So a friend of mine got the the three corebooks in the mail today and she was kind enough to let me look through the MM, knowing that i'm a huuuuge monsterphile who's first RPG book was the 2E MM. I didn't look through it too thoroughly but the stuff I noticed:
-They weren't kidding when they said they were pruning powers. Pretty much the only Demon who isn't just smash-and-slam is the Glabrezu, even the poor Marilith was stripped of every ounce of magical capability. The Devils are no better. Heck, creatures defined by magical/psionic capabilities like Mind Flayers, Rakshasa and Aboleths are now much more reliant on melee attacks, which is just bizarre to me.
-There are virtually no descriptions of creatures, just illustrations. Also, information is very sparse. You get some basic info for knowledge rolls, combat stats and typical encounter groups. This IMO leaves a huge flaw in the usage of creatures: how to use them before combat starts. For example old Blue Dragon had lots of illusionary abilities, not for combat purposes but for trap setting and hiding it's lair. Now it's just what it can do in combat. Likewise alot of creatures who are supposed to know rituals(Hags, liches etc) have no information on what they would know.
-Solo creatures are very rare in it. Outside Dragons you could probably count them on two hands. Creatures you'd expect to be solos, like Titans and Aboleths, given their previous D&Dness are just Elites.. or not even that. Not that hard to change, but it did pop out at me.
-Some of the creature levels are really odd. Why do Drow rank-and-file start at level 15?
-The new Elementals suck something terrible. Really, they look like Everquest/World of Warcraft elementals. It's just so terrible boring rip off. Also they're all mixed elements now.
-I really like the new giants. Especially their art, which is just great. The Fomori are lacking a titan though.
That's all I can think of right now to comment on.
Re: [4E] Naxuul looks through the new Monster Manual
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naxuul
The new Elementals suck something terrible. Really, they look like Everquest/World of Warcraft elementals. It's just so terrible boring rip off. Also they're all mixed elements now.
What do they look like?
And what are Dragons like? Particularly Red Dragons.
__________________
Everything I say is subjective.
Re: [4E] Naxuul looks through the new Monster Manual
Doesn't sound good, any positives apart from the giants? I loved the 2e Monster Manual and was disappointed when I finally got a look at 3rd ed MM properly (I never run 3rd ed so never needed to buy it) - where are all those lovely plot hooks?
Looks like if I run 4th ed I'm going to have to dig out my old 2e MM and use that for fluff.
Re: [4E] Naxuul looks through the new Monster Manual
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naxuul
-They weren't kidding when they said they were pruning powers. Pretty much the only Demon who isn't just smash-and-slam is the Glabrezu, even the poor Marilith was stripped of every ounce of magical capability. The Devils are no better. Heck, creatures defined by magical/psionic capabilities like Mind Flayers, Rakshasa and Aboleths are now much more reliant on melee attacks, which is just bizarre to me.
Are there any non-smash-and-slam monsters in the book? I know it's supposed to be focused on combat, but this sounds very disturbing.
Quote:
-There are virtually no descriptions of creatures, just illustrations. Also, information is very sparse. You get some basic info for knowledge rolls, combat stats and typical encounter groups. This IMO leaves a huge flaw in the usage of creatures: how to use them before combat starts. For example old Blue Dragon had lots of illusionary abilities, not for combat purposes but for trap setting and hiding it's lair. Now it's just what it can do in combat. Likewise alot of creatures who are supposed to know rituals(Hags, liches etc) have no information on what they would know.
So, what, are monsters just supposed to have whatever non-combat magical abilities a DM decides they need? That seems rather odd, especially considering how often "non-combat" abilities can be made to prepare for, avoid, or influence combat.
Quote:
-The new Elementals suck something terrible. Really, they look like Everquest/World of Warcraft elementals. It's just so terrible boring rip off. Also they're all mixed elements now.
Mixed? You mean, no more fire and water elementals, just steam elementals?
I'm also curious what you liked about the giants.
- Brian
__________________ Sadism is a valuable trait in authors. Just when things look bad, just when the situation is at its most dire, you drop a rabid badger in your main character’s lap and watch the fun ensue.
Re: [4E] Naxuul looks through the new Monster Manual
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel Cartacos
What do they look like?
A vaguely humanoid fat teardrop shape with arms, slightly varied by elements. If you've ever played World of Warcraft or Everquest you'd know this is ripped right off of them. And they didn't even rip something good off! WoW/EQ elementals look hideous, old D&D elementals were better looking.
Quote:
And what are Dragons like? Particularly Red Dragons.
I didn't read too carefully the Dragon section, but overall the Red Dragon seems the most straightforward of them. It's a bucket of HP and damage with large amounts of burning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Byron Alexander
Doesn't sound good, any positives apart from the giants?
The art is overall very quality. Some of the ideas in it are very good(I prefer the idea of the new Slaad better than the old one. And the new Green Slaad has some funky ass abilities) and I do really like the new system for creature powers, I just thought it was misused to make creatures too melee-centric.
Re: [4E] Naxuul looks through the new Monster Manual
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naxuul
A vaguely humanoid fat teardrop shape with arms, slightly varied by elements. If you've ever played World of Warcraft or Everquest you'd know this is ripped right off of them. And they didn't even rip something good off! WoW/EQ elementals look hideous, old D&D elementals were better looking.
Haven't played either game, but I just did an image search. Yeah they took look horrible.
Quote:
I didn't read too carefully the Dragon section, but overall the Red Dragon seems the most straightforward of them. It's a bucket of HP and damage with large amounts of burning.
Are they still the strongest chromatic dragons?
__________________
Everything I say is subjective.
Re: [4E] Naxuul looks through the new Monster Manual
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianm
Are there any non-smash-and-slam monsters in the book? I know it's supposed to be focused on combat, but this sounds very disturbing.
If you mean monsters of a more magical bent, yeah. The Githyanki and Githzerai have IMO the best implemented of them, but there are plenty sprinkled here and there.
If you mean non-kill on sight creatures, they're there too. But not as many as older editions. Unicorns, Satyrs, noble Eladrin, Galeb Duhr, Gnomes, Dopplegangers, Shifters, Warforged and Shadar-Kai come to mind most quickly.
Quote:
So, what, are monsters just supposed to have whatever non-combat magical abilities a DM decides they need? That seems rather odd, especially considering how often "non-combat" abilities can be made to prepare for, avoid, or influence combat.
Pretty much. Polymorphing, telepathy and some illusions seemed the only non-combat abilities really mentioned. Mostly I guess because they still have combat purpose.
Quote:
Mixed? You mean, no more fire and water elementals, just steam elementals?
Yeah.
Quote:
I'm also curious what you liked about the giants.
Mostly I like the revised story, the greater amount of elemental connection and especially their new art. I'd never seen a good picture of a Fire or Storm Giant until now and damn do they look good. Especially ol' Stormy.
Also they look like they should be really challenging creatures you could easily base storylines around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel Cartacos
Are they still the strongest chromatic dragons?
I didn't look too hard at them, but the White is still notable the weakest so the Red is still probably the strongest.
Though the Green is so incredible nasty I think it'd be hard to top it.
Re: [4E] Naxuul looks through the new Monster Manual
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naxuul
IPretty much. Polymorphing, telepathy and some illusions seemed the only non-combat abilities really mentioned. Mostly I guess because they still have combat purpose.
Polymorphing is in 4e? Huh, now that surprises me.
Quote:
I didn't look too hard at them, but the White is still notable the weakest so the Red is still probably the strongest.
Though the Green is so incredible nasty I think it'd be hard to top it.
-Naxuul
Bah, stupid Greens getting in Reds way. I'll kill them all!
__________________
Everything I say is subjective.
Re: [4E] Naxuul looks through the new Monster Manual
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naxuul
Though the Green is so incredible nasty I think it'd be hard to top it.
-Naxuul
I agree. The green is the most powerful dragon. The red has 125 more hp and a 48 AC vs the greens 43. and has more damaging attacks but the green has more combat abilites. Such as the following nasty one.
Luring Glare (minor 1/round; at-will) ✦ Charm, Gaze
Ranged 10; +30 vs. Will; the target slides 4 squares.
Linear Mode
