Category Archives: bugbear

Wandering Monsters: What’s in a Monster?

What information belongs in a monster entry? The amount and arrangement of information has fluctuated throughout editions, sometimes changing within the same edition.

2nd Edition blocks were lengthy lists of un-formatted information, which probably could have been sorted better. In its favor the flavor text tended to lean towards the extensive, often telling how many women and/or young are in a lair, if one is a leader (as well as any modifications), chance of shamans, and more.

3rd Edition blocks started out similar to 2nd Edition’s, but were eventually re-arranged and divided to make it easier to locate information. Flavor text varied from monster to monster, but when the stat blocks changed were expanded to include a lore table and paragraphs for strategies, encounters, ecology, and sample treasure.

4th Edition stat blocks were a major departure from its predecessors. Colored rows made it easier to locate information, and the later iteration even clustered up action types so that you did not have to look long or hard to cash in a move or minor action you might have left over. Also important was the fact that you never had to reference another book; the effect of every power was always included in the block, making spellcasters and the like a breeze.

While I recall 4th Edition initially getting criticism for a seeming lack of flavor content, flipping around the Monster Manual it looks only somewhat leaner than–if not on par with–most 3rd Edition entries. As with 3rd Edition, the last run of monster books–Monster Manual 3 and the Monster Vaults–resolved this beefing up the flavor to about a half-page per entry, if not more.

Having gone through four editions (so far), I can say that my ideal statblock serves two purposes.

First, it should require no outside reference. I can deal with having to check a glossary in the same book for stuff like Plant/Ooze/Swarm/Ooze/etc traits, but if running an angel, wizard, demon, or dragon requires that I take cliffnotes from Player’s Handbook, Arcane Supplement II, and Spell Compilation V I will be sorely disappointed. Thankfully the three “monsters” in the bestiary with built in spellcasting–dark acolyte/adept/priest–have spell effects in their entries.

Second, the flavor material should present a solid foundation of default information to work with; appearance, culture, environment, lairs, etc. While I like making up my own lore, often the defaults give me inspiration. To this end I really like how they did it in 3rd Edition’s Monster Manual V, which not only included monster variants (a trend that thankfully continued in 4th Edition), but encounter ideas, treasure, and even the occasional map.

Flavor-wise the monster entry for Next does really well. You get a physical description, motivation, combat tactics, number-encountered, lair ideas, and some personality traits. Easily enough to give me something solid to work with (or expand on/deviate from). I assume that they will include leaders (and perhaps spellcaster types) in the final product, so I think that my only nitpicks are that it could go a bit further with a sample encounter map and treasure (or two).

As for the stat block, it does…alright. It seems easier to follow than 2nd Edition, but lacks late-3rd and 4th Edition’s information grouping. I think that the defensive and offensive information should be stacked, so that it is a bit quicker to switch between the two. I would even move the “social” stuff–ability scores, alignment, languages, and senses–on top, which would give you something like this:

Bugbear
Medium Humanoid (Goblin)
Environment Hills or any underground

Abilities Str 15 (+2), Dex 14 (+2), Con 10, Int 8 (-1), Wis 11, Cha 9 (-1)
Senses darkvision 60 ft.
Languages Common, Goblin
Traits Burly, Stealthy +5

AC 14 (leather, shield)
hp 18 (4d8)

Speed 30 ft.
Space 5 ft. Reach 5 ft.
Melee Large morningstar +2.
Hit: 5 (1d8 + 1) bludgeoning damage and 5 (1d8 + 1) piercing damage.
Ranged Large javelin +2 (30 ft./120 ft.).
Hit: 9 (2d6 + 2) piercing damage.

What do you think? What about this one:

Or this one:


Wandering Monsters: Goblinoids

As with the bit on gnolls and orcs, the descriptions provided are apt for each given goblinoid type (I also voted that keeping them related, though not necessarily united). Given that this is how they have been portrayed for over a decade–maybe longer, not sure about 2nd Edition–I am not surprised.

So far (with all of two articles, mind you) I have generally liked the flavor material, such as it is. Yeah they have not really changed orcs, gnolls, or goblinoids in concept, but I am genuinely okay with them; goblins are sneaky and cowardly, gnolls gang up and rip you apart, orcs are really strong and tough, etc. You know, what they have always done (though it took 4th Edition to back this up through mechanics).

Some people are wondering why they are even showing us articles like this, especially if all they are going is pitching us the exact same concepts and flavor as before. I think that they are honestly looking for feedback and/or ideas. I saw comments about how orcs should be neutral (or was it lawful) evil if they wanted to have any sort of society with slaves, and that their flavor should be better expanded to account for it.

Granted, by the poll results it looks like most people are either satisfied or happy with the current monster treatment, but so far all we have gotten is the low-level evil humanoids. I am not surprised, as these are the guys that will most commonly be thrown at wandering bands of murder-hobos, but what about the rest?

What about demons and devils? Elementals? How about zombies and skeletons? I remember pages upon pages of threads where people argued about whether mindless undead should be evil, or neutral (as well if it was okay to animate dead, even if the person allowed it).

You also have vampires, which usually drain life force by touch instead of drinking blood (though that seems to get contradicted) and ghouls that depending on edition–or version within an edition–turn you into a ghoul by killing you or infecting you. I could make a case for dragonborn not having pred-dreds (and I am sure many would like to eschew dragonboobs), and whether tieflings are the result of infernal unions or contracts.

We got awhile until the game is fully released, and plenty more Wandering Monster articles to go (and complain about). I like to think that they are listening to criticism, and if nothing else going with the majority rule–whether I like it or not–instead of just making up polls and numbers to distract us.