# Unhappy w/4E monster manual..3PP pls. publish monster books pronto!!



## Blair Goatsblood (Sep 24, 2008)

I've been going over my collection of pre-4E adventures as fodder for my campaign...and I keep hitting the "monster speedbump"

And a lot of those monsters, if they weren't in the 3.5 MM, they were in Tome of Horrors. It's too bad that because of the GSL Necromancer won't be doing  a 4E Tome of Horrors, as I was drooling over the possibility. Hopefully they'll find the new GSL agreeable enough to publish Folio of Fiends, but....

I NEED MY OLD-SCHOOL D&D MONSTERS AND I NEED THEM NOW!!

Kruthiks? Banshrae? Swordwings? To me they're the Tojanada/Ravid/Phantom Fungi of 4E. They got no "traction" in my imagination.

Where's the frogs? apes? carnivorous dinosaurs? Less "unique snowflakes" and more meat and potatoes archetypical swords & sorcery beasties please.

I've been making my own monsters. I've been scouring the internet for fan conversions/creations. I frantically read reviews of 4E adventures to find out what monsters are within them.

*I am planning on buying adventurers vault soley for the shark/triceratops/giant lizard/etc stats *(ps. more than just a bare-bones stat-block would have been greatly appreciated...)

But....I was able to DM my 3.5 campaign using MM I & Tome of Horrors for 95% of the monsters. I don't want to deal with a unwieldy stack of books/printouts/adventures and a laptop while DMing in order to have a respectable selection of foes.

I've been really happy with 4E otherwise, but as a 1st ed. D&D/RE Howard/Fritz Leiber/CA Smith fanboy, the 4E Monster Manual selection is a huge disappointment.


----------



## Lord Xtheth (Sep 24, 2008)

I agree. I find myself mulling over the same few monsters over and over again for fight encounters. "Hmm my PC's are 5th level... that means... err an ork, a couple wolves, a spellcaster... and 6 minions. Still level 5? well... um whats in their power range? An ork, a couple wolves, 2 spellcasters, 4 minions... OH that was a little too hard damn spell casters"

I can't wait until I see a couple more monster manuals. I LOVE monsters!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 24, 2008)

My name is Kamikaze Midget, and I endorse this message.







The 4e MM is a bucket of fail. I understand that 3PP's aren't happy with the GSL at the moment, and I can't blame them, so I'll just blame WotC for making a sucktastic MM and then making it very very difficult for high-quality 3PP's to fill the sucking chest wound at the heart of this edition for me.

(I'm not sure it needs to be pointed out, but, of course, YMMV -- some people love the 4e MM. I am not one of those people).


----------



## Kunimatyu (Sep 24, 2008)

I'm glad to see us talking about the frog-dinosaur issue out in the open now.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Sep 24, 2008)

The only monster I can think of that I would quite like to see again is the Charnel Hound, everything else nice when they come out but not something I am hoping for.


----------



## Blair Goatsblood (Sep 24, 2008)

Kunimatyu said:


> I'm glad to see us talking about the frog-*dinosaur* issue out in the open now.




A 7th level Ankylosaur and a 9th level Stegosaur?

I'm staggered by the depth, range and creativity of the Monster Manual.

As well, they did a great job making already cool archetypical monsters like panthers and giant scorpions "cooler"


----------



## Henry (Sep 24, 2008)

Blair Goatsblood said:


> I've been really happy with 4E otherwise, but as a 1st ed. D&D/RE Howard/Fritz Leiber/CA Smith fanboy, the 4E Monster Manual selection is a huge disappointment.




Do you have any specific critters from 3e or 1e you wanted converted? I'd be happy to do so on a case-by-case, because pages 184 and 185 of the DMG make it obscenely easy. I've been creating monsters on the fly for months now, and it's worked exceptionally well, thanks to those guidelines. It should serve quite well until more 3rd party and WotC material is released.

If there's one thing I've been most pleased with in 4e, it's the ease of DMing on the fly, and the monsters are a big part of that.


----------



## Blair Goatsblood (Sep 24, 2008)

Henry said:


> Do you have any specific critters from 3e or 1e you wanted converted? I'd be happy to do so on a case-by-case, because pages 184 and 185 of the DMG make it obscenely easy.




Thank for the kind offer Henry, although I feel guilty about asking someone else to do the "heavy lifting" for free when I've been cranking out monsters using the guideline from the DMG.....regardless, FROGHEMOTH!!!


----------



## Filcher (Sep 24, 2008)

Goodman Games has the answer: 

Blackdirge's Dungeon Denizens.


----------



## Henry (Sep 24, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:


> The only monster I can think of that I would quite like to see again is the Charnel Hound, everything else nice when they come out but not something I am hoping for.




Here's an example of what a Charnel Hound might look like, with a little bit of creative license from me to give an elite monster (as suggested) a little more spice for when he becomes bloodied, and to give him something that would make him a challenge for 2 equal level PCs. Use one of these bad boys against 13th level PCs, along with some controllers or artillery; failing that, use the page 174 rules to drop or raise him a few levels.



> Charnel Hound 	Level 13 Elite Soldier
> Huge Shadow Animate (Undead) 	XP 1,600
> Initiative +10 	Senses Perception +8, Darkvision
> Fearful Presence (fear) aura 2; This aura of terror causes all opponents in this area to suffer a -2 to all attacks on the Charnel Hound.
> ...


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Sep 24, 2008)

Very cool, Henry. One idea I myself have had when it comes to the Charnel Hound is that as you know it is made up of corpses...

Well, I personally think it be neat if after a Charnel Hound is killed (or bloodied) some of the corpses become disentangled from its mass and rise up as zombie-minions


----------



## Henry (Sep 24, 2008)

After looking up the 3e conversion in the creature catalog, I came up with the following. I robbed liberally from the Purple Worm entry in 4e; I liked their "crush" and "swallow" mechanics there, and I like the idea of the Froghemoth using minor actions to contrinue crushing after grabbing foes, but I might lower the damage done, as it might be too powerful for it. I can see a froghemoth, one or two party members wrapped in its tentacles, crushing away, as it's beating the hell out of the rest of the party with a free tentacle... 





> Froghemoth 	Level 13 Elite Brute
> Huge Natural Beast 	XP 1,600
> Initiative +8 	Senses Perception +7, Darkvision
> HP 320; Bloodied 160
> ...


----------



## Victim (Sep 24, 2008)

I think that normal animals weren't used to avoid discrepancies between hunting and fighting animals.  Using magiced up animals means that real life exploits are harder to translate into game mechanics.  There's no issue of "my character is a chump because he loses to critters that poachers kill easily."

Kruthiks are pretty cool as monster bug things, IMO.


----------



## Spatula (Sep 24, 2008)

The 4e MM is definitely lacking when it comes to "mundane" encounters (animals, giant animals, etc.).  There are a few but compared to previous editions it is severely lacking.  Plus most of them seem to have magical effects tacked on.  Scorpions that shoot lightning from their claws are neat, but seem rather... specific.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Sep 24, 2008)

There are definitely things I think are missing, but I actually really like that nonthreatening animals, or animals that just do not attack groups of adult humans, aren't present in the MM. 

If anything, it seems more "real-world"...ohgodsimulationism


----------



## Crothian (Sep 24, 2008)

Didn't all the big bad monster finally just make those little animals extinct?


----------



## jinnetics (Sep 24, 2008)

Spatula said:


> The 4e MM is definitely lacking when it comes to "mundane" encounters (animals, giant animals, etc.).  There are a few but compared to previous editions it is severely lacking.  Plus most of them seem to have magical effects tacked on.  Scorpions that shoot lightning from their claws are neat, but seem rather... specific.




Bah, who needs mundane encounters! That's what real life is for.


----------



## Jack99 (Sep 24, 2008)

Blair Goatsblood said:


> I've been going over my collection of pre-4E adventures as fodder for my campaign...and I keep hitting the "monster speedbump"
> 
> And a lot of those monsters, if they weren't in the 3.5 MM, they were in Tome of Horrors. It's too bad that because of the GSL Necromancer won't be doing  a 4E Tome of Horrors, as I was drooling over the possibility. Hopefully they'll find the new GSL agreeable enough to publish Folio of Fiends, but....
> 
> I NEED MY OLD-SCHOOL D&D MONSTERS AND I NEED THEM NOW!!



There is a guy who has been converting a lot of the 3e monsters to 4e, in the homebrew section of ENworld. He started at level 1, and went up. Last I saw, he was asking for level 12+ monsters, so he might have some of those that you are missing.


Filcher said:


> Goodman Games has the answer:
> 
> Blackdirge's Dungeon Denizens.



Is there an ETA on that?


----------



## Blair Goatsblood (Sep 24, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> There is a guy who has been converting a lot of the 3e monsters to 4e, in the homebrew section of ENworld. He started at level 1, and went up. Last I saw, he was asking for level 12+ monsters, so he might have some of those that you are missing.




Oh yeah, I've been checking out his work...good stuff. I'm just spoiled and cranky, I'd rather just pay for a book of good monsters instead of farting around cutting and pasting from enworld and then going to the internet cafe/kinkos to print out a stack of papers that are going to fall all over the floor when I'm Dming. 

First World Problems.


----------



## Blair Goatsblood (Sep 24, 2008)

Henry said:


> After looking up the 3e conversion in the creature catalog, I came up with the following.....




You = Class Act

Request queue:
Rot Grub
Green Slime
Piercer


----------



## Blair Goatsblood (Sep 24, 2008)

Spatula said:


> Scorpions that shoot lightning from their claws ...




Why not give them a surfboard and sunglasses as well...


----------



## Kunimatyu (Sep 24, 2008)

Blair Goatsblood said:


> Why not give them a surfboard and sunglasses as well...




Were they wearing loafers?


----------



## Jack Colby (Sep 24, 2008)

Blair Goatsblood said:


> Kruthiks? Banshrae? Swordwings? To me they're the Tojanada/Ravid/Phantom Fungi of 4E. They got no "traction" in my imagination.
> 
> Where's the frogs? apes? carnivorous dinosaurs? Less "unique snowflakes" and more meat and potatoes archetypical swords & sorcery beasties please.





This.  Very disappointing selection in the MM.  But I don't trust the current WotC to understand what fantasy really is all about, and am just waiting on 3rd party books at this point. I don't think WotC is capable of understanding, considering what's been done so far.  Lame, lame, lame.


----------



## jensun (Sep 24, 2008)

4e monsters are ridiculously easy to reskin into different forms.  Simply decide what sort of monster type and level you want, pick an equivalent one out of the book, reflavour its powers and away you go. 

Personally I would have been just as happy if the MM had a handful of example monsters in it and instead provided more detail on the monster creation process.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Sep 24, 2008)

Kunimatyu said:


> There are definitely things I think are missing, but I actually really like that nonthreatening animals, or animals that just do not attack groups of adult humans, aren't present in the MM.
> 
> If anything, it seems more "real-world"...ohgodsimulationism




More real world?

Have you seen what _one boar_ can do to a person?  Forget orcs, an enraged boar that's half your height and twice your weight is horrifyingly scary, especially when you consider they've got _armor_ in the head specifically to make sure _you can't hurt it_ when it tries to gore you.  And when you do hurt it, it doesn't back away, it just gets _more pissed off_.

People who talk about how fighting, say, bears, isn't scary, have never seen a bear.  Those suckers hit nine hundred pounds, EASY.  _Nine hundred pounds_!  Those aren't even the biggest ones!  They can bite through your skull and snap your neck with a paw.

And these are the normal, everyday, mundane Earth ones...


----------



## Callowbran (Sep 24, 2008)

All this vitriol heaped against the MM is misguided. The book is awesome. The place it really shines is in the different varieties of the same type of monster -- you can easily "customize" the encounter by adding monsters with different jobs (i.e. strikers, artillery, minions, etc.)

I personally have no desire whatsoever to fight farm animals in my campaign and, thanks to the MM, I don't have to. (If I want to kill farm animals I can just go to the local petting zoo.)


----------



## Draksila (Sep 24, 2008)

I'm personally hoping that the second MM has a greater selection of 'normal' animals.  After all, they need data on the druid's usual woodland pals once that class becomes available, right?


----------



## Pinotage (Sep 24, 2008)

Filcher said:


> Goodman Games has the answer:
> 
> Blackdirge's Dungeon Denizens.




It's probably not entirely what the OP was looking for, but it has some good conversions of a few older monsters. I wouldn't call most of these normal, though. You won't get the typical stable fantasy creatures in here, but it's a good start to getting more monsters. Aren't they bringing out a monster generator as well?

Pinotage


----------



## Henry (Sep 24, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> More real world?
> 
> Have you seen what _one boar_ can do to a person?...
> 
> People who talk about how fighting, say, bears, isn't scary, have never seen a bear....




I do find it kind of funny that regular grizzlies aren't in the MM, nor regular boars, but regular hyenas are!  I suppose a "cave bear" could be considered a regular grizzly (brown) bear, but they probably mean something a bit larger.

Either one could be easily modified to smaller bears -- say a grizzly or a boar could be level 3 instead  of 6? Those things would still inflict horrific damage; the bear itself at level 3 still does 2d8+4 on a claw attack. (Errata pushed cave bears to 2d8 + 5 on an attack). Two or three swipes, and the fighter is going DOWN.


----------



## Shemeska (Sep 24, 2008)

Callowbran said:


> All this vitriol heaped against the MM is misguided. The book is awesome.




Yep. What with the recycled art, poor layout, and wasteland of flavor text, how could anyone find fault in its design? Hmm... yeah. Somewhere around page 1, the book derailed from what I would want in a MM, the selection of monsters being another quality that doesn't exactly fill me with a pressing need to buy the book and convert them back to 3.x.

The 4e MM dropped the ball on numerous points, but YMMV depending on what you're looking for I suppose.


----------



## Pbartender (Sep 24, 2008)

jensun said:


> 4e monsters are ridiculously easy to reskin into different forms.  Simply decide what sort of monster type and level you want, pick an equivalent one out of the book, reflavour its powers and away you go.




I'm always surprised how many people forget how to do this...


----------



## Nebulous (Sep 24, 2008)

Shemeska said:


> Yep. What with the recycled art, poor layout, and wasteland of flavor text, how could anyone find fault in its design? Hmm... yeah. Somewhere around page 1, the book derailed from what I would want in a MM, the selection of monsters being another quality that doesn't exactly fill me with a pressing need to buy the book and convert them back to 3.x.
> 
> The 4e MM dropped the ball on numerous points, but YMMV depending on what you're looking for I suppose.




I have to heap on the dislike for the 4e MM as well.  Sorry.  I like 4e in general, it does some stuff really, really well i think, but since monsters have ALWAYS been my favorite part of D&D since 1st edition, i wasn't pleased with how the 4e MM was handled.   A lot of the art is totally crappy, and the lack of descriptive flavor text is nothing less than sickening.  But, YMMV, as many people think that the 4e MM is impeccable. 

Anyway, i've fiddled with a few homebrew monsters as well.  We fought a retooled Inquisitor a few sessions back and it was quite fun.  Use it if you want, i'll post it here.  Note that he needs MANY minions to be fully effective. Our encounter used between twenty and thirty zombies.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Sep 24, 2008)

I don't think it was a bad book, but it did leave me feeling slightly disappointed in what was missing. However, given how easy it is to create monsters in this edition, I feel pretty good about statting up whatever I need now. Like an earlier poster said, its very easy to re-skin most of the monsters to make them whatever you need them to be. 

In a way though, its kind of sad for me, that the MM's will probably be less needed in this edition than they ever have been in any previous edition. They were always my favorite books in previous iterations of the game.


----------



## Dausuul (Sep 24, 2008)

I wouldn't call the 4E Monster Manual a "bucket of fail."  I think it's a big improvement over previous versions, in fact; just having out-of-the-box dragons is a major selling point to me.  Still, I do want more monsters.  I've been fleshing out my encounters with a lot of homebrew critters.  I had similar problems with the Monster Manual in every previous edition; one MM is just not enough.

Fortunately, the DMG now contains a very solid toolkit for monster homebrewing, making the process relatively quick and easy.  And I like homebrewing, so I don't mind for the most part. Even so, a third-party monster book would definitely get my attention.


----------



## timbannock (Sep 24, 2008)

The lack of flavor and even - gasp! - basic descriptions of the monsters is easily the worst part. They spent all that time between 3.0 and 3.5 adding the italicized descriptions, only to take out.  They included more ecology info by the end of 3.5 and a "MOnster X in Faerun" and "in Eberron" and all that, only to axe any and all of that stuff for 4e.

Very sad.

I do think the layout works, and the monsters are very versatile and easy to build on your own, but the 4E MM definitely took a step forward in those places, but two steps back in a few other areas.


----------



## Nebulous (Sep 24, 2008)

neuronphaser said:


> The lack of flavor and even - gasp! - basic descriptions of the monsters is easily the worst part. They spent all that time between 3.0 and 3.5 adding the italicized descriptions, only to take out.  They included more ecology info by the end of 3.5 and a "MOnster X in Faerun" and "in Eberron" and all that, only to axe any and all of that stuff for 4e.
> 
> Very sad.
> 
> I do think the layout works, and the monsters are very versatile and easy to build on your own, but the 4E MM definitely took a step forward in those places, but two steps back in a few other areas.




I know!  The book made some advances, and for reasons i can't fathom, it stepped back a few notches as well.  I don't see the need for any sacrifice.  The font size in the book could have been dropped, and there is plenty of white space that annoys me to no end.  And those Encounter Tables...I think they're worthless.  Examples should have been in the DMG with the monster building stuff if they wanted to add that. 

But yeah, making new monsters is easy. And reskinning, like others mentioned.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 24, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> My name is Kamikaze Midget, and I endorse this message.
> 
> 
> The 4e MM is a bucket of fail. I understand that 3PP's aren't happy with the GSL at the moment, and I can't blame them, so I'll just blame WotC for making a sucktastic MM and then making it very very difficult for high-quality 3PP's to fill the sucking chest wound at the heart of this edition for me.
> ...




Yeah. Pretty much. The lack of variety is pretty dissappointing. Hey at least with fewer monsters you get more description and flavor with each one.....................oh wait, no you don't. OK so I just get the combat crunch, no problem these guys are just here to be killed anyway. Dragonshields? Cool. Lets see how those pesky players like being marked............hmmm  what does it do?................flip.........flip............index.............flip. Hmmm. Whats this? Someone wrote in pencil "please see KOTS for effects". 

Yeah, bucket of fail is dead on.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 24, 2008)

Blair Goatsblood said:


> Kruthiks? Banshrae? Swordwings? To me they're the Tojanada/Ravid/Phantom Fungi of 4E. They got no "traction" in my imagination.




This is the same problem that I had with the 95%+ of the new monsters that WOTC introduced in 3e and why I do not own MM3-MM5.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Sep 24, 2008)

MM is easily the lowest quality book of the three Core ones in 4e, and by far, as well.  I'm pretty sure someone did a little poll regarding the three books and those showed the same results - even many of the big 4e fans admitted that the MM was the weakest.


----------



## JeffB (Sep 24, 2008)

Yeah. I have my disappointments in the MM, and I feel it's the weakest of the corebooks by a large margin.

I really love  the varied types of Orcs, Hobbos, Gobbos, Gnolls, etc. I use those types of creatures alot. But there is a serious lack of lowest level threats, some classics that were dropped, and alot of "silliness" I'll never use.

What is there that I would use, I really like, there is just very little of it in the book. Not sure I'd say "fail". I'd give it a D.

I don't mind the few pieces of recycled art, I notice some of them are the better Wayne Reynolds stuff- I really like his early 3.0/3.5 work- much better than the stuff I've seen recently from him.


----------



## Obryn (Sep 24, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> Dragonshields? Cool. Lets see how those pesky players like being marked............hmmm  what does it do?................flip.........flip............index.............flip. Hmmm. Whats this? Someone wrote in pencil "please see KOTS for effects".



Pssst...  It's a defined condition, like Stunned or Immobilized or Weakened, and on that same table as those in the PHB... 

...Back on topic, I love 4e but am lukewarm towards the MM.  I have always loved flavor text, whether or not I used it, and I miss the fluff.  Previous MMs were great for this - I could read a monster's flavor text and come up with adventure/lair ideas very, very easily.  Pretty much the only creatures that do the same thing for me in the 4e MM are Yuan-Ti.

Mechanically, it's sound, and I think it provides a good sampling of creatures across all levels.  I like the layout, too.  Still, I'm anxiously awaiting more monster supplements - much like I was for 3e.  Seriously, no matter how pared-down a game I'm running, it always helps to have more monsters. 

If I'd had my choice, I'd have saved many of the epic-level monsters for later supplements, concentrated on levels 1-20, added some flavor text, and added more low-level creatures.

-O


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Sep 24, 2008)

I guess I am one of the odd mans out, but I personally like that flavour text was put aside to concentrate on solely the crunch (which also by the way it is formatted is extremely easy to use).

I have always looked at the crunch for giving me ideas on how they are used and not fluff. Most of my campaigns are set in settings far and beyond the norm, so the fluff has never helped and mainly hindered (Wall of text/Fluff in the Crunch).

Also the inclusion of different monster variants and play-out-of-the-box monsters is greatly appreciated.

Personally I believe corebooks while yes there has to be some level of fluff to set a framework should be very, very easily changeable and be very few and far-between. Campaign settings are where fluff should be emphasized.


----------



## Vayden (Sep 24, 2008)

Definitely not enough monsters. Need more monsters. 

On the other hand, I'm deeply in love with how they did the humanoids and dragons - no more having to spend time statting up a goblin/orc/gnoll in 3E so that I could use it past 3rd level. Out of the box Dragons are great. Monsters not having 75 spell-like abilities that I'm not going to use are great. 

Definitely the weakest of the 3, but not bad. I definitely need more monsters though. Did Necro ever get around to hopping back on the 4e bandwagon?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Sep 25, 2008)

The Monster Manual is... a tad weak.

4e, going with the computer style monster method of having different "skins" for the same monster at different levels is perfectly acceptable in terms of game mechanics.

In terms of making great monsters... not quite so much.

I too hope that the GLS is worked out to where a Tome of Horrors is possible. I too hope that 3rd party publishers push the envelope on monsters. Hell, I'd love a Denizens of Avandu 4e for example.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Sep 25, 2008)

Who says Henry has to do all the heavy lifting? The DMG guidelines are in a bunch of folks hands... all we need is a single place to consolidate the creations and allow for them to be tweaked...

Someplace kinda like the EnWiki Monster page?

I like the MM, not that its a strong collection of critters, but that it displays a select set of enemies at each level. Combine that with the DMG guidelines and you have a very good idea of what sorts of encounters you can build and what sort of creatures work well together.

That is much more than any previous MM did for me. Its better to show me how the system works and let me build on top than give me a box of limited options.


----------



## Dave Turner (Sep 25, 2008)

I quote myself from another thread on another board.  I have the solution to your problem.  The problem frankly isn't with the MM, but with you.  Every monster you want to convert from 3.5 is in the 4e MM, if you know how to look at the 4e MM.   I've cleaned up the context of my prior quotes a little bit, but it isn't a perfect fit for this thread.  Regardless, the spirit of my quote should make it clear to the OP that he has far more monster options available at any level than he thinks.  The OP's frogs, apes, and dinosaurs are right under his nose in the 4e MM if he follows my approach.


			
				Dave Turner said:
			
		

> Repeat after me: there is no spoon.
> 
> 4e is all about re-skinning monsters to suit your tastes. Those kruthiks and swordwings are whatever you want them to be. Hell, they can be orcs. Remove all the identifying marks from the stats and use the raw stats to create your own monsters.
> 
> ...


----------



## catsclaw227 (Sep 25, 2008)

Shemeska said:


> Yep. What with the recycled art, poor layout, and wasteland of flavor text, how could anyone find fault in its design? Hmm... yeah. Somewhere around page 1, the book derailed from what I would want in a MM, the selection of monsters being another quality that doesn't exactly fill me with a pressing need to buy the book and convert them back to 3.x.
> 
> The 4e MM dropped the ball on numerous points, but YMMV depending on what you're looking for I suppose.



Yea, but Shemmy, no offense meant, according to your many posts, you think 4e in general is an epic fail.  So how can you objectively look at the 4e MM, which is well designed and awesome for 4e DMs, as a success, if you look at the purpose of the monster manual as something other than what it is.

It's not meant to be a generic system-neutral Monster book.  That is what ecology articles and the DDI will be for.

Now, would I have liked a little more flavor text? Sure. But I can derive a the flavor text I need just from what I know about the monster, its lore and it's abilities.

Really, not meant to offend, but your opinions about the book don't carry the kind of weight as if you were reviewing a Planescape MM.


----------



## Nebulous (Sep 25, 2008)

Dave Turner said:


> I quote myself from another thread on another board.  I have the solution to your problem.  The problem frankly isn't with the MM, but with you.  Every monster you want to convert from 3.5 is in the 4e MM, if you know how to look at the 4e MM.   I've cleaned up the context of my prior quotes a little bit, but it isn't a perfect fit for this thread.  Regardless, the spirit of my quote should make it clear to the OP that he has far more monster options available at any level than he thinks.  The OP's frogs, apes, and dinosaurs are right under his nose in the 4e MM if he follows my approach.




I agree with your post there Dave Turner, reskinning monsters is a good way to get the most mileage out of the MM, but i think a problem many people are having is they simply don't want to do that.  They want to open the book, flip to the monster they need (with the proper picture) and run with it.  While retooling monsters is fun (i think it is anyway) it can take some time, and the middle of a session isn't always the best place for it (although i did convert an adult kruthik into an ankheg on the fly and it worked fine).


----------



## Dave Turner (Sep 25, 2008)

Nebulous said:


> I agree with your post there Dave Turner, reskinning monsters is a good way to get the most mileage out of the MM, but i think a problem many people are having is they simply don't want to do that.  They want to open the book, flip to the monster they need (with the proper picture) and run with it.  While retooling monsters is fun (i think it is anyway) it can take some time, and the middle of a session isn't always the best place for it (although i did convert an adult kruthik into an ankheg on the fly and it worked fine).




I agree.  I know that there are some folks, the OP included, who don't want to put in any effort in adapting monsters for their game.  In some cases, people might not have the time or don't feel confident doing it.  Some folks, though, don't really see or understand "reskinning" when they hear about it.  My long block of quoted text is intended to walk people through a couple of examples in the hope that they see that it's not hard at all.  I've had some positive responses to my examples of reskinning.  I reproduced the text here in the hope that the OP might benefit from the advice.  

I do think it's a bit unfair to criticize the 4e MM as limited after only a few months of release.  Does the months-old 4e MM have the same range of monster options that 3e/3.5e developed over years?  Who could charitably expect 4e to measure up?  As for the exclusion of some old, personal favorites over new monsters, well, them's the breaks.


----------



## Brain (Sep 25, 2008)

I know The Jester has put in a ton of work converting monsters to 4e stats.

He has a thread - The Monster Project that folks should check out if they are interested in his conversion work.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Sep 25, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:


> Yea, but Shemmy, no offense meant, according to your many posts, you think 4e in general is an epic fail.  So how can you objectively look at the 4e MM, which is well designed and awesome for 4e DMs, as a success, if you look at the purpose of the monster manual as something other than what it is.
> 
> It's not meant to be a generic system-neutral Monster book.  That is what ecology articles and the DDI will be for.
> 
> ...




Of course, numerous people here who are strong 4e fans have also readily stated that the MM is very weak, so...?


----------



## Blair Goatsblood (Sep 25, 2008)

I am befuddled why the put both two similar armored tail-swinging dinosaurs with close levels (ankylosaur (7) and stegosaur (9)) instead of including a tyrannosaurus or velociraptor type dino.

When I think of D&D adventurers fighting dinosaurs, anklyosaurs/stegos are not what spring to mind. It just strikes me as a weird decision on WOTC's part.

No t-rex but two armored tail-swinging dinos? With levels that are within slapping distance of each other? 

That is good design? Good value for my $$$?


----------



## Scribble (Sep 25, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Of course, numerous people here who are strong 4e fans have also readily stated that the MM is very weak, so...?




So their critique of the 4e MM would hold more weight to a 4e player then the critique of someone who does not enjoy 4e as a whole.


----------



## Simon Atavax (Sep 25, 2008)

Blair Goatsblood said:


> No t-rex but two armored tail-swinging dinos? With levels that are within slapping distance of each other?
> 
> That is good design? Good value for my $$$?




If "totally arbitrary" is good design, then yes, it's good design.


----------



## Blair Goatsblood (Sep 25, 2008)

Simon Atavax said:


> If "totally arbitrary" is good design, then yes, it's good design.




My frustration with the 4th edition MM is due to several factors:

Weird Arbitrary Design Decisions (Ankylosaur & Stegosaur??) +
Lack of Real-Word/Prehistoric/Giant Animals +
Weird Lightning Shooting Scorpions, etc instead of classic versions +
Lack of Many Classic Staple D&D Monsters +
New Weird "Poochy" Monsters (Swordwings, etc) +
= Burning Desire to purchase Tome of Horrors 4E

EDIT: And I love DMing & Playing 4E.


----------



## cangrejoide (Sep 26, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> More real world?
> 
> Have you seen what _one boar_ can do to a person?  Forget orcs, an enraged boar that's half your height and twice your weight is horrifyingly scary, especially when you consider they've got _armor_ in the head specifically to make sure _you can't hurt it_ when it tries to gore you.  And when you do hurt it, it doesn't back away, it just gets _more pissed off_.
> 
> ...




Hmm ...dunno, but after figthing Chimeras, Wyverns, Medusae and Ilithids having a boar/bear kick the crap out of your character can be seen as anti climatic and may actually just provoke accusations of 'Grudge monsters'.

Now if you make that Boar into a hellish offspring mounted by a goblin warlord, now that's a nice encounter. XD


----------



## cangrejoide (Sep 26, 2008)

Dausuul said:


> Fortunately, the DMG now contains a very solid toolkit for monster homebrewing, making the process relatively quick and easy.  And I like homebrewing, so I don't mind for the most part. Even so, a third-party monster book would definitely get my attention.




This.


----------



## cangrejoide (Sep 26, 2008)

Dave Turner said:


> Huge wall of text snipped




Heheh, if only I could sig you.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Sep 26, 2008)

cangrejoide said:


> Hmm ...dunno, but after figthing Chimeras, Wyverns, Medusae and Ilithids having a boar/bear kick the crap out of your character can be seen as anti climatic and may actually just provoke accusations of 'Grudge monsters'.
> 
> Now if you make that Boar into a hellish offspring mounted by a goblin warlord, now that's a nice encounter. XD




You're fighting medusae, Illithids, Wyverns, and Chimeras at low levels? 

The idea that boars and bears aren't scary is a relatively new idea.  Poachers went after pheasants, not boars ;p.


----------



## cangrejoide (Sep 26, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> You're fighting medusae, Illithids, Wyverns, and Chimeras at low levels?
> 
> The idea that boars and bears aren't scary is a relatively new idea.  Poachers went after pheasants, not boars ;p.




You can fight tons of nasty stuff at low  levels too.

Fire Beetle Level 1 Brute
Stormclaw Scorpion Level 1 Soldier
Spiretop Drake Level 1 Skirmisher

Needlefang Drake Swarm Level 2 Soldier
Guard Drake Level 2 Brute

Spitting Drake Level 3 Artillery
Imp (Devil) Level 3 Lurker
Zombie Rotter Level 3 Minion
Doppelganger Sneak Level 3 Skirmisher
Iron Defender (Homunculus) Level 3 Soldier
Skeleton Level 3 Soldier

Corruption Corpse (Zombie) Level 4 Artillery
Magma Hurler (Magma Beast) Level 4 Artillery
Magma Claw (Magma Beast) Level 4 Brute
Deathlock Wight Level 4 Controller
Specter Level 4 Lurker
Young Black Dragon Level 4 Solo Lurker
Phantom Warrior Level 4 Soldier

Plus you can de-level existing higher level monsters.

I can imagine the meeting back at the adventurers guild:
Arion- " So there we were facing Abraxis the Black Dragon in his lair when all...wait a sec; Hey Ragdar what happened to you?"
Ragdar" A damn wild boar beat me senseless..."
Arion "LOL".


And for the record I never said boars aren't scary. But relative to the other dangers the heroes meet a wild boar seems rather tame if not lame.

But if you have your players fighting house cats and rabid dogs I can see how a Boar could be considered a boss monster.


----------



## Scribble (Sep 26, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> You're fighting medusae, Illithids, Wyverns, and Chimeras at low levels?
> 
> The idea that boars and bears aren't scary is a relatively new idea.  Poachers went after pheasants, not boars ;p.




I have a cousin in Germany... He's still actually considered a "knight" and is tasked with protecting the village from boars. (No joke.)

He says his gun is only loaded with one bullet because by the time he got off a second shot, he would already be gored. 

We had wild boar for dinner when I went to visit him. It's pretty good. Taste like pork, but less fat.


----------



## Jack Colby (Sep 26, 2008)

Reskinning monsters is easy, which is why the book is such a disappointment.  More people would get more use from classic/familiar D&D monsters than untested/new ones.  And I am speaking here of the flavor and the "traction in the imagination", not the rules. 

A lot of people find the new monsters and names silly, and not resonating with DMs or players, yet they were chosen over proven favorites.  And that is a problem, whether the "just reskin them" camp likes it or not.  The unusual, wacky monsters that few people will fit into their campaigns should be the result of reskinning, not the old standbys everyone already loves and expects and associates with D&D and fantasy in general.


----------



## doctorhook (Sep 26, 2008)

Nebulous said:


> I agree with your post there Dave Turner, reskinning monsters is a good way to get the most mileage out of the MM, but i think a problem many people are having is they simply don't want to do that.  They want to open the book, flip to the monster they need (with the proper picture) and run with it.  While retooling monsters is fun (i think it is anyway) it can take some time, and the middle of a session isn't always the best place for it (although i did convert an adult kruthik into an ankheg on the fly and it worked fine).



Renaming is the easiest kind of reskinning!


----------



## Benimoto (Sep 26, 2008)

I don't think the new Monster Manual is perfect, but I like it.  I like most of the new monsters, even including the lightning scorpions.  I feel it's important for each new MM to be 85% classics but still include around 15% new monsters.

Personally, my suspicion is that not including a read-aloud monster description is a sneaky experiment.  Reading the old Design & Development articles late in 3rd edition, I remember an article where the authors mentioned that based on their observations at conventions, players' eyes glazed over within seconds of encountering "box text".  Their advice was that DMs don't actually read that stuff aloud, but paraphrase or invent their own.  The article posited that even an awkward, but spontaneous, paraphrase would hold the players' attention better than the most eloquent pre-written box text.

Now, with no monster descriptions, but a full-color picture of each monster, we have that advice enforced onto every encounter.  Like any kind of enforcement, it's going to generate some resentment.  But I'm interested in seeing if the experiment works.


----------



## Blair Goatsblood (Sep 26, 2008)

Dungeons & Dragons got a long just fine w/o detailed descriptions for 95% of it's monsters until 2nd edition...


----------



## Xeveninti (Sep 29, 2008)

I don't think creating new 4e monsters is as easy as some people in this thread are saying. If this was the case, then D&D forums would be bursting with 4e monster stats. And there wouldn't be threads like this, complaining about the lack of monsters in the 4e MM.

I've been scouring the net for 4e versions of 1e MM monsters. I've only been able to find The Monster Project. It's incomplete. The index page needs a drastic overhaul. Loading pages on this forum takes too long.

There needs to be a better website dedicated to 4e monsters. If it's so ridiculously easy for some people to conjure monster stats, I'd sure love to see them all in one place.


----------



## WizarDru (Sep 29, 2008)

Xeveninti said:


> I don't think creating new 4e monsters is as easy as some people in this thread are saying. If this was the case, then D&D forums would be bursting with 4e monster stats. And there wouldn't be threads like this, complaining about the lack of monsters in the 4e MM.




Or it may be that many gamers feel that 4e present enough adequate creatures that they're not that concerned about making new ones.  


That said, it looks like there are plenty of monster threads here, including this one mentioned earlier and this thread for purely new 4e monsters (which is pretty large) and then there's this thread for converting al-Qadim monsters to 4e, a thread for templates to create new monsters and just the occasional ad-hoc creature.

That's a lot of monsters, especially this early in 4e's life-cycle...and certainly much more far earlier than for a similar passage of time for 3e.  I don't know if that proves that it's easier to make monsters under 4e, but it certainly can't be THAT hard or we'd see far fewer than we are.


----------



## 1Mac (Sep 29, 2008)

For those looking for a Tome of Horrors type 4e sourcebook: Fiery Dragon got ahold of the rights to Sword and Sorcery and is publishing a 4e Creature Collection this year (scroll down).

I'm not very familiar with the Creature Collection series, but it was a sort of Tome of Horrors also-ran, yes?


----------



## Henry (Sep 29, 2008)

1Mac said:


> I'm not very familiar with the Creature Collection series, but it was a sort of Tome of Horrors also-ran, yes?





Not quite; Creature Collection was a set of all-new monsters, for what would later be known as the Scarred Lands setting. Tome of Horrors were 3E stats for AD&D critters who hadn't made it into the WotC books at the time of its printing.


----------



## Jack99 (Sep 29, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> You're fighting medusae, Illithids, Wyverns, and Chimeras at low levels?
> 
> The idea that boars and bears aren't scary is a relatively new idea.  Poachers went after pheasants, not boars ;p.




Fighting animals at low level is so EQ/WoW'ish. Let's keep them away from 4e.


----------



## Pbartender (Sep 29, 2008)

Xeveninti said:


> I don't think creating new 4e monsters is as easy as some people in this thread are saying. If this was the case, then D&D forums would be bursting with 4e monster stats. And there wouldn't be threads like this, complaining about the lack of monsters in the 4e MM.
> 
> ...
> 
> There needs to be a better website dedicated to 4e monsters. If it's so ridiculously easy for some people to conjure monster stats, I'd sure love to see them all in one place.




You need to remember that when we (or rather, when I) talk about "reskinning", it doesn't have anything to do with creating new stats or monsters.  For me, at least, it simply means reworking the fluff -- entirely new descriptions for their physical appearance and perhaps new descriptions for their powers -- while leaving the mechanical stats practically untouched.

So, I might think to myself, "I need a tribe of Aztec-like warriors".  I take a peek through the MM, and decide that the ferocious berserker qualities of orcs are a good fit for the sort of fanatical recklessness in combat that devotion to a god that demands blood sacrifices engenders.

I simply describe them as typical mesoamerican tribal humans.  The leather and hide armor of most orcs gets described as the quilted ichcahuipilli coats aztec warriors wore.  The chieftain's chain mail gets described as a tlahuiztli, a close-fitting full body-suit made of leopard skin, or brightly colored feathers.  And axes become wood and obsidian macuahuitl.

That's the sort of thing I'm talking about.

Another example...  Describing a Deathjump Spider as a Giant Poison Dart Frog.  No changes to mechanics necessary, aside from eliminating the "spider" subtype.


----------



## avin (Sep 30, 2008)

I'm looking for new MOnster Manuals, but not these "1 rat, 1 ogre, 12 beholders, 3 celestials" nonsense.

I miss the fluff a lot.


----------



## avin (Sep 30, 2008)

Henry said:


> Do you have any specific critters from 3e or 1e you wanted converted? I'd be happy to do so on a case-by-case, because pages 184 and 185 of the DMG make it obscenely easy.




Have you worked on Raggamoffins (spell)? I was wondering about it's possession to be something like Night Hag's.


----------



## Filcher (Sep 30, 2008)

avin said:


> I'm looking for new MOnster Manuals, but not these "1 rat, 1 ogre, 12 beholders, 3 celestials" nonsense.
> 
> I miss the fluff a lot.




Check out this thread. Blackdirge seems to be offering up what we're interested in:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...oodman-games-embracing-d-d-4th-edition-2.html


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Sep 30, 2008)

My biggest problem with the MM is also the lack of fluff.  It's very little help if you want to do anything besides kill the monsters in a straight-up fight.  If you want to negotiate, poison them, sneak around them, scare them, psych them out, or whatever it's very little help.  A bit along the lines of the old "Ecology" dragon articles would be very helpful.  It would also make the monsters much more interesting.


----------



## avin (Sep 30, 2008)

Filcher said:


> Check out this thread. Blackdirge seems to be offering up what we're interested in:
> 
> http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...oodman-games-embracing-d-d-4th-edition-2.html




I will follow it. 

I'm glad Creature Collection is going 4ed too!


----------



## Blair Goatsblood (Feb 7, 2011)

Well, it didn't take very long for me to get fed up with 4E; nowadays I play AD&D and retro-clones, and between my old D&D manuals, old issues of Dragon Magazine, The Arduin Trilogy, Swords & Wizardry Monster Book, Carcosa, Realms of Crawling Chaos, The Esoteric Random Creature Generator, and lots of great creations from OSR/oldschool blogs and forums I have an embarrassment of pulp sword & sorcery monster riches to plunder for my D&D/D&D-ish games.

Another great thing about the OSR products is that I can print out my PDFs in digest-sized format (5.5" x 8.5") and fit a TON of gaming resources into my "grief-case".

Everyone has their own preferences and tastes, but I thank 4E for sending me running into the OSR; since switching to old-school play the games I DM and play in are faster, furious and funner! The other players all embraced the conversion, although one player prefers 3E and may start DMing 3E or Pathfinder...I gave him my (beloved) Tomb of Horrors as a present...I'll be getting the Swords & Wizardry Tomb of Horrors compilation when it's published as a replacement.


----------



## Ulrick (Feb 8, 2011)

Nice update. 

I quit 4e for a similar reason (along with many others). 

Even to this day the 4e monsters still don't have that Old School feel. 

It also fun to throw hordes of low-level monsters at PCs in older editions of D&D without having to resort to using "minions." That 4e "1 hp" rule just seems to dampen the sense of achievement after the hordes are defeated. That, and they don't take an hour of game time to kill.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Feb 8, 2011)

Ulrick said:


> It also fun to throw hordes of low-level monsters at PCs in older editions of D&D without having to resort to using "minions." That 4e "1 hp" rule just seems to dampen the sense of achievement after the hordes are defeated. That, and they don't take an hour of game time to kill.




If they die in one hit, then what is the difference if they have one hit point or 2, 3 or 5? 

I remember 1E stat blocks, "10 kobolds HD 1/2 HP 1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,4,4" well.

I am a bit surprised there has been so little 2pp on he monster front. I know there has been some, but I have not seen much.

But then again, I think we have enough monsters in 4E, especially with how easy they are to reskin.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Feb 8, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> If they die in one hit, then what is the difference if they have one hit point or 2, 3 or 5?
> 
> I remember 1E stat blocks, "10 kobolds HD 1/2 HP 1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,4,4" well.



I know this may sound silly but to me the difference in philosophy here between D&D and D&D4e is what has caused most of the angst between supporters/haters of each of the editions. The 1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,4,4 kobolds while effectively the same as the 1hp minion kobolds (think that whole black box 4e philosophy here), is different in terms of the information their hps represent. Those two 4hp guys are most likely considered the toughest by their peers while the 1hp dudes get kicked around by everyone in the clan. This most likely effects how they act in combat as well (with either the 4hp kobolds valiantly charging into the fray or resolutely pushing all their lessers to the front). There is also a chance (be it rather small) that the 2-4hp kobolds could survive a hit; and thus achieving heroic status amongst the clan.

4e takes the line that tracking such things is one more thing that the DM does not need to do. Functionally they may as well just have 1hp and everyone can get through their combat encounters more efficiently. For some this need for gamist efficiency left 4e with a huge hole in feel and gameplay. For others, the game was finally getting rid of the unnecessary minutiae and baggage that 3e in particular drove them insane with.

So while functionally what you have presented may appear to be the same, looking into it further I think highlights how far apart the two situations are.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## D'karr (Feb 8, 2011)

Wow, talk about thread necromancy...




> The 1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,4,4 kobolds while effectively the same as the 1hp minion kobolds (think that whole black box 4e philosophy here), is different in terms of the information their hps represent. Those two 4hp guys are most likely considered the toughest by their peers while the 1hp dudes get kicked around by everyone in the clan. This most likely effects how they act in combat as well (with either the 4hp kobolds valiantly charging into the fray or resolutely pushing all their lessers to the front).




I understand the sentiment but I think this is a fallacy, specially 3 years after the game's introduction.

The DM that wants the 4 HP kobolds to fight differently still only has regular kobold stats to do so.  So everything he's doing is making things up.

A 4e DM can make things up too, and has quite a bit of mechanical support to do so.  If he decides to minionize all kobolds he could have a Dragonshield that effectively does fight differently than the others because his mechanical stats are different.  He'd still die in one hit if he decided to do that.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Feb 8, 2011)

D'karr said:


> I understand the sentiment but I think this is a fallacy, specially 3 years after the game's introduction.
> 
> The DM that wants the 4 HP kobolds to fight differently still only has regular kobold stats to do so.  So everything he's doing is making things up.



I think not so much making things up as interpreting the stats he or she is given. The 4hp guys are obviously meant to be tougher than the 1hp ones. It is then up to the DM to plan out the fight according to what makes sense to them.



			
				D'karr said:
			
		

> A 4e DM can make things up too, and has quite a bit of mechanical support to do so.



Any DM can make things up and yes 4e gives you as the DM a lot of different ways to slice a loaf of bread. Back at high school though playing AD&D at lunchtimes in the library, you did the best you could interpret.



			
				D'karr said:
			
		

> If he decides to minionize all kobolds he could have a Dragonshield that effectively does fight differently than the others because his mechanical stats are different.  He'd still die in one hit if he decided to do that.



1hp versus 4hp or 36hp (or 1hp as you say) all makes a difference. I still can't help but feel the difference from older editions to the current though: 36hp used to mean the creature was tough where as now 36hp represents the creature's amount of expected screentime. YMMV.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## pemerton (Feb 9, 2011)

Herremann the Wise said:


> I still can't help but feel the difference from older editions to the current though: 36hp used to mean the creature was tough where as now 36hp represents the creature's amount of expected screentime.



Very very good point.

I'd want to gloss - one way of making sense of that screentime in ingame terms might be toughness (think a purple worm) but another might be brute luck (think a goblin underboss).

But anyway, a great way of capturing the way that mechanics feed into the difference between simulationist and non-simulationist play


----------



## rounser (Feb 10, 2011)

Nevermind


----------

