Personally, blue electric dragons in a desert? Dont get it.
yeah, the ham-fisted attempt to try and limit Dragons to various terrain types is not something I have much time for.
Personally, blue electric dragons in a desert? Dont get it.
Ah, but the desert and the illusion and the lightning breath -- all these things are part of what it means to go up against a blue dragon. A dragon with that context is telling me to use it RIGHT NOW TONIGHT, a dragon without that context is telling me to put it in something later.
I think it's key to put generic things into entries where they won't be generic, or there isn't going to be much reason to use them.
So, in other words, part of what this design tries to solve is the problem of having to flip through random books in the first place. If you need a trap, the traps are right there with the map you're using and the monsters that are there.
So, basically, I get to use everything in the monster manual once? Or is it assumed that every time you encounter a "ghoul warren" or a "kobold mine" they are going to laid out exactly the same? Why not just make a "generic" lair that every single adventure can happen in? blech.
IMO, there shouldn't be a "bear" entry alone. This is because the races that use them as pets or mounts should have "bear" entries for their pets and mounts, and the deity that favors bears should have "bear" entries for the companions of its priests, and the predator that preys on bears might have "bear" entries for its prey (though that last one doesn't seem incredibly game-useful, typically).
Yyyyyeah. I'm not really likin' this.
Bears don't earn their own entry, really. They're only interesting by virtue of being associated with more interesting creatures. They're not good "anchors" -- they can't usually hold down an adventure all by themselves. So they should be paired with creatures who can use them. Like, say, werebears.
Mimics fall into a similar camp. They're not good anchors.
But kobolds? Drow? Orcs? Giants? Dragons? Demons? Devils? Yeah, usually those creatures are good anchors.
Soooo, the only things in the Monster manual should be "anchor monsters", with 6 to 8 pages each entry (?!) around which you can build a whole adventure?
No...No sir. I don't like it.
If 5e is going to have a tighter focus on the adventure, I really think it pays to look at creatures that can inspire an entire adventure as main entries, and include support creatures like bears and mimics (and dire rats and beetles) as creatures that make interesting encounters within those adventure-inspiring main entries.
So every time you encounter a beetle the whole group can moan and groan that "we're gonna fall into another orc den"? I really really think this is a bad idea. I see what it is trying to do...and I can appreciate it. Make a "Book of Lairs" or some supplement-thing like that. But it is NOT what I want to see nor should be how the Monster Manual is laid out.
Just mho.--SD
Kamikaze Midget said:Now you're starting to see how my issues were linked to the monster philosophy of 4e. Dragons in 4e fail for me because they don't present a multidimensional antagonist. They're not a multidimensional antagonist because 4e decided that the only point of monsters was to fight them.
Kamikaze Midget said:That's not true for me.
Creatures in D&D serve only one purpose: to provide the elements of an interesting game.
They can do this by being combat antagonists, but they can also do this by being enigmas, by being potential allies, by being in interesting areas, by being interesting characters, or in a hundred other ways.
Kamikaze Midget said:Dragons specifically serve a few secondary purposes. For one, they are an iconic representation of the D&D brand -- right in the name. For another, they are quintessential villains. For a third, they are major powers in the worlds they exist in.
In 5e, I'd imagine that a dragon can serve as an antagonist on all 3 pillars. I'd also imagine that WotC could provide me with actual information for using them in ways other than as combat engines.
Combat is not enough for me. I need more. Out of the box. And WotC could provide it.
Kamikaze Midget said:I've attached a PDF of a quick mock-up Kobold entry that's something vaguely like what I'd like the MM to give me. Add an illustration or two and a lair map, maybe some treasure information, maybe format it in a way that's a little easier to use, but basically, this.
FWIW, that's 11 stat blocks (6 of them traps, but still...) on 6 pages. 7-8 maybe if you add illos and a map. And then you probably wouldn't have separate entries for things like Dire Rats.
Ah, but the desert and the illusion and the lightning breath -- all these things are part of what it means to go up against a blue dragon. A dragon with that context is telling me to use it RIGHT NOW TONIGHT, a dragon without that context is telling me to put it in something later.
As for looking up a trap or monster during play, the main benefit offered of this layout is that you won't need to flip around like that: any traps you need are part of the monster entry. If you're prepping a game early and you need other/different traps, then you can afford to look it up in the Compendium, or suss it out of the individual monster entries. If you are at the table and you suddenly need a trap, though, that's where things like 4e's monster creation system come in handy: it can give you what you need during a "DM's Bathroom Break" if you really need it.
So, in other words, part of what this design tries to solve is the problem of having to flip through random books in the first place. If you need a trap, the traps are right there with the map you're using and the monsters that are there.
IMO, there shouldn't be a "bear" entry alone. This is because the races that use them as pets or mounts should have "bear" entries for their pets and mounts, and the deity that favors bears should have "bear" entries for the companions of its priests, and the predator that preys on bears might have "bear" entries for its prey (though that last one doesn't seem incredibly game-useful, typically).
Bears don't earn their own entry, really. They're only interesting by virtue of being associated with more interesting creatures. They're not good "anchors" -- they can't usually hold down an adventure all by themselves. So they should be paired with creatures who can use them. Like, say, werebears.