# MM4 Table of Contents up



## Kunimatyu (Jun 26, 2006)

It's interesting.

The four Avatars of Elemental Evil.

Lots of basic enemy NPCs. Half-Fiend Gnoll Warlock, Yuan-Ti Abomination Cult Leader, etc.

Fourteen dragonspawn, with 4 bluespawn and 2 blackspawn.

Three new 'loths -- Corruptor of Fate, Dreadful Lasher, and Voor.

Some demons, including Nashrou.

No devils.

Tomb Spiders with a Web Mummy template. (methinks somebody liked a certain ToH2 monster...)

Lots of minis line creatures -- Dwarf Ancestor, Justice Archon, Wrackspawn.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jun 26, 2006)

I like the "for players" portion of the ToC.  That could be nice and handy.  We'l see about the monsters...  I'm not 100% sold yet.


----------



## DMH (Jun 26, 2006)

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060626a

I am not liking what I am seeing. Gnolls, drow, orcs, githyanki, yuan-ti and ogres take up too much space for existing creatures and the spawn take up 1/6th of the whole book.


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 26, 2006)

I'm looking forward to it, but I fear the John Cooper review....


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jun 26, 2006)

Here's the full list:

Avatars of Elemental Evil:
 Black Rock Triskelion (Earth Avatar) 
 Cyclonic Ravager (Air Avatar) 
 Holocaust Disciple (Fire Avatar) 
 Waterveiled Assassin (Water Avatar)
Balhannoth
Bloodfire Ooze
Bloodhulk:
 Bloodhulk Fighter
 Bloodhulk Giant
 Bloodhulk Crusher
Bloodsilk Spider
Briarvex
Clockroach
Clockwork Mender
Clockwork Steed
Concordant Killer
Corrupture
Defacer
Demon:
 Deathdrinker
 Kastighur
 Nashrou 
 Whisper Demon
Demonhive:
 Demonhive Attendant
 Demonet Swarm 
 Demonhive Queen 
Dwarf Ancestor 
Elf, Drow:
 Lolth’s Sting
 Dark Sniper
 Arcane Guard
 Drow Priestess
Giant, Craa’ghoran 
Githyanki:
 Githyanki Soldier
 Gish
 Githyanki Captain
Gnoll:
 Slave-Taker
 Fiendish Cleric of Yeenoghu
 Half-Fiend Gnoll Warlock
Golem, Fang
Howler Wasp
 Howler Wasp Queen
Inferno Spider
Joystealer
Justice Archon
 Justice Archon Champion
Lizardfolk, Dark Talon Tribe:
 Dark Talon Soldier 
 Dark Talon Champion
 Dark Talon Wasp Rider
 Dark Talon Shaman
 Yarshag, Dark Talon King
Lodestone Marauder
Lolth-Touched Creature:
 Lolth-Touched Bebilith
 Lolth-Touched Drow Ranger 
 Lolth-Touched Monstrous Spider
Lunar Ravager
Mageripper Swarm
Minotaur, Greathorn
Nagatha 
Necrosis Carnex 
Oaken Defender 
Sample Lair: The Faerie Ring 
Ogre:
 Ogre Scout
 Ogre Tempest 
 Ogre Guard Thrall 
Orc:
 Orc Berserker
 War Howler 
 Orc Battle Priest 
 Orc Plague Speaker
 Half-Orc Infiltrator
 Plague Walker 
Quanlos 
Sailsnake 
Skiurid 
Spawn of Tiamat 
 Blackspawn Raider 
 Blackspawn Stalker
 Bluespawn Ambusher
 Bluespawn Burrower 
 Bluespawn Godslayer
 Bluespawn Stormlizard
 Greenspawn Leaper
 Greenspawn Razorfiend 
 Greenspawn Sneak 
 Redspawn Arcaniss 
 Redspawn Firebelcher 
 Whitespawn Hordeling 
 Whitespawn Hunter 
 Whitespawn Iceskidder 
Tomb Spider
 Tomb Spider Broodswarm
 Web Mummy
Varag
 Varag Pack Leader
Verdant Prince
Vitreous Drinker
Windblade 
 Windrazor
 Windscythe 
Wizened Elder 
Wrackspawn
Yuan-ti:
 Pureblood Slayer
 Halfblood Deceiver
 Abomination Cult Leader
Yuan-ti Ignan
Yugoloth:
 Corruptor of Fate
 Voor
 Dreadful Lasher
Zern:
 Zern Arcanovore
 Zern Blade Thrall


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jun 26, 2006)

DMH said:
			
		

> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060626a
> 
> I am not liking what I am seeing. Gnolls, drow, orcs, githyanki, yuan-ti and ogres take up too much space for existing creatures and the spawn take up 1/6th of the whole book.




I'm just thrilled that there isn't four spawn of every color.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jun 26, 2006)

DMH said:
			
		

> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060626a
> 
> I am not liking what I am seeing. Gnolls, drow, orcs, githyanki, yuan-ti and ogres take up too much space for existing creatures.




That's actually the stuff I'm most interested in. I like having a variety of "types" to choose from of the "workhorse" types of monsters, the ones that get the most use in a campaign. I like mixing 'n' matching 'em to come up with interesting raiding parties, garrisons, villages, etc.


----------



## Shade (Jun 26, 2006)

Egads!  I count only 73 unique creatures (not counting MM critters with class levels, sample templated creatures, and advanced versions of monsters).  

To put that in perspective, that is only 30 more unique creatures than Draconomicon, 35 more than the Miniatures Handbook, and 36 less than the wafer-thin Monsters of Faerun!

That said, the new demons and yugoloths will be enough to get me to belly up to the bar.   :\


----------



## qstor (Jun 26, 2006)

DMH said:
			
		

> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060626a
> 
> I am not liking what I am seeing. Gnolls, drow, orcs, githyanki, yuan-ti and ogres take up too much space for existing creatures and the spawn take up 1/6th of the whole book.




Yeah same here. It looks like just monsters with class levels...for the lazy DM in all of us...

Mike


----------



## Shemeska (Jun 26, 2006)

While I smile at the inclusion of the 'loths, there are still 2e 'loths that have yet to be converted over to 3.x. I'd have appreciated their inclusion more than new ones, because the former have an established place in the 'loth heirarchy, while the new ones... we won't know till the book is out. I'll remain warily optimistic.

The classed/advanced hitdice versions of monsters listed out as seperate monsters is starting to get on my nerves. Especially when it's being done with orcs and ogres now apparently. That disturbs me.

And the last thing we need is more clogging of space with minis... Argg...

I'll at least give the book a look however before I make any decision on purchase, though it is no longer on my list of books to pre-order.


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 26, 2006)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> That's actually the stuff I'm most interested in. I like having a variety of "types" to choose from of the "workhorse" types of monsters, the ones that get the most use in a campaign. I like mixing 'n' matching 'em to come up with interesting raiding parties, garrisons, villages, etc.




Agreed -- Yes, when I have time I certainly like to stat up my own drow and other bad guys, but this looks like a useful move to have more ready-made stats at the DM's fingertips.  Heck, I wouldn't mind a whole book like that just based on the first four/five MMs.


----------



## Evil Monkey (Jun 26, 2006)

DMH said:
			
		

> I am not liking what I am seeing. Gnolls, drow, orcs, githyanki, yuan-ti and ogres take up too much space for existing creatures




Not too long ago, I would have agreed with you.  Nowadays, I actually like a lot of this, because I don't have a whole lot of time for game preparation anymore.  I love having stats for creatures with templates and class levels and stuff like that added on.  I wouldn't even mind an entire book of monsters from the MM with class levels/templates (from various sources) added on for me already.  I realize that wouldn't be for everybody, but I would snatch it up in an instant.

As for the rest, I've always been a sucker for new monsters.  The clockroach made me chuckle and I'm glad they're giving stats for creatures previously only in DDM.  The lairs, feats, and whatnot may be nice, or they could be boring; that wouldn't stop me from buying the book, though.


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 26, 2006)

Evil Monkey said:
			
		

> I wouldn't even mind an entire book of monsters from the MM with class levels/templates (from various sources) added on for me already.




Me too! (always a useful reply! )


----------



## Shade (Jun 26, 2006)

Also, nary a single updated creature from previous editions.   I'm beginning to fear the only official place we'll ever see the dergholoth, gacholoth, and hydroloth is in the pages of Dragon.   Same goes for the quickling, the remaining celestials and rilmani...


----------



## Knight Otu (Jun 26, 2006)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> That's actually the stuff I'm most interested in. I like having a variety of "types" to choose from of the "workhorse" types of monsters, the ones that get the most use in a campaign. I like mixing 'n' matching 'em to come up with interesting raiding parties, garrisons, villages, etc.



Sure, those sample characters can be useful, but in my opinion, unless the base creature is introduced in that book, classed variants don't belong into monster manuals. And programs such as NPCDesigner, creating such characters is quite easy as well.


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 26, 2006)

I am looking forward to seeing the stuff that's added beyond just a catalog of monsters -- the sample lair, the maps, etc.  I think that helps make it a more complete product, and I prefer that to a few extra monsters.  But we'll see how it actually turns out.  The "for players" stuff also sounds handy.


----------



## Kafkonia (Jun 26, 2006)

I'd have liked to see more Oozes and Constructs and fewer variant humanoids, but for all I know some of the inobviously-named creatures fit the bill.

It'll be a browser. And then I'll probably buy it. I seem incapable of not buying things these days. :/


----------



## Shade (Jun 26, 2006)

Two Monster Manuals in a row with no true dragons.   Apparently Year of Dragons only applies to spawn.

It looks more at home in last year's Year of Drow, eh?


----------



## Ripzerai (Jun 26, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> While I smile at the inclusion of the 'loths, there are still 2e 'loths that have yet to be converted over to 3.x. I'd have appreciated their inclusion more than new ones, because the former have an established place in the 'loth heirarchy, while the new ones... we won't know till the book is out. I'll remain warily optimistic.




You can get a voor with _Summon Monster IV_, which puts them about even with lantern archons. Corruptors of fate are at about the same level as bralani, jann, and kytons. 

You can't get a dreadful lasher with _Summon Monster_, which suggests it's a new greater 'loth, unless it's just an ultroloth with class levels.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jun 26, 2006)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Heck, I wouldn't mind a whole book like that just based on the first four/five MMs.




Me, too. I'd love such a product. It's a utility product that just doesn't seem "sexy" enough for someone to do.



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> Sure, those sample characters can be useful, but in my opinion, unless the base creature is introduced in that book, classed variants don't belong into monster manuals. And programs such as NPCDesigner, creating such characters is quite easy as well.




Yeah, but we're talking about campaign mainstays that virtually anyone who plays D&D would be familiar with. In addition, I'd guess only a small minority of people playing D&D use character generation software. I can understand why some might not find such characters/monsters worthwhile in a Monster Manual, but I find them to be of great value to me.


----------



## Garnfellow (Jun 26, 2006)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Agreed -- Yes, when I have time I certainly like to stat up my own drow and other bad guys, but this looks like a useful move to have more ready-made stats at the DM's fingertips.  Heck, I wouldn't mind a whole book like that just based on the first four/five MMs.




I've been shocked that no 3rd party publisher ever really jumped on this bandwagon. Sure, statted out NPCs aren't as sexy as, say, a bunch of new monsters. But they're a heck of lot more useful to harried DMs.

I even think Ryan Dancey suggested this as a viable product back in the early days of 3e.


----------



## Ripzerai (Jun 26, 2006)

Garnfellow said:
			
		

> I even think Ryan Dancey suggested this as a viable product back in the early days of 3e.




It _was_ a product in the early days of 3e. Did everyone forget about Enemies & Allies?


----------



## DMH (Jun 26, 2006)

Garnfellow said:
			
		

> I've been shocked that no 3rd party publisher ever really jumped on this bandwagon. Sure, statted out NPCs aren't as sexy as, say, a bunch of new monsters. But they're a heck of lot more useful to harried DMs.




A Flock of Foes from Genjitsu has creatures from the MM that are either advanced or with templates from that book. It also has 4 templates to replace the basic golems (why should they always be humanoid?).


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jun 26, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> It _was_ a product in the early days of 3e. Did everyone forget about Enemies & Allies?




Oh, I remember it quite well, and I like it a lot, but it didn't really fill the niche we're talking about here, not really. There were some decent "generic" character types (city guards, various good and evil priests, etc.) but too much background material was presented, and too few stat blocks.


----------



## Garnfellow (Jun 26, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> It _was_ a product in the early days of 3e. Did everyone forget about Enemies & Allies?




The only thing I seem to remember about that book is that it got terrible reviews and I never really took a look at it. In retrospect, was it any good?


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jun 26, 2006)

Garnfellow said:
			
		

> The only thing I seem to remember about that book is that it got terrible reviews and I never really took a look at it. In retrospect, was it any good?




Yeah, I think it's a decent product. The only real criticism I have of it is that it's too short.


----------



## Beckett (Jun 26, 2006)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> That's actually the stuff I'm most interested in. I like having a variety of "types" to choose from of the "workhorse" types of monsters, the ones that get the most use in a campaign. I like mixing 'n' matching 'em to come up with interesting raiding parties, garrisons, villages, etc.




I'm with you on this.  Just the thing for when the players wander off the trail and you need an orc village now.


----------



## Ripzerai (Jun 26, 2006)

_Enemies & Allies_ has a lot of what you're talking about here. An advanced flesh golem, illithid assassin, djinni sorcerer, kobold adept/sorcerer, goblin adept/rogue, half-fiendish druid, and so on, as well as PC-race characters of various classes and levels. It's not _just_ a book of stat blocks, though, if _that's_ what you want. It's a book of NPCs.


----------



## Knight Otu (Jun 26, 2006)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> In addition, I'd guess only a small minority of people playing D&D use character generation software.



Maybe, but the tools are available to create the staples easily. From almost completely random generators like Jamis Buck's generator, over intelligent generators like Vascant's NPC Designer with varying levels of control over the end result, to fully-blown character creators like eTools (or whatever the name was). A DM with computer access does him/herself a great favor looking into such programs.



			
				Garnfellow said:
			
		

> Sure, statted out NPCs aren't as sexy as, say, a bunch of new monsters.



I'd say that's exactly the problem. A book like the old Enemies & Allies likely doesn't sell well, since it's "just a bunch of 'I could do that myself' stuff." Also, it is "the same old and boring stuff." Monster Manuals are supposed to be "new and exciting stuff that I couldn't create myself." Or "Updates to old products that aren't readily available anymore, or that would require a lot of conversion-work."


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jun 26, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> _Enemies & Allies_ has a lot of what you're talking about here. An advanced flesh golem, illithid assassin, djinni sorcerer, kobold adept/sorcerer, goblin adept/rogue, half-fiendish druid, and so on, as well as PC-race characters of various classes and levels. It's not _just_ a book of stat blocks, though, if _that's_ what you want. It's a book of NPCs.




I wouldn't say it has a lot of what we're looking for, but it has some. Again, though, I think there has been a steady, though not overwhelming, call for a book of advanced creatures (especially humanoids) over the years, but every attempt along those lines gets bogged down in really oddball characters, a lot of background/fluff text, or both.


----------



## bastrak (Jun 26, 2006)

DMH said:
			
		

> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060626a
> 
> I am not liking what I am seeing. Gnolls, drow, orcs, githyanki, yuan-ti and ogres take up too much space for existing creatures and the spawn take up 1/6th of the whole book.




I'm inclined to agree.

There seems to be a serious lack of original content when compared to previous Monster Manuals.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jun 26, 2006)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> Maybe, but the tools are available to create the staples easily. From almost completely random generators like Jamis Buck's generator, over intelligent generators like Vascant's NPC Designer with varying levels of control over the end result, to fully-blown character creators like eTools (or whatever the name was). A DM with computer access does him/herself a great favor looking into such programs.




I don't disagree. But there are people, like me, who would rather have this kind of stuff done for us. I'll handle more complex or important NPCs, but I'd like to have "generic" NPCs or more workaday advanced critters already statted out for me. 




			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> I'd say that's exactly the problem. A book like the old Enemies & Allies likely doesn't sell well, since it's "just a bunch of 'I could do that myself' stuff." Also, it is "the same old and boring stuff." Monster Manuals are supposed to be "new and exciting stuff that I couldn't create myself." Or "Updates to old products that aren't readily available anymore, or that would require a lot of conversion-work."




But, there are still plenty of people who would buy such a product of statblocks. Not a huge number, but some.


----------



## Aeolius (Jun 26, 2006)

I honestly don't see any creatures that I would use in my campaigns. Perhaps that's why they posted the TOC; so folks wouldn't blindly buy the book looking for either classic monsters or new and innovative ones.

   No flumph?!?  Tsk...


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 26, 2006)

Thinking further ... if I were going to design such a book, I would want to do it in two-page "spreads" that had a bunch of related stat blocks, and then the descriptions of any powers they all had in common.  Each "spread" would be kind of self-contained.

So I might have a two-page spread featuring Ogres, with stat blocks for an Ogre Cheiftain, an Ogre Champion (maybe a fighter or whatever martial class you wanted), an Ogre Adept or Cleric, an Ogre Barbarian, and a couple of different styles of Ogre Warrior, and make it fit on one two-page spread so you could lay that book open and have it available for when the PCs are raiding an ogre lair.  If you had room you could do brief stats for typical ogre pets and ogre lair traps.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jun 26, 2006)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Thinking further ... if I were going to design such a book, I would want to do it in two-page "spreads" that had a bunch of related stat blocks, and then the descriptions of any powers they all had in common.  Each "spread" would be kind of self-contained.
> 
> So I might have a two-page spread featuring Ogres, with stat blocks for an Ogre Cheiftain, an Ogre Champion (maybe a fighter or whatever martial class you wanted), an Ogre Adept or Cleric, an Ogre Barbarian, and a couple of different styles of Ogre Warrior, and make it fit on one two-page spread so you could lay that book open and have it available for when the PCs are raiding an ogre lair.  If you had room you could do brief stats for typical ogre pets and ogre lair traps.




I'd buy that product. It would be very useful.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Jun 26, 2006)

I'm liking it. This stuff sounds pretty useful.
With several hundred published monsters, just from WOTC alone, with templates, and the ability to advance monsters... how many more do we really need? Pre-printed game stats and encounters are really helpful. 

If they take the place of another shrub monster, or weregerbal, or something else I'll never use, that's great!


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 26, 2006)

Don't overlook this book, and don't judge it by a perceived lack of content. I *love* the MM IV, it's really inspiring me in a way that nothing has in a long while. The expanded content for each monster is very interesting and useful, and more than makes up for the "low" total number of monsters presented. In addition, the content is varied and uses a lot of sources that you haven't traditionally seen in a Monster Manual. Overall I think this is the best Monster Manual yet.


----------



## Glyfair (Jun 26, 2006)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Agreed -- Yes, when I have time I certainly like to stat up my own drow and other bad guys, but this looks like a useful move to have more ready-made stats at the DM's fingertips.  Heck, I wouldn't mind a whole book like that just based on the first four/five MMs.




I wouldn't mind seeing a book like that either.  I'd rather it not be a "monster manual."

I saw the 4 page excerpt in Game Trade Magazine (they covered the Vitreous Drinker and the Wrackspawn) and I'm not impressed .  It's not "won't buy" but it's way down on my list.  Maybe next year.


----------



## Aeolius (Jun 26, 2006)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> Don't overlook this book, and don't judge it by a perceived lack of content.




So it DOES have aquatic creatures, hags, and a flumph, then?


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 26, 2006)

Evil Monkey said:
			
		

> I wouldn't even mind an entire book of monsters from the MM with class levels/templates (from various sources) added on for me already.




Such a book has already been made, just not by WotC. _A Flock of Foes_ by Genjitsu Gaming is a book of SRD monsters with advanced hit dice, class levels, and templates (and in many cases combinations of those), along with a few new goodies thrown in for good measure. I gave it four out of five stars in my review, and I recommend that anyone wanting such a book check this out.


----------



## Razz (Jun 26, 2006)

Wow, I just freaking knew it. My "spoon-feeding" theory continues to go undebated against.

"Hey guys let's come up with Monster Manual IV, books that have always provided new and/or converted monsters for everyone's campaign. Big enough to always have a variety of new creatures from all creature types!" [This was the old way]

"Nah, let's spruce things up. I believe many will find it useful to have 50 versions of the Monster Manual 3.5 creatures such as the orcs, ogres, yuan-ti, and drow. Because DMs are either too lazy, have no time, or just plain dumb." [The new way]

Yeah, I've seen some here state "it's useful". Surrre...let's destroy "quality" and "quantity" for "convenience." I am sorry, but if you've been DMing 3E for some time, and you still don't have, by now, typed up, written, or even have sticky notes of different versions of your own drow elves, ogres, orcs, goblins whatever, you're a pretty sad DM.

I can't wait for Monster Manual 5: "Goblin Flamethrower, Goblin Commoner, Goblin Slave, Goblin Jerker, Goblin Spanker, Goblin Nudist, Goblin Surprise, Goblin Chef......" Seriously, is this what folks were asking for? WHERE IS WOTC GETTING THEIR FEEDBACK?!

Each month these books are getting worse and worse...it started with Races of Destiny!

Monster Manual 4 also does have a surprisingly LOW number of new monsters...should it even be called a Monster Manual? Sandstorm has nearly as much monsters as MMIV! 

This is two books in 2 months I am skipping out on...and I've been pretty loyal about purchasing new releases every month. First was Mysteries of the Moonsea, now this...


----------



## Razz (Jun 26, 2006)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> Don't overlook this book, and don't judge it by a perceived lack of content.




Sorry, but, content has been decreasing vastly with each new D&D book of late, along with page count. And the prices aren't getting any lower. 

I am starting think on the side of the 4E Soothsayers on these boards...I think they're slowly paving the way for 4E.

"Dungeons&Dragons 4th Edition---Where ALL the work is done for YOU!"


----------



## gizmo33 (Jun 26, 2006)

Next I guess they'll start naming red dragons, giving them backgrounds and treasure, and sticking those in the MM V.

It's not that I'm trying to be inconsiderate to those folks who want statted up monsters of various templates and classes.  It's just that I think the "Monster Manual" name is being used to sell something that doesn't fit the theme.  Plus it's a hybrid, some new, some templated monsters.  You can't buy one without getting the other, and they must know that.  I guess they just need some revenue.  WotC should just start a telethon and save me the trip to my FLGS.

I've really been disappointed by WotC hardbacks lately, just doesn't seem like they're putting any effort into them.  Oh well, I made it through 2E, I can weather this too.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jun 26, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> Goblin Chef......" Seriously, is this what folks were asking for? WHERE IS WOTC GETTING THEIR FEEDBACK?!




Word (ie. QFT)

My game's been in Limbo for months now because I can't find a good write-up for a Goblin Chef.  Although the irony is that a write-up on different goblin meals might be somewhat interesting, but the "Goblin Chef" entry in the MM V would be an entire page of a completely predictable stat-block like "Weapon Focus (Bohemian Ear Spoon), Profession (Cooking) +30, Spatula Use +25, Salting to Taste +10, etc. along with piercing insight like "Goblin Chefs are comfortable in the kitchen, or even cooking while on campaign..."


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jun 26, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> I am sorry, but if you've been DMing 3E for some time, and you still don't have, by now, typed up, written, or even have sticky notes of different versions of your own drow elves, ogres, orcs, goblins whatever, you're a pretty sad DM.




Does it somehow boost your ego to needlessly - and anonymously - insult people over something as trifling as a game? Do you really expect to engage in a real discussion that way? Why should anyone listen to you or give your argument any credit whatsoever after being insulted? Do you really believe your viewpoint on the matter is the only valid one? I could just as easily surmise that your life is so bereft of meaning that all you have to do is stat up monsters all day. How would you feel about that?


----------



## Razz (Jun 26, 2006)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> Does it somehow boost your ego to needlessly - and anonymously - insult people over something as trifling as a game? Do you really expect to engage in a real discussion that way? Why should anyone listen to you or give your argument any credit whatsoever after being insulted? Do you really believe your viewpoint on the matter is the only valid one? I could just as easily surmise that your life is so bereft of meaning that all you have to do is stat up monsters all day. How would you feel about that?




Did I specify anyone? Not really. Did I specify anyone here? Nope. Meaning, my statement was very generalized and very broad meaning I have insulted someone and no one at the same time. I think the rules are you don't flame someone or insult someone on the boards, and I don't think that statement has, so far. If someone feels insulted by someone elses opinions, maybe these boards aren't the place for them. Just cause I come on a little strongly doesn't make me egotistical.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jun 26, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> "Nah, let's spruce things up. I believe many will find it useful to have 50 versions of the Monster Manual 3.5 creatures such as the orcs, ogres, yuan-ti, and drow. Because DMs are either too lazy, have no time, or just plain dumb."




What if these new versions of old monsters are statted up in a creative way that also takes into account how they play at the table? An Ogre Fighter2 is very easy to make; a Half-Fiend Gnoll Warlock is not something everybody's got in their NPC roster, I'll wager.

Anybody can stat up a monster, but if the MMIV does it and does it well, consider me interested.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 26, 2006)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> Does it somehow boost your ego to needlessly - and anonymously - insult people over something as trifling as a game? Do you really expect to engage in a real discussion that way? Why should anyone listen to you or give your argument any credit whatsoever after being insulted? Do you really believe your viewpoint on the matter is the only valid one? I could just as easily surmise that your life is so bereft of meaning that all you have to do is stat up monsters all day. How would you feel about that?




He's already lost all credibility on the official boards, so he's working overtime here now.

It's certainly easy to see why WotC would have the impetus to remain safe and boring, though, because they certainly take a reaming every time they try something new. I personally appreciate their efforts to make a better game, and I'm glad I'm getting to work on projects that show a little interest in experimenting with new formulas.  Pioneers always face opposition from traditionalists and those that prefer comfortable sameness. 

(I'm not saying everything they do is right, far from it, I think a lot of their experiments have fallen very flat...but some of their new directions are working out very nicely in my opinion. I think I've gotten more vocal because very little that's come out in the past couple of years has interested me, but some of this year's products...like MotM and MMIV...are heading in directions I like very much.)


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jun 26, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> Did I specify anyone? Not really. Did I specify anyone here? Nope. Meaning, my statement was very generalized and very broad meaning I have insulted someone and no one at the same time. I think the rules are you don't flame someone or insult someone on the boards, and I don't think that statement has, so far. If someone feels insulted by someone elses opinions, maybe these boards aren't the place for them. Just cause I come on a little strongly doesn't make me egotistical.




I think you're being very disingenuous. Strong opinions are good. Standing behind them and not breaking the spirit of the rules of the community even if they are not broken _technically_ is even better. 

Those with really strong opinions who don't mind having others tell them exactly what they think in return might like Circus Maximus.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 26, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> Just cause I come on a little strongly doesn't make me egotistical.




True, but if someone (I'm not being specific here) was to post the same rant over and over and over again, it might make them boring.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 26, 2006)

Let's see....

Things that interest me, or at least sound like they might be cool:
-Demons
-Bloodhulk
-Corrupture
-Necrosis Carnex
-Plaguewalker
-Wrackspawn
-'loths

Things I'm highly skeptical of:
-Demonhive (please don't be insect demons)
-Dwarf Ancestor
-Howler Wasp
-Various Spiders (got too many, already)
-Fang Golem (some golems are cool, but this doesn't sound like a hit)
-Concordant Killer (might be cool, but I'm thinking it's something else)
-Sailsnake (actually, I can't see anything worthwhile having a name like that)
-Orcs, Ogres, Gnolls, etc. (don't we have stats for these guys?)
-Gith (I don't use 'em, but they might be okay for a Greyhawk campaign)
-Avatars of Elemental Evil (why?)
-Clockwork critters

Things I'm pretty sure are going to make me want to beat a developer:
-Spawn of Tiamat (from the samples on the WotC site, this idea is irredemable)
-Drow (if I never hear the word "drow" again, well, I'll be happy)
-Lolth-touched (see "drow", add in "spawn of Tiamat")
-Yuan-ti (not as cliched as drow, but not really interesting, either)


Everything else, I'm indifferent to, at least initially.

I like the listing of Summonable Creatures, and similar resources.  I love the inclusion of a "by type" listing.  But, considering the list of "I think I'm gonna hate it" and "I know I'm gonna hate it" seriously outnumbers the list of "think I'll like it", and I actually padded my "good" list a bit, I can't imagine I'll ever get this book.

Honestly, MM4 sounds like a really bad joke, to me.  As always, though, I'll thumb through it before deciding.


----------



## atom crash (Jun 26, 2006)

> There seems to be a serious lack of original content when compared to previous Monster Manuals.




This is a valid point. But when you get right down to it, do we really even need another Monster Manual? I mean, I have books full of monsters I won't ever use already. I don't really feel the overwhelming need for any more books with new monsters in them. Heck, I don't think I've actually used anything except the Boneclaw from MMIII (ok, so I had an encounter with Ambush Drakes planned but my PCs avoided that part of the dungeon). But I keep buying them, because I actually like getting more books full of monsters. 



> I'm liking it. This stuff sounds pretty useful.
> With several hundred published monsters, just from WOTC alone, with templates, and the ability to advance monsters... how many more do we really need? Pre-printed game stats and encounters are really helpful.




Agreed. Judging by the table of contents for MMIV it looks like there's a decent mix of things I can actually use and things that will be interesting to read even though I know I'll never ever be able to use them.

However, I'll actually reserve my judgment until I can flip through the book and decide for myself whether or not its worth it. Chance are, it'll end up on my shelf.

_Edit to comment on Mercule's list of potential likes/dislikes, posted while I was typing my post. Your list inspired me to comment on what interests me from the ToC:_

I agree that the Necrosis Carnex sounds cool. Don't know what it might be, but it definitely sounds cool. But unlike you, I'm not too interested in seeing any more demons, devils or yugoloths for a while. Unless of course they are unique demons, devils or 'loths, but that's the focus of another series of books. 

Give me more insects, clockworks, or yuan-ti any day, since those things will most likely slot into my game nicely. And avatars of Elemental Evil? Yes, please!


----------



## demiurge1138 (Jun 26, 2006)

I've had mixed feelings about this one for a while. The combination of a ton of dragonspawn of Tiamat - the ones of which I've read have been fairly uninspired - and NPC blocks of classed ogres, orcs, drow, etc are making me nervous. On the other hand, those classed ogres, orcs, etc are _useful_. Screw this "spoonfeeding" noise, I definately don't have as much time to churn out statblocks as I used to, and if I can get a platoon of elite orcs for a random encounter without having to spend an hour or two plugging numbers, so much the better.

I do wish they wouldn't put them in a "Monster Manual", though. The Flock of Foes approach seems wiser - clever combinations of templates and classes in a book of their own.

But we'll see. If the monsters in there are actually interesting, all the better. The expanded flavor text in Hordes of the Abyss was classily written and handy for firing off the ol' inspiration neurons, so if these beasties are on the same plane, it'd be worth it.

As much as I'd like a huge slab of monsters (I got into D&D by the 2e Monstrous Manual, and monsters are still my favorite part of the game) to read about, it's really a matter of how many I'll actually use. At this point, I think I'd rather have a good selection of useful monsters than a horde of them I'll never use.

...speaking of which, I smell an idea for a new thread. Excuse me.

Demiurge out.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jun 26, 2006)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> Here's the full list:
> /snip/



Looks pretty uninteresting, to me. Might pick it up a bit later in the under $10 bargain bin.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 26, 2006)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> Don't overlook this book, and don't judge it by a perceived lack of content. I *love* the MM IV, it's really inspiring me in a way that nothing has in a long while. The expanded content for each monster is very interesting and useful, and more than makes up for the "low" total number of monsters presented. In addition, the content is varied and uses a lot of sources that you haven't traditionally seen in a Monster Manual. Overall I think this is the best Monster Manual yet.




I'm hoping you're right.  It sounds like you've seen it already, so that's good.

My lack of interest in the book comes not from perception of lack of content, but from perception that what content is there is low quality.  You can read in my above message the specifics, but it's safe to say that the items I've listed in my lowest category are indicative, IMO, of banality.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 26, 2006)

A quick reminder folks - please avoid making snarky comments about groups of people who like something different to you, and avoid responding to any such remarks if they are made - this way lies ENworld happiness.

Cheers


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 26, 2006)

It strikes me as kind of silly to judge the actual monsters until we can see the actual monsters.   Plus a monster manual is always going to have monsters you like, monsters you hate, and monsters you can't see yourself using right now.  

I agree with d20 dwarf that I like seeing WotC experiment with new formats, even if they don't always succeed.  A monster manual that includes lairs and treasures seems, to me, like a good idea.  Likewise with the expanded ogres, orcs, drow, etc.  Would they be better placed in the original MM next to their base entries?  You bet.


----------



## Vascant (Jun 26, 2006)

I think ColonelHardisson said it best during the early posts of this thread, while some people would be interested in one way of handling NPCs, there will always be factions/groups that want to handle it another way.  So while one company will take the safer route in business, the OGL stands ready and waiting for others to take up the flag and create different things and appeal to smaller groups.


----------



## nerfherder (Jun 26, 2006)

Vascant said:
			
		

> I think ColonelHardisson said it best during the early posts of this thread, while some people would be interested in one way of handling NPCs, there will always be factions/groups that want to handle it another way.  So while one company will take the safer route in business, the OGL stands ready and waiting for others to take up the flag and create different things and appeal to smaller groups.



Very true.  Which is why I bought NPC Designer last week. 

Cheers,
Liam


----------



## Shemeska (Jun 26, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> You can't get a dreadful lasher with _Summon Monster_, which suggests it's a new greater 'loth, unless it's just an ultroloth with class levels.




Maybe. But the fact that they seem to have completely abandoned the yugoloth naming convention makes me rather peery. 

Or maybe rather than Dreadful Lasher it's 'Dread Lasher' which sounds like the name of a male porn star.


----------



## atom crash (Jun 26, 2006)

> I do wish they wouldn't put them in a "Monster Manual", though.




I do see the logic of this statement, and I can see how some people might feel that what is offered by the ToC just doesn't live up to the name "Monster Manual." The Monster Manual has traditionally been the name reserved for a book chock full of new monsters of all types. And WotC already has a series of books that looks more in-depth at a narrower range of creatures.



> I definately don't have as much time to churn out statblocks as I used to, and if I can get a platoon of elite orcs for a random encounter without having to spend an hour or two plugging numbers, so much the better.




I couldn't agree more. I thought the most useful part of Heroes of Battle was the sample army units for the different racial types. I can see myself using those things again and again. 

I'd love to see an entire book devoted to that concept. I'd like to see, for example, a book that focuses on different samples of Monstrous Humanoids: bugbears, orcs, goblins, hobgoblins, minotaurs. Just tons of statblocks for each. I really don't need any new Monstrous Humanoids; I just need more examples of existing varieties that I can use. Give me more specific types of orcs and bugbears, goblins and hobgoblins. And lairs, treasures, ready-made encounters, right on!

I don't think of myself as lazy or uncreative. I'd do the work myself, but since my spare time is already stretched so thin, I'd rather have a source I can rip ready-made statblocks from, and focus my prep time on coming up with decent plots.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jun 26, 2006)

atom crash said:
			
		

> I couldn't agree more. I thought the most useful part of Heroes of Battle was the sample army units for the different racial types. I can see myself using those things again and again.




That's precisely why I loved Heroes of Battle. Those stat blocks of various humanoid soldier-types were invaluable. They can be re-used for any number of encounters. The same goes for the similar statblocks in the "Races" books. They're every handy for random encounters, for those who use those; the extensive outdoor encounters in Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth leap to mind.



			
				atom crash said:
			
		

> I'd love to see an entire book devoted to that concept. I'd like to see, for example, a book that focuses on different samples of Monstrous Humanoids: bugbears, orcs, goblins, hobgoblins, minotaurs. Just tons of statblocks for each. I really don't need any new Monstrous Humanoids; I just need more examples of existing varieties that I can use. Give me more specific types of orcs and bugbears, goblins and hobgoblins. And lairs, treasures, ready-made encounters, right on!




Yeah, that'd be very handy to have. As I said upthread somewhere, too often products that seem similar to this concept get bogged down in background text. Just the blocks, please; I'll provide the background myself - it's the type of prep work I'd rather do than crunch numbers.



			
				atom crash said:
			
		

> I don't think of myself as lazy or uncreative. I'd do the work myself, but since my spare time is already stretched so thin, I'd rather have a source I can rip ready-made statblocks from, and focus my prep time on coming up with decent plots.




Exactly. I'm gettin' to be an old man. I'd rather spend my twilight years doing stuff I enjoy. Coming up with stats ain't my idea of fun after 26+ years of gaming.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jun 27, 2006)

demiurge1138 said:
			
		

> I do wish they wouldn't put them in a "Monster Manual", though. The Flock of Foes approach seems wiser - clever combinations of templates and classes in a book of their own.




Yeah, I can get behind that. I can understand, to an extent, why people would object to such statblocks in a Monster Manual. An entire separate book devoted to them would be a good compromise.


----------



## jester47 (Jun 27, 2006)

Cool! Another book I do not feel compelled to buy!  
Whoever is in product design over at WotC is making my hobby consolidation efforts much easier.  Keep up the good work guys and soon I can treat WotC like I did TSR in the later days of 2e!  Like they didn't exists, because well...  they might as well not!


----------



## jester47 (Jun 27, 2006)

Actually this whole prestatted example version stuff got started in the Draconomicon.  But there it was cool.  Dragons typically don't have a built stat block.  So it was necessary.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jun 27, 2006)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> I agree with d20 dwarf that I like seeing WotC experiment with new formats, even if they don't always succeed.  A monster manual that includes lairs and treasures seems, to me, like a good idea.  Likewise with the expanded ogres, orcs, drow, etc.  Would they be better placed in the original MM next to their base entries?  You bet.




I think they'd be best alongside their MM entries too...maybe in 4e...[mischief] (it's too bad that mischief smiley isn't here). I think having sample - or maybe it'd be better to say "typical" - lairs helps a time-bereft DM, and also helps establish a type of "culture" for the critter that can be used by (and against) PCs - "wait; there's a stockade of pine-logs and a wooden tower in the middle? Must be a hobgoblin sentry post!"


----------



## Mr.Black (Jun 27, 2006)

Could someone post the summon monster list that is on the table of contents?  I can't download the TOC for some reason.

Thanks!


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 27, 2006)

sure, I'll grab everything after the end of the monster list... hang on...

Sample Lair: The Deephollows . . . . . . . . . . 200
Monster Feats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
Monsters by Type (and Subtype) . . . . . . . . . 220
Monsters Ranked by Challenge Rating . . 221
List of Monsters by ECL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

*Full-Page Maps*
Grand Tomb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
Sample Wilderness Lair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66
Underground Lair and Shrine . . . . . . . . . . . . .89
Mithral Mines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

*Templates*
Lolth-Touched . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93
Web Mummy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .165

*For Player Characters*:
*Creatable Creatures*
Bloodfire Ooze (ritual) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Bloodhulk (animate dead) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
Clockroach (construct)* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
Clockwork Mender (construct)* . . . . . . . . . . .30
Clockwork Pony (construct)* . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
Clockwork Stallion (construct)* . . . . . . . . . . .32
Defacer (create undead) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
Golem, Fang (construct)* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72
Necrosis Carnex (animate dead) . . . . . . . . . . 104
Plague Walker (ritual) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
*Requires the Craft Construct feat

*Mounts/Companion Creatures*
Clockwork Pony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
Clockwork Stallion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
Lodestone Marauder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90
Sailsnake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Spawn, Bluespawn Stormlizard . . . . . . . . . . .142
Spawn, Greenspawn Leaper . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Spawn, Redspawn Firebelcher . . . . . . . . . . . 154

*Power Components*
Skiurid Nugget (necromancy spells) . . . . . 127

*Summonable Creatures**
Clockwork Mender (II) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
Dwarf Ancestor (V) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
Howler Wasp (II) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74
Inferno Spider (VI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76
Justice Archon (VII) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80
Windrazor (III) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .176
Windscythe (VI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Wrackspawn (IV) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
Yugoloth, Corruptor of Fate (VI) . . . . . . . . . 190
Yugoloth, Voor (IV) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
* Requires a summon monster spell of the indicated level (or higher)

*Weapons*
Dragonsplit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Greathammer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Maquahuitl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 27, 2006)

Mercule said:
			
		

> I'm hoping you're right.  It sounds like you've seen it already, so that's good.
> 
> My lack of interest in the book comes not from perception of lack of content, but from perception that what content is there is low quality.  You can read in my above message the specifics, but it's safe to say that the items I've listed in my lowest category are indicative, IMO, of banality.




I have seen the book, I got it last week and have spent a lot of time with it, more so than any D&D book I can think of in years. No doubt you're not going to care for or use 100%  of the stuff in the book, but that's how it always is.  There are some inventive monsters in the book, but what I really dig is how the monsters have a more classic feel...these are things you can use in a variety of ways, rather than a book full of spectral bladed prismatic demonoids that live on the 663rd layer of the Abyss and never come to the Material Plane. (Gee, thanks!  ) In addition, the ecology/for the players/lore sections are what I wish all the monsters had from the beginning. They really get  your imagination flowing, which is what a good monster should do...you immediately start placing these guys in adventure locales and growing plots around them.

I dunno, I sound like a booster, but color me excited that D&D is starting to put out some fresh content. It's so funny that recently the fresher the content I see the less the message board community seems to like it. I dunno what that says about me, maybe I've accumulated too many dark side points, but I'm so totally gellin' with the current WotC product design braintrust.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 27, 2006)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> I agree with d20 dwarf that I like seeing WotC experiment with new formats, even if they don't always succeed.  A monster manual that includes lairs and treasures seems, to me, like a good idea.  Likewise with the expanded ogres, orcs, drow, etc.  Would they be better placed in the original MM next to their base entries?  You bet.




That could be cool.  Or not.  It just depends.
But either way, it doesn't fit what, to me, is expected when you say "Monster Manual".

If this is just a bunch of standard fair with classes and templates tacked on, then that will be (another) real let down to me.  Heck, no other publishers are making a serious run at my gaming budget, so I got that money burning a hole in my pocket and WotC keeps trying to find ways to talk me OUT of buying stuff.

BUT...  I'm going to hold out optimism for a bit more.
If Lolth's Sting has something unique to it, then it can still be cool.
If it is nothing but a Drow Ninja 4 stepped right off the DDM card, well, that would seem a waste of paper.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 27, 2006)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> I have seen the book, I got it last week and have spent a lot of time with it, more so than any D&D book I can think of in years.




Is Lolth's sting just a regular Drow Ninja?  (4th level even?)


----------



## Shemeska (Jun 27, 2006)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> I have seen the book, I got it last week and have spent a lot of time with it, more so than any D&D book I can think of in years.




So then if you're willing to spill the beans and alter folks' pre-forming opinions... care to detail the demons and yugoloths that appear in the book, and perhaps the 'concordant killer' as well? *flutter of lashes*



> rather than a book full of spectral bladed prismatic demonoids that live on the 663rd layer of the Abyss and never come to the Material Plane. (Gee, thanks!  )




Hey, some of us would buy that with a grin on our face
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 .


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jun 27, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> That could be cool.If Lolth's Sting has something unique to it, then it can still be cool. If it is nothing but a Drow Ninja 4 stepped right off the DDM card, well, that would seem a waste of paper.




Dude, don't you get it? They've been seeding D&D releases since Angelfire(I think?) with the new MM4 stuff.


----------



## Glyfair (Jun 27, 2006)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Everything else, I'm indifferent to, at least initially.




The _Vitreous Drinker_ I find enticing.  It's an undead servant of Vecna that steals creatures ability to see with their tongue (OK, that sounds pretty lame here, but it actually reads pretty interesting).

However, I already have the completely monster from the GTM excerpt.  Still, if enough of the creatures interest me like this, I'll invest in the book.

The statblocks sound interesting, but I'd rather have it in a PDF file (one of the few things I'd prefer there) than in this book.  The lairs, etc. I'll judge when I get a chance to see it.


----------



## coyote6 (Jun 27, 2006)

What's the Official Release Date (TM) for MMIV?


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 27, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Is Lolth's sting just a regular Drow Ninja?  (4th level even?)




I can't answer specific content questions, sorry about that.


----------



## Felon (Jun 27, 2006)

Shade said:
			
		

> Egads!  I count only 73 unique creatures (not counting MM critters with class levels, sample templated creatures, and advanced versions of monsters).
> 
> To put that in perspective, that is only 30 more unique creatures than Draconomicon, 35 more than the Miniatures Handbook, and 36 less than the wafer-thin Monsters of Faerun!




So, that's twice the critters of Monsters of Faerun, plus a ton of other useful stuff? Cool.



			
				Glyfair said:
			
		

> I wouldn't mind seeing a book like that either.  I'd rather it not be a "monster manual."




Why? What's in a name? Why call a book full of monsters anything but a monster manual?

A part of me wants a monster book to be a treasure trove of outre monsters, with me the DM poring over the book for just that perfect little-known monster for a scenario I'm whipping. However, from a rational perspective, how many outre monsters am I really going to wind up using?

OK, they could have played a little trick that's worked on some of us in previous books: take a monster, beef it up just like it could have been beefed-up with class levels, but don't regard it as such. That's how we got our skullcrusher ogres and war trolls and kelvezu demons and alkhezar [sic] rakshasas and so many other creatures.

I like seeing a return to the classic critters. These are the guys I use.


----------



## Glyfair (Jun 27, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> Why? What's in a name? Why call a book full of monsters anything but a monster manual?




Tradition.  Back when companies could actually sell a product of nothing but monster stats and the like that had names like "Monster & Treasure Assortment."  There is an assumption about what a "Monster Manual" entails, and it doesn't really fit that.

Sure, it might be a good idea and a quality product.  Just give it a name to differentiate it from the "baggage" associated with the name.


----------



## Felon (Jun 27, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Tradition.  Back when companies could actually sell a product of nothing but monster stats and the like that had names like "Monster & Treasure Assortment."  There is an assumption about what a "Monster Manual" entails, and it doesn't really fit that.




/shrug

After the MMIV comes out, there'll be a new tradition and revised assumptions. I'm glad to see the basic format evolve. I recall when folks complained that templated monsters were regarded as gyps. Now most folks accept them--some would complain if there were no new templates.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Jun 27, 2006)

Personally I think the best place for Monsters with class levels especially ones already in the MM, is on the website.

Only time will tell which monsters from this book will stick and how well it'll do as a monster book, and so far the Fiend Folio has been the best non-core monster book.


----------



## airwalkrr (Jun 27, 2006)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> I'd buy that product. It would be very useful.




Me too. If it had sections for creatures like orcs, goblins, drow, and even "good" races like dwarves and halflings that would be excellent. I must mention this idea to the d20 company I freelance for.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 27, 2006)

I'm going to be a contrary voice and say that the actual monsters (leaving aside the prestatted stuff which I will certainly grab in lieu of having to roll up something on the spur of the moment) sounds great for my campaign. Gnomes who create clockwork creatures are a part of the setting of my home campaign, as is a conquered dwarf hold. I've also been looking for a way to add in green dragon flavoring without having the big bad green dragon return to the setting (at least, not until the players have a shot at stopping her from killing everyone in the barony), and I'll be using the greenspawn as her left-behind guards.

Of course, I also found the Fiend Folio the least-useful supplemental monster book, and I mostly got it for the nerra (although the iron cobra is likely to see use in my campaign sooner rather than later).


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 27, 2006)

Oh, and if anyone from WotC is listening, count me as a vote for Aspects appearing in every monster book from now on and in the 4E MM1. Easily one of the most useful additions to the game this edition.


----------



## delericho (Jun 27, 2006)

Well, it looks like I'll be skipping this one.

I can see the value of presenting monsters with templates and class levels already added. But almost all that is required for such creatures is the stat block - they don't need the full write-ups that other creatures get. The ToC shows too much space being expended on these creatures for my taste, so my wallet will be staying closed this time.

(On the plus side, at 220+ pages, the book is at least a decent length.)


----------



## Soel (Jun 27, 2006)

I don't like the fact that there are a lot less monsters, but if they are well-written (and generally, except for Complete Psionics, I totally dig the newer, more open design elements,) then I will accept it and buy this book.

A big stumbling block for me though is not the npcs, but the huge section devoted to dragonspawn. I'm quite sick of dragons and dragony things.


----------



## Graf (Jun 27, 2006)

*It's all REPRINTS!!!*

The book is mostly reprints…

3/4ths of those monsters are already on the back of stat cards for the Mini’s game.

Lolth’s Sting?
The game’s been out for 4 years… most people (who would want to) can stat out a low level Ninja drow. 
Ditto 75% of stuff on the list.

I know that WotC has been reprinting heavily but this is a bit absurd.
Why not just call it “the miniatures handbook II”?

P.S. For the sake of avoiding confusion this isn't a blast against having statted NPCs... just ones that aren't already printed and readily availible.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jun 27, 2006)

Graf said:
			
		

> The book is mostly reprints…
> 
> 3/4ths of those monsters are already on the back of stat cards for the Mini’s game.
> 
> ...




That's an interesting point, but for someone (like me) who doesn't play the minis game, the material is new. But they should have been explicit about where the material came from (assuming they weren't).


----------



## Buttercup (Jun 27, 2006)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> I'd buy that product. It would be very useful.



 I would too.  It would save me a huge amount of time over the course of a campaign.



			
				d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> I have seen the book, I got it last week and have spent a lot of time with it, more so than any D&D book I can think of in years. No doubt you're not going to care for or use 100% of the stuff in the book, but that's how it always is.  There are some inventive monsters in the book, but what I really dig is how the monsters have a more classic feel



 This sounds better and better.  The book has moved from "I don't need another monster book" to "I'll look at it" to "99% sure I'll buy it."



> ...these are things you can use in a variety of ways, rather than a book full of spectral bladed prismatic demonoids that live on the 663rd layer of the Abyss and never come to the Material Plane. (Gee, thanks!  )



Paging Edena, paging Edena!



> In addition, the ecology/for the players/lore sections are what I wish all the monsters had from the beginning. They really get your imagination flowing, which is what a good monster should do...you immediately start placing these guys in adventure locales and growing plots around them.



  Ok, now I really can't wait to see it.



> I dunno, I sound like a booster, but color me excited that D&D is starting to put out some fresh content. It's so funny that recently the fresher the content I see the less the message board community seems to like it. I dunno what that says about me, maybe I've accumulated too many dark side points, but I'm so totally gellin' with the current WotC product design braintrust.



 Well, I have been remarking that WotC's offerings seem to be aimed at players other than me for about a year and a half now.  I've really liked some of the offerings this year, for the first time in a long time.  So maybe I've got too many dark side points too.  But how is this possible?  I'm not nearly as evil as you?


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 27, 2006)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> So maybe I've got too many dark side points too.  But how is this possible?  I'm not nearly as evil as you?




That's what we like you to keep thinking, all the way up til the end...


----------



## BryonD (Jun 27, 2006)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> I can't answer specific content questions, sorry about that.



That's cool.  I didn't realize it was an NDA thing.  I thought you just got one early.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 27, 2006)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> Dude, don't you get it? They've been seeding D&D releases since Angelfire(I think?) with the new MM4 stuff.



Sure, but monsters are one thing.  Just slapping a class on a standard race is another.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 27, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Sure, but monsters are one thing.  Just slapping a class on a standard race is another.




Drow are technically monsters, though, right? I would definitely agree with you if they were including classed dwarves and elves.


----------



## Drowbane (Jun 27, 2006)

I shall reserve judgement until I'm holding in hand at my FLGS contemplating whether to buy or not to buy.

There are just too many other new books (PHB II, Complete Psi...) to buy to seriously consider more monsters.  Especially if the majority of the book is Templated and Classed versions of other MM monsters (I have drow of all types already stated out, tyvm!).



			
				MMIV said:
			
		

> Lolth-Touched Drow Ranger



Hey cool!! Its the Anti-Drizzt!



			
				d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> Drow are technically monsters, though, right? I would definitely agree with you if they were including classed dwarves and elves.



Elves and Dwarves are also technically monsters, my MM has at least 4 subraces of each.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 27, 2006)

Drowbane said:
			
		

> Elves and Dwarves are also technically monsters, my MM has at least 4 subraces of each.




Sorry, I should have been clear...I'm defining monster as something that appears only in the Monster Manual, not as a player race in the PHB.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 27, 2006)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> Drow are technically monsters, though, right? I would definitely agree with you if they were including classed dwarves and elves.




Meh, I don't see that technicality as being relevant to the topic.

A CE dwarf cleric is just as much a villian as a drow ninja.  Labeling one a "monster" and the other not seems pointless.

Just slapping a class on an existing race and calling it worthwhile is my point, whether the race in question is in the PH or not is not meaningful.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 27, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Meh, I don't see that technicality as being relevant to the topic.
> 
> A CE dwarf cleric is just as much a villian as a drow ninja.  Labeling one a "monster" and the other not seems pointless.
> 
> Just slapping a class on an existing race and calling it worthwhile is my point, whether the race in question is in the PH or not is not meaningful.




Umm, yes it is. You're talking about a monster manual, not a player's handbook, so distinguishing between monsters and player races is absolutely meaningful to a discussion about what should and shouldn't be included in each book.

Mostly I was refuting your assertion that drow are a standard race, which they clearly are not, they are a monster. If you think such labels are pointless, why did you label them to begin with?  So you're either against all templated and classed monsters, or you're not. If you're not, then drow are a perfectly acceptable monster candidate for classes and templates.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 27, 2006)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> Umm, yes it is. You're talking about a monster manual, not a player's handbook, so distinguishing between monsters and player races is absolutely meaningful to a discussion about what should and shouldn't be included in each book.



Wow, I just can't believe that nit is even worth picking.



> Mostly I was refuting your assertion that drow are a standard race, which they clearly are not, they are a monster. If you think such labels are pointless, why did you label them to begin with?  So you're either against all templated and classed monsters, or you're not. If you're not, then drow are a perfectly acceptable monster candidate for classes and templates.



You have completely missed the point.
I'm not the one getting hung up on labels.  
I can not believe you actually think refuting my "claim" that drow are a standard race even begins to touch on the point.

Would it help if I had used the term "common"?  The point of using the term standard had nothing in the world to do with core PC access.  Adding ninja levels to a drow is no more complicated than adding ninja levels to a dwarf.  It is a basic, and extremely simple "standard" thing to do.  In that sense a drow is just as standard as a dwarf.  As opposed to say a mind-flayer or dragon or other race with built in class levels.  I still do not consider those to be complicated enough to merit a book on adding classes.  But the process in that case is not standard.

I'm also unclear on where the term "standard" actually came to mean "core PC class". Your arguement  seems to be based on ignoring the obvious contextual meaning and forcing an obtuse alternate.

That said, I never remotely stated that I have any problem with templates and classes. I did say that I expect a Monster Manual to have new monsters.  The key word is "new", not "monster" or any overly picky disection of the word "monster".  Adding ninja levels to a drow does not make a "new" monster.  

Is it "wrong" to put standard (yes, standard) classed races in a book called "Monster Manual"?  No.  I'm not saying that.  Does the term "Monster Manual" put a different expectation in my mind?  Yes, I am saying that.

But that really isn't that big a deal.  That was just a comment.  The real issue to me is which of these makes sense:
a) Spend 5 minutes making a drow ninja of whatever level and gear I prefer

or 

b) Give WotC money for a statblock of a single drow ninja 4?

I don't see why I should want to pay for something so simple and standard.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 27, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> The _Vitreous Drinker_ I find enticing.  It's an undead servant of Vecna that steals creatures ability to see with their tongue (OK, that sounds pretty lame here, but it actually reads pretty interesting).




Had to read that twice and wanted to share my misread:  I thought you meant that they render blind creatures who use their tongues to see (snakes??).  That'd be a pretty limited scope ability.  If it's an eyeball-eating mohrg, then, yeah that sounds cool.  Actually, just based on the name, that one should have made it on my "interesting" list.


----------



## Mr.Black (Jun 27, 2006)

I think the dragonspawn would make good minions for dragons.  I just wish they had had the dragon subtype instead of the monstrous humanoid subtype. 

I'm wary of the classed NPCs.  It's easy to make NPCs that are suboptimal in build.  If I see that the Orc Warlord took Toughness for a feat I'm going to be royally ticked off.  

So far the dragonspawn have been decent challenges for their CRs, which is a good sign for the other monsters in the book.  

I may just buy this book if the four demons (five if the demonhive is an actual demon) are decent.


----------



## Drowbane (Jun 27, 2006)

Mr.Black said:
			
		

> ...It's easy to make NPCs that are suboptimal in build.  If I see that the Orc Warlord took Toughness for a feat I'm going to be royally ticked off...




No joke bro, I was reading a Dungeon module the other day where these NPCs (Fighter 3) used all of thier feats to take Toughness...


----------



## ForceUser (Jun 27, 2006)

Drowbane said:
			
		

> No joke bro, I was reading a Dungeon module the other day where these NPCs (Fighter 3) used all of thier feats to take Toughness...



Funny. Not only does that strike me as lazy on the dev's part, but it's also not RAW. Toughness can't be taken as a fighter bonus feat. 

As for the MMIV, I'm not liking what I'm reading. I'll reserve judgment until I see it, but this might be the first MM I don't buy.


----------



## Cam Banks (Jun 27, 2006)

I can't believe they still haven't got around to updating the giant slug. And yes, I know it's in the _Tome of Horrors_. That's never stopped them before.

And who named the arcaniss?

Grumble.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## GVDammerung (Jun 27, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> The classed/advanced hitdice versions of monsters listed out as seperate monsters is starting to get on my nerves. Especially when it's being done with orcs and ogres now apparently. That disturbs me.
> 
> And the last thing we need is more clogging of space with minis... Argg...




It is fairly apparent, that this MM is really a vehicle to set up creating more minis.  D&D, at least with this product, serves the minis line.  Minis the master, D&D the servant.  Hello, 4E!


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 27, 2006)

Mr.Black said:
			
		

> So far the dragonspawn have been decent challenges for their CRs, which is a good sign for the other monsters in the book.




I used the redspawn arcaniss in my Red Hand of Doom game -- he helped defend the Skull Gorge Bridge.  Fireball after fireball after fireball -- it was a lot of fun.  

Here's hoping for an art gallery soon -- RHoD has no pictures of the blackspawn raider and I want a visual for myself and my players.  

I house ruled it that the dragonspawn are all "dragon" type enough to count as a dragon in terms of a ranger's favored enemy, dragonbane weapons, etc.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 27, 2006)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Thinking further ... if I were going to design such a book, I would want to do it in two-page "spreads" that had a bunch of related stat blocks, and then the descriptions of any powers they all had in common.  Each "spread" would be kind of self-contained.




I would love a collection of stat blocks of different variants but in a different format: cards. I like the cards they put in the miniatures and think those statblocks might be sifficient, but 3x5 (Maybe the next larger size?) cards with a picture on one side (or a lair map) and stat blocks on another would be best (like the old TSR Monster Cards, but with a much mor readable format). SkeletonKey Games could get in on this and make some heavier cardboard dungeon tiles for modular lairs that would go in the packs as well.


----------



## Shemeska (Jun 27, 2006)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> It is fairly apparent, that this MM is really a vehicle to set up creating more minis.  D&D, at least with this product, serves the minis line.  Minis the master, D&D the servant.  Hello, 4E!




We'll see I suppose. I'm still willing to give the book a very good read through before I make a decision to buy it or not, so it may still be inspired enough on the monsters that aren't just boring (or if you prefer 'classic') critters to justify shelling out the money for it. I did cancel my pre-order on Amazon yesterday however. 

I may still buy it, but it's going to have to work harder for it based on the lackluster previews thus far.


----------



## satori01 (Jun 27, 2006)

I find it highly dubious that many of these Classed Monster entries have the same name as the Collectible D&D Minatures.  I will cry foul if all WOTC does is republish the stats on the Minature's card.

Eric, Colonel Hardisson, I know it is a bit presumptive of me to tell you what you do or do not need....but if the Drow Arcane Guard is the same as the minature card...trust me you do not need it.  

I truly hope WOTC did not just republish the DDM stat blocks, if they did it is a sad, lazy,  uninspired, and I would even go so far as to say disengenious move on the companies part.  We know that if they want to , WOTC can make intresting Humanoid opponents, just see Red Hand of Doom.  To try to sell stat blocks that are less intresting than stat blocks you can get for free from a NPC generator is just sad.  Make baby Bahumut cry, sad.

That said, I reserve actual judgment until I see the product.  Lair maps, magic items, discussion on player mounts, and adding creatures to Summon spell list is a pretty good thing imho, but it will of course come down to execution.

I actually think the concept of a Monster Manual is a dated one.  A random selection of monsters serves MM1, it is the "starter" monster set, but after that I think I perfer themed monster books.
It gives the monsters more context, and I think makes for a more memorable read.  I tend to remember monsters from Frostburn, Libris Mortis, and XPH than I do from FF, MM2, or the excellent MM3.  I'm quite sure the reason is not the quality of the monsters, but their presentation, in a standard MM format a great monster can simply be overlooked because your brain is so fatigued from switching gears.


----------



## Shade (Jun 27, 2006)

D20Dwarf said:
			
		

> rather than a book full of spectral bladed prismatic demonoids that live on the 663rd layer of the Abyss and never come to the Material Plane. (Gee, thanks!  )






			
				Shemeska said:
			
		

> Hey, some of us would buy that with a grin on our face
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Ditto!  That's why the _Fiend Folio_ is my favorite 3E monster supplement, and why MMIII rarely gets opened.  

Folks can keep forestkith goblins, skullcrusher ogres, hatehugger hobgoblins, and doodoochucker desmodus...I'll stick with the fiends, slaadi, elementals, and Far Realmsian horrors.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jun 27, 2006)

satori01 said:
			
		

> Eric, Colonel Hardisson, I know it is a bit presumptive of me to tell you what you do or do not need....but if the Drow Arcane Guard is the same as the minature card...trust me you do not need it.




Thanks for the heads-up. but could you go into why that would be?

As for BryonD's assertion that he'd rather spend 5 minutes making up a drow ninja (or whatever) rather than buy a book with such stats, my response is that I can understand that reasoning. The thing with me is that it takes me more than 5 minutes to stat out even fairly mid-level characters. Even if it did just take me 5 minutes, multiply that by all the stat blocks I would like to have, and the time adds up. I'd rather use such time working on background material, not stat blocks. I like having premade statblocks because making statblocks is the least interesting, least artistic part of the process for me.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 27, 2006)

This looks interesting.  I doubt that it will come close to my favorite monster tome, but it does sound like it's going to be extremely useful.  As for the statted NPC's, well if they are just re-hashes of minis game units, then that's not of much use to me.  It won't keep me from picking up the book for all the monsters in it that I don't have a minis card of though.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 27, 2006)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> This looks interesting.  I doubt that it will come close to my favorite monster tome, but it does sound like it's going to be extremely useful.  As for the statted NPC's, well if they are just re-hashes of minis game units, then that's not of much use to me.  It won't keep me from picking up the book for all the monsters in it that I don't have a minis card of though.




You know, if you guys wouldn't mix hobbies, this wouldn't be a problem.

Long live roleplaying!!!


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 27, 2006)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> You know, if you guys wouldn't mix hobbies, this wouldn't be a problem.
> 
> Long live roleplaying!!!



 Heh.  I counter with: if you old grognards would just enjoy buying toys again, then maybe we wouldn't see so much talk about rehashing!


----------



## heirodule (Jun 27, 2006)

Cool, an official Maquahuitl.

Which monster wields it?


----------



## Marchen (Jun 27, 2006)

It seems like a lot of the book is devoted to basic monsters with class levels; instant enemy NPCs. While I prefer this to a book full of non-interesting new monsters I would never use (The Whaduchazzlixx! It has 5 arms and can control rats!), since I would rather make up my own monster-NPCs, it's not a book that is a must buy for me.

Veyr good resource for DMs without a lot of planning time, I would say.


----------



## atom crash (Jun 27, 2006)

> (The Whaduchazzlixx! It has 5 arms and can control rats!)




Hey, that sounds cool. What book is that in?


----------



## lukelightning (Jun 27, 2006)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> No devils.




No surprise there. There is a heavy demon favoritism going around.


----------



## lukelightning (Jun 27, 2006)

heirodule said:
			
		

> Cool, an official Maquahuitl.
> 
> Which monster wields it?




Maquahuitl sounds like some sort of cocktail (it's one of those obsidian-blade sword things, right?). I'm guessing some sort of jungle drow has it.


----------



## atom crash (Jun 27, 2006)

> As for BryonD's assertion that he'd rather spend 5 minutes making up a drow ninja (or whatever) rather than buy a book with such stats, my response is that I can understand that reasoning. The thing with me is that it takes me more than 5 minutes to stat out even fairly mid-level characters. Even if it did just take me 5 minutes, multiply that by all the stat blocks I would like to have, and the time adds up. I'd rather use such time working on background material, not stat blocks. I like having premade statblocks because making statblocks is the least interesting, least artistic part of the process for me.




Ditto for me. Even if I can do the statblock myself, I'd rather spend my time doing something else because I usually end up with one evening to prep for my weekly game. 

Several months ago I was working on a group of drow my PCs were going to face in an upcoming session when I remembered a recent issue of _Dungeon_ that featured a drow  and a displacer beast on the cover. Cool, I thought, because my drow group included a ranger with a displacer beast. So I grabbed up that issue, flipped through it and found the statblock; I only needed to sub out one feat and I was done. Then I spent a good hour jotting down notes about what the drow were doing, why they were in town, how they might react to the party, etc.

I have to say, even if MMIV is largely a reprint of stats from the minis game, that's still something that's useful to me because I don't collect the minis and don't plan to start anytime soon (I absolutely loathe collectible games). It doesn't get an auto-pass on those grounds.


----------



## Pants (Jun 27, 2006)

Shade said:
			
		

> Ditto!  That's why the _Fiend Folio_ is my favorite 3E monster supplement, and why MMIII rarely gets opened.
> 
> Folks can keep forestkith goblins, skullcrusher ogres, hatehugger hobgoblins, and doodoochucker desmodus...I'll stick with the fiends, slaadi, elementals, and Far Realmsian horrors.



The Fiend Folio also has the terlen... dumbest monster ever.

Every monster book has good ones and bad ones, I at least find the MMIII more inspiring than the MMII.

I do like the idea of providing statted up humanoids for quick and easy use, though I think they would be better put into a book all their own, so that folks who buy a MM for the new monsters won't feel so... ripped off I guess (which is obviously happening here). Still, anything that cuts down on prep time is good for me.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jun 27, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> I do like the idea of providing statted up humanoids for quick and easy use, though I think they would be better put into a book all their own, so that folks who buy a MM for the new monsters won't feel so... ripped off I guess (which is obviously happening here). Still, anything that cuts down on prep time is good for me.




Yeah, they should do an update of the old 1e Rogue's Gallery, which had a lot of pregen characters, as well as some well-known NPCs and statted up merchant caravans, liches, ki-rin, etc.


----------



## Shade (Jun 27, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> The Fiend Folio also has the terlen... dumbest monster ever.




Well, I don't know if I'd go that far...it's bad, but not grimweird bad.    

And yeah, the FF does have  a few stinkers...terror bird comes to mind.



			
				Pants said:
			
		

> I do like the idea of providing statted up humanoids for quick and easy use, though I think they would be better put into a book all their own, so that folks who buy a MM for the new monsters won't feel so... ripped off I guess (which is obviously happening here). Still, anything that cuts down on prep time is good for me.




I absolutely agree.  I think they are a wonderful resource...but should be in their own product, not in a Monster Manual.


----------



## Pants (Jun 27, 2006)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> Yeah, they should do an update of the old 1e Rogue's Gallery, which had a lot of pregen characters, as well as some well-known NPCs and statted up merchant caravans, liches, ki-rin, etc.



Quite a while ago, I thought about submitting a proposal to a 3rd party company about a book with sample stats for pretty much everything in the MM. Every fiendish and celestial creature listed under the Summon Monster spells would get statted up. Drow, dwarves, elves, humans would all have statted up foes of various powerlevels, ranging from bandits to evil necromancers and power archmages. I balked at the amount of work it would require, but I still think it's an excellent idea for a book.


----------



## Pants (Jun 27, 2006)

Shade said:
			
		

> Well, I don't know if I'd go that far...it's bad, but not grimweird bad.



C'mon, flying extraplanar shark thing? Someone in 2e was smoking something funky when they thought that thing up. It doesn't have anything remotely noteworthy about it other than it's a stupid, stupid monster. 



> And yeah, the FF does have a few stinkers...terror bird comes to mind.



The terror bird would be infinitely better if it wasn't just a renamed, mundane ostrich.


----------



## Shade (Jun 27, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> C'mon, flying extraplanar shark thing? Someone in 2e was smoking something funky when they thought that thing up. It doesn't have anything remotely noteworthy about it other than it's a stupid, stupid monster.




Heh, I'm not champion of flying sharks (I voted for flying croc), but at least it's good at its niche (flying predator).  Can't say the same for ol' grimweird, who at CR 11 can use energy drain with its whopping +3 attack modifier and use summon monster VI once every 5 rounds (like an 11th-level party won't have access to protection from evil, magic circle against evil, or dispel magic).


----------



## Pants (Jun 27, 2006)

Shade said:
			
		

> Heh, I'm not champion of flying sharks (I voted for flying croc), but at least it's good at its niche (flying predator).  Can't say the same for ol' grimweird, who at CR 11 can use energy drain with its whopping +3 attack modifier and use summon monster VI once every 5 rounds (like an 11th-level party won't have access to protection from evil, magic circle against evil, or dispel magic).



Like I said, every book has its stupids.


----------



## Simplicity (Jun 27, 2006)

Personally, I would have prefered more monsters and less stat-block variations and locales for a Monster Manual.  I would happily buy a monster-ecology book that describes variations of goblins, gnolls, ogres, orcs, their lairs, their chefs, what they do for fun on Saturdays.  But I just don't want peanut butter in my chocolate.


----------



## Tuzenbach (Jun 27, 2006)

Folks, after perusing the list, I've identified the following entries which inspire interest:

1) Balhannoth
2) Briarvex
3) Clockroach
4) Concordant Killer
5) Giant, Craa’ghoran 
6) Nagatha 
7) Necrosis Carnex 
8) Oaken Defender
9) Quanlos 
10) Skiurid 
11a) Varag
11b) Varag Pack Leader
12) Verdant Prince
13) Vitreous Drinker
14) Wizened Elder 
15) Voor
16a) Zern:
16b) Zern Arcanovore
16c) Zern Blade Thrall

And I ask you: Sixteen?! Virtually ALL the other monsters in this book are complete derivatives of something that already exists! Does anyone remember creativity? 

A web mummy: Yay! A see a mummy that's either an embalmbed, undead spider, or a humanoid mummy that can traverse/shoot/build webs. That's not creative, that's taking two things and melding them together.

A defacer: Uh oh, something nasty's out there lookin' to deface!

A whisper demon: Eh? Speak up! I can hardly hear the evil you're spewing forth!

Joystealer: Ah shucks! YOU STOLE MY JOY!

Inferno spider: Hey guys....are spiders supposed to burn?

The howler wasp: That is ONE.....LOUD.....INSECT!!!

A tomb spider: Question.....what sort of spiders inhabit tombs?

Windblade, Windrazor, Windscythe: Talk about beating a dead horse! What's for MMV? Winddagger, Windscimitar, Windgreatsword?!?!?



Folks, at this stage of the game, ONLY THE FLUMPH CAN SAVE US!!!


----------



## lukelightning (Jun 27, 2006)

I bet the concordant killer is some sort of "neutral" monster that kills thing of "extreme" alignments.

If so, I am planning a letter. "Dear MMIV designers: Killing everything not-of-your-alignment doesn't make you neutral. It makes you EVIL."

The design theory seems to be: When in doubt, make the monster either a demon, a "spawn", or a spider. Or all three: demonspawnspider.


----------



## Tuzenbach (Jun 27, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> Wow, I just freaking knew it. My "spoon-feeding" theory continues to go undebated against.
> 
> "Hey guys let's come up with Monster Manual IV, books that have always provided new and/or converted monsters for everyone's campaign. Big enough to always have a variety of new creatures from all creature types!" [This was the old way]
> 
> ...



 Completely concur.


----------



## Tuzenbach (Jun 27, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> I am sorry, but if you've been DMing 3E for some time, and you still don't have, by now, typed up, written, or even have sticky notes of different versions of your own drow elves, ogres, orcs, goblins whatever, you're a pretty sad DM.




You know what? I don't find this insulting in the least. Rather, it's damned accurate!


----------



## Tuzenbach (Jun 27, 2006)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> Don't overlook this book, and don't judge it by a perceived lack of content. I *love* the MM IV, it's really inspiring me in a way that nothing has in a long while. The expanded content for each monster is very interesting and useful, and more than makes up for the "low" total number of monsters presented. In addition, the content is varied and uses a lot of sources that you haven't traditionally seen in a Monster Manual. Overall I think this is the best Monster Manual yet.





Please don't be insulted by this. I'm going to ask you a question and I'd like you to answer honestly. Are you a WotC plant? E.i., are WotC employing you to voice upon these boards your praises of this book?


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 27, 2006)

Tuzenbach said:
			
		

> Please don't be insulted by this. I'm going to ask you a question and I'd like you to answer honestly. Are you a WotC plant? E.i., are WotC employing you to voice upon these boards your praises of this book?



 LOL!!!  That may just be the funniest thing I've read in a while!


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 27, 2006)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> LOL!!!  That may just be the funniest thing I've read in a while!




Wil's gonna fall over laughing...


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 27, 2006)

Tuzenbach said:
			
		

> Please don't be insulted by this. I'm going to ask you a question and I'd like you to answer honestly. Are you a WotC plant? E.i., are WotC employing you to voice upon these boards your praises of this book?




Gosh, why would he be insulted by _that_?

Heaven forfend people just disagree with you. God forbid that WotC produce tools for DMs who don't have much free time, haven't kept notes between campaigns, have never before needed "creature X with class levels," or--gasp!--are new to DMing!

Damn WotC for not producing books for you and Razz specifically, and ignoring every other possible segment of their market. Good thing you've shown them the error of their ways through reasoned discourse, friendly interaction, and logically constructed arguments.


----------



## Tuzenbach (Jun 27, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Heaven forfend people just disagree with you. God forbid that WotC produce tools for DMs who don't have much free time, haven't kept notes between campaigns, have never before needed "creature X with class levels," or--gasp!--are new to DMing!
> 
> Damn WotC for not producing books for you and Razz specifically, and ignoring every other possible segment of their market. Good thing you've shown them the error of their ways through reasoned discourse, friendly interaction, and logically constructed arguments.





Hey Mouse, you left out biting sarcasm!


----------



## Tuzenbach (Jun 27, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> or--gasp!--are new to DMing!




You know what? I hadn't thought of that. That's actually a good argument.


----------



## Tuzenbach (Jun 27, 2006)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> LOL!!!  That may just be the funniest thing I've read in a while!



 Hey, is the idea so bizzare that there are actually WotC/Hasbro spies who's job entails spewing marketing propaganda all over Internet message boards?! Why is that funny?


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 27, 2006)

Tuzenbach said:
			
		

> Hey, is the idea so bizzare that there are actually WotC/Hasbro spies who's job entails spewing marketing propaganda all over Internet message boards?! Why is that funny?




Don't worry.  Wil Upchurch (d20Dwarf) is not a propaganda tool.    

However, WotC staffers *do* read these boards, and they are usually very gracious, and they do not need to hide their identity.


----------



## Elemental (Jun 27, 2006)

Shade said:
			
		

> And yeah, the FF does have  a few stinkers...terror bird comes to mind.




They were real creatures, and quite successful predators for several million years after the extinction of the dinosaurs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_bird

Of course, I don't have Fiend Folio, so you might know that already and just mean the intepretation was lousy. If so, just ignore me.


----------



## Pants (Jun 27, 2006)

Tuzenbach said:
			
		

> Hey, is the idea so bizzare that there are actually WotC/Hasbro spies who's job entails spewing marketing propaganda all over Internet message boards?! Why is that funny?



I have this hat made of tin foil that would look perfect on you.



			
				Elemental said:
			
		

> They were real creatures, and quite successful predators for several million years after the extinction of the dinosaurs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_bird



O Rly?



> Of course, I don't have Fiend Folio, so you might know that already and just mean the intepretation was lousy. If so, just ignore me.



The FF one looks like a vulture/ostrich hybrid... not terribly inspiring even if it was a real critter.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 27, 2006)

Tuzenbach said:
			
		

> Hey Mouse, you left out biting sarcasm!




No... No, I don't think I did.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 27, 2006)

Tuzenbach said:
			
		

> Hey, is the idea so bizzare that there are actually WotC/Hasbro spies who's job entails spewing marketing propaganda all over Internet message boards?! Why is that funny?



 Why is that funny?  Because it's patently absurd, maybe?  Think about it.  D&D is the biggest name in RPG's.  They don't have to spew forth propoganda about a book to do well on it.  They certainly aren't coming to websites and filling them with moles to sell their books.  Even if they were, why on Earth would they do so at a website whose readers are overwhelmingly D&D players?  Wouldn't it make more sense (as much sense as this whole "propoganda mole" idea is) to try this tactic on a message board not nearly as filled with D&D fans?

Why is this funny?  Come on.


----------



## Tuzenbach (Jun 27, 2006)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> They certainly aren't coming to websites and filling them with moles to sell their books.





Link?  


 I CALL SHENANIGANS!!!


----------



## Voadam (Jun 27, 2006)

what are dragonspawn?

The elemental avatars sound cool


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 27, 2006)

Tuzenbach said:
			
		

> Link?
> 
> 
> I CALL SHENANIGANS!!!



 Call it however you want.  WotC has always had a presence on these boards, because this is one of the best places to get the word out about their products.  They get the word out by answering questions about the products (when NDA's will allow) not by planting people to act like Joe Schmoe who just loves everything they put out.  That position is already taken by MerricB anyway.


----------



## mearls (Jun 27, 2006)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Don't worry.  Wil Upchurch (d20Dwarf) is not a propaganda tool.
> 
> However, WotC staffers *do* read these boards, and they are usually very gracious, and they do not need to hide their identity.




Yes, we read this board.

The interesting thing about fan feedback is that the message and the messenger invariably become intertwined. If people are shrieking and screaming about something in a totally insulting or unreasonable manner, it's a lot easier to say, "Well, the people who don't like that are shrieking, screaming luddites. We can ignore them."

Even when there are people saying the same thing in a reasonable way, the shriekers tend to drown them out. I think it's an artifact of the Internet that the extreme message is what sticks, but you retain the delivery rather than the content.

The punchline is that this thread is pretty much worthless for feedback because, you know, the book isn't out yet.


----------



## demiurge1138 (Jun 27, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> O Rly?
> The FF one looks like a vulture/ostrich hybrid... not terribly inspiring even if it was a real critter.




Yeah, the FF one wasn't terribly inspired. Left out the best feature of the real terror birds. Their wings had evolved into meat-hooks! That's cool! Make some sort of grapple attempt on a bull's rush mechanic! Be creative! Please! And you're right, the illustration by Crabapple/Cramer didn't help either.

Er, where were we? On topic?

I think Mearls' response is the best. _None of us have this book yet_, save d20 Dwarf, but he's not telling because of NDA. And no, I somehow doubt he's a plant, conspiracy theorists. A contributing author, yes. Not a plant. There is a difference.

Demiurge out.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jun 27, 2006)

Tuzenbach said:
			
		

> Please don't be insulted by this. I'm going to ask you a question and I'd like you to answer honestly. Are you a WotC plant? E.i., are WotC employing you to voice upon these boards your praises of this book?




Googling his name might help clarify things.


----------



## lukelightning (Jun 27, 2006)

What are all these wizard moles I hear about? Are they some new monster? What's their LA?


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jun 27, 2006)

lukelightning said:
			
		

> What are all these wizard moles I hear about? Are they some new monster? What's their LA?




You, sir, are a genius.


----------



## Sammael (Jun 27, 2006)

mearls said:
			
		

> The punchline is that this thread is pretty much worthless for feedback because, you know, the book isn't out yet.



Hi Mike.

I have provided (in other threads) at least five reasons why Redspawn Arcaniss (previewed on the WotC site) is an example of lazy design. The short version of my argument would be: it's a monstrous humanoid with a few dragon immunities and the sorcerer spellcasting ability. There is absolutely nothing new or exciting about this monster. 

I am pretty sure it would take me at most 10 minutes to "design" it (i.e. stat it up), which would imply that it took the WotC author (who has infinitely more game knowledge and design experience than me, plus access to internal WotC electronic tools) all of 2-3 minutes to do so. The rest of his time was obviously spent making up some third-grade filler text (i.e. what passes for ecology these days).

Would you care to comment on the Redspawn Arcaniss and explain how it is an example of innovative game design?


----------



## Pants (Jun 27, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> Hi Mike.
> 
> I have provided (in other threads) at least five reasons why Redspawn Arcaniss (previewed on the WotC site) is an example of lazy design. The short version of my argument would be: it's a monstrous humanoid with a few dragon immunities and the sorcerer spellcasting ability. There is absolutely nothing new or exciting about this monster.
> 
> ...



The other side of the coin is that you cannot judge an entire book based on one or two things (and I LIKED the tree people!).

Every book has its stinkers and if the worst of the book were used to showcase the rest of it, well then, that was bad decision making on their part. Then again, the book may completely suck and I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but until then, crying foul about something you haven't even seen strikes me as being the true epitome of idiocy.


----------



## Sammael (Jun 27, 2006)

If Redspawn Arcaniss is the worst monster in the book and was chosen by Marketing to represent the said book, they need to fire the Marketing person who did it.

You'll note, however, that I asked Mike to comment on the Arcaniss alone, not the rest of the book. Since it (and the likewise horribly designed Wizened Elders) are the only things WotC has thus far chosen to show us, there is nothing else I can go by. Surely, you can't expect me to buy the book on the merit of two creatures, both of which aren't exactly examples of great design? Or the ToC (which does have a nifty new format, by the way) alone, when we don't know if half of those creatures aren't nearly as cool as they sound, or whether the stat blocks are as mangled as those in MM3 and FC1?


----------



## Knight Otu (Jun 27, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> Hi Mike.
> 
> I have provided (in other threads) at least five reasons why Redspawn Arcaniss (previewed on the WotC site) is an example of lazy design. The short version of my argument would be: it's a monstrous humanoid with a few dragon immunities and the sorcerer spellcasting ability. There is absolutely nothing new or exciting about this monster.



Well, as I recall, it heals when casting fire spells. A small saving grace, and it isn't that terrible. But not the best choice given that they hyped this preview by announcing it in the news box on the homepage.

The other, secretly previewed dragonspawn (I think it was a greenspawn?) is much, much worse.


----------



## Pants (Jun 27, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> Since it (and the likewise horribly designed Wizened Elders) are the only things WotC has thus far chosen to show us, there is nothing else I can go by.



Another dragonspawn was previewed, a green one. Basically a draconic rogue of some sort, or at least, about as inventive as the Arcaniss.

I kinda liked the Wizened Elder.



> Surely, you can't expect me to buy the book on the merit of two creatures, both of which aren't exactly examples of great design?



Whatever happened to 'looking through it before purchasing?'


----------



## Mercule (Jun 27, 2006)

mearls said:
			
		

> The punchline is that this thread is pretty much worthless for feedback because, you know, the book isn't out yet.




We don't have too many specific bits, that's true.  And, no one should be making any absolute determinations, at this point.

If I had to give one, single reason why I'm uneasy about this book, I'd say it's the Spawn of Tiamat.  No, I haven't seen all the entries.  I've seen the picture of the Razorfiend mini and I've read the write-up of the Arcaniss.  I've also gathered a bit of an idea what the Spawn are about -- chromatic soldiers of some stripe, apparently created from a blending of chromatic and human(oid) blood.  If that basic concept is true, then I'm not going to like the Spawn, period, because I think that's a lame idea.  I also know I don't like the previews I mentioned above.  

The fact that 1/6 of the book is taken up by what I consider to be a very bad creature has me a bit concerned about the rest of it.  That the Spawn seem to have been promoted by WotC as the highlight of MM4 has me concerned about where WotC is planning to go with the game.

Who knows, though.  I may thumb through the book at Barnes and Noble and decide Spawn are pretty neat.  Stranger things have happenned.


----------



## DMH (Jun 27, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> C'mon, flying extraplanar shark thing? Someone in 2e was smoking something funky when they thought that thing up. It doesn't have anything remotely noteworthy about it other than it's a stupid, stupid monster.




Well it is stupid, but it was based on a better creature from Gamma World. The terleen is a flying baracuda (sp?) with laser reflecting feathers. It sounds silly, but considering many of the GW critters from the eariler editions, this fits right in.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jun 27, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> I have provided (in other threads) at least five reasons why Redspawn Arcaniss (previewed on the WotC site) is an example of lazy design.




This also provides several examples of that sort of "overblown internet hyperbole"-type thing that Mearles is talking about.  The ironic thing is that I probably agree in general with much of what you're saying here that's game related when it comes to the latest crop of WotC hardbacks, but "lazy", "third-grade" and that sort of thing makes it hard to have a constructive conversation about it.  

Granted, we really don't know what's in the MM IV, but I can imagine that the point of posting the Table of Contents was to give some indication.  And I think we can fairly assume that the ToC tells the story somewhat accurately.  

I'm pretty sure I can guess what a "Githyanki Soldier" is going to be.  If it were going to be a flavor-text block with some unique/interesting insights into a githyanki soldier, then it would be a point in favor of the book IMO.  If it's a stat block of a githyanki with some fighter levels and a special weapon, then it's a point against.  Something tells me that when "Hordes of the Astral" is published, it's all going to be rehashed anyway.

That doesn't mean the writers are lazy or third graders.  It means that MM IV will be yet another hardback book from WotC that I will not buy, and that's disappointing to a long-time fan of the game.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 27, 2006)

mearls said:
			
		

> Yes, we read this board.
> 
> The interesting thing about fan feedback is that the message and the messenger invariably become intertwined. If people are shrieking and screaming about something in a totally insulting or unreasonable manner, it's a lot easier to say, "Well, the people who don't like that are shrieking, screaming luddites. We can ignore them."
> 
> ...




Oh Tuzenbach, now you've done it, you've brought my corporate masters into the thread! Oh please, Mr. Mearls, I hope I made the book sound the awesomest ever!!!!

 


Oh, and for clarity's sake, I'm not a contributing author to the MMIV, so it's not a case of a designer defending or hyping his own work. I just really thought it was an excellent product and so I jumped in to give my views.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 28, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> If Redspawn Arcaniss is the worst monster in the book and was chosen by Marketing to represent the said book, they need to fire the Marketing person who did it.



Yes, because firing someone who made a single questionable judgement call is how it's done in the real world outside ENWorld posters' mothers' basements.


----------



## Buttercup (Jun 28, 2006)

Tuzenbach said:
			
		

> Please don't be insulted by this. I'm going to ask you a question and I'd like you to answer honestly. Are you a WotC plant? E.i., are WotC employing you to voice upon these boards your praises of this book?




Dude, if you knew him, you'd know just how funny this idea is.


----------



## mearls (Jun 28, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> Would you care to comment on the Redspawn Arcaniss and explain how it is an example of innovative game design?




I think the real bone of contention lies in exactly how we define innovation. Many people want to see monsters with unique, never before seen abilities. I can empathize, since I like that too. However, that doesn't mean that unique abilities are the only way to go.

The idea behind the spawn is to provide a bunch of creatures tied together by theme and built in a way that makes them easy to use together. The redspawn arcaniss is meant to stand back and blast away at its enemies, while other, more melee-oriented spawn fight in melee. He's a very simple, easy to understand and use monster. Many of the spawn are the same way. They are meant to be used together, and are kept simple to make it easy to run a number of monsters at the same time.

That really hasn't been tried in D&D before, so in that sense it's innovative. However, we really have no idea if people will like them. When we try something different, we're flying blind. But without trying anything different, we can't really push the game in new directions. What seems obvious to gamers about how good or bad a monster is isn't obvious to us, because we don't have any feedback on it.

The key is that when we try something different, we pay attention to sales and what people say about the book. We don't like firing blind, but sometimes we do it because we want to see how we can push the game in new directions. With stuff like the spawn, the writeups on monsters, the Black Talon tribe, and so on, we definitely pay attention to what people have to say.

We don't expect every book or idea to appeal to everyone. What we try to do is put new ideas out there and see if enough people respond to them. You might like monsters with new, unique abilities, but if there are a lot of people out there who don't like them, we won't know until we try something a little different.


----------



## mearls (Jun 28, 2006)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> Oh Tuzenbach, now you've done it, you've brought my corporate masters into the thread! Oh please, Mr. Mearls, I hope I made the book sound the awesomest ever!!!!




FAILURE!

The red gem on your hand should now be blinking. Please report to carousel.


----------



## mearls (Jun 28, 2006)

I just thought of something else.

It might seem like, rather than fire blind, we could just ask what people like. That doesn't always work. What sounds lame sometimes plays very well.

For example, back in early 2000 I was on an RPGA mailing list for the Living Greyhawk campaign. We all had playtest copies of the rules to help us write LG adventures. A lot of people on the list really, really hated rolling once for initiative, as opposed to every round. Yet, once people started playing with the rule it was obvious that rolling once was much, much better than the old way.

Sometimes, you have to throw something out there and see how it works.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jun 28, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> If Redspawn Arcaniss is the worst monster in the book and was chosen by Marketing to represent the said book, they need to fire the Marketing person who did it.




Geez, man. Usually we see eye to eye on a lot of things, but I think I'm going to have to part company. I think the Arcaniss(aside from the stupidly sibilant syllable at the end of its name), is a well-designed, thematic moster that's a bit more elegant mechanically than, say, a half-red dragon lizardfolk sorceror, which is probably the closest analogue. It's not the most innovative monster(though lots of innovative monsters see no table time -- raise your hands, everyone: who's used the Stonesinger from MM3?) ever, but it's certainly not a bad one.

No, bad will be the CR4 dragonspawn that has some claw attacks, improved grab, and nothing else. I friggin' hate bland improved-grab monsters!


----------



## BryonD (Jun 28, 2006)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> As for BryonD's assertion that he'd rather spend 5 minutes making up a drow ninja (or whatever) rather than buy a book with such stats, my response is that I can understand that reasoning. The thing with me is that it takes me more than 5 minutes to stat out even fairly mid-level characters. Even if it did just take me 5 minutes, multiply that by all the stat blocks I would like to have, and the time adds up. I'd rather use such time working on background material, not stat blocks. I like having premade statblocks because making statblocks is the least interesting, least artistic part of the process for me.




Sure, and that is certainly fair.  I'm only speaking for myself.

But I'd still prefer a Monster Manual be a Monster Manual and a Rogue's Gallery be a Rogue's Gallery.

And not just for picky language reasons.  A collection of Drow Ninjas over a range of levels would be geometrically more valueable than: "Wanna Drow ninja?  Here, Level 4.  Have a nice day."  "But my games is level 13."  "Oh?  really? hmmmm?  We got level 4 here."

As I said before, I'm holding out optimism that the product will be more than that.  But the implication of the responses makes me less and less hopeful.


----------



## Man-thing (Jun 28, 2006)

mearls said:
			
		

> That really hasn't been tried in D&D before, so in that sense it's innovative.




Question: Wouldn't the Draconions from dragonlance be an example of where this has been tried before?


----------



## BryonD (Jun 28, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Gosh, why would he be insulted by _that_?
> 
> Heaven forfend people just disagree with you. God forbid that WotC produce tools for DMs who don't have much free time, haven't kept notes between campaigns, have never before needed "creature X with class levels," or--gasp!--are new to DMing!
> 
> Damn WotC for not producing books for you and Razz specifically, and ignoring every other possible segment of their market. Good thing you've shown them the error of their ways through reasoned discourse, friendly interaction, and logically constructed arguments.



You know, it actually does get tiresome to read the endless "WotC does no wrong" posts from the freelancers.  This seems to be a realtively new activity, but it has been quite apparant recently.  (Perhaps the point made in Mearls recent Blog entry has something to do with it?)

Sorry if it is an outrageous taboo to actually point it out.  But that doesn't make it any less obvious.  

Heck, I've been on a "WotC keeps dropping the ball" kick lately.  Mostly because I think WotC keeps dropping the ball lately.  But get a good 3.5 thread going and you'll have people calling me "fanboy".  There have been plenty of times that I've defended WotC against poular objection.

Some people average out and others don't.  

When you see a really fixed pattern over and over, you can't help but notice the skew.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 28, 2006)

mearls said:
			
		

> The punchline is that this thread is pretty much worthless for feedback because, you know, the book isn't out yet.



I realize this isn't just about me.
But for my position, I certainly see other aspects of the book that still look quite appealing.

I've offered my optimism about being wrong over drow with 4 levels on ninja slapped on.
If I'm wrong, I'll be very happy.
If I'm right, then I'm right.


----------



## Squire James (Jun 28, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> (snip)
> 
> I can't wait for Monster Manual 5: "Goblin Flamethrower, Goblin Commoner, Goblin Slave, Goblin Jerker, Goblin Spanker, Goblin Nudist, Goblin Surprise, Goblin Chef......" Seriously, is this what folks were asking for? WHERE IS WOTC GETTING THEIR FEEDBACK?!
> 
> (snip)




Hey!  We got to stat out all those Magic the Gathering cards somehow!


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 28, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> You know, it actually does get tiresome to read the endless "WotC does no wrong" posts from the freelancers.  This seems to be a realtively new activity, but it has been quite apparant recently.  (Perhaps the point made in Mearls recent Blog entry has something to do with it?)
> 
> Sorry if it is an outrageous taboo to actually point it out.  But that doesn't make it any less obvious.




Cite please.


----------



## Odhanan (Jun 28, 2006)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Agreed -- Yes, when I have time I certainly like to stat up my own drow and other bad guys, but this looks like a useful move to have more ready-made stats at the DM's fingertips.  Heck, I wouldn't mind a whole book like that just based on the first four/five MMs.



I agree as well. I'm interested in variations of base creatures rather than weird monsters I'm unlikely to use in a game.

As a side note, I'd really like a NPC Manual. Like the DMG2's NPCs, but a whole book of them for a wide array of archetypal roles in a campaign.


----------



## Shemeska (Jun 28, 2006)

mearls said:
			
		

> FAILURE!
> 
> The red gem on your hand should now be blinking. Please report to carousel.




I adore that movie...


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 28, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> I adore that movie...




I did until I found out it was real.


----------



## Mr Baron (Jun 28, 2006)

*Looks light, but I do have it on pre-order (I like the Dragonspawn)*

While I admit it seems a bit light in comparison to some other MM's (& ToH's), I still think it will be good.  

I am really liking the dragonspawn.  We do have tons of dragons, and 1/2 dragon templates, so this is something a bit different.   For those of us with Red Hand, I think this will provide a plethora of ideas to throw into the module.  To be honest, I am ok with the number of dragons we currently have, so not seeing any new dragons is not an issue for me.  Dragonspawns look cool, so this is a selling point for me.  Although the bluespawn digger thing looks like a giant sloth with a horn...probably will not make my cut.

I am not a big fan of the weird monsters.  If WotC puts out a MM of the Weird, they can keep it.  The windsock (you know the one) from FR that is all powerfull, does nothing for me.  I keep thinking to myself, who created that one?  What was the pitch that resulted in development of a giant windsock with wimpy arms and a large mouth?  Yikes!  We all have monsters that will never make it into our campaign.  So on that note, I am ok with variants of the classics (orcs, ogres, etc...).  These have a higher probability of making it into my campaign than an all powerful wind sock.  And yes, the monster needs to look cool before I look at it.  The blob with hands does not get a second look.  

I will also say that there are a bunch of the classics and some from the older campaign settings that I would like to see get put into a MM.  Some of these have already made it into Dragon, but I would not mind to see a reprint.  

I appreciate the commentary from Mike & Wil...thanks, and keep'em coming.

PS...As long as there are no windsocks, I good with it


----------



## Dire Bare (Jun 28, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> You know, it actually does get tiresome to read the endless "WotC does no wrong" posts from the freelancers.




Not nearly as annoying as the "WotC does no right" posts from the crankies . . . (this is in general, not necessarly aimed at BryonD)


----------



## Cam Banks (Jun 28, 2006)

Man-thing said:
			
		

> Question: Wouldn't the Draconions from dragonlance be an example of where this has been tried before?




Yes, it is. And we have dragonspawn, too. But, you know, we're just Dragonlance, and stuff. Apparently this whole Tiamat thing is the latest hot idea and it's the Year of the Dragon and etc etc.

I still think "arcaniss" is a silly name.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Cam Banks (Jun 28, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> You know, it actually does get tiresome to read the endless "WotC does no wrong" posts from the freelancers.  This seems to be a realtively new activity, but it has been quite apparant recently.  (Perhaps the point made in Mearls recent Blog entry has something to do with it?)




I'm always the first to leap to the defense of the people I freelance for, too. And support and praise the other people who're writing for them. So long as it's clear that the reason I'm doing it is because I genuinely like the stuff those people publish, it's not too disingenuous.

Of course, if it starts becoming "hey, this new book Company I Freelance For is putting out is really awesome and great" and nothing else, I'd expect to be called on it. 

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 28, 2006)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> I'm always the first to leap to the defense of the people I freelance for, too. And support and praise the other people who're writing for them. So long as it's clear that the reason I'm doing it is because I genuinely like the stuff those people publish, it's not too disingenuous.
> 
> Of course, if it starts becoming "hey, this new book Company I Freelance For is putting out is really awesome and great" and nothing else, I'd expect to be called on it.
> 
> ...




For the most part I just don't talk about products I don't like by people that I do like.  I haven't seen this mythical bloc of freelance cheerleaders that the cynics are talking about...I see enthusiastic people that obviously love the game enough to sub-optimize their time in order to write for it, and for the most part they tend to be not of the type to go on internet message boards to complain about every little thing. So maybe they come off as positive and enthusiastic, but I don't think those are bad qualities.


----------



## Cam Banks (Jun 28, 2006)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> For the most part I just don't talk about products I don't like by people that I do like.  I haven't seen this mythical bloc of freelance cheerleaders that the cynics are talking about...I see enthusiastic people that obviously love the game enough to sub-optimize their time in order to write for it, and for the most part they tend to be not of the type to go on internet message boards to complain about every little thing. So maybe they come off as positive and enthusiastic, but I don't think those are bad qualities.




You'll notice I'm not disagreeing with you. 

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## BOZ (Jun 28, 2006)

i hate to say it, especially about a monster book... but i don't know if i'll be getting this one.  FC1, i think, i'll get much more enjoyment out of.


----------



## Sammael (Jun 28, 2006)

First of all, thank you for the insight, Mike.



			
				mearls said:
			
		

> I think the real bone of contention lies in exactly how we define innovation. Many people want to see monsters with unique, never before seen abilities. I can empathize, since I like that too. However, that doesn't mean that unique abilities are the only way to go.



The problem I have with this concept is that all the non-unique stuff has been done before. There are already plenty of creatures that fill the same niche as the Arcaniss (i.e. the aforementioned half-red dragon lizardfolk sorcerer, or some of the Dragonlance draconicans, or the abishai (again with sorcerer levels).  



> The idea behind the spawn is to provide a bunch of creatures tied together by theme and built in a way that makes them easy to use together.



Once again, I find this problematic. Including one new creature in a game requires very little effort. Including a whole bunch of related creatures implies that the DM has to make significant changes to the metaplot of his setting (be it a published or home-made setting). For those who like the umpteenth attempt made by Tiamat (or her Dragonlance doppelganger, Takhisis) to get an edge over Bahamut by creating _yet another_ horde of evil dragon-related creatures, this is fine. For those who don't, 36 pages of the MM4 aren't as useful as they could have been.



> The redspawn arcaniss is meant to stand back and blast away at its enemies, while other, more melee-oriented spawn fight in melee. He's a very simple, easy to understand and use monster. Many of the spawn are the same way. They are meant to be used together, and are kept simple to make it easy to run a number of monsters at the same time.



I certainly understand the desire to keep some of the monsters simple. However, I believe that they could have been made simple and unique at the same time.



> When we try something different, we're flying blind. But without trying anything different, we can't really push the game in new directions.



Again, I understand and appreciate the sentiment. It's just that I (personally) haven't liked a number of WotC's recent directions. I sincerely hope that the new directions have won WotC some new customers to replace those lost by them.  



> What seems obvious to gamers about how good or bad a monster is isn't obvious to us, because we don't have any feedback on it.



Once upon a time, WotC used to have playtesters, and lots of them. That was one of the purposes of RPGA, as I recall. I have no idea as to why this is no longer the case, but I feel that a lot of the newer material shows that lack of playtesting.

@Whizbang: I am curious as to why you feel the need to defend WotC Marketing, when you buy anything WotC publishes anyway, regardless of their decisions?


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 28, 2006)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> You'll notice I'm not disagreeing with you.
> 
> Cheers,
> Cam




I know. 

Dammit, we're being positive again.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 28, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> Once upon a time, WotC used to have playtesters, and lots of them. That was one of the purposes of RPGA, as I recall. I have no idea as to why this is no longer the case, but I feel that a lot of the newer material shows that lack of playtesting.




You're assuming an awful lot. I certainly hope the other designers are playtesting as much as I am, otherwise I'm gonna be jealous.


----------



## Sammael (Jun 28, 2006)

One of the WotC designers openly replied to my Redspawn Arcaniss CR comment that he doesn't have to playtest monsters, only compare them to existing ones, so I'm not assuming _anything_.

Even if you do playtesting yourself (with your group(s)), a designer shouldn't be the only person to playtest his own work, much like a programmer shouldn't be the only person to test their own code. 

Look at the list of playtester credits in the 3.0 core books. Now tell me if the same amount of playtesting is going on with the current products.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 28, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> One of the WotC designers openly replied to my Redspawn Arcaniss CR comment that he doesn't have to playtest monsters, only compare them to existing ones, so I'm not assuming _anything_.




Ah, I haven't been keeping up with other threads or other message boards, you'll have to forgive me for not having seen that somewhere else. Maybe you could link us?


----------



## Sammael (Jun 28, 2006)

Unfortunately, I don't have a community supporter account, so I can't search.  It was, I believe, the very first thread on the Redspawn Arcaniss, so maybe one of the nice community supporters could help us.


----------



## Odhanan (Jun 28, 2006)

mearls said:
			
		

> I just thought of something else.
> 
> It might seem like, rather than fire blind, we could just ask what people like. That doesn't always work. What sounds lame sometimes plays very well.
> 
> ...



Well, I tried this once with my computer. Once it flew through the window I'm not sure it worked like I wanted it to.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 28, 2006)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> Well, I tried this once with my computer. Once it flew through the window I'm not sure it worked like I wanted it to.




I hit somebody with an orange the other day. I thought it worked pretty well, but clearly opinions differ.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 28, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> You know, it actually does get tiresome to read the endless "WotC does no wrong" posts from the freelancers.




I'm sure it does. Point me to one.

I never said WotC can do no wrong. I tend not to bother wasting my time ranting about products--from WotC or anyone else--that I dislike. I have better things to do. For the record, I can think of several books out from WotC recently that I wasn't fond of. I can think of several design decisions I'm not happy with. But it does nobody any good for me to harp on those, does it?

I _do_ get sick and tired of people who whine and bitch that things aren't done exactly the way they'd like, and that all other ways of playing the game are wrong. Or hadn't you noticed that my arguments in this thread are not made against everyone who has expressed the slightest negative opinion of this book, but merely against a certain vocal fringe?


----------



## Soel (Jun 28, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> C'mon, flying extraplanar shark thing? Someone in 2e was smoking something funky when they thought that thing up. It doesn't have anything remotely noteworthy about it other than it's a stupid, stupid monster.




The Planescape version was different than the 3e FF one, and nowhere near as hokey! When I first saw the one in the FF, I laughed. Just as I did with the Senmurv and Fossergrim pics. It's all about the artwork.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 28, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I'm sure it does. Point me to one.



I'm not going to get into playing that game.
It isn't "a thread" I can point to.
It is a trend of the same person saying the same thing, just substitute the newest product.



> I never said WotC can do no wrong. I tend not to bother wasting my time ranting about products--from WotC or anyone else--that I dislike. I have better things to do. For the record, I can think of several books out from WotC recently that I wasn't fond of. I can think of several design decisions I'm not happy with. But it does nobody any good for me to harp on those, does it?



Actually, presenting a balanced perspective would provide the "good" of added credibility.
When someone who gets paychecks from publisher only has gushing things to say about the products that publisher produces, the fairness of the assements being presented naturally become suspect.

It also isn't fair to discard all negative response as "rants". 
Particularly in the case of WotC, trying to provide constructive negative feedback can be very valueable.  Whereas simply being a "yes man" is counter-productive.  Even if you only "yes man" when you truly like something and are simply quiet at other times.  

Yes, 90+% of negative reponse here IS certainly rants.  But that doesn't mean valuable negative feedback is unallowed.  To the contrary, an added voice of reasoned constructive criticism would be a boon.



> I _do_ get sick and tired of people who whine and bitch that things aren't done exactly the way they'd like, and that all other ways of playing the game are wrong.



Absolutely.

I hold industry people to a higher standard than random nobodies on a message board.
If I'm wrong for that, then I'm wrong.  But I still do.


> Or hadn't you noticed that my arguments in this thread are not made against everyone who has expressed the slightest negative opinion of this book, but merely against a certain vocal fringe?



I'm certain that is true.

Look, I'm not trying to just push buttons to agitate.  
If you see nothing in this but offense, then I apologize.
But, sincerely, I did not sit down and make this up on the spot.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 28, 2006)

Man-thing said:
			
		

> Question: Wouldn't the Draconions from dragonlance be an example of where this has been tried before?




I don't think so.  As I recall them presented in the original modules (and fiction), they tended to travel in groups of all the same type, all with the same abilities.  The draconians were more akin to your standard humanoids in that regard.  Tactically, then, the dragonspawn are something a bit different.


----------



## MerricB (Jun 28, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I don't think so.  As I recall them presented in the original modules (and fiction), they tended to travel in groups of all the same type, all with the same abilities.  The draconians were more akin to your standard humanoids in that regard.  Tactically, then, the dragonspawn are something a bit different.




Draconians also have a lot of baggage:
* They don't breed (yes, I know they've tried to fix this)
* They were created for an atypical D&D world 
* They were created from good dragon eggs.

I like Dragonlance. I really, really like Draconians... but I'd have a far better time of integrating Dragonspawn into my Greyhawk campaign than Draconians. And, in fact, I am. The PCs have already had one Dragonspawn encounter (Redspawn Arcaniss), and there will be more to come.

Cheers!


----------



## D.Shaffer (Jun 28, 2006)

heirodule said:
			
		

> Cool, an official Maquahuitl.
> 
> Which monster wields it?



Considering its location in the TOC, it looks to be something one of the lizardman tribes use.


----------



## MerricB (Jun 28, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> One of the WotC designers openly replied to my Redspawn Arcaniss CR comment that he doesn't have to playtest monsters, only compare them to existing ones, so I'm not assuming _anything_.
> 
> Even if you do playtesting yourself (with your group(s)), a designer shouldn't be the only person to playtest his own work, much like a programmer shouldn't be the only person to test their own code.
> 
> Look at the list of playtester credits in the 3.0 core books. Now tell me if the same amount of playtesting is going on with the current products.




There has been a big change in how things work. Playtesting - not so much.

However, the process isn't Designer -> Editor -> finished product. It's Designer -> Developer -> Editor -> finished product. So, it isn't like the designer is playtesting it; there is a development stage (which may include playtesting).

Cheers!


----------



## Sammael (Jun 28, 2006)

MerricB said:
			
		

> However, the process isn't Designer -> Editor -> finished product. It's Designer -> Developer -> Editor -> finished product. So, it isn't like the designer is playtesting it; there is a development stage (which may include playtesting).



AFAIK, the process never was Designer -> Editor -> finished product. It was more like Designer -> panel discussion about the design -> Playtesting -> Designer -> Editor -> finished product.


----------



## Cam Banks (Jun 28, 2006)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Draconians also have a lot of baggage:
> * They don't breed (yes, I know they've tried to fix this)
> * They were created for an atypical D&D world
> * They were created from good dragon eggs.
> ...




I'm sure dragonspawn have similar baggage, all of which is easily filed off. None of the above are inherent in the monster statistics.

Krynnish dragonspawn are corrupted humans created by the Dragon Overlords (one of each chromatic type) with mild sorcery that will stack with sorcerer levels, a breath weapon, explosive death throes, etc. It's also a template, somewhat like the half-dragon, although Dragonlance doesn't have half-dragons (so it's something of a replacement).

I use white dragonspawn extensively in my current project for Sovereign Press, Price of Courage, which ends with the heroes taking on the last of the Dragon Overlords, Frost. I've got so many weird and wonderful draconic things in the book it's not funny. While it's cool that there are white dragonspawn in MMIV, I find it curious that the DL material (even with serial numbers filed off) is never utilized elsewhere by WOTC.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Cam Banks (Jun 28, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I don't think so.  As I recall them presented in the original modules (and fiction), they tended to travel in groups of all the same type, all with the same abilities.  The draconians were more akin to your standard humanoids in that regard.  Tactically, then, the dragonspawn are something a bit different.




They're a lot more flexible than that, and are being used in interesting ways in current novels and gaming supplements for DL. It's even better now that we can add class levels to them.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Psychic Warrior (Jun 28, 2006)

I'm pretty interested in this book.  It is a departure from the traditional model of the Monster Manuals to date and that is sure to rankle people in their comfort zones.  But honestly if it was just 200 "new & unique" monsters I probably would have ignore this book.  With the extras they are trying out here I am 90% likely to pick this up.


----------



## Sammael (Jun 28, 2006)

For the record, I don't have a problem with statted and templated MM1 creatures appearing in MM4. In fact, I approve of it - provided the stats are right.


----------



## Nebulous (Jun 28, 2006)

Garnfellow said:
			
		

> The only thing I seem to remember about that book is that it got terrible reviews and I never really took a look at it. In retrospect, was it any good?




I didn't care for it very much. too much background, not enough crunchy bits. I agree though, a book with templated, leveled NORMAL monsters would be a very cool product. I don't get Dragon, but don't they cover this territory?


----------



## Garnfellow (Jun 28, 2006)

Nebulous said:
			
		

> I didn't care for it very much. too much background, not enough crunchy bits.




Looking at the samples, it looks like the WotC designers focused too much on building unique and specialized NPCs in _Enemies and Allies_. Ironically, those are exactly the sort of NPCs I *don't* want from a book like this -- I don't need a lot of half-dragon ranger/monks etc., and when I do want something like that I much prefer to hand-craft it myself for insertion in the campaign.

What I *do* want are lots of common NPCs that are tedious to mass-produce. Goblin archers, goblin scouts, hobgoblin commanders, orc footsoldiers, ogre brigands, kobold sorcerers, dwarf champions, and the like. I would love to be able to just cut and paste a statblock for stuff like that.


----------



## Owen K.C. Stephens (Jun 28, 2006)

I -am- a contributing author to the MM IV, and I haven't seen anything but the raw files yet, so I actually can't say if I'm going to like the book or not. On the other hand, I'll get three free copies, so it's not like I have to worry about deciding if I want to buy it. And I hope most of you (that play D&D) are smart enough not to make such a decision until you see a copy and flip through it. Because doing anything else is either stupidity, or mean-spiritedness. Period. Form all the early opinions you want, but the final decision should wait until you SEE THE BOOK.

Now I had nothing whatsoever to do with the design, development, or art direction on the dragonspawn, so I do feel I can comment rationally and reasonably about them without being too biased. And here's the point I think most people have missed:

The intelligence of the design has nothing to do with one monster.

No one set of stats can show you why the dragonspawn are a good idea. They're not, individually, brilliant or new. What they are is an effort to have a flexible, interesting set of foes a DM can easily run, using elements the players have already seen and have some idea what to do with. In other words, their very simplicity and "uninnovative" nature is what makes them good monsters.

Most DMs don't have a lot of time to write up foes. Heck, in my experience -most- DMs aren't creative, thoughtful, or even all that smart. They're just typical people, trying to play a game. Oddly, the game insists they spend a lot of time doing math and plotting. Those are both jobs, and a lot of people don't like those jobs. The dragonspawn give them a set of options that don't require the DM to work that hard to have fun.

Most DMs are casual gamers at best. Most -gamers- are casual gamers. A lot of them if asked to write up a half-red-dragon-lizardman-sorcerer are going to go play WoW instead. And if they did write one up, they'd forget some important spell, or they'd have made dumb spell choices to begin with. And, likely, they would get the CR wrong, or not give it the right support monsters, or screw-up its treasure, or balk when a player asked what a Knowledge (arcana) check told him about the dragon-type monster in front of him. With the dragonspawn in the new format, none of that is a problem. They'll give you a threat just deep enough for a typical DM to run in a typical game against typical players.

Not interested? Fine the book isn't for you. Most books aren't. They're for run-of-the-mill gamers who just want to A: Kill something and B: Take its stuff.

There's a big danger if you get -too- innovative. You end up creating things that feel out of place, or don't have good support rules, or take the players so much by surprise they don't enjoy the game. YOU may not like the idea of creatures blending dragons and humanoids, but at least players understand their ecological niche well. You throw too many lucent worms, maulgoths, and ocularons at players and they feel like the world makes no sense. Heck, people on these boards have talked about how many different monsters you can stick in one game world. But most games have humanoids and dragons, meaning you can get dragonspawn somehow, and the players see that.

Personally, I may never use dragonspawn. But I sure as heck know DMs who are going dance in the street to see simple bad guys, with the rules for them all laid out, designed to work together. DMs who otherwise look down at the end of a game and say "dang, I never used it's breath weapon," or "shoot, when it was blinking it should have been doing sneak attack damage." If you aren't one of them just be aware they're out there, they outnumber you, as a whole they have more money than you, and they need help.

I wrote more monsters than showed up in the MM IV. I think some of the things that got cut were much, much better than some of the stuff that got in. But that's the way these things go. And of all the things that got in, I see what the dragonspawn got their place in the sun.


----------



## Nebulous (Jun 28, 2006)

OStephens said:
			
		

> I -am- a contributing author to the MM IV, and I haven't seen anything but the raw files yet, so I actually can't say if I'm going to like the book or not. On the other hand, I'll get three free copies, so it's not like I have to worry about deciding if I want to buy it. And I hope most of you (that play D&D) are smart enough not to make such a decision until you see a copy and flip through it. Because doing anything else is either stupidity, or mean-spiritedness. Period. Form all the early opinions you want, but the final decision should wait until you SEE THE BOOK.




Nice post, Owen.

Well, i'm buying the MM4 regardless. I loved the MM3, even with the errors that i don't really care about, because i am more or less a casual gamer and a +/- 1 missing here and there means zilch to me. I haven't seen the new book, but i am itching to run Red Hand of Doom, and i like the idea of having dragonspawn stats. And minis to boot. So yes, call it waste of my money, but marketing-wise i think it is really, really clever for WotC.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 28, 2006)

OStephens said:
			
		

> Most DMs are casual gamers at best. Most -gamers- are casual gamers. A lot of them if asked to write up a half-red-dragon-lizardman-sorcerer are going to go play WoW instead.




Point.  I hearby withdraw my criticism of including statted critters.  It won't move me to buy the book, but if it helps to gird the gaming field then the inclusion is a good thing.

I still don't think I'm going to like the Spawn, but I have come up with one situation where they'd make sense.  They'd be excellent filler for a dungeon set on Argonessen (that's the dragon continent, right?) in Eberron.  They definitely seem more the sort of thing that I'd expect to find localized, in a module appendix, rather than the implied generalization of a Monster Manual.


----------



## Man-thing (Jun 28, 2006)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> Here's the full list




Okay, so now that we have a list for new miniatures for the plasticrack series, is there any chance we will see a list of Monsters that would appear in a 4th Monster Manual.

This things has way too many commons in it, I may have to wait for the Monster Manual V booster (Though at least there isn't to many dwarves or another iteration of Snig the Axe).


----------



## Kapture (Jun 28, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> Wow, I just freaking knew it. My "spoon-feeding" theory continues to go undebated against.
> 
> "Hey guys let's come up with Monster Manual IV, books that have always provided new and/or converted monsters for everyone's campaign. Big enough to always have a variety of new creatures from all creature types!" [This was the old way]
> 
> ...




Dude. Lay off the coffee.


----------



## Psychic Warrior (Jun 28, 2006)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> Does it somehow boost your ego to needlessly - and anonymously - insult people over something as trifling as a game? Do you really expect to engage in a real discussion that way? Why should anyone listen to you or give your argument any credit whatsoever after being insulted? Do you really believe your viewpoint on the matter is the only valid one? I could just as easily surmise that your life is so bereft of meaning that all you have to do is stat up monsters all day. How would you feel about that?




Truth.  As posted by the Colonel.  You always manage to say what I'm thinking is such a much more polite manner.

Bye Razz.


----------



## Psychic Warrior (Jun 28, 2006)

Man-thing said:
			
		

> Okay, so now that we have a list for new miniatures for the plasticrack series, is there any chance we will see a list of Monsters that would appear in a 4th Monster Manual.
> 
> This things has way too many commons in it, I may have to wait for the Monster Manual V booster (Though at least there isn't to many dwarves or another iteration of Snig the Axe).




I think there is a joke in here somewhere.  Can't seem to find it though.....


----------



## Razz (Jun 28, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Gosh, why would he be insulted by _that_?
> 
> Heaven forfend people just disagree with you. God forbid that WotC produce tools for DMs who don't have much free time, haven't kept notes between campaigns, have never before needed "creature X with class levels," or--gasp!--are new to DMing!
> 
> Damn WotC for not producing books for you and Razz specifically, and ignoring every other possible segment of their market. Good thing you've shown them the error of their ways through reasoned discourse, friendly interaction, and logically constructed arguments.




We have NPC generators online, people can use computers or whatever, you can even have your friends help you write up some NPC stats. I really don't agree with destroying quality&quantity in D&D books lately for the sake of more "convenience." If people don't know by now that D&D takes, I dunno, TIME then maybe they jumped into the wrong game.

There're many ways to reduce time, but developing more and more D&D books that continue to "save time for you" not only stifles creativity but it also greatly diminishes quality and quantity. Hence, the MMIV. It's obvious fact it has the lowest count of monsters of all monster books and completely strays from its traditional purpose. I don't think putting in "Kobold (insert random adjective here)" makes for a truly wonderful and inspiring monster book. 

And exactly how much time are people saving? Some can develop an adventure in an hour or 2, are books trying to help squeeze an extra 10 or 20 minutes of prep time now? I could've swore that was what the DMG2 was for, I recently read the section on how to prep in 1, 2, 3, or 4 hours. That wasn't enough was it, though? Instead, WotC has to do all the work for the person. I haven't heard of anyone I know personally that's played or plays D&D say they have no time, I've met many that actually MADE time for themselves, either a set date once or twice weekly or switching their work schedules around.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jun 28, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> I haven't heard of anyone I know personally that's played or plays D&D say they have no time, I've met many that actually MADE time for themselves, either a set date once or twice weekly or switching their work schedules around.




Perhaps you could break down their ages, marital status, how many children they have, and what their jobs are for us.


----------



## Razz (Jun 28, 2006)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> Perhaps you could break down their ages, marital status, how many children they have, and what their jobs are for us.




Most of them have GFs, are married, or even have kids. I recently met a couple with three kids, and they get together with two of their friends ALL the time it seems.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jun 28, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> Most of them have GFs, are married, or even have kids. I recently met a couple with three kids, and they get together with two of their friends ALL the time it seems.




What are their ages?

By the way, the point isn't that people are saying they don't want to do any prep work whatsoever. I know that I don't mind it. I would just rather spend the time I have working on the background and setting material for my campaigns and adventures, what I consider the creative aspect of it all, than spend it working on statblocks.


----------



## Razz (Jun 28, 2006)

OStephens said:
			
		

> I -am- a contributing author to the MM IV, and I haven't seen anything but the raw files yet, so I actually can't say if I'm going to like the book or not. On the other hand, I'll get three free copies, so it's not like I have to worry about deciding if I want to buy it. And I hope most of you (that play D&D) are smart enough not to make such a decision until you see a copy and flip through it. Because doing anything else is either stupidity, or mean-spiritedness. Period. Form all the early opinions you want, but the final decision should wait until you SEE THE BOOK.




I am sorry, but, that seems to be the strangest thing I have been hearing people say numerously on this thread.

"Wait till you see the book."

And my response is, we have seen all there is to see. We've seen several of the monsters in previews, we know how the monster write-ups will look thanks to showing us the Wizened Elder, and the Table of Contents SAYS IT ALL, pretty much. Exactly what else are we supposed to be looking at? The neat little "For Players" area of the book? I already think that's a fine idea. Is there something special about the "Drow Treeswinger" or whatever we won't know until the book comes out? 

Folks, I really would like to hear what more we're supposed to see from MM4? We've seen previews and the ToC, I  don't believe there's anything much else to point out.


----------



## Razz (Jun 28, 2006)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> What are their ages?
> 
> By the way, the point isn't that people are saying they don't want to do any prep work whatsoever. I know that I don't mind it. I would just rather spend the time I have working on the background and setting material for my campaigns and adventures, what I consider the creative aspect of it all, than spend it working on statblocks.




Late 20s. 

Yes, so you're saying WotC should continue to destroy their quality and quantity for the sake of the books being more and more convenient? Should continue to destroy tradition or themes in order to "test the waters" I apparently seen mmearls state recently. I don't mind them testing new things, but it seems to be a trend with them lately that's been degrading the material significantly. I'd feel a lot better if they came out and said "2006 is the year we're just trying a bunch of new things, you'll see the results of it in 2007 products." Least be honest. But then again, as a rather intelligent friend of mine put it, these spontaneous major changes to the books and game are either a set up for 4E or just an obvious scheme to make more $$$ over quality.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jun 28, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> Late 20s.




So I would assume you're in your 20s also.



			
				Razz said:
			
		

> Yes, so you're saying WotC should continue to destroy their quality and quantity for the sake of the books being more and more convenient?




I have no idea what you mean by "quality and quantity." Something that's more convenient is what I'd consider quality.



			
				Razz said:
			
		

> Should continue to destroy tradition or themes in order to "test the waters" I apparently seen mmearls state recently. I don't mind them testing new things, but it seems to be a trend with them lately that's been degrading the material significantly.




Degrading it from what? What specifically is being degraded?



			
				Razz said:
			
		

> I'd feel a lot better if they came out and said "2006 is the year we're just trying a bunch of new things, you'll see the results of it in 2007 products." Least be honest. But then again, as a rather intelligent friend of mine put it, these spontaneous major changes to the books and game are either a set up for 4E or just an obvious scheme to make more $$$ over quality.




"Quality" is a subjective term, you realize. Just because you don't feel something is "quality" doesn't mean someone else won't feel the opposite. 

Besides all this, if you're interested in doing so much from scratch, and want books to be toolboxes (the kinds of books I prefer, by the way), then what more do you need? Between the core and Unearthed Arcana, all the tools are there to customize the game to your taste. You really don't need anything else.


----------



## Razz (Jun 28, 2006)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> So I would assume you're in your 20s also.




Early 20s, started D&D in 8th grade, with AD&D 2E and moved on to 3E/3.5E (at a painstaking loss of $2500+ from 2E books, though the FR stuff is useful still).



			
				ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> I have no idea what you mean by "quality and quantity." Something that's more convenient is what I'd consider quality.




The PrC format, for example. Designed to help the uninspired, confused, or the skeptical. Takes up quite a number of pages. Loss of more material is a result. Also, the quality of the PrC has been lost, now, thanks to it stifling creativity and I have noticed more and more disagree with the new format. Even those that like it believe it's a little too excessive. That's just one example. Sticking adventures in a book that has nothing to do with what the book is covering, loss of room for something used only once. Why not post them on the web as an WE?



			
				ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> Degrading it from what? What specifically is being degraded?




Mainly the amount of content within the books lately. And the fact that every book is becoming a "We've done the work for you" instead of "Here're the tools, a couple of examples, now go and make your game YOUR game."



			
				ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> "Quality" is a subjective term, you realize. Just because you don't feel something is "quality" doesn't mean someone else won't feel the opposite.




I have realized that, also. For every naysayer for the MM4, for example, there're those who absolutely love it. I still would like to voice out my disagreement with the new format, but then again my voice has no meaning if sales show otherwise.



			
				ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> Besides all this, if you're interested in doing so much from scratch, and want books to be toolboxes (the kinds of books I prefer, by the way), then what more do you need? Between the core and Unearthed Arcana, all the tools are there to customize the game to your taste. You really don't need anything else.




Unearthed Arcana is for game mechanics. What I mean by tools are new spells, PrC, feats, monsters, new systems (that will be supported, btw). I mention mostly crunch material, but I agree with putting the fluff in side by side with it. I believe the greatest books were Player's Handbook 2, Monster Manual 3, Races of Stone, and Draconomicon, for example. The you have your mostly fluff books like Power of Faerun, that was great too. When WotC sets themselves on such a pedestal with such books, then when I see crappy books (made in comparison to those mentioned above, for example) it makes at least someone like me wonder "Why'd they stray from a good thing?" or "Didn't they know any better?" 

I think what it is, they go too far with their "new toys". With the MM4, for example, most of the book is classed monsters from MM3.5 (and for others, it was already minis). Why use the Monster Manual 4 for this? It should've been a separate book or they should've gone in slowly with the new idea. But I assume they were looking for a strong reaction so they plugged half the book with it.

As for "quantity", well, like I have mentioned before. Less monsters now, it has a lower count than even Monsters of Faerun. It's a Monster Manual that should give people more new monsters (and more is better, because they can cover all creature types at least), it's always been that way. I feel like if I get MM4, I am not getting what I was expecting to get when purchasing a Monster Manual, a book on new monsters, and the price remains the same. An *Enemies&Allies II* would've been better for their classed monsters type book.


----------



## BronzeGolem (Jun 28, 2006)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> I have no idea what you mean by "quality and quantity." Something that's more convenient is what I'd consider quality.
> 
> Degrading it from what? What specifically is being degraded?
> 
> "Quality" is a subjective term, you realize. Just because you don't feel something is "quality" doesn't mean someone else won't feel the opposite.




These are all sort of the same point, so I'll explain what I mean by "quality" as far as a Monster Manual is concerned. Quality means, to me and in no particular order, that:

1) There are a lot of monsters.
2) The monsters provided are unique, and are creatures that I couldn't just think of myself.
3) The presentation is good in terms of the formatting.
4) The stat blocks aren't error-laden.

I'll look at MMIV once it comes out, but this is the way things look from the information I've seen so far:

1) MMIV has fewer new monsters than previous Monster Manuals or the Fiend Folio.
2) What monsters it does have...a significant number of them are class-levelled basic creatures, or variations on a theme.
3) It's in the new format, which also has a lot to do with why there are fewer monsters-because it takes up a lot more space.
4) I can't comment on since like I've said before, I haven't seen it yet.


----------



## Owen K.C. Stephens (Jun 28, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> I feel like if I get MM4, I am not getting what I was expecting to get when purchasing a Monster Manual, a book on new monsters, and the price remains the same. An *Enemies&Allies II* would've been better for their classed monsters type book.




You do realize there is no mythic guarantee to have a MM book come out every few years, right? That if the book had been called_ Enemies & Allies II_, it would still be the same freaking book with the same cost? And then, of course, people would be complaining that it had too many new monsters that belonged in an MM product.

As far as I can tell, WotC didn't name the book in a way you like. Sorry. I trust you'll get over it.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 28, 2006)

OStephens said:
			
		

> I trust you'll get over it.



He doesn't get over _anything_.

He's still pissed that Cheers went off the air.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jun 28, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> Early 20s, started D&D in 8th grade, with AD&D 2E and moved on to 3E/3.5E (at a painstaking loss of $2500+ from 2E books, though the FR stuff is useful still).




Well, I'm 40, started playing in 1979. I bought all that 2e stuff on top of the 1e stuff and some of the older D&D stuff. So my own "loss" (if it can be called that) when 3e came along was even greater.





			
				Razz said:
			
		

> The PrC format, for example. Designed to help the uninspired, confused, or the skeptical. Takes up quite a number of pages. Loss of more material is a result. Also, the quality of the PrC has been lost, now, thanks to it stifling creativity and I have noticed more and more disagree with the new format. Even those that like it believe it's a little too excessive.




Actually, as I said on the other thread about "putting the A back into D&D," I like having some context for prestige classes. It gives an indication of what the designer had in mind. Too many prestige classes are just tossed out there and often are concepts that could've been better covered by way of multiclassing and feat and skill selection. This format forces some thought be put into them. Doesn't mean all of the recent ones are great, but the ones I've seen have generally been a bit better thought-out. 



			
				Razz said:
			
		

> That's just one example. Sticking adventures in a book that has nothing to do with a new adventure module is another, loss of room for something used only once. Why not post them on the web as an WE?




I don't like full-blown adventures in the hardbacks either, but many of the ones in the recent books seem like what could be used as "typical" dwellings for cretaures and classes, which could, therefore, be re-used as random encounters. In addition, they could help establish "styles" for certain creatures, which could either help or hinder players (and characters) when they come in sight of the lairs.





			
				Razz said:
			
		

> Mainly the amount of content within the books lately. And the fact that every book is becoming a "We've done the work for you" instead of "Here're the tools, a couple of examples, now go and make your game YOUR game."




Yeah, but as I was getting at earlier, if someone is that inclined to do things on their own, why would they even need good-sized books of new rules crunch? It's a paradoxical notion. 





			
				Razz said:
			
		

> I have realized that, also. For every naysayer for the MM4, for example, there're those who absolutely love it. I still would like to voice out my disagreement with the new format, but then again my voice has no meaning if sales show otherwise.




And when people pipe-up in opposition to something I favor, I feel I should reply so as to make my position known, also.





			
				Razz said:
			
		

> Unearthed Arcana is for game mechanics. What I mean by tools are new spells, PrC, feats, monsters, new systems (that will be supported, btw).




Isn't there a ton of any of these elements already out there? I like choice, but there is so much choice now that I think there's plenty of room for WotC to switch things up now and then. I already have all the MMs, the three Tomes of Horror, the Monsternomicon, monster books from Bastion and any number of other companies...more monsters than I could ever use, especially with templates and classes. I'd rather have quality over quantity now, and I feel the format the MMIV is using is quality.



			
				Razz said:
			
		

> I mention mostly crunch material, but I agree with putting the fluff in side by side with it. I believe the greatest books were Player's Handbook 2, Monster Manual 3, Races of Stone, and Draconomicon, for example. The you have your mostly fluff books like Power of Faerun, that was great too. When WotC sets themselves on such a pedestal with such books, then when I see crappy books (made in comparison to those mentioned above, for example) it makes at least someone like me wonder "Why'd they stray from a good thing?" or "Didn't they know any better?"




I actually think all the books you list were really good. So I don't exactly see where the disconnect is occurring here.



			
				Razz said:
			
		

> I think what it is, they go too far with their "new toys". With the MM4, for example, most of the book is classed monsters from MM3.5 (and for others, it was already minis). Why use the Monster Manual 4 for this? It should've been a separate book or they should've gone in slowly with the new idea. But I assume they were looking for a strong reaction so they plugged half the book with it.




I haven't looked at the ToC closely, so I don't know if "most" of the MMIV is advanced/classed older critters. But, I will say that I'd liek to see a "Rogue's Gallery" product separate from the monster books, but that doesn't mean I think it's a bad thing here.



			
				Razz said:
			
		

> As for "quantity", well, like I have mentioned before. Less monsters now, it has a lower count than even Monsters of Faerun. It's a Monster Manual that should give people more new monsters (and more is better, because they can cover all creature types at least), it's always been that way. I feel like if I get MM4, I am not getting what I was expecting to get when purchasing a Monster Manual, a book on new monsters, and the price remains the same. An *Enemies&Allies II* would've been better for their classed NPCs type book.




Like I said above, there are tons of critters to choose from already. Doing something different in this book is preferrable, to me, than yet another collection of critters along the lines of the worst of TSR - the endless reams of half-baked critters in the various Spelljammer Monstrous Compendiums. As it is, there are examples of such stuff in the MMs and the Fiend Folio as it is.


----------



## Razz (Jun 28, 2006)

OStephens said:
			
		

> You do realize there is no mythic guarantee to have a MM book come out every few years, right? That if the book had been called_ Enemies & Allies II_, it would still be the same freaking book with the same cost? And then, of course, people would be complaining that it had too many new monsters that belonged in an MM product.
> 
> As far as I can tell, WotC didn't name the book in a way you like. Sorry. I trust you'll get over it.




You completely took my post the wrong way.

I said the classed monsters should've been in a book titled *Enemies&Allies II * and the Monster Manual 4 should've stayed just that, a book of "monsters". Not mix the two in one book and market it as Monster Manual 4. It's half the book being nothing but classed "classical" monsters that most people are peeved about (that and the numerous amount of spawns of Tiamat, also)


----------



## Henry (Jun 28, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> Folks, I really would like to hear what more we're supposed to see from MM4? We've seen previews and the ToC, I  don't believe there's anything much else to point out.




_The Book._


----------



## Razz (Jun 28, 2006)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> Well, I'm 40, started playing in 1979. I bought all that 2e stuff on top of the 1e stuff and some of the older D&D stuff. So my own "loss" (if it can be called that) when 3e came along was even greater.




I see it only as a loss because I don't remember the last time I looked back on a 2E book I own that wasn't Forgotten Realms. They're just sitting there taking up space in my home. My friends, who've helped me purchase many of the books as well, are peeved at the loss of their cash, too, seeing it sit unused on a shelf in some dank storage area. They got over it, but it leaves a bad taste about D&D still.




			
				ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> Actually, as I said on the other thread about "putting the A back into D&D," I like having some context for prestige classes. It gives an indication of what the designer had in mind. Too many prestige classes are just tossed out there and often are concepts that could've been better covered by way of multiclassing and feat and skill selection. This format forces some thought be put into them. Doesn't mean all of the recent ones are great, but the ones I've seen have generally been a bit better thought-out.




Problem is, it's too much text and it's text none of my players find inspiring in the least. Mainly because the text entails a "This is how you shoud play one" instead of "You can play it like this, or this, or this". I had a veteran player of mine look over a few of them, he came up with concepts for the way he'd play those PrC totally different than what was suggested. But, then again he's a veteran, and the text was geared towards newbies mostly. I believe that is the trend we are seeing in D&D, more stuff for brand new people. Is it a bad thing? Not entirely, but you can get similar information for free on message boards like this.



			
				ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> I don't like full-blown adventures in the hardbacks either, but many of the ones in the recent books seem like what could be used as "typical" dwellings for cretaures and classes, which could, therefore, be re-used as random encounters. In addition, they could help establish "styles" for certain creatures, which could either help or hinder players (and characters) when they come in sight of the lairs.




A couple of dwellings and such work out fine, I can see it's reasoning in Draconomicon for example, but don't stick more than one mini-adventure in a book that isn't an adventure book. Stormwrack was a good example of that, I believe they stuck 3 adventures in it. 



			
				ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> Yeah, but as I was getting at earlier, if someone is that inclined to do things on their own, why would they even need good-sized books of new rules crunch? It's a paradoxical notion.




Crafting crunch is way harder than the fluff. There was a poster on the D&D message boards that explained it very well, in fact. WotC actually has an R&D team to do just that, balance out and test such material and then allow it to be released to the public. Same concept as "It's easier to upgrade a monster than to downgrade one" from FCI, so they gave us a "base" stat for the demon lords.  



			
				ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> Isn't there a ton of any of these elements already out there? I like choice, but there is so much choice now that I think there's plenty of room for WotC to switch things up now and then. I already have all the MMs, the three Tomes of Horror, the Monsternomicon, monster books from Bastion and any number of other companies...more monsters than I could ever use, especially with templates and classes. I'd rather have quality over quantity now, and I feel the format the MMIV is using is quality.




There's choice, but there's simply always the fact that one of my players asks for something not covered by WotC. 5 years I've had one player eagerly wait for me to come to him and say "They released a lightning-element monk PrC finally" and then he can finally play the character he wants. He's going to be waiting a long time, unfortunately. Should I craft the PrC on my own? Some do, but I don't. I don't believe my job is to do that and I can't make a balanced PrC for the life of me anyway. Plus it has that "unofficial" feel to it that my players don't like either. As for 3rd party products, we really don't use any for the same reason. Sounds silly, but it's just the type of games we prefer.



			
				ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> I actually think all the books you list were really good. So I don't exactly see where the disconnect is occurring here.




They are good, but now why did Races of Destiny turn out horrible? If they based it on Races of Stone's workmanship, it wouldn't have been bashed the way it was. Same goes for Libris Mortis, but fortunately they took a step back up with Lords of Madness instead of down as they usually do. Give Libris Mortis the same page count as Draconomicon and quality, it would've had better reponses.



			
				ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> I haven't looked at the ToC closely, so I don't know if "most" of the MMIV is advanced/classed older critters. But, I will say that I'd liek to see a "Rogue's Gallery" product separate from the monster books, but that doesn't mean I think it's a bad thing here.




The ToC was a big disappointment, to me at least. And I wholeheartedly agree with you that such creatures should've been presented in a "Rogues' Gallery" type book.



			
				ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> Like I said above, there are tons of critters to choose from already. Doing something different in this book is preferrable, to me, than yet another collection of critters along the lines of the worst of TSR - the endless reams of half-baked critters in the various Spelljammer Monstrous Compendiums. As it is, there are examples of such stuff in the MMs and the Fiend Folio as it is.




Like I've stated, I believe that 2006 must be the Year of Testing the Waters or something, because they've been doing many different things lately. I just hope it all changes for the better in 2007, sucks I have to miss out on MM4 and Mysteries of the Moonsea, 2 books I was looking forward to and I am now not purchasing just so I can hope the sales are low enough not to do something similar again.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jun 28, 2006)

OStephens said:
			
		

> And I hope most of you (that play D&D) are smart enough not to make such a decision until you see a copy and flip through it. Because doing anything else is either stupidity, or mean-spiritedness. Period. Form all the early opinions you want, but the final decision should wait until you SEE THE BOOK.




That "stupidity" is selling books though.  My guess is that a good percentage of people are buying the book with minimal review or less, probably over the internet.  It seems unlikely that folks would have changed the name to "Allies and Enemies II" for that reason alone.  It seems reasonable that WotC is well aware of the name recognition it gets from "Monster Manual".  The title would be unimportant if they thought all of their customers were going to based their decisions off of a thorough review of the contents only.

I think it's also unfair to think that forming an opinion based on what you see of the ToC (supposedly released for that purpose!?) is stupid.  I guess it's only stupid if your opinion is negative.  I'll be pleasantly surprised if I'm somehow too stupid to know what "githyanki soldier" means in rough terms.  I'll flip through it when it's released if for no other reason than to feel like a genius for a brief moment.

Also, though I'm not an expert on the business, I would caution against assuming that MM IV sales indicate that the MM IV approach was correct.  It's likely that the MM III's quality contributes as much to the MM IV's sales.  What I remember from 2E is that people tend to give the products a chance, and then at some point stop buying - even though the mistakes were probably made several products prior.  But that's my own narrow experience based on my friend's purchasing habits.  I imagine (hope) that the business people have a handle on that.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 28, 2006)

OStephens said:
			
		

> Most DMs are casual gamers at best. Most -gamers- are casual gamers. A lot of them if asked to write up a half-red-dragon-lizardman-sorcerer are going to go play WoW instead.



Agreed completely.

But this seems to be a poor approach to solving the problem.  
Wouldn't a full collection with a range of levels serve casual gamers better than here is the one and only half-red-dragon-lizardman-sorcerer we have to offer?



> Not interested? Fine the book isn't for you. Most books aren't. They're for run-of-the-mill gamers who just want to A: Kill something and B: Take its stuff.



Certainly fair enough.

But is it ok to be dissapointed that the book appears to be half and half?
I'm interested in a Monster Manual. I don't know if I'm interested in an Enemies and Allies book or not. I know I'm not particularly interested in and Enemies and Allies book where the levels are constrained on me.

So, what do I do when half the book is for me and half is not for me?
Pay full price for half a book?
Or know that there is half a book out there that is probably pretty decent, but overpriced by a factor of 2?
And if you're WotC, why sell one title when you could have done two?
And I don't mean that as an "Gee, I could run D&D a lot better than WotC does" comment.  Just this one specific questions seems glaring.

Drow Ninja 4 is fine.  No complaints.
Its the whole half and half thing.



> If you aren't one of them just be aware they're out there, they outnumber you, as a whole they have more money than you, and they need help.



So your advice to me, as a contributor,  is "Don't buy this book"?
No snark intended.  That is what I'm hearing and I'd like to be clear.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 28, 2006)

OStephens said:
			
		

> You do realize there is no mythic guarantee to have a MM book come out every few years, right? That if the book had been called_ Enemies & Allies II_, it would still be the same freaking book with the same cost? And then, of course, people would be complaining that it had too many new monsters that belonged in an MM product.



And they would be correct.
IMO, two different ideas have been blended and trying to put both under one umbrella will meet with false expectations no matter which title you use.
Do more monsters, such as the ones you said got dropped, AND more enemies and do a book of EACH.



> As far as I can tell, WotC didn't name the book in a way you like. Sorry. I trust you'll get over it.



eh, No moreso than if Spell Compendium was 50% spells and 50% feats.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 28, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> I see it only as a loss because I don't remember the last time I looked back on a 2E book I own that wasn't Forgotten Realms. They're just sitting there taking up space in my home. My friends, who've helped me purchase many of the books as well, are peeved at the loss of their cash, too, seeing it sit unused on a shelf in some dank storage area. They got over it, but it leaves a bad taste about D&D still.




Uhm...if it bothers you and your players that much, why switch to 3E?  Not trying to be an ass, I'm just curious.


----------



## Razz (Jun 28, 2006)

I am starting to think the whole "Don't buy the book" thing is I guess their way of subtely saying "If you help the sales be lower than expected, you won't see something like this again." At least those are my high hopes, anyway.

I've made my point enough here, MM4 I believe is the wrong direction for them to take, I won't contribute to its sales, and I hope I never see something similiar again. 

There's always next year, and I am looking forward to Complete Mage, Castle Ravenloft, Dragon Magic, and FC2. I haven't lost ALL hope for WotC.....yet. 

And if you see MM5 with stuff like "Goblin Fisherman" "Goblin Charger" and about 50 other versions of the goblin, don't say I didn't tell you so.   

Out.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jun 28, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> Crafting crunch is way harder than the fluff. There was a poster on the D&D message boards that explained it very well, in fact. WotC actually has an R&D team to do just that, balance out and test such material and then allow it to be released to the public. Same concept as "It's easier to upgrade a monster than to downgrade one" from FCI, so they gave us a "base" stat for the demon lords.
> 
> 
> 
> There's choice, but there's simply always the fact that one of my players asks for something not covered by WotC. 5 years I've had one player eagerly wait for me to come to him and say "They released a lightning-element monk PrC finally" and then he can finally play the character he wants. He's going to be waiting a long time, unfortunately. Should I craft the PrC on my own? Some do, but I don't. I don't believe my job is to do that and I can't make a balanced PrC for the life of me anyway. Plus it has that "unofficial" feel to it that my players don't like either. As for 3rd party products, we really don't use any for the same reason. Sounds silly, but it's just the type of games we prefer.




OK, these parts of your post are the most relevant to what people react to in your posts in general. You can't have it two ways. You can't claim people are bad or lazy DMs and then say you have spent 5 YEARS listening to a player ask for something and not make it on your own. That's PRECISELY the DM's job - to create elements that specifically fit into your campaign. It can be reasoned that it is a poor DM that doesn't do so. 

You can't tell us that it's just sheer laziness to want premade stat blocks without also admitting to laziness for not actually creating something _that fits directly into your specific campaign world_. The latter is even more the province of the DM than the simple, yet time consuming grunt work of stat block creation. Why is the crap work something you feel the DM should be doing, but the actual _creative_ work, the stuff that makes a DM a DM, is something you shouldn't have to do? If anything smacks of laziness or poor DMing, it's something like that. Why not craft the prestige class with the assiatance of the player, run it for a few test sesssions, and see how it works out? As the DM, you can simply explain that it's in playtest at your table, and you reserve the right to determine if it is balanced or not.

That's what a good, unlazy DM would do, rather than rely on being spoon-fed "official" material.


----------



## Henry (Jun 28, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> eh, No moreso than if Spell Compendium was 50% spells and 50% feats.




And as an amusing anecdote, Spell Compendium was all reprinted material, too. I'd daresay that  what the TOC of MM4 is showing me is that MM4 is more new material than the Spell Compendium.


----------



## Sammael (Jun 28, 2006)

Somebody should kindly point OStephens to the thread which showed that most people's buying habits are influenced by the designers' personal opinions. I don't think WotC would want the sort of negative marketing that he (she?) is currently providing.


----------



## Razz (Jun 28, 2006)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> Uhm...if it bothers you and your players that much, why switch to 3E?  Not trying to be an ass, I'm just curious.




Because we didn't start from the beginning of 2E, thankfully, and we all realized 3E was fifty times better than 2E in terms of mechanics and the way we wanted our games to be. That and the fact we'll never be able to play D&D if we didn't convert except for rehashing the same stuff. So we switched.

But 3E is where we'll stop. Thanks to its multitude of options and, we won't need a 4E.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jun 28, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> Somebody should kindly point OStephens to the thread which showed that most people's buying habits are influenced by the designers' personal opinions. I don't think WotC would want the sort of negative marketing that he (she?) is currently providing.





Most people responding to that specific thread said that, but that doesn't mean WotC doesn't have much more comprehensive figures to go by. That poll is by no means a good random sample.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 29, 2006)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> Most people responding to that specific thread said that, but that doesn't mean WotC doesn't have much more comprehensive figures to go by. That poll is by no means a good random sample.




That poll is utter BS, actually. It's completely meaningless in terms of sales, such things don't even reach anyone's radar that isn't an avid reader of EN World, in which case they're buying the books they want regardless of who made it...because content is all that matters to your game.

Really, people, it's ludicrous to give credence to that poll, regardless of whether or not you don't pick up Mysteries of the Moonsea because I wrote part of it or not.  See, there I go, torpedoing that book's sales! Oh no!  I mean, flip it around and see if you think it makes sense: "Gee, there are so many negative people on an internet message board, I'm going to quit designing games!"

Doesn't sound too likely, does it?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 29, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Actually, presenting a balanced perspective would provide the "good" of added credibility.




To what end? Leaving aside the fact that it's woefully unprofessional to go slagging a fellow writer's work in public, I risk offending people who I may very well be working with on my next gig. I love the ENWorld community, and I certainly hope that my opinions are valued here, but I'm not about to alienate my co-workers to provide the illusion of balance to a few posters who apparently already assume that my positive opinions have been bought.

Yes, the fact that I work for WotC influences what I'll say in public. I won't lie (though of course, you have only my word on that). I won't come out and say that a book is great if I don't think it is. I won't defend a book that I think is poorly designed.

But I won't come out and bash them, either. I'm sorry if it disturbs people to hear that, but that's simply the way it works in the real world. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

If I see a product that I feel is being unfairly slammed, I'll defend it. If I have a positive opinion about something, I'll express it. If I have a negative one, well... I'm happy to share those opinions with the writers, on a private forum, if asked. Going on about it here does nobody any good.



> It also isn't fair to discard all negative response as "rants".




I don't believe I did that. I've seen lots of critiques that have merit. There are even some in this thread. The specific ones I responded to are, IMO, not among them.


----------



## Sammael (Jun 29, 2006)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> That poll is utter BS, actually. It's completely meaningless in terms of sales, such things don't even reach anyone's radar that isn't an avid reader of EN World, in which case they're buying the books they want regardless of who made it...because content is all that matters to your game.



This is only partially true. For instance, I have a lot of gaming friends who don't read ENWorld, at least not on a regular basis. However, they almost always ask me for book recommendations, since they know I keep informed about the current book releases and book reviews. All I would have to do to influence their purchases is _not recommend a particular book because of its author_. Now, none of the designers in this thread have done anything to warrant such an action from me (in fact, I have nothing but respect for Wil, Ari, and Mike, although I must admit I know next to nothing about OStephens), but there are other designers out there who have.



> Really, people, it's ludicrous to give credence to that poll, regardless of whether or not you don't pick up Mysteries of the Moonsea because I wrote part of it or not.  See, there I go, torpedoing that book's sales! Oh no!



You'll note that I didn't point YOU out to that thread. It's all in the attitude.



> I mean, flip it around and see if you think it makes sense: "Gee, there are so many negative people on an internet message board, I'm going to quit designing games!"
> 
> Doesn't sound too likely, does it?



I know of at least two artists who quit producing D&D artwork because of negative reactions to their works. Perhaps artists are more sensitive, or have more opportunities for work outside the industry?


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 29, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> This is only partially true. For instance, I have a lot of gaming friends who don't read ENWorld, at least not on a regular basis. However, they almost always ask me for book recommendations, since they know I keep informed about the current book releases and book reviews. All I would have to do to influence their purchases is _not recommend a particular book because of its author_. Now, none of the designers in this thread have done anything to warrant such an action from me (in fact, I have nothing but respect for Wil, Ari, and Mike, although I must admit I know next to nothing about OStephens), but there are other designers out there who have.




I can see your point to an extent, I certainly will avoid certain art because I don't like the people that produce it, but I think the RPG industry is different in a couple of ways.

1. The commercial impact of a designer on a book is virtually nil, so no amount of consumer feedback on the author is going to influence whether or not that author gets work again. This is different in more passive media like films or fine art, where artist/actor/director impression can make a big difference to the bottom line (MI:3 for instance).

2. RPG books are, for the most part, instruction manuals written in an entertaining and imaginative way. Your personal feelings about a writer aren't going to really impact how you *use* the book, so in my opinion the incentive to make judgments is lessened by that fact. If you don't like the way a writer writes, that's one thing, because part of the product is the enjoyment of reading it.



			
				Sammael said:
			
		

> You'll note that I didn't point YOU out to that thread. It's all in the attitude.




I know, I don't take anything on the net personally, that's why I find it so funny when people accuse me of being a corporate shill or of artistic defensiveness. Like Ari, I just won't slag a book I don't like, unless I really don't like the author either (geez, that Heroes of Horror, now that's some crap...umm, seeya Saturday Ari!...ehehehe.   ) 




			
				Sammael said:
			
		

> I know of at least two artists who quit producing D&D artwork because of negative reactions to their works. Perhaps artists are more sensitive, or have more opportunities for work outside the industry?




Both are correct, in my experience. Artists are more sensitive about their work than RPG designers. Even still, artists that flame out are about as rare as writers that flame out (What *is* that smell, anyway?). And, artists with any talent can find jobs in their field outside RPGs much more easily than writers. For the most part, this is because it's easier to tell crappy art than it is crappy writing, so there are more crappy writers with jobs out there than crappy artists. Sigh, nobody respects the written word...*melodramatic Brontean wistfulness*


----------



## Razz (Jun 29, 2006)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> OK, these parts of your post are the most relevant to what people react to in your posts in general. You can't have it two ways. You can't claim people are bad or lazy DMs and then say you have spent 5 YEARS listening to a player ask for something and not make it on your own. That's PRECISELY the DM's job - to create elements that specifically fit into your campaign. It can be reasoned that it is a poor DM that doesn't do so.
> 
> You can't tell us that it's just sheer laziness to want premade stat blocks without also admitting to laziness for not actually creating something _that fits directly into your specific campaign world_. The latter is even more the province of the DM than the simple, yet time consuming grunt work of stat block creation. Why is the crap work something you feel the DM should be doing, but the actual _creative_ work, the stuff that makes a DM a DM, is something you shouldn't have to do? If anything smacks of laziness or poor DMing, it's something like that. Why not craft the prestige class with the assiatance of the player, run it for a few test sesssions, and see how it works out? As the DM, you can simply explain that it's in playtest at your table, and you reserve the right to determine if it is balanced or not.
> 
> That's what a good, unlazy DM would do, rather than rely on being spoon-fed "official" material.




See, there is a big difference between the two.

As a DM, I should not have to create new game mechanics and playtest them. That is not what a DM does. He is to run the game with what he is given and the rest what he makes up. Not game mechanics. It is not his job to create a feat for a player and playtest that feat a few sessions. That takes up too much time, causes too much stress, and causes a lot of Player-DM debates. A DM can choose to do that for his games if he'd like, but I don't believe it is a requirement in order to play and enjoy the game.

A perfect reason for why I should'nt be required to make my own lightning-element monk prestige class. I had written some psionic powers for Bruce Cordell, which he edited and posted on his site long ago. Eventually some of those powers ended up on the D&D site, but not the power Bend Space. I kept it in the game, however, and my player's Psychic Warrior used it for a few sessions. Eventually, me and even the other players realized it was too powerful, at least for its power level. Course, the player didn't feel that way. There was a lot of debates, hostility and tension in the group. After some time, the Mind's Eye took the power and edited properly and balanced it perfectly. Now we're all happy...except for the player now. There was a lot of argument and it sucks to have to "reverse time" in the sessions to explain the new changes to the psionic power. It left a very inconsistent feel to our games after that. It also was not worth it at all. Not worth the wasted time on playtesting and arguing and D&D is a game to play, not to playtest new material. Cause we have tons of ideas for new stuff, we just don't ever implement them because it's obviously not going to do us any good. Since then, I've pretty much stated I'm never doing that again. That's WotC's job, I am quite comfortable doing everything else a DM is actually supposed to do. If it's from WotC, no one complains, everyone's happy, and no time is lost or wasted.

So, no, I am not a lazy DM. I am a smart DM for avoiding unneccesary elements to a D&D game. And I am a smart DM who can come up with his own reasons for a certain PrC fits in his world, create his own organizations, create his own NPCs and classed monsters, and create his own adventures. And I work a 40 hour/week job and have a wife and in college. I found time, I am sure anyone else can, too.

But this is going way off topic. This is supposed to be about MM4, not how WotC should be doing things and how they shouldn't be. Nor is it a let's bash Razz's negative comment thread either. I've had too many of those. I am heading off this thread, no need to reply. I've stated my point about MM4 and it's done. If you want, you can start a thread on this or keep in in private messages.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 29, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> To what end? Leaving aside the fact that it's woefully unprofessional to go slagging a fellow writer's work in public, I risk offending people who I may very well be working with on my next gig. I love the ENWorld community, and I certainly hope that my opinions are valued here, but I'm not about to alienate my co-workers to provide the illusion of balance to a few posters who apparently already assume that my positive opinions have been bought.
> 
> Yes, the fact that I work for WotC influences what I'll say in public. I won't lie (though of course, you have only my word on that). I won't come out and say that a book is great if I don't think it is. I won't defend a book that I think is poorly designed.
> 
> ...




And I certainly wouldn't slam my employer or clients in public either.
Justifying that to me doesn't add new information.

The point is, if you get paid by them and only say gushing things, then the value of those comments will be, correctly, discounted.  Having good reasons for it notwithstanding.

You not bashing stuff from them you does not disturb me, or anyone else that I know of.  Me, nor anyone else, has said that it does.

But what I HAVE said is that knowing you are not going to bite the hand that feeds is going to strongly color the way your comments are taken.  I'm sorry if it disturbs you to hear that, but that's simply the way it works in the real world.



> I don't believe I did that. I've seen lots of critiques that have merit. There are even some in this thread. The specific ones I responded to are, IMO, not among them.



In the post I replied to you said:


> I never said WotC can do no wrong. I tend not to bother wasting my time ranting about products--from WotC or anyone else--that I dislike. I have better things to do. For the record, I can think of several books out from WotC recently that I wasn't fond of. I can think of several design decisions I'm not happy with. But it does nobody any good for me to harp on those, does it?




Your own words, in the context of material you had reasonable basis for being unhappy with, the only word you use to describe posting about it was "ranting".  Now if that is not the implication you intended, I understand.  I certainly have said things that did not come across as intended on plenty of occasions.  But I was replying to what you said.


----------



## Owen K.C. Stephens (Jun 29, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> You completely took my post the wrong way.
> 
> I said the classed monsters should've been in a book titled *Enemies&Allies II * and the Monster Manual 4 should've stayed just that, a book of "monsters". Not mix the two in one book and market it as Monster Manual 4. It's half the book being nothing but classed "classical" monsters that most people are peeved about (that and the numerous amount of spawns of Tiamat, also)





Okay. Look in the 3.5 MM. Look at the ogre. There's a classed version right there. The precedent is set, the MM series includes classed versions of monsters. There are several more of those throughout the book. If they hadn't been included, there would have been room for at least 5 more monsters, maybe more.

But since many races are likely to have lots of classes examples, the MM IV gives them to you. Also, it presents some of the most popular creatures in the new monster format, which is popular with a lot of folks.

And... half the book?

Elf, drow = 5 pages at most
Githyanki = 4 pages "
Gnoll = 3 pages (including a lair) "
Lizardfolk = 7 pages "
Ogre = 5 pages "
Orc = 5 pages "
Yaun-ti = 4 pages "

That's 32 pages. Less than 15% of the page count! A far, far cry from half the book.

Even the Spawn of Tiamat only take up 36 pages, and that's for 14 monsters and a lair! together those elements are 68 pages, still less than half the book. Together, they're not quite a third of the book.

Now if you think you're going to hate and dislike those elements, you may not want to buy the book. Same deal for someone who doesn't like outsiders picking up the Fiend Folio. But this -isn't- a huge change in what we get when we bought previous MM-type books.


----------



## Owen K.C. Stephens (Jun 29, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> If people don't know by now that D&D takes, I dunno, TIME then maybe they jumped into the wrong game.
> 
> Some can develop an adventure in an hour or 2, are books trying to help squeeze an extra 10 or 20 minutes of prep time now?




Your dedication is, in all seriousness, to be commended. Unfortunately, to make a living WotC has to sell books to people with less time and creativity than you.

There are DMs out there who need a lot more hand-holding than you do. Sample adventures and sample lairs are there not only so they have a ready-made scenario with no work, but to give them an -example- of how to use these elements. For a lot of poeple, that's a huge help.

Not me. Apparently not you. But those people have more money than us. They outnumber us, and WotC wants them to keep buying D&D books, even if those folks didn't realize what a time commitment crafting an interesting, well-designed campaign can be.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 29, 2006)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> Most people responding to that specific thread said that, but that doesn't mean WotC doesn't have much more comprehensive figures to go by. That poll is by no means a good random sample.



 Not to mention that not everyone is going to see Owen's presence in this thread as anything close to "negative".


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 29, 2006)

It's not always about time before the game.  Sometimes it's about time during the game.  I just had a thread going about "secrets to winging it" -- if I want to run a more free-flowing game, then pre-statted characters are going to be pretty helpful to me.  What I resent is the condescending, there's-only-one-right-way-to-play attitude from Razz and others.  It's rude, and there's no getting around it.  


If you don't like something, fine!  Say it, sing it, do a tap dance!  But to go around painting those who think it might be fun, or useful, or helpful, or interesting as stupid and lazy and in need of hand-holding is just wrong.


----------



## Owen K.C. Stephens (Jun 29, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Agreed completely.
> But is it ok to be dissapointed that the book appears to be half and half?




It's okay to be dissappointed for any reason at all. Do keep in mind the classed monsters are less than 15% of the page count, however.




			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> So, what do I do when half the book is for me and half is not for me?
> Pay full price for half a book?




Tough call. But it can come up with any game-type book. What if you want rules for shadow magic, but hate everything else in _Tome of Magic?_ What if you love Ninja, but hate everything else in _Complete Adventurer_? You're just going to have to decide if this book has enough utility for you. For some people, new classed ogres are a huge bonus. That's more useable stat blocks without having to introduce whole new ecologies or communities. They -have- ogres in their game, they're unlikely to add a "corrupture" just because it's in some monster book. For you, the balance seems to be different.



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> So your advice to me, as a contributor,  is "Don't buy this book"?
> No snark intended.  That is what I'm hearing and I'd like to be clear.




No, my adviuce, as a gamer, is "Don't buy this book until you've got a good idea it's worth it to you." Flip through a copy if you can. Talk to friends that buy it. Check the actual word counts of various entries. Consider how many pages of dragons and dinosaurs from the MM you never used (or whatever critters you haven't used -- almost no one gets them all into one campaign.) See if anything does spark your interest. Look at your gaming budget, and then make a judgement call.

As a contributor, I have no special advice. I did my best. We all did. But we are not unique snowflakes. We don't game with you, buy you pizza, or tell stories about how your Paladin once one-shot a beholder with a critical hit while charging and smiting evil. We don't know what you need. Only you need that. We try to make as many people as happy as possible, with products that have the broadest appeal they can. Only you know if you're our target audiance.

Owen K.C. Stephens


----------



## DMH (Jun 29, 2006)

Anyone know if there are going to be spawn of bahamat? It seems uneven to have only evil dragonspawn.


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 29, 2006)

OStephens said:
			
		

> We don't game with you, buy you pizza...




And why *don't * you buy us pizza, anyway?



(Of course, even if you did, some would complain about the toppings you chose.    )


----------



## Owen K.C. Stephens (Jun 29, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> Somebody should kindly point OStephens to the thread which showed that most people's buying habits are influenced by the designers' personal opinions. I don't think WotC would want the sort of negative marketing that he (she?) is currently providing.




It's "he." Owen K.C. Stephens. I didn't mean to be anonymous.

While you may well be right WotC would rather I shut my yap, they're a client, not my boss. They don't pay me enough to control my every hour or thought. That said, I seriously doubt anything I say here is going to create a noticeable blip in their sales.

You're all adults, or close enough. I'm going to treat you as adults, and give you the respect of not sugar-coating everything I have to say. Some of it is pro-WotC. Some isn't. Some is going to turn off people. Some is going to interest new people. I've been told people want to hear what professional game designers think, so here I am. And if I ever end up with the power to noticeably raise or lower any company's sales, I assure you I can make money off that too.

Owen K.C. Stephens


----------



## Sammael (Jun 29, 2006)

Sorry for not being sure about your identity, Owen. Neither WotC product catalogue nor Amazon list you as an author (in fact, they only list Gwendolyn Kestrel), and I am not familiar with your previous work. Most designers who post on ENworld have full names listed in their sigs.

And I really like the attitude of WotC being your client. :thumbsup:


----------



## Owen K.C. Stephens (Jun 29, 2006)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> And why *don't * you buy us pizza, anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Owen K.C. Stephens (Jun 29, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> Sorry for not being sure about your identity, Owen. Neither WotC product catalogue nor Amazon list you as an author (in fact, they only list Gwendolyn Kestrel), and I am not familiar with your previous work.




It's okay, I'm not easily offended. Sigh. I gues Mearls is right, after about 10 books you're not going to get more famous.

Allow me to introduce... me. I wrote Starships of the Galaxy (and a bunch of Star Wars), Befallen (and a bunch of EverQuest), Bastards and Bloodlines and the Advanced Gamemaster's Guide (and chunks of Black Company and Thieves' World), d20 Cyberscape (and a bunch of d20 Modern, and I'm the Bullet Points answer-guy for WotC), Battle Armor and Loot 4 Less (and I was art director for the Stand-Ins Printable figures), a slew of Dragon articles, some stuff that takes up too much room to list, and I have a monthly Pyramid column. I was on the rpg Origins Awards jury last year.

Impressed yet? Yeah, me neither. All that and I still wait in line at movie premieres and fast-food joints. But I -did- stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!



			
				Sammael said:
			
		

> Most designers who post on ENworld have full names listed in their sigs.




And now, so do I.


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 29, 2006)

Oh, and I met him in person at GenCon 2000.  Might have been right after the DM's Boot Camp or something.  So I can confirm that he's real, and not some AI.  Though he could be an android!


----------



## Owen K.C. Stephens (Jun 29, 2006)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Oh, and I met him in person at GenCon 2000.  Might have been right after the DM's Boot Camp or something.  So I can confirm that he's real, and not some AI.  Though he could be an android!




OMG, Eric. I can not BELIEVE you remember that. Yeah, on the steps after boot camp and the slide show.

I was so impressed to meet THE Eric Noah. You were the talk of the WotC halls at the time (where I worked full time in 2000).


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jun 29, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> But this is going way off topic. This is supposed to be about MM4, not how WotC should be doing things and how they shouldn't be. Nor is it a let's bash Razz's negative comment thread either. I've had too many of those. I am heading off this thread, no need to reply. I've stated my point about MM4 and it's done. If you want, you can start a thread on this or keep in in private messages.




Naw, I think my point was made quite well enough here.


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 29, 2006)

> OMG, Eric. I can not BELIEVE you remember that. Yeah, on the steps after boot camp and the slide show.
> 
> I was so impressed to meet THE Eric Noah. You were the talk of the WotC halls at the time (where I worked full time in 2000).



LOL. 

The most memorable reaction I got from introducing myself was from Jonathan Tweet.  You shoulda seen the look on his face ... "Oh ... THAT guy ..."


----------



## Aeolius (Jun 29, 2006)

OStephens said:
			
		

> ...I wrote...Bastards and Bloodlines...




Given my propensity to crossbreed hags, undersea critters, and other beasties, I did pick that one up.  

As for pizza... black olives and mushrooms, please. (that oughta start a flame war)

I'll have to wait until I see some MM4 reviews, as my neck of the woods no longer has gaming stores. I finally got tired of waiting for Barnes & Noble to get a copy of Fiendish Codex and ordered it from amazon.com, once I heard Dagon was in there.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 29, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> As a DM, I should not have to create new game mechanics and playtest them. That is not what a DM does.




I disagree.  One of the best things about being DM is futzing with the mechanics.  And it's absolutely the responsibility of the DM to fill in gaps where they exist.  An argument could be made otherwise, if you're using a pregen setting.  But, if you're rolling your own, you have to make sure it either fits the system or the system fits it.

[/quote]That takes up too much time, causes too much stress, and causes a lot of Player-DM debates. A DM can choose to do that for his games if he'd like, but I don't believe it is a requirement in order to play and enjoy the game.[/QUOTE]

The same argument applies to pregen NPCs.

As much as I don't find use in them, it's perfectly okay for someone else to do so.  Absolutely, positively as okay as it is to find value in a stock feat.


----------



## boolean (Jun 29, 2006)

DMH said:
			
		

> A Flock of Foes from Genjitsu has creatures from the MM that are either advanced or with templates from that book. It also has 4 templates to replace the basic golems (why should they always be humanoid?).




Tangent:

Aren't golems powered by bound elemental spirits? As elementals are generally humanoid, maybe it's easier to make a golem that is the same general shape.

Which raises the question: Why are elementals humanoid in shape?


----------



## Mercule (Jun 29, 2006)

boolean said:
			
		

> Which raises the question: Why are elementals humanoid in shape?




Because the elemental planes are actually partial shadows of the Prime plane?  

Because anthropomorphic deities created everything in the universe in their own likeness?

Because elementals only exist because of human(oid) use of magic and are a reflection of their creators' subconscious self-image (this is true, IMC, where I do not have dedicated elemental planes)?


----------



## MerricB (Jun 29, 2006)

DMH said:
			
		

> Anyone know if there are going to be spawn of bahamat? It seems uneven to have only evil dragonspawn.




Yes. They're called Dragonborn, and they're in _Races of the Dragon_.

Bahamut has a completely different way about it, of course.

Cheers!


----------



## BryonD (Jun 29, 2006)

OStephens said:
			
		

> OMG, Eric. I can not BELIEVE you remember that. Yeah, on the steps after boot camp and the slide show.
> 
> I was so impressed to meet THE Eric Noah. You were the talk of the WotC halls at the time (where I worked full time in 2000).




Heh!, sounds like Harry Potter stuff!!!


----------



## Staffan (Jun 29, 2006)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> Even still, artists that flame out are about as rare as writers that flame out (What *is* that smell, anyway?).



Oooh... subtle.


----------



## Pants (Jun 29, 2006)

Soel said:
			
		

> The Planescape version was different than the 3e FF one, and nowhere near as hokey! When I first saw the one in the FF, I laughed. Just as I did with the Senmurv and Fossergrim pics. It's all about the artwork.



No, I'm sorry, the PS version is just as hokey. 

Your opinion is badwrong!


----------



## Voadam (Jun 29, 2006)

OStephens said:
			
		

> (Beef and Black Olive, by the way, though straight pepperoni is good too.)
> 
> Owen K.C. Stephens




Black olives, bleah.  I'll take a slice of the pepperoni though when you buy, thanks


----------



## BryonD (Jun 29, 2006)

OStephens said:
			
		

> It's okay to be dissappointed for any reason at all.



OK, but some justifications are more reasonable than others....    


> Do keep in mind the classed monsters are less than 15% of the page count, however.



hmmm.  I must admit that I appear to have over-rated the density.  


> Tough call. But it can come up with any game-type book. What if you want rules for shadow magic, but hate everything else in _Tome of Magic?_ What if you love Ninja, but hate everything else in _Complete Adventurer_? You're just going to have to decide if this book has enough utility for you.



Well sure.  I'm not trying to get you make a choice for me.  I'm just trying to frame my point.

Anyway, I have a different take on this arguement.  
I'm perfectly comfortable with the assumption that X% of any book is not going to be for me.  The problem comes in when a new book comes out and Y% is dedicated to a whole new subtopic that is not for me.  The assumption you make is that Y will just be part of X.  That is not a good assumption.  I'm down to 100-Y and X% of THAT will still be "not for me".  So instead of 100-X good stuff I'm down to (100-Y)*(100-X).

Now, as you pointed out, Y may be a smaller number than I feared.  So that certainly helps.



> For some people, new classed ogres are a huge bonus. That's more useable stat blocks without having to introduce whole new ecologies or communities. They -have- ogres in their game, they're unlikely to add a "corrupture" just because it's in some monster book. For you, the balance seems to be different.



Maybe, maybe not.  I'm certain that it is less valueable to me than many others out there.  But that does not mean I am decided against it.  It _could_ still be worth the $$.

I've stated my real concern before.  And if it has been responded to then I apologize because I missed it.  It is this:  Why should I be stuck with one specific level of classed ogre?  Providing a range of class levels would be geomterically more valueable.  When you are putting levels on monsters, one size fits all seems (to me, imho) to be a very poor design choice.  Can you speak to that?



> No, my adviuce, as a gamer, is "Don't buy this book until you've got a good idea it's worth it to you." Flip through a copy if you can. Talk to friends that buy it. Check the actual word counts of various entries. Consider how many pages of dragons and dinosaurs from the MM you never used (or whatever critters you haven't used -- almost no one gets them all into one campaign.) See if anything does spark your interest. Look at your gaming budget, and then make a judgement call.




As I've also said before, no other publishers seem to want my money, so my gaming budget is burning a hole in my pocket.  :/

But I also don't want to throw money away. 

I pretty much buy on-line so flip through isn't a great option.  But I think I'll just hold off and do that at a mall eventually.



> As a contributor, I have no special advice. I did my best. We all did. But we are not unique snowflakes. We don't game with you, buy you pizza, or tell stories about how your Paladin once one-shot a beholder with a critical hit while charging and smiting evil. We don't know what you need. Only you need that. We try to make as many people as happy as possible, with products that have the broadest appeal they can. Only you know if you're our target audiance.
> 
> Owen K.C. Stephens



I understand that.  And I certainly don't hold you responsible.  I'm confident that if you had more control then this product would be on a level with Advanced Gamemasters Guide and we would not be having this conversation.  (And if you think I'm kissing up now, you need to go back and read this thread again.  If I like it I say so and if I don't I say so.  But I only tell the truth.)

As much as it may seem to the contrary, I REALLY don't expect anything to be even 0.001% crafted to my personal expectations.
On this specific matter, I really think, in my very possibly way off opinion, that two different product types have been diluted and two different titles could have been produced, each of which would be superior to the actual product.  
But even if God comes down and says I'm right about that, I don't believe my opinion should carry any weight with WotC.  I'm just one of the nobodies on a web site.

But it is an open forum and I do have an opinion on the matter.

I REALLY don't have a "you are not serving me personally" attitude on this.  Truly, not even a little bit.  I can't stress enough how much that just isn't there.  
If your product doesn't serve me, then I won't buy it.  But there is no heat in that.

I just have questions that, to me, make sense.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 29, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Anyway, I have a different take on this arguement.
> I'm perfectly comfortable with the assumption that X% of any book is not going to be for me.  The problem comes in when a new book comes out and Y% is dedicated to a whole new subtopic that is not for me.  The assumption you make is that Y will just be part of X.  That is not a good assumption.  I'm down to 100-Y and X% of THAT will still be "not for me".  So instead of 100-X good stuff I'm down to (100-Y)*(100-X).
> 
> Now, as you pointed out, Y may be a smaller number than I feared.  So that certainly helps.




That's a very good way of putting it.  In this case, Y is the NPC stats.  But, the Spawn section is so large, in it's own right, that I'm mentally finding myself throwing it into Y, rather than X.  That's almost Y=33.  I assume that the remainder of the book will have a normal X, but that means a much smaller end value.


----------



## Razz (Jun 29, 2006)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> It's not always about time before the game.  Sometimes it's about time during the game.  I just had a thread going about "secrets to winging it" -- if I want to run a more free-flowing game, then pre-statted characters are going to be pretty helpful to me.  What I resent is the condescending, there's-only-one-right-way-to-play attitude from Razz and others.  It's rude, and there's no getting around it.
> 
> 
> If you don't like something, fine!  Say it, sing it, do a tap dance!  But to go around painting those who think it might be fun, or useful, or helpful, or interesting as stupid and lazy and in need of hand-holding is just wrong.




Oh, again, I like how I get pointed out one these boards, yet I've seen much more sarcastic and ruder comments than mine made on these boards.   :\  It's ok though, I have low Charisma IRL, it probably applies to the web as well. Go figure!

I never said there's a "only one way to do it" sort of thing, I am saying I am a paying customer too. I really would love to have what new monsters there actually are in MM4...but I can't. And I never will, because I am boycotting the book in order to lower the sales with the high hope that when or if a Monster Manual 5 comes out, I won't see 50 versions of "Orc (insert random adjective)". Same process as voting. Every one counts!

And on a deeper note, I simply don't like many of the new routes WotC have been taking since *Races of Destiny* and I have seen a lot of people disappointed with a lot of the different changes, not to mention lower page counts and the same price value. When there's a sudden rise of piracy with D&D books in the future cause of their "new trends", don't say I never told ya so.

And to everyone here, please respond to my statements as objectively as possible. It seems people's passions are overriding their sensibility and the Hulk-like just want to "smash Razz now!" comments sort of are unnecessary. My statements are as blank as anything, text on a computer monitor does not convey emotion nor are they expressive. No one can truly state I am being "beligerent", for example, because it would take one to hear a tone of voice, body language, and facial expression to make those judgements. Stop reading imaginary things between the lines, in other words.


----------



## Razz (Jun 29, 2006)

OStephens said:
			
		

> As a contributor, I have no special advice. I did my best. We all did. But we are not unique snowflakes. We don't game with you, buy you pizza, or tell stories about how your Paladin once one-shot a beholder with a critical hit while charging and smiting evil. We don't know what you need. Only you need that. We try to make as many people as happy as possible, with products that have the broadest appeal they can. Only you know if you're our target audiance.
> 
> Owen K.C. Stephens




There are easier ways to do that. Increase the page counts. MM4 as a 260 page book or even a 280 would've just been perfect for a majority of people. There'd be enough for everyone. Or maybe bigger Web Enhancements for them online. I can see that 15% easily placed as a Web Enhancement on the website. What's funny is those maps in the book are also going to be put for free on the website eventually, so people are also stuck paying for something that is going to eventually be free. Could've minused the maps and added more monsters.

But then again, you guys would probably just stick in more classed NPCs if the page count was larger anyway... :\


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jun 30, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> But then again, you guys would probably just stick in more classed NPCs if the page count was larger anyway... :\




One can only hope. I'd rather have those NPCs so I can spend more time working on the stuff that feels more creative to me. If there are people who feel crunching numbers for statblocks is a way to express themselves artistically, rock on - please post the statblocks you've made so others can share them.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jun 30, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> And to everyone here, please respond to my statements as objectively as possible.




Well, as you state in your sig:

"Sorry if my opinions are strong and too simple for you. It's only my opinions, after all."

If you can state your subjective opinion simply and strongly, we can reply in kind. That's kinda how it works here on a discussion forum.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 30, 2006)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> One can only hope. I'd rather have those NPCs so I can spend more time working on the stuff that feels more creative to me. If there are people who feel crunching numbers for statblocks is a way to express themselves artistically, rock on - please post the statblocks you've made so others can share them.




Like this?  


Honestly, I don't find the stat blocks artistic.  I just find them easy.  And no, they almost certainly are not up to a John Copper review.  But they are good enough for fun gaming.

The way I see it, grunts are quick and easy and sculpting out detailed major npcs IS creative as well as fun.

(Note some of the stuff may in the workbook may even be pre 3.5.  Take it or leave it.)


----------



## BryonD (Jun 30, 2006)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> One can only hope. I'd rather have those NPCs so I can spend more time working on the stuff that feels more creative to me. If there are people who feel crunching numbers for statblocks is a way to express themselves artistically, rock on - please post the statblocks you've made so others can share them.




Oh, and I agree with you.  More stat blocks would be good.
At least, if there were A LOT more stat blocks it would be good.
Like maybe their own whole book of them.  
But seriously, even IN THIS book, more would be better than a confined smattering.


----------



## Owen K.C. Stephens (Jun 30, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> There are easier ways to do that. Increase the page counts. MM4 as a 260 page book or even a 280 would've just been perfect for a majority of people.




My bet is there would then be a vocal group complaining about how much it cost. Besides, as it is people were saying 50% of the book was statted creatures, and it's less than 15%, why should I believe they'd have reacted differently if it had been 11%, or 10%?



			
				Razz said:
			
		

> There'd be enough for everyone. Or maybe bigger Web Enhancements for them online. I can see that 15% easily placed as a Web Enhancement on the website. What's funny is those maps in the book are also going to be put for free on the website eventually, so people are also stuck paying for something that is going to eventually be free. Could've minused the maps and added more monsters.




Of course people would like it more if it was a web enhancement. Oh, except for two little things:

A: Not all gamers are on the internet. Believe it. And they'd -never- get the maps. So sad. And of course if they were the section of the public that finds the maps useful and new monsters less so, they now have to wait for you to get what you wanted out of this.

B: WotC can only spend so much money on free things. It's easy to sit around and say "I'd like this better if more of it was free." But there are business realities. Go ask fans of the Scarred Lands, or GoO, if it's great for businesses to not charge enough, or not sell enough copies.

WotC knows what it's doing in this regard. There are people there much, much smarter than me. And it's there dime. If they tell me classed monsters are going to help sell more copies than my war giant, desertmaker, or snow mogul, I believe them. They have the track record in sales to the mass market, and profits raked in, and a game still actively supported.

I know you're boycotting this book, without seeing it. Your call. It won't effect anything. And I'm quite sure not enough people are going to join you to effect overall sales. And even if they do, WotC is going to think "Gee, the market really is shirnking" rather than "Gee, we shouldn't have put in statted creatures for less than 1/6th of the book, following the lead of the first book in the line."

And if anyone from WotC is still reading this thread, which would surprise me but is possible, my guess is they're thinking "Well, he's not buying our book. Let's hear from people who are, and see what they'd like. In a few weeks, after they've read it."


----------



## DMH (Jun 30, 2006)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Because the elemental planes are actually partial shadows of the Prime plane?




I think that is backwords. The elemental planes are the source (building blocks) of everything material in the multiverse. At least that is how I read the original MOP.

The reason golems are humanoid is because there was nothing like templates in the first edition and the momentum on the subject kept them humanoid.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jun 30, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> Whatever happened to 'looking through it before purchasing?'



Disappearing with the advent of online retailing combined with increasingly ty distribution, of course.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 30, 2006)

DMH said:
			
		

> I think that is backwords. The elemental planes are the source (building blocks) of everything material in the multiverse. At least that is how I read the original MOP.




Could be.  I was just throwing out various, possible explanations without regard for canon.  Sometimes, it's more fun that way.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 30, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> The point is, if you get paid by them and only say gushing things, then the value of those comments will be, correctly, discounted.  Having good reasons for it notwithstanding.




They will be discounted.  The correctness of that discounting is debatable.  There's a logical fallacy implied here - failure to say bad things implies that some good things said are false.  That's not fair.  

Didn't everyone's grandma tell them, "If you can't say something nice, say nothing at all"?  An ethical person who doesn't want to cheese off a potential employer is fully capable of saying good things where good things are deserved, and keeping their mouth shut otherwise.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 30, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> They will be discounted.  The correctness of that discounting is debatable.  There's a logical fallacy implied here - failure to say bad things implies that some good things said are false.  That's not fair.
> 
> Didn't everyone's grandma tell them, "If you can't say something nice, say nothing at all"?  An ethical person who doesn't want to cheese off a potential employer is fully capable of saying good things where good things are deserved, and keeping their mouth shut otherwise.



Agreed 100%.  I said they would be discounted and you also agreed with that.

However, the rest of your point has drifted away from the context.
Suffice it to say that the logical fallacy is not there because I never claimed he said anything false.  Only that there is a lack of context to sufficiently establish reference.

Beyond that, I prefer not to get dragged back into it again.  Particularly by mod.


----------



## Vanye (Jun 30, 2006)

DMH said:
			
		

> The reason golems are humanoid is because there was nothing like templates in the first edition and the momentum on the subject kept them humanoid.




Actually, I'd guess it's probably because the modern inspirations for the clay golem (the golem of Prague) and the flesh golem (Frankenstein's monster) are human in shape.

As I recall, there were animated statues and such in 1st edition, but they aren't/weren't considered the same as golems.


----------



## Gez (Jul 1, 2006)

The little advertising line can actually be funny:



> Similar PDF Products to this thread: [...] Monster Geographica: Hill and Mountain


----------



## Shoon (Jul 5, 2006)

Razz:

Chimpanzees like to gather under the full moon to conduct dark, eldritch rituals, by which they summon their angry hooting god.

That is all, ban me if you wish.

[Edited by Pielorinho to remove rules-violating content]


----------



## Pielorinho (Jul 5, 2006)

*Moderator's Notes*:
Okay.

Daniel


----------



## satori01 (Jul 5, 2006)

I have to say there is a lot I found dismaying in this thread.

I am a gigantic proponet of the wonders of being able to communicate via the internet with the designers of the products we buy.  So Mr. Marmell, Mr. Mearls, and Mr. Stephens thanks for joining in.

I understand the desire to defend your work, I respect the desire to tell it like it is.  I was quite impressed with how James Jacobs responded directly, and provided insight to the design process regarding Hordes of the Abyss.  The responses here seemed more rancorous to me, and less filled with aplomb.

No product can appeal to everyone, and products have targeted markets., this is obvious.  I find it a bit cavalier to just write off the *free*ly offered opinions that could be surveyed by WOTC, as being the negative opinions offered by the small market 
base of internet cranks.

I'm sure the vast majority of players of the game are not on the internet.  I would hazard a guess, that those players of D&D that DM are as a whole more likely to use the internet and Forums like these.  I would also hazard a guess that people that use forums like this probably tend to buy a lot more books than the average user.

WOTC has to design to what sells the most books, to what makes the most profit.

The day, however, power buyers like Psion and Merric are thrown by the wayside, is a day that shows a waste of opportunity and mismanagement.  Smart people, make mistakes too.  Especially smart people with MBAs who think they KNOW their market w/o real world experience.

I'm sure we are not there yet, but in a hobby notoriously populated by the cranks,  I think it foolish to throw the baby out with the bathwater, just because as Mr Mearls put it, the medium encourages extreme opinions to dominate the discussion.  Frankly I think that is true of all mass media, and has been true of letters to Dragon Magazine, before the Internet become a popular tool.


----------



## glass (Jul 5, 2006)

mearls said:
			
		

> FAILURE!
> 
> The red gem on your hand should now be blinking. Please report to carousel.



'Renew! Renew! Renew!'

(or was it 'Rejuvanate'? It's been a while).


glass.


----------

