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

[Klaus]

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.

More can certainly be added, and judging from the black dragon entry showcased a couple of weeks ago, I believe more *will* be added. But I prefer if the taker the MV format and built on that than take the 2e format and build on it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

More can certainly be added, and judging from the black dragon entry showcased a couple of weeks ago, I believe more *will* be added. But I prefer if the taker the MV format and built on that than take the 2e format and build on it.

Well, it's certainly more compact! But those are really my only complaints. It's a good start as it is (good story hooks!), but they've gotta watch out for the implications of the plot hooks they've added to make sure they're actually good, and it needs to be more than this and a stat block. I need to be able to look at this page after a random die roll and run an entire encounter of any description without knowing beforehand what an "ettercap" is or how it acts, right from the entry.

 

[the Jester]

I like what Mike wrote in the column, I just don't want it to end with that, lets decide that we are going to give each monster at least a page n the monster manual and make it good.

I'd much rather have to use my creativity a little and half two or three times as many monsters.

I thought Mearls' treatment was just fine, personally. While the 2e MM was great, it suffered from both one-monster-per-page and too-many-monsters-per-page, in the combined entries (which often lacked even the basic information required to run some monsters). I mean, do we really need a full-page treatment of every monster? Does a blink dog really need that long of an entry? What about giant ants? What about a giant snake? What about a displacer beast, roper, chuul or manticore? I don't think so. Give me 500 monsters in the MM, not 125.

 

[steeldragons]

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.

Just so. I completely agree with Vyvyan, here.

Mind Flayers? Yeah. Absolutely! They are iconic D&D. They are humanoid. They have a society. Language. Racial ties and attitudes. Possibly religion. They have a Culture. Not every critter in the MM does or needs this. They absolutely are entitled to a page, possibly more (though I'd prefer no more than a spread/2 pages).

Please, kind ENworlders, do keep in mind, I come at this from a Layout Editor/Graphic Designer with many years of publishing experience position as much as an avid fan/player/DM of D&D with a great love of the hobby. The greatest monster book in the world could be 1,000 pages long [maybe more!] and give us all everything we'd ever want about every possible monster.

This is simply, unfortunate but true, not possible in printed material...decisions must be made. Editing and layout design are jobs for a reason. Even online material, who among you have hours and hours to pour through...or, nowadays, want to pour through scrolling and scrolling and scrolling to get all of that information in?

D&D [or any RPG, for that matter] needs to be a coherent rules/information set...a system with enough info to give us the tools, the parameters, we need to make things work. They can not, possibly, give us everything, every possible permutation, of what can potentially happen in game.

It simply can't be done in an affordable way, whether for money or time. I want things as evocative as possible. I also look at these things and think, "this won't work in a printed book"...and possibly, "this won't work in a PDF or website," either. Those are the, again, unfortunate, constraints of reality and the business-side of the hobby we all love.

 

[Rune]

I think I would like to see two versions of the monster manual. A lore-heavy version for inspiration and a B/X version to take to games and actually use in play. I'd buy both.

 

[Gilbetron]

As a clarification, the Ettercap writeup they showed is just an example of the notes they are taking about each monster internally.

"In writing up our notes, we're following a style similar to what we used in the Monster Vault product, with each creature described with a few key traits that are given further details."

I'm taking that to mean this is the Cliff's Notes version of an Ettercap, used to help capture the feel and salient details of each D&D creature for expansion in the final product(s). I wouldn't be surprised if there ends up being multiple versions of every creature, one version for each of the types of D&D: basic, advanced, tactical, etc.

 

[GX.Sigma]

[pure awesomeness]

I like that. I'm always in favor of describing things in game terms. You could also have stuff like:

No. appearing: 1 (75%) or 2 (25%, mated pair)
In Lair: 90%
Treasure: Nil, but an intact venom gland is worth 1000 gp (DC XX Dex to harvest)

 

[Storminator]

TBH, I like Mearl's little blurb better than the 2e monstrosity posted (which I hadn't seen before - I skipped 2e). The combat section in the 2e version is terrible - it's an actual impediment to play at the table. A concise stat block is much, much better. Just list the claw attacks and the bite attack and let me as DM decide which I'll use. Reading a paragraph with damage stats embedded is a huge turnoff. And the first paragraph can be replaced with a picture.

That just leaves a couple of paragraphs that aren't any better than Mearls' bullet points.

Of course opinions will differ, but I think the 5e version has a lot more story potential than the 2e version. The 2e version is essentially a mindless trap monster that hangs with giant spiders - and doesn't provide a lot that a regular giant spider does. The 5e version gives me a reason to put one near a Feywild crossing (to eat fey) AND a human settlement (to despoil the civilized lands). I can use the weak version with a single crippled giant spider, or a powerful one with a large herd of spiders, to a king version (Aranea) with a bunch of underling ettercaps. Any of that can surround the hag swamp, giving me an evil faery land that adventurers can go explore for a bunch of levels. Pretty cool.

Tho KM's version is pretty good too.

PS

 

[I'm A Banana]

The combat section in the 2e version is terrible - it's an actual impediment to play at the table. A concise stat block is much, much better.

FYI, the combat section was in addition to a stat block summary of the attacks. The intent, apparently, was to describe what those numbers actually meant (this was 2e, so the stat blocks were essentially the same kind of format as in 1e: # attacks, damage/attack, miscellaneous special attacks and defenses, etc.).

Of course opinions will differ, but I think the 5e version has a lot more story potential than the 2e version.

I'm into the "ettercap as an ally to the evil fey" kind of angle, and I do think it's meatier that 2e's "I live out in the forest and kill" vibe (which, it should be noted, the 5e ettercap can still do...which is awesome). I'm less into the "You used PIXIE on ETTERCAP. ETTERCAP is evolving! ETTERCAP evolved in to ARANEA!" Especially because aranea are really a very different kind of spider-critter, working with a different set of motifs, than an ettercap.

 

[RedShirtNo5.1]

# monsters, level of detail, price
Choose two.

While I'd like little more detail than what Mike has, I don't want the 2e level of detail.