Preview VOLO'S GUIDE TO MONSTERS

Polygon has scored a look at the upcoming Volo's Guide to Monsters from WotC - six full pages, in fact, which give a very clear idea of what we can expect from the book when it arrived next month! From the looks of their article, it seems that WotC is using this as a testbed for the way they handle future sourcebooks. Polygon confirms the overall product description - 96 new (to 5E) monsters, tons of rules for monster PCs (goblins, orcs, firbolgs), and a buch of deep dives into some iconic monsters. The beholder section is nearly 14 pages on its own. Check out the article at Polygon for more!

​

 

[Parmandur]

Please stop defending WotC at every turn.



It is okay for us to call them on diluting their offerings. It is okay to bring up past editions to clearly contrast what the WotC shills consider a "great offer" with what actually was great offers. It is okay to hold WotC to it when they lower their standards.



And it is okay for you not stepping in to "explain" or justify their unpopular decisions.

Declaring their decisions "unpopular" based on a handful of forum posts seems premature, n'cest pas? Wonder what a poll would show on that front (for all the value a self-selected sample of forumites would gave)?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

But is it not "okay" for him to provide his opinion as well?

No, it doesn't appear that my opinion is "okay." Which is why I'm being falsely accused of "defending WotC at every turn" even though I have repeatedly provided evidence to the contrary - because I don't think 5th edition is perfect or that WotC is infallible.

But that doesn't matter to [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION], who obviously feels that it is okay to attack me as person with accusations like the one you quoted for no reason other than that I disagree with him about some things, and is apparently under the impression that his doing so isn't inappropriate in any way - which I hope isn't actually the case at this forum.

 

[Shasarak]

But is it not "okay" for him to provide his opinion as well? Your basically saying he is not allowed to do (voice his opinion) what you are doing (voice your opinion). Why is that "okay" for you and not him? I understand it may be annoying to you, but this is not your thread anymore than it is his. Shouldn't all of us be able, within reason, to voice our opinions on the given subject and the responses to that subject?

Of course Aaron can give his opinion. I suspect that he knows just as much about WotC as anyone else around here including myself who does not work for WotC.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Of course Aaron can give his opinion. I suspect that he knows just as much about WotC as anyone else around here including myself who does not work for WotC.

What's the purpose of your second sentence?

 

[Shasarak]

What's the purpose of your second sentence?

I presume you dont have any insider knowledge?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I presume you dont have any insider knowledge?

Right... but I never said or implied that I did, so I wasn't quite sure if you were just intentionally stating the obvious, or if you felt there was some other reason to add that second sentence.

 

[Shasarak]

Right... but I never said or implied that I did, so I wasn't quite sure if you were just intentionally stating the obvious, or if you felt there was some other reason to add that second sentence.

You and I know that just because someone speaks with confidence does not mean that they know anything more about the subject then anyone else.

For example no one can really comment meaningfully on the profitability of the DnD department because those figures are not publicly available and if you did know then you would be obligated not to comment on the details.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

You and I know that just because someone speaks with confidence does not mean that they know anything more about the subject then anyone else.

For example no one can really comment meaningfully on the profitability of the DnD department because those figures are not publicly available and if you did know then you would be obligated not to comment on the details.

I'm confused as to why you are making these statements. They don't appear to be related to the conversation at hand in any way, nor do they appear to be adding anything to the conversation except for my confusion, and a mild suspicion that you are trying to intimate that you think I have done these things which you are stating the obvious by mentioning can't be done.

 

[Shasarak]

I'm confused as to why you are making these statements. They don't appear to be related to the conversation at hand in any way, nor do they appear to be adding anything to the conversation except for my confusion, and a mild suspicion that you are trying to intimate that you think I have done these things which you are stating the obvious by mentioning can't be done.

I dont really know what you are asking. Did you disagree with anything that has been said in particular?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I dont really know what you are asking.

What I am asking is this: What does any of that have to do with anything else in this thread?