D&D 5E Starter Set: Except 7

[Zaukrie]

We used to drink while pregnant, smoke, drive with no seat belts, and lots of things back in the day. Doesn't mean things cannot be improved.

 

[occam]

There is one thing I hope they fix, and that's the formatting of the ability stat block. They should remove emphasis of the stat, since it won't be used most of the time.

Instead of writing
Str
18 (+4)

They should have written:
Str
+4 (18)

I think I agree with you.

I'd also like Challenge to be easier to see. Say, right-justified toward the top of the stat block. Out of the way during combat, but easy to find when looking for monsters to build an encounter.

 

[Ruzak]

Is it possible there is artwork on the facing page?

 

[Wolfskin]

Is it possible there is artwork on the facing page?

I'd expect to be artwork for most monsters somewhere in the book, especially those whose description is not intuitive (it's much more easy for the players to imagine a zombie or skeleton than a nothic, for instance).

 

[Blackbrrd]

Am I the only one who would be much MORE confused by that?

My initial reading would be something like "Yay, I get to add four! Why is 19 in parenthesis? Is that a max or something?"

Nah, I found it confusing as well.

I kind of regret starting the discussion on what the emphasis should be for stats on monsters, even though I hope they change the MM. If they don't it's not a big deal at all.

 

[thundershot]

I'm very curious to see if the Invisible Stalker appears in MM1 5e and if the art is a throwback to 1e.

The 2E one was my personal favorite.

 

[Hussar]

I fail to see how expecting a description in a starter set implies any of us are negative on 5e...... this is s very specific comment, not an over reaction and complaint about all of D&D. As many have said, if there is a description elsewhere, great.

Pretty much this. This isn't an over reaction, hyperbolic, "OMG!! D&D is horribly terrible and I will never buy this product RAWR!!!!" criticism. IT's a comment that I would like to have a couple of lines of physical description of monsters in the Bestiary that are supposed to be extra monsters that don't appear in the module. If there is a description of the Nothic (for example) in the module, then fine and dandy. But, if this is, as has been repeatedly stated, a monster that doesn't actually appear in the module, the DM is pretty much left in the dark as to what this thing is. I mean, they could include a few sentences about how a Nothic is a mutant wizard but they couldn't add a sentence about what it looks like?

 

[Agamon]

I started playing D&D in 1978 when all we had was a copy of Judge's Guild Ready Ref Sheets; just stats and no flavour text (and certainly no Internet). I remember we were too young to even know what a dervish was. But boy did we play the crap out of it, and I'm still here X years afterwards. Just saying.

You mean to say you're not dead, nor insane, and you still play D&D? Not sure I can take your statement at face value, sir.

 

[Agamon]

IT's a comment that I would like to have a couple of lines of physical description of monsters in the Bestiary that are supposed to be extra monsters that don't appear in the module.

You're confusing the Starter for Basic. These monsters are listed in the back of an adventure, not in any rules set. Why would they be there if they aren't in the adventure?

This is like seeing the picture of a car from the side and complaining that it only has two wheels. Sure, it might, I guess.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Am I the only one who would be much MORE confused by that?

My initial reading would be something like "Yay, I get to add four! Why is 19 in parenthesis? Is that a max or something?"

Thirded. But I wonder what someone who's never played D&D would say.