreciable.) But if I'm slapping a Flaming Sphere down on top of a fire elemental, a being composed almost entirely out of the _very stuff I'm slinging at it_... I can't see that doing really any damage of any sort. _And_ I'd expect to be punished for it.

It'd be nice, if "enemy resistances" were being phased out in favor of "this will work, but it is a very bad idea"-type effects, to see those "reduce enemy resistances" features retooled into "reduce enemy punishments".  Or at least see the creation of such features in newer splatbooks.


----------



## Drammattex (Jun 18, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> As you made the Kraken and are here I feel the need to congratulate you on it. It's one of the most well made and interesting solos in 4th edition Dungeons and Dragons. Not to mention you accomplished this feat with a creature at high heroic/low paragon. That's great.




Thanks, man! In the campaign we were playing one of the PCs was a gypsy sea rat. I wasn't sure if we'd continue the campaign into the paragon tier, but thought that the kraken would make a great BBEG toward the conclusion of a heroic tier campaign. 

Unrelated, I read the Verbeeg entry on the train to work today and loved it. Kudos to the designer--I'd love to know who did it. Took a close look at the picture--it's carrying a cask and mug, and it's wearing a freaking DISPLACER BEAST!!! I love the story of Jack Longears in the opening paragraph--perfect Grimm's Fairy Tales flavor for a fey giant.

Had never been interested in verbeeg before, so congratulations, whoever you are--I'm using them from now on. I'm sad they're evil... I kind of want to hang out with them.


----------



## Squizzle (Jun 18, 2010)

Gradine said:


> But if I'm slapping a Flaming Sphere down on top of a fire elemental, a being composed almost entirely out of the _very stuff I'm slinging at it_... I can't see that doing really any damage of any sort. _And_ I'd expect to be punished for it.



Being able to produce a Flaming Sphere, or a Fireball, or even a Scorching Burst implies enough control over flame to disrupt a being created of it.

Alternatively: I'm composed of _living stuff_, but being bitten or clawed by another living creature can screw me up pretty badly. For that matter, even simple pollen can make me fairly uncomfortable.


----------



## fba827 (Jun 18, 2010)

Squizzle said:


> For that matter, even *simple* pollen can make me fairly uncomfortable.



 (emphasis added by me)

Then if I were you, I'd stay away from _epic_ pollen - would be deadly...


----------



## Dr_Ruminahui (Jun 18, 2010)

I just went over the new "resistances" of the catastrophy dragons and the elementals... I think they are great for the dragons (I really like the expanding aura effect they have).  For the elementals, in particular the fire elemental... I'm less convinced.  Problem with the fire elemental (who are pretty much pure magical fire IMHO, and should be immune from fire) is that ANY damage type triggers its backlash ability, as it triggers on being attacked/hit, not by damage type.

That said, I LOVE the "vulnerabilities" on some of the elementals - the effect of thunder damage on earth elementals and cold on water elementals is really rather clever and inspired.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 18, 2010)

Squizzle said:


> Being able to produce a Flaming Sphere, or a Fireball, or even a Scorching Burst implies enough control over flame to disrupt a being created of it.
> 
> Alternatively: I'm composed of _living stuff_, but being bitten or clawed by another living creature can screw me up pretty badly. For that matter, even simple pollen can make me fairly uncomfortable.



A better explanation is that when you hit a match with a blowtorch, the match's fire is just taken into the blowtorch and then gone. Or that the magical fire of the wizard is displacing the pieces of the fire elemental - it's not burning the elemental, but more like "Woah my arm just got canceled out!"

Hell. In RL, firefighters use small fires to create control fires to box in forest fires.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 18, 2010)

I seem to have missed it - where are the monsters that have effects on a miss?


----------



## Dr_Ruminahui (Jun 18, 2010)

Rechan said:


> I seem to have missed it - where are the monsters that have effects on a miss?




Some... the following have attack powers that have "effects" that don't require a hit (so, work hit or miss):

Banderhobb Finch has a shift on one power, a teleport on another, and can give a free action to an ally on a third.

Cambion Infernal Scion's and Dread Guardian mark even on miss.

Cloaker Lord's moan stuns on a hit, dazes on a miss.

Ultrodemon has an attack that prevents target from attacking him.

Hellwasp has a shift on its melee basic.

Ancient Blizzard Dragon has a power that still does all of its condition/status effects on a miss.

Drow Zealot has an attack that gives it bonuses ONLY on a miss.

Drow Exalted Consort has an improved darkfire that still does its non-damage effects on a miss.

And so on... don't have the time to wade through the whole book right now.


Note, there are also a variety of powers that do 1/2 damage on a miss,  but I haven't listed those.  There are also a variety of powers that do something bad but require no attack roll, and I haven't listed those either.  Others create zones on miss, but I haven't listed those either.


My own gut feeling from this brief survey is that there still aren't too many attacks that do stuff on a miss, but there are a LOT of powers (through auras, triggered actions, etc.) that don't require an attack roll at all but still inflict nastiness on the players.


----------



## BrokeAndDrive (Jun 18, 2010)

No matter how much water you throw at a human, the human is never damaged because we have immunity to water.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jun 18, 2010)

BrokeAndDrive said:


> No matter how much water you throw at a human, the human is never damaged because we have immunity to water.




Flash Flood Sweeps Campground; Dozens Missing : NPR

Really?


----------



## Celisasu (Jun 18, 2010)

BrokeAndDrive said:


> No matter how much water you throw at a human, the human is never damaged because we have immunity to water.




Unless you drown of course.  Or get hit by water at a high enough pressure.


----------



## Zaukrie (Jun 18, 2010)

Moridin, I am 100% behind this change in philosophy, in terms of resistances. Great design decision.


----------



## Markn (Jun 19, 2010)

Moridin,

I remember reading a blog or a post by Mike Mearls a year or two back regarding his desire to see resistances changed.  IIRC, the creatures implemented in MM3 are along the lines of his original design musings.  Can you confirm if this change was directed by him or more of a team approach.  Just curious. 

Oh, and I want to say thanks for taking the time to come to Enworld to post.  I really believe that WotC employess should come here more often (yet at the same time I can see why they don't: see Athas thread).  Anyways, much appreciated.


----------



## Wik (Jun 19, 2010)

Moridin said:


> Actually, one of the things we tried to promote in this MM (at least in the case of the volcano dragon and other catastrophics) was that they have elemental deterrents instead of resistances. It's still a bad idea to hit the volcano dragon with fire, it's just not a "I wasted my time with that spell" bad idea, but instead, "Well, I hit him with fire, and so he did damage to everyone in the aura."
> 
> This helps not only eliminate the "wasted turn" feeling that resistances to cause, but also helps speed up combat; instead of reducing one target's hit points by less, both sides got their hp decreased.




Hm.  I like that.  It's a pretty cool design philosophy, and one I can totally see freaking out my players.

I always liked the monsters that get BETTER when hit by an effect (golems + electricity, for example), but it's cooler when they get better AND take damage.


----------



## RodneyThompson (Jun 19, 2010)

Markn said:


> Moridin,
> 
> I remember reading a blog or a post by Mike Mearls a year or two back regarding his desire to see resistances changed.  IIRC, the creatures implemented in MM3 are along the lines of his original design musings.  Can you confirm if this change was directed by him or more of a team approach.  Just curious.




Hm. It's hard to recall exactly (this is just one small thing in a big book, a book I was done with last August!), but from my recollection it was something that came out of collaboration between design and development both. We've actually been talking about the role of resistances and vulnerabilities for a while now, so it was really just an evolution of design. It probably started with Mike, but I know we spent a lot of time talking about the catastrophic dragons' deterrence mechanics, even involving people all the way up the chain as high as Bill Slavicsek at one point. 

I do know Mike's not fond of resistances (maybe I'll nudge him to pop by here and talk about why), while I'm *mostly* OK with them. I say mostly because (in my opinion) sometimes it's OK because it is appropriate for the monster. The trick with resistances in my book is that you've got to give vulnerabilities or similar weaknesses to counteract them. We don't always do that, though, and I think that's where we get fights that slow down when the wizard and the warlock just aren't damaging the fire archon, for example. It might just be me, but I like a little bit of reward for having the right spell at the right time; I like that the cleric says "bring 'em on" to undead because of radiant vulnerability. It's a little bit of classic D&D that I think falls by the wayside just by the nature of how easy it is to pick resistances. It's easy to say "What should this be resistant to?" but forget to figure out where to put the rewarding weakness. 

Deterrence mechanics, on the other hand, circumvent this by making it so you feel threatened after using a certain damage type (or forced movement in the earthquake dragon's case), but don't slow down the game, or really even stop you from using that same spell again. In fact, in some cases you might say that dropping the dragon with your big fire spell is worth taking some fire damage, sort of a "race to see who runs out of hit points first" between the dragon and the party. And since the catastrophics are elites, not solos, it makes it a bit tougher of a thing to consider, since once you down the dragon you've likely still got a few enemies to deal with. If it was a solo, you might be tempted to say "damn the healing surges!" and just drop the nuke on the dragon without regard for your own hit points. 

As you can see, it's no small amount of thought that goes into even a single monster ability.



Markn said:


> Oh, and I want to say thanks for taking the time to come to Enworld to post.  I really believe that WotC employess should come here more often (yet at the same time I can see why they don't: see Athas thread).  Anyways, much appreciated.




Well, the truth (for me, anyways) is that while I've got time to read the forums everyday, sometimes I just don't have time to post something. Sure, the internets gets a little hostile from time to time, but luckily the Mod Squad here does a pretty good job of keeping threadcrapping to a minimum, which (for me) is pretty much the single biggest killer of my interest in a thread.


----------



## Markn (Jun 19, 2010)

Thanks for the insight Moridin!


----------



## Wik (Jun 19, 2010)

Moridin said:


> Hm. It's hard to recall exactly (this is just one small thing in a big book, a book I was done with last August!), but from my recollection it was something that came out of collaboration between design and development both. We've actually been talking about the role of resistances and vulnerabilities for a while now, so it was really just an evolution of design. It probably started with Mike, but I know we spent a lot of time talking about the catastrophic dragons' deterrence mechanics, even involving people all the way up the chain as high as Bill Slavicsek at one point.




I remember mearls' quote.  At the time, I liked the general gist of what he was saying, but the implementation was not something I was fond of.  If memory serves, it was sort of like "Why should cold-based monsters be resistant towards cold?  After all, they have a bunch of cold attacks, so does that mean they can't hunt other arctic monsters resistant to cold?"

It was a decent enough argument, but I remember his original implementation was a bit spotty (and had a series of arguments on these boards).  However, this whole "we both get hurt" thing is kind of cool.

I do wonder what happens when parties with a lot of resistances fight these monsters, though.  I can see that dragonborn build that regains his breath weapon when hit by a certain energy type LOVING these sort of encounters.  



> As you can see, it's no small amount of thought that goes into even a single monster ability.




So, who thought about the original Needlefang Drake Swarm?  Or the nigh impossible to hit Soldier Monsters?  or the....

Ha ha.  Just teasing you.  But I have a feeling you've opened a can of worms, there.   



> Well, the truth (for me, anyways) is that while I've got time to read the forums everyday, sometimes I just don't have time to post something. Sure, the internets gets a little hostile from time to time, but luckily the Mod Squad here does a pretty good job of keeping threadcrapping to a minimum, which (for me) is pretty much the single biggest killer of my interest in a thread.




Us fans have to defend the Onetrueversion of the game from you designing interloper folk!   

Seriously, though, the wotc guys that come here do unfortunately get hit by a lot of flak from time to time (and, I must admit, I've been guilty of it myself, once or twice) - simply because of who they work for.  The funny thing is, it's only the wotc guys... I've never seen a bunch of fans team up against Paizo, for example.  I'm sure there's a reason for it.  

I think a lot of people have, at this point, forgotten just awful TSR was on the internet.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 19, 2010)

Wik said:


> I think a lot of people have, at this point, forgotten just awful TSR was on the internet.




Lol, I think a lot of people have forgotten how awful TSR's game design skills could be at times. Even if you were to dislike many of the things WotC has done with 4e (which I don't) you'd have to admit the approach to game design is vastly more systematic and seems to only improve with time.

MM3 is a pretty nice book. I think it will go down as a classic.


----------



## Gort (Jun 20, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Lol, I think a lot of people have forgotten how awful TSR's game design skills could be at times.




Well, it's because a lot of the rubbish stuff TSR put out was ignored by everyone. I've yet to meet someone who actually used that table in second ed that modified your AC based on what kind of weapon was being used on you, but we don't hold it against them because... nobody used it. While 4e is still new enough for the designers to take flak for a single type of monster (needlefang drake swarm) or a single modifier (orb wizard wisdom penalty to saves).

People remember 2e for their special houseruled version of it, while 4e hasn't really got far enough for it yet.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Jun 20, 2010)

Gort said:


> I've yet to meet someone who actually used that table in second ed that modified your AC based on what kind of weapon was being used on you,



Say that louder, I'm sure you'll find someone who has.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 20, 2010)

Gort said:


> I've yet to meet someone who actually used that table in second ed that modified your AC based on what kind of weapon was being used on you, but we don't hold it against them because... nobody used it..






I never used it while playing AD&D; but I did utilize the table while running a WP/VP system in 3.5 to determine DR values based on weapon type. After their first fight against an exceptionally surly dwarf in full plate mail nearly ended in disaster, they made sure never to get caught without strong piercing weapons again.


----------



## Celisasu (Jun 21, 2010)

> I've yet to meet someone who actually used that table in second ed that modified your AC based on what kind of weapon was being used on you, but we don't hold it against them because... nobody used it.




I know we sure as hell didn't use it in our games.  Honestly 3E improved in 2E a great deal.  4E has some very noticable changes although you can see some of the original elements(we're still rolling that Thac0 although we call it something different now and the numbers are put together more intuitively) but there are massive differences which is part of that whole 3E/4E war that flares up periodically at various forums.  

And as time goes on 4E seems to get more and more refined.  The designers have obviously realized that Skill Challenges are a work in progress(I think they're still in serious need of repair but you can see they're attempting to do so).  And we're seeing the continuing refinement as well on the monster end.

As for resistances versus deterents for monsters I think it depends on the monster.  For the volcanic dragon it makes sense(or maybe hand it a crappy fire resistance 5 to explain how it lives in volcanos without keeling over and dying).  On the other hand I think the fire elemental really needed fire immunity.  The deterants I think are more fun, but resistance has it's uses plus it rewards players who have powers that intentionally work around resistance such as taking energy admixture or resistance lowering powers.


----------



## Evilhalfling (Jun 21, 2010)

Victim said:


> The Ghast has a story about some rogue sealing up from ghouls and then coming back years later.




*reads his MM3* 
so its not a AD&D DMG sample dungeon refrence then? 
Cause that would have been awesome.


----------



## mearls (Jun 21, 2010)

Evilhalfling said:


> *reads his MM3*
> so its not a AD&D DMG sample dungeon refrence then?
> Cause that would have been awesome.




That reference isn't in MM 3, IIRC, but you can find it in _Hammerfast_.

(The first 4e adventure I ran was set in that dungeon, BTW. It's also where the first 4e PC death occurred.)


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (Jun 21, 2010)

Gort said:


> I've yet to meet someone who actually used that table in second ed that modified your AC based on what kind of weapon was being used on you, but we don't hold it against them because... nobody used it.




*raises hand* We did. Not for long, and we were young back then, but hey.


----------



## Roger (Jun 21, 2010)

I like that numerous monsters now have powers that recharge on a miss, but I'll admit I'm kinda surprised they're not just simply called "Reliable".



Cheers,
Roger


----------



## keterys (Jun 21, 2010)

Maybe it's so they interact with items or powers that trigger when a monster recharges a power. I wondered the same thing.


----------



## Jack99 (Jun 21, 2010)

keterys said:


> Maybe it's so they interact with items or powers that trigger when a monster recharges a power. I wondered the same thing.




Only reason I have been able to think of as well.


----------



## Aegeri (Jun 21, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> Only reason I have been able to think of as well.




It's probably more the equivalent of reliable to be honest than anything else. Monsters don't really follow PC power conventions, so a recharge power that recharges on a miss is effectively their equivalent of a reliable encounter power. I cannot think of any PC related powers that interact with monsters that have recharge powers at all.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 21, 2010)

Yeah- I think it's just a matter of why add a new* keyword to the mix when you already have something that can serve the same function? 

* I know reliable isn't really a NEW keyword but it would be new for monsters.


----------



## keterys (Jun 21, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> I cannot think of any PC related powers that interact with monsters that have recharge powers at all.




Strictures of Fortune, Bard 5
Effect: The next time the target would recharge a power before the end of the encounter, the power instead does not recharge, and you or an ally within 10 squares of you regains the use of an encounter power.

Denying Mark, Warlord 9
Effect: The target cannot recharge its powers as long as it is marked by this power.

Death's Blade, Swordmage 15
Hit: 2[W] + Intelligence modifier necrotic damage. The target takes ongoing 5 necrotic damage, cannot regain hit points, cannot recharge powers, and cannot spend action points (save ends all).

Shutdown Smite, Warlord 23
Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier damage, and the target cannot recharge any of its powers or use action points until the end of your next turn.

Orb of Invasive Fortune, Level 20
Power (Daily): Immediate Interrupt. You can use this power when an enemy within 10 squares of you successfully recharges a power. Instead, the recharge fails and you regain the use of an expended encounter power.

And others. DDI Compendium turns up 19 powers or items.


----------



## Dr_Ruminahui (Jun 22, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Yeah- I think it's just a matter of why add a new* keyword to the mix when you already have something that can serve the same function?
> 
> * I know reliable isn't really a NEW keyword but it would be new for monsters.




Except some monsters do have reliable powers, and it IS defined in the "interpretation section" of the MM3 - 16 of them as per the conpendium, with about 1/2 of them from MM2 (and none from MM3, that I could see).


----------



## Scribble (Jun 22, 2010)

Dr_Ruminahui said:


> Except some monsters do have reliable powers, and it IS defined in the "interpretation section" of the MM3 - 16 of them as per the conpendium, with about 1/2 of them from MM2 (and none from MM3, that I could see).




Oh really?

blush... never noticed that.


----------



## circadianwolf (Jun 22, 2010)

> (and none from MM3, that I could see).




That would be b/c MM3's not in the Compendium yet.


----------



## Dr_Ruminahui (Jun 23, 2010)

That would certainly be a very good reason for it... forgot about that.


----------



## Roger (Jun 23, 2010)

So I guess the other 'big news' is the shift away from a tactical 'Tactics Section' to more of a chatty fluffy "here's the monster in action" vignette.

I find myself pretty neutral towards it.  I never got much use out of the Tactics section anyway.  I might get slightly more use out of the fluff, but it's pretty close to being a draw.



Cheers,
Roger


----------



## TerraDave (Jun 23, 2010)

Quickleaf said:


> I too would like to see older monsters revised to account for these fixes. Maybe some revised versions of iconic MM1 monsters could be released thru DDi or one of the Essentials supplements?




Its Monster Vault. Also comes with counters.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 24, 2010)

Hello there! 

Just wanted to echo the general opinion on this book. It is excellent. Its now vying with Open Grave and the Realms Campaign book for the position of 'my favourite 4E book'. Great work WotC.

Minor nitpicks I would have are...

1. The new changes are a tad baffling and don't seem to be universally applied (hopefully DMG3 will make sense of this).

2. Assuming (for example) I wanted to run an adventure culminating in a battle with Ogremoch - pretty much every other statblock in his entry would be irrelevant in that adventure. I understand that you don't want the Ogremoch entry filling the book, but you could probably have something akin to a two-tier structure with some stat blocks revolving around his cult and others revolving around his realm's inhabitants.

3. The flipside of #2...without a focal personality or icon, many race entries (and I am thinking more towards the epic side of things) seem a bit anaemic. Thats one of the reasons I always thought demons made for such great villains...because you have these unique demon lords and princes as focal points. Its something lost to the Forsaken, Tulgar and Weavers. Again, this isn't something that works for all entries, but in the spirit of 'more fluff' a few more personalities can't hurt.

But as I said, those were minor nitpicks, its a brilliant book and I thoroughly recommend it.


----------



## Aegeri (Jun 25, 2010)

keterys said:


> Bunch of powers




I've never seen PCs take those ever. Many of them IMO would be very useful, because recharge powers are often the most dangerous!


----------



## Gort (Jun 25, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> I've never seen PCs take those ever. Many of them IMO would be very useful, because recharge powers are often the most dangerous!




They're especially good against solos.


----------



## avin (Jun 26, 2010)

Finally got mine MM3 and I gotta say THANK YOU Wotc, for the extra fluff.

I was gladly surprised that Ultroloths mantained some of their Yugoloth feeling.


----------



## tallyrand (Jun 27, 2010)

I've just gotta ask, were Mimics always this smart? Int of 19 and 26? Seriously, forget hanging around in a musty old dungeon, I'd hire one as my accountant.  I mean is ambushing people really that ingrained in them, are adventurers really that delicious?   These guys should be running the show, not "lurking within the shadows to devour the remains of victims that [other] monsters cannot consume."  The lvl 16 Impersonator Mimic has more going for it than the Doppleganger ever dreamed.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Jun 28, 2010)

tallyrand said:


> are adventurers really that delicious?



Yes. The entirety of the D&D universe is, I think, built on this being true.


----------



## tbarrie (Jun 28, 2010)

tallyrand said:


> I've just gotta ask, were Mimics always this smart? Int of 19 and 26? [...]   These guys should be running the show, not "lurking within the shadows to devour the remains of victims that [other] monsters cannot consume."




Well, they wouldn't necessarily be running the show, because of course they have to compete with all the other 4E creatures who are much smarter than humans on average. (A quick list using the Monster Manual 3 alone: Arcanians, Banderhobbs, Beholders, Cambions, most Demons and Devils, Dragons, Forsaken, Foulspawn, Frost Giants, Gremlins, Hags, Krakens, Minotaurs, Nagpas, Nymphs, Tulgar, and Weavers.)

In humanity's defense, we can compete quite respectably with Cloakers on the intellectual front. And we're, like, _way_ smarter than Catoblepasses. Go us!


----------



## Knowme (Jun 28, 2010)

fanboy2000 said:


> Yes. The entirety of the D&D universe is, I think, built on this being true.




My players always wonder why every monster is carrying a bottle of ketchup.


----------



## MrMyth (Jun 28, 2010)

tallyrand said:


> I've just gotta ask, were Mimics always this smart? Int of 19 and 26? Seriously, forget hanging around in a musty old dungeon, I'd hire one as my accountant. I mean is ambushing people really that ingrained in them, are adventurers really that delicious? These guys should be running the show, not "lurking within the shadows to devour the remains of victims that [other] monsters cannot consume." The lvl 16 Impersonator Mimic has more going for it than the Doppleganger ever dreamed.




Keep in mind, raw intelligence has no real connection to how human a creature's motivations may or may not be. 

The Mimic's intelligence I could certainly see as a sort of perfect understanding of shapes and mannerisms - thus allowing it to perfectly copy forms, figure out how best to lure food into traps, what sort of shapes would be the most enticing, etc. But all of these genius calculations are still entirely in service to its nature - a creature that wants food, and doesn't really care about anything beyond that. 

If you could hear its thoughts, it might be an endless series of numerical observations about its environment and the creatures it observes, but there wouldn't be any emotional connections attached to those observations, or any desires other than, of course, lurking and eating.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 28, 2010)

I... wow. MyMyth said everything I was going to say and better. 



tbarrie said:


> In humanity's defense, we can compete quite respectably with Cloakers on the intellectual front. And we're, like, _way_ smarter than Catoblepasses. Go us!



And way smarter than the crawdads.


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 29, 2010)

Does the DDi Monster Builder use the same monster building formula as MM3?  

If not, is there any idea when/if it will be updated.


----------



## Bold or Stupid (Jun 29, 2010)

Johnny3D3D said:


> Does the DDi Monster Builder use the same monster building formula as MM3?
> 
> If not, is there any idea when/if it will be updated.




I would presume that it will all be updated a week from today (It's tuesday here...)


----------



## Aegeri (Jun 29, 2010)

Bold or Stupid said:


> I would presume that it will all be updated a week from today (It's tuesday here...)



The new errata on monster damage is scheduled to be released this update, though if there is any last minute issue or similar it will most certainly be in the next errata update after.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Jun 29, 2010)

I just can't get over the fact that Fire Elementals are not immune to fire nor are they even resistant to it.


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 29, 2010)

ForeverSlayer said:


> I just can't get over the fact that Fire Elementals are not immune to fire nor are they even resistant to it.





really?

Hopefully that's an oversight... like Hydras not being able to swim


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Jun 29, 2010)

Johnny3D3D said:


> really?
> 
> Hopefully that's an oversight... like Hydras not being able to swim




Seriously it is not an oversight that I am aware of.  There are people actually trying to give reasons over on the Wizard's site as to why a Fire Elemental would be harmed by magical fire.  It's really funny to read what they come up with.


----------



## Aegeri (Jun 29, 2010)

Johnny3D3D said:


> really?
> 
> Hopefully that's an oversight... like Hydras not being able to swim




Some Hydras can't swim, but others actually can swim like the fen hydra, black blood hydra, mordant hydra and the primordial hydra.

Which actually is nearly all of them anyway, so I'm not sure what you're on about. Most of the hydras that can't swim are from weird places or just different variants. There are aquatic trolls but it doesn't mean every single troll can swim.



			
				ForeverSlayer said:
			
		

> There are people actually trying to give reasons over on the Wizard's  site as to why a Fire Elemental would be harmed by magical fire.  It's  really funny to read what they come up with.




It doesn't come funnier than every response from you being "No you prove it" over and over to everyone responding to you, while offering absolutely no logic of your own. Plus when you actually contradicted your own argument in the same post - that was truly funny.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Jun 29, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> It doesn't come funnier than every response from you being "No you prove it" over and over to everyone responding to you, while offering absolutely no logic of your own. Plus when you actually contradicted your own argument in the same post - that was truly funny.




Tell me just how I was contradicting myself?


----------



## Aegeri (Jun 29, 2010)

It was explained to you at length in the thread. Given your preponderance to being utterly immune to factual statements though anyone can go and see the train wreck of a thread for themselves. The highpoint (lowpoint?) definitely being when you challenge your opponents to name creatures with the fire keyword that don't have resistance/immunity and then inherently name two creatures with the fire keyword that don't have resistance/immunity in the same post.

Either way, I know it's worthless arguing with you so I'm not going to bother. Others can see for themselves by just clicking the link above.


----------



## circadianwolf (Jun 29, 2010)

Even funnier is that he brings it up in this thread, wherein *a dev explained the reasons behind its lack of fire resist/immunity*. It's good to know people read threads before they post to them!


----------



## Herschel (Jun 29, 2010)

If someone really has a problem with it, just think of it this way: They are damaged by the MAGIC in the magical fire, not the fire in it. They (in a sense) feed off the fire in it and project it in an aura now, reflecting that portion of teh energy back at its foes.

IOW, the magical fire is conjured, not summoned.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 29, 2010)

The whole debate is what is preposterous. Magic doesn't have any rules except whatever is in the game. Maybe not everyone can quite separate reality from fantasy...

On a more useful note, I like the new Hags. The Pact Hag should be a lot of fun, hehe!


----------



## quishadi (Jun 30, 2010)

Before I start - MM3 is awesome.  The monsters are interesting, and the fluff is welcome.  I really like the overall higher damage, more accurate brutes, and the welcome sight of some old monsters retooled from previous editions --- really good stuff.  That said, I don't like everything.  All in all though, I like .

To the four who posted before me: Wow ... pretty harsh.  Truth is, none of the elemental "counter examples" on the WotC thread are from previous MM versions.  One is from The Plane Below, and has the fire subtype, but no fluff, damage or mechanics relating to fire ... oh and it's both immune to lightning AND has resist 20 lightning ... but that's probably right also, because ya know the WotC editors never let typos slip through.  Two are from dungeon magazine adventures (do they even edit those anymore?) and are minions and another is from an LFR module and is supposed to be an elite version of a Fire Bat (the base version is in MM and DOES have fire resistance).  I know of no one that runs RUNES in the RUINS where the Elite Fire Bat does not have the Fire Bats normal resistance to fire --- it is assumed that it's an unintended omission.  If you want, I can show you many other hinky monster stat block errors in LFR mods - including a swarm of spiders decked out in armor and carrying spears!  The only one that I think might legitimately have no fire resistance if from The Plane Below and has both the fire and water subtypes --- I know of no other creature with both.

Truth is, prior to MM3 there isn't credible evidence that an elemental with subtype fire (and not also water) wouldn't normally have some fire resistance or even immunity.

Please, do not misunderstand me, I'm definitely not against the damaging feedback that some of the new monsters can dish out.  In fact, I really like it.  Regardless of what some of my fellow debaters from the WotC threads will tell you, I've never said otherwise.  I only object to the lack of resistance/immunity.  Given the existing rules in D&D 4e, it requires too much of a leap for me.  Go ahead and tell me to "get over it" or "it's a fantasy game" or whatever.  The truth is though, that some people (the game designers; some of you) are trying to tell me what is fun and what isn't and what I should be able to tolerate in terms buying into this setting so that I can immerse myself and just have a good time.  For me, a fire elemental without fire resistance is just too much --- both in terms of my suspension of disbelief and also in terms of my trust in the consistency of the rules.

As a side note - I have already heard the arguments for allowing such monsters to live in punishing environments and ignore damage from associated hazards --- while at the same time being damaged by the same effects that just happen to be generated by PCs.  I have yet to hear one argument that does not amount to fluff over rules.  Nothing in the rules currently supports multiple fire damage types - there is only one, and lack of resistance means damage gets through.  If such rules were to be clearly defined so that they could be consistently applied (and not just something a mod writer needs to interpret and hand wave his/her way through), I'd welcome it, and it would go a long way toward letting me suspend disbelief.  As it stands, the three monsters that I am aware of (Fire Elemental, Volcanic Dragon and Blizzard Dragon) do not come with written resistances, and therefore require fudged resistance in order to live side-by-side with some of the common hazards for their respective preferred environments.  In effect, this amounts to "immunity to fire (or cold) generated by most non-PC sources" and while it might help to move combats along, it does nothing for the internal consistency of the game.

I know that Greg from WotC has already weighed in, and there are no plans to change these monsters, so I know that what I've written on WotCs forums and here will make no difference.  I'm only trying to explain my point of view and perhaps that of the others who keep getting beat up over our misgivings.


----------



## Aegeri (Jun 30, 2010)

I've already explained to you the numerous modules that have terrain that affects PCs and not the monsters in them haven't I? I've also asked people about LFR to find you're incorrect that a module cannot specify something in its encounter, such as "X creature is immune/resistant to Y terrain effect" and have it accepted as rules. So in effect you're wrong on your core point there anyway.

But in the end a creature does not need - in effect - a "double" punishment mechanism. Reduced damage plus an effect that will go off regardless of what feats or similar you have against immunity/resistance, is really just doubling up on the "punishment" mechanism.

You do attempt to dismiss that there have been other fire subtype creatures that don't have immunity/resistance to fire, but only one of these is really a valid argument (It's likely the Storm that Walks *is* an oversight). None the less the point of these _particular_ monsters is that they forgoe resistance for a different punishment mechanism.

If you are DMing you can simply give them resistance. Just like that the problem is solved. Amazingly hard that was. If you aren't get over it.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 30, 2010)

I like resistences, heck I build a lot of my characters around having them. That said, I don't have a real issue with saying it's the magic and not the energy that hurts them. As I mentioned above, it's conjured energy, not summoned, so it's magical in nature, not strictly elemental like the, um, well, elemental is.


----------



## MrMyth (Jun 30, 2010)

I like the idea of having 'tiers' of energy damage (mundane-tier, magic-tier, god-tier), so that you can easily establish certain creatures as immune to mundane flames but vulnerable to magical ones. But it doesn't seem likely we'll see that popping up in 4E any time soon. 

As it is, I don't object to these 'altered resistances' as long as there is an appropriate flavor to go along with it. A fire elemental having an ability called, "The Brightest Flame Burns Fastest", which makes it more powerful whenever it takes fire damage, but still takes the damage, seems like a cool idea to me. 

On the other hand, I wouldn't want to see such a thing as the only option - there is room for resistances too, I feel. When appropriate and handled well.


----------



## quishadi (Jun 30, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> I've already explained to you the numerous modules  that have terrain that affects PCs and not the monsters in them haven't  I?



You've said that they exist, but you haven't listed them.   Also, for each one you can list, I'll bet you can also find something similar where that sort of hand waving was never used.



Aegeri said:


> I've also asked people about LFR to find you're  incorrect that a module cannot specify something in its encounter, such  as "X creature is immune/resistant to Y terrain effect" and have it  accepted as rules.



Sounds like you're not very familiar with LFR,  RPGA, or what is Official and what isn't.  I've actually gone so far as to  provide you the exact text of the CCG with regard to where official  rules can come from and whether or not DMs can substitute their own rules  (little reminder - they can't).  I don't know who these friends of yours  are, but I do know that I've been doing this basically since LFR  started, and that I DM with people that regularly judge at GenCon,  Origins, etc.  Here's something else that'll shock you:  I'm not even the most strict (or pedantic as you like to  say) one among them.  (Far from it actually.  That honor probably goes to a guy I'll just call Mr.  Z.  Truth is that agree with him or not, he is the goto guy in our area  where the rules are concerned.)  Module elements that fly in the face of  official rules are sometimes, nipped in the bud before  they can cause problems.  For instance, while it makes sense that it  would be more difficult to catch the edge and avoid going over a  waterfall, we pretty much all agreed that we would give a saving throw  even though the writer of ARTS specifically does not allow one.  There is no place in the rules that supports  this exception, and there are already other waterfalls and similarly slippery  places in LFR mods that do not disallow a saving throw.  If one writer allows a saving throw, but the next does not, then how are players reasonably supposed to make decisions.  This in the end is what we try to avoid by  actually doing what the CCG tells us to do - we try to avoid  inconsistencies that cause players to question how the world will work  from game session to game session and from DM to DM.  That's why it's  important to have solid core rules that work, and that do not require  hand waving.

(As a side note - in a home game, you can decide that except in very special cases, no saving throw will be allowed when going over a waterfall.  Guess what, you just made a house rule - I do that in my home games all the time.  We are specifically not allowed to do that in LFR.)



Aegeri said:


> But in the end a creature does not need - in  effect - a "double" punishment mechanism. Reduced damage plus an effect  that will go off regardless of what feats or similar you have against  immunity/resistance, is really just doubling up on the "punishment"  mechanism.



Punishment?  Either way it's not a punishment so much  as an incentive to never deal that type of damage to such a creature in  the first place.  Yes, in the case of resistances, a smart player can  find ways around them, whereas with the damaging feedback this is *currently* less  likely ... though, if this is the route WotC decides to take, I'd expect  to see feats and items that mitigate or control damaging feedback.



Aegeri said:


> You do attempt to dismiss that there have been  other fire subtype creatures that don't have immunity/resistance to  fire, but only one of these is really a valid argument (It's likely the  Storm that Walks *is* an oversight). None the less the point of these _particular_  monsters is that they forgoe resistance for a different punishment  mechanism.



With that admission, you're down to two minions, each  found only in a Dungeon Mag adventure, a TYPO on an LFR stat-block, and  one that I think is probably legit (fire - water kind of cancel each  other out).



Aegeri said:


> If you are DMing you can simply give them  resistance. Just like that the problem is solved. Amazingly hard that  was. If you aren't get over it.



If you've never played an  official game, where you are supposed to follow the rules as closely as  you can, you just will never understand.  The official rules are very  important to the well being of shared games such as LFR, and every  effort should be made to keep them straight-forward, consistent and  fair.  With the right rules, this addition will work.  Right now we're stuck with hand waving.


----------



## Aegeri (Jun 30, 2010)

quishadi said:


> You've said that they exist, but you haven't listed them.




Pyramid of shadows has such examples, a creature just ignores the damage from a zone. What this means is that if you reduce its resistances it still won't take damage - it's resistances aren't what makes it immune.



> Sounds like you're not very familiar with LFR,  RPGA, or what is Official and what isn't.



That's why I asked the admins and judges, all of whom tell me that you're wrong.

So who am I going to take the word of, the people who are running LFR and administrating it or you? You've actually been corrected several times in the other thread on this as well, where you just ignored the individuals who corrected your misconceptions (Noting that the response is to another poster, but note that the response is from an LFR Global Admin and matches what I've already been told about how LFR games are run. The DM can indeed change things as they see fit within reason. I also asked about if modules could set such things and the answer was also yes, that a DM could change a module as it was written or keep to whatever RAW within. If a module said the creature was immune to X fire zone, despite not having fire resistance/immunity, then indeed it CAN be because that's what the module said. So there you go).

So this argument is firmly dead now, because when everyone else tells me you're actually wrong on this point I'm going to take their word for it.



> Punishment?  Either way it's not a punishment so much  as an incentive to never deal that type of damage to such a creature in  the first place.



Which is the whole point of what resistances are meant to accomplish and usually fail to. They either make non specialists powers do nothing, or they are a boring and ignorable mechanic (because you've taken your feat taxes to make your fire wizard ignore resistance).



> Yes, in the case of resistances, a smart player can  find ways around them, whereas with the damaging feedback this is *currently* less  likely ...



Making it a better and more relevant mechanic. Resistances just lead to feat taxes and nothing else. A genuine mechanic that punishes an energy type leads to finding different solutions, or having to maneuver the creature where it cannot harm the party.



> With that admission, you're down to two minions, each  found only in a Dungeon Mag adventure, a TYPO on an LFR stat-block, and  one that I think is probably legit (fire - water kind of cancel each  other out).



No they don't, creatures can be multiple element types and still have resistances to those types. The Storm That Walk is probably a mistake, but it doesn't change other published modules and monsters have shown this.



> If you've never played an  official game, where you are supposed to follow the rules as closely as  you can



I have and when I asked the *LFR admins myself* and they've all told me that you're wrong, and when I've asked those running DnD encounters and checked and _they tell me you're wrong_ I am confident in you being wrong. The DM does have a degree of freedom in running published adventures and published adventures _can_ set their own rules (I specifically asked and authors who have published LFR modules tell me, they CAN indeed do this if they write it into the module). You are simply completely incorrect.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 30, 2010)

I get the idea I'm coming in late on a debate which started elsewhere, and probably could be finished elsewhere, too. 

-O


----------



## Gradine (Jun 30, 2010)

The more I think on this the more I've slowly changed my stance. 4e, more than any previous edition, encourages builds with an elemental flavor. While some of these builds to include tactics on reducing resistance, it's a small enough percentage to them that resistance and immunity seems unnecessarily punitive. The idea of punitive reactions strikes me as a much better mechanic overall; it just required me to purposefully break free from a video game mindset.


----------



## webrunner (Jun 30, 2010)

ha HA!  Your flesh-based fist attack cannot hurt me, as I am MADE of flesh!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 1, 2010)

Regarding resistance - I think the game should also feature more of this "counter" abilities for players. It's relatively easy to stack up on resistances now, and I think it devalues these damage types and monsters using them.

*Cloak of Temperament* (Level 8/18/28)
_This cloak is covered with flame and ice motives. The wearers emotions seem intensified, and he is prone to sudden emotional changes. 
_Property: You gain a +2 (per tier) bonus to Diplomacy and Intimidate checks.
Power (Encounter): Free Action. Trigger: You take damage from a cold or a fire attack. Effect: All enemies adjacent to you take 5 points of cold and fire damage (per tier)


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 1, 2010)

*Folks, don't bring an off-site argument into a discussion here. PM me if this is in any way unclear. Thanks.*


----------



## Jack Jericho (Jul 2, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> Some Hydras can't swim, but others actually can swim like the fen hydra, black blood hydra, mordant hydra and the primordial hydra.
> 
> Which actually is nearly all of them anyway, so I'm not sure what you're on about. Most of the hydras that can't swim are from weird places or just different variants. There are aquatic trolls but it doesn't mean every single troll can swim.
> 
> ...




Actually, he is right.  Most of the hydras, even the ones which are supposed to be able to swim, do not have a listed swim speed.  This issue come up for my group last weekend.  The DM simply made an on the spot call (and rightfully so) that the hydra we were fighting had a swim speed of what its listed speed was, but it is still a strange error(?).


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 2, 2010)

> Actually, he is right.  Most of the hydras, even the ones which are  supposed to be able to swim, do not have a listed swim speed.




All of the hydras I listed have a swim speed.

Not all hydras can swim, but many of them actually can and ALL of the hydras I listed have a swim speed.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 2, 2010)

quishadi said:


> If you've never played an  official game, where you are supposed to follow the rules as closely as  you can, you just will never understand.  The official rules are very  important to the well being of shared games such as LFR, and every  effort should be made to keep them straight-forward, consistent and  fair.



I disagree. Imho, you're stuck in the past. RPGA has changed, RPGA modules have changed. The current RPGA embraces whatever will increase enjoyment in the game. If this means ignoring or adjusting a bad rule (or other game element) then that's what you can (and probably should) do.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 2, 2010)

ArcaneSpringboard said:


> There are some great monsters from BECMI, and I'm glad they're starting to tap into those.
> 
> Where's my Brain Collector though?



I'm just reading MM3 and have (good) news for you: The Brain Collector is actually in MM3!

Brain Collectors are called 'Intellect Gluttons' now and they represent the most powerful variant of 'Intellect Devourers'.


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 26, 2010)

Dr_Ruminahui said:


> Craud [giant crabs] - low heroic



Much worse than crabs...







Rechan said:


> I used the Crauds in an encounter yesterday. They hit _hard_. One monster, the Brute, has an encounter power that does 2d12+10 and knocks the target prone. It did a solid 24 points of damage to the Warlord, would have dropped him straight to 0 had it not been for the Swordmage using a utility that let him reduce damage of an attack to an adjacent target.
> 
> The Skrimisher has an AW power that lets it make two attacks, and if both hit, its encounter power recharges and it uses it for free. All three hit the same target and he went down.



Sounds about right for the RL criter they are based on. Don't forget that 2d12+10 encounter power targets reflex defense and pushes the victim one square.







fba827 said:


> What handful of monsters in MM3 really caught your interest/attention (for whatever reason - be it mechanics, fluff, picture, 'is just too perfect timing for what you happened to need in your game' etc)??



The craud caught my eye because they are man sized Mantis Shrimp with a hive mind. Their in game nickname locusts of the sea is even what the Assyrians called the mantis shrimp. Their damage output also fits right in with the mantis shrimp theme since they will rip PCs into *chunks*. 

The Character that bloodies the Cruad king is in for an ocean of hurt. Best of all, Craud kings specifically encourage their troops to finish off injured foes.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Dec 26, 2010)

The Thread's ALIVE!!!! It's ALIVE!!!!!


----------

