D&D 5E 07/08/2013 - Legends & Lore Monsters and the World of D&D

[Zaukrie]

I am with terradave completely on this.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

MOAR!

Kamakazi Midget has a good example. I'd be cool with that, though I wouldn't mind it using the personality block we saw in the legendary dragon article as well.

As for how many monsters per page, the answer should be one. If it doesn't fit, make it a two page spread. This makes referencing a monster manual significantly easier and is more attractive to boot.

 

[Klaus]

I guess I am the one, but I really liked the LL version, and found it very evocative. The only thing missing was the picture (well, that and the game stats). For the alternatives proposed above, I did start to loose interest pretty quickly as I was reading through them. (And yes, I have the monstrous manual and used it quite a bit back in the day). Some of those details are also better captured in the game stats, which will let us know how dangerous these things really are.

You are not alone. I've been reading MMs for over 20 years, and 4e's Monster Vaults are *the best* monster book format D&D has had. It's not just a matter of having lots of information ('cause, 2e had *lots* of information), it's a matter of said information being evocative. Ettercaps harvesting faerie dust and trading it out to hags, or overruning wilderness places into a chaotic garden of spiderwebs (which immediately makes me associate ettercaps with a forest like Mirkwood). That is more important to me, as a DM, than how many ettercaps show up (that depends entirely on their level relative to the party), for instance.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I don't like the implied link to Araneas, I know they gave Araneas an alignment of NE in the playtest materials. But Araneas have a history in Mystara as being a Neutral alignment race, with more that doesn't involve being former Ettercaps.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's not just a matter of having lots of information ('cause, 2e had *lots* of information), it's a matter of said information being evocative.

For me, it's also a matter of that information being relevant in play. I'm generally cool with adding a "dark fey" vibe to the critter (kills pixies and sells to hags, sure why not, it works), but the bigger problem with the blurb is that it doesn't tell me how to use the thing in play. That's what I tried to capture in my version: here's what it's like to encounter the thing, to talk with the thing, to fight the thing. Some of that might be statblock-bait, but that's part of how the Monster Vault failed me as a DM, but how 2e's MM serves me well to this day. The Monster Vault isn't useful for actually running the monster as anything other than a combat encounter (though it's leaps and bounds ahead of the original 4e MM in terms of helping me plan cool monster fights to begin with).

And it's important to note that aside from utility, self-conscious attempts to be "evocative" can so often go awry. The Ettercap works OK as an ally of the dark fey and the tormentor of pixies, but the "transforms into aranea-like critter" is pretty narmed. I'm reminded of how they want to turn Dire Corbies into Pazuzu's minions. They seem to be operating somewhat under a monster design scheme of "Lets smash vaguely physically similar creatures together to enhance cross-pollination!" without giving much thought to the ramifications of that idea on the feel of either of those monsters. Which is cool when ettercaps are working with hags, but facepalm-inducing when ettercaps are turning into magical spider-people because they ate too much pixie dust. It's difficult to predict what will go one way and what will go the other when you're writing it.

 

[Dausuul]

I guess I am the one, but I really liked the LL version, and found it very evocative. The only thing missing was the picture (well, that and the game stats). For the alternatives proposed above, I did start to loose interest pretty quickly as I was reading through them. (And yes, I have the monstrous manual and used it quite a bit back in the day). Some of those details are also better captured in the game stats, which will let us know how dangerous these things really are.

You're not the only one. I also thought Mike's version was very, very good.

The 2E entry had some good material, too, but like so much early-edition stuff, it was in dire need of an editor. Severely overwritten. The same information could have been communicated in half the wordcount.

 

[Klaus]

The Monster Vault isn't useful for actually running the monster as anything other than a combat encounter (though it's leaps and bounds ahead of the original 4e MM in terms of helping me plan cool monster fights to begin with).

And the great thing is that for me, those bullet-point descriptions in the MVs made me *want* to use those monsters! There were nuggets of campaign and adventure building there that made the creatures exciting (and I tend to skim over stat blocks until it's time to put an adventure together).

Now, regarding the aranea thing, I found that bit weird, and asked in the article's comments whether they meant for all araneas to be evolved ettercaps, or if "gains powers of an aranea" is just a shorthand for the type of abilities such an ettercap gets (so we don't need a separate "evolved ettercap" stat block).

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

As for how many monsters per page, the answer should be one. If it doesn't fit, make it a two page spread. This makes referencing a monster manual significantly easier and is more attractive to boot.

I disagree. The answer should be "as much as is needed." I don't need a full page for a Dog or a Bear. Whereas I could use a good article-sized entry for mind flayers if the material was useful and evocative.

 

[steeldragons]

And it's important to note that aside from utility, self-conscious attempts to be "evocative" can so often go awry.

VERY cogent and dire warning point.

The Ettercap works OK as an ally of the dark fey and the tormentor of pixies, but the "transforms into aranea-like critter" is pretty narmed.

Agreed.

I'm reminded of how they want to turn Dire Corbies into Pazuzu's minions. They seem to be operating somewhat under a monster design scheme of "Lets smash vaguely physically similar creatures together to enhance cross-pollination!" without giving much thought to the ramifications of that idea on the feel of either of those monsters. Which is cool when ettercaps are working with hags, but facepalm-inducing when ettercaps are turning into magical spider-people because they ate too much pixie dust. It's difficult to predict what will go one way and what will go the other when you're writing it.

Excellent and true.

Particularly with the dire corbie/pazuzu connect...or, rather, disconnect. Pazuzu is the demon lord of AIR! Dire Corbies look like birds but don't FLY! ...or even GLIDE! WHY in hells would Pazuzu want to be connected to or give two coppers about dire corbies?

Do Dire Corbies revere Pazuzu...You could work that angle...if they're evolved/sentient enough to be societal, I could see a case that says they do...maybe Dire Corbie shaman/witch-doctors [do they have shamans/witch-doctors?!] are granted flight and so, all Dire Corbies pay reverence to Pazuzu in hope of being gifted with flight. But Pazuzu to WANT them/have CREATED them as minions?!?! No way! They don't partake of the very element over which he/it holds sway! At best they are some failed disappointment/experiment.

The developers need to, to use an over-used 90's trite-ism, "Check themselves before they wreck themselves." Simply because you are in the position to MAKE the decisions, does not make your wandering whims good/uber-kewz ones. Step back and think for a second before trying to present "this is how [we're thinking] it is." The game does not require that. I don't need you to tell me where/how Dire Corbies come from/were created...

...or how/what Ettercaps do in their free time...Trading with hags?! They're low intelligence monstrous eaters of all things, sentient or not? Fine. They don't have a language..but "express themselves"? Fine. Why/where did they become interested or trained in commerce?! Not fine.

Again, adding weirdness for weirdness' sake. And for as odd and off-the-wall as some of D&D's classic creatures are, and the charm thereof, that's not necessary for every-fraggin'-thing.

 

[I'm A Banana]

And the great thing is that for me, those bullet-point descriptions in the MVs made me *want* to use those monsters! There were nuggets of campaign and adventure building there that made the creatures exciting (and I tend to skim over stat blocks until it's time to put an adventure together).

Yeah, I agree, that's a big step in the right direction. And the work shows, too -- putting it in with hags and the like gives me more cool story ideas than the 2e entry did! It's just still not very useful to using the critter in play in all the ways it will be used. This + a combat stat block (ie: what Monster Vault did) is not enough.