Chaosmancer
Legend
Do you have something beyond, "Nuh uh." to prove why I'm wrong?
Yep, the very next thing I wrote
None of that is discussed. Mentioned in a sentence or maybe two is not a discussion. Further, combat tactics, items, etc. are not setting. I will grant that there is a tiny, tiny bit of setting there. The sentence I laid out in my last post would be setting stuff.
So... again, it isn't that the material doesn't exist, you just don't think ENOUGH of it exists to warrant acknowledging it exists.
I mean, every one of these beings having a specific item, that only works for them, and allows them a special ability... sure sounds like a setting detail. But it doesn't count because they don't go into multiple paragraphs about it?
Not much. There are few monsters. If we scrape up every bit of setting lore in the book, we get what, one more page of setting? So we're up to 9 pages now! I'll even be generous and give you two pages of setting from the monster book and we can be at an even 10 pages. Now compare that to a real setting book with hundreds of pages and you will see that 5e Spelljammer comes up, well to say it comes up short is an understatement.
I counted 17 pages of lore in the monster manual, but again, you obsession with page count is baffling. I could spend six pages describing a rose bush, and that wouldn't make setting any better. There is so much information in these books, you are just refusing to see it because it doesn't meet some arbitrary standard you have set for being "long enough"
That's true. But if all you have are a few scraps for dinner, it ain't dinner. That's what we got from 5e. A few scraps, rather than a dinner meal.
And I disagree, yet again. And I have demonstrated the opposite, multiple times. And all you keep doing is complaining about page counts like that is the only possible metric to measure anything by.