D&D 5E 07/08/2013 - Legends & Lore Monsters and the World of D&D
Klaus
First Post
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/archive.aspx?category=all&subcategory=mmupdates
The Monster Manual Updates provided Monster Vault-style entries for several monsters that weren't included in MV.
Libramarian
Adventurer
I would say that the flavor of the monster is more important to me than the statblock, but I also think that the 2e entries are overwritten and flavor is better conveyed with a few choice phrases, in particular descriptions that "show" rather than "tell"--e.g. don't tell me that a monster is ugly, describe something ugly, don't tell me that a monster is cruel, describe some cruel behavior, etc.
The idea of a humanoid with a strong affinity for spiders and that makes spider-like traps is pretty cool and a good enough idea for a D&D monster IMO. I don't really need more "story" than that. I dislike all of the story seeds presented here. They're slightly worse than useless for me.
In principle I like the idea of a MM dripping with flavor and story hooks and monster interconnections, but the problem is that I don't generally like the type of flavor and story that WotC likes. So in practice I probably would prefer an abbreviated MM with just the combat stats, a simple description and hopefully some good art.
Ettercaps should look like spider monkeys btw:
[sblock]
[/sblock]
The idea of a humanoid with a strong affinity for spiders and that makes spider-like traps is pretty cool and a good enough idea for a D&D monster IMO. I don't really need more "story" than that. I dislike all of the story seeds presented here. They're slightly worse than useless for me.
In principle I like the idea of a MM dripping with flavor and story hooks and monster interconnections, but the problem is that I don't generally like the type of flavor and story that WotC likes. So in practice I probably would prefer an abbreviated MM with just the combat stats, a simple description and hopefully some good art.
Ettercaps should look like spider monkeys btw:
[sblock]
JeffB
Legend
Roger that. Big Plus One.
And with them seemingly placing a great deal of effort into creating story material throughout NEXT, I am becoming increasingly disinterested.
howandwhy99
Adventurer
Some of the longer entries are really great, full of detail on what makes Ettercaps unique. I advocate for including juicy elements like: climate, environment, diet, activity cycle, common lairs, procreation, lifespan, organization (size, design, roles, authority, etc.), combat defense and tactics, physiology, economy, racial relations, goods and services, magical tradition(s), deities and worship, demographics, territory claimed/ranged, fortifications built if applicable, alignment, ability score spans and ratios, saving throw breakdown, hit dice breakdown, and so on.
The biggest issue though is the possibility of published material becoming "branded" into canon. The last thing we need is every monster worked up as "the correct" Ettercap for the game. These should be suggestions malleable before play for a DM.
My suggestion is give a few key monsters a full work up and then bits and pieces of others. Then some could even be largely blank monsters with only the cool inspiring bits put to text.
Humans, of course, are by far the biggest concern here and the largest workup of any monsters. Not only are they the most diverse and complicated, but most easily recognizable to the players. The whole of the PC classes make up only a portion of their entry alone.
What I would do is provide a single cultural example for humans, which can than be altered or expanded upon by DMs. I think the Magical Medieval Society provide a decent starting point. As with any monster book, so much of what is included is really defining the setting. Letting players and DMs know they are in charge of their own custom settings is paramount to providing usable material.
The biggest issue though is the possibility of published material becoming "branded" into canon. The last thing we need is every monster worked up as "the correct" Ettercap for the game. These should be suggestions malleable before play for a DM.
My suggestion is give a few key monsters a full work up and then bits and pieces of others. Then some could even be largely blank monsters with only the cool inspiring bits put to text.
Humans, of course, are by far the biggest concern here and the largest workup of any monsters. Not only are they the most diverse and complicated, but most easily recognizable to the players. The whole of the PC classes make up only a portion of their entry alone.
What I would do is provide a single cultural example for humans, which can than be altered or expanded upon by DMs. I think the Magical Medieval Society provide a decent starting point. As with any monster book, so much of what is included is really defining the setting. Letting players and DMs know they are in charge of their own custom settings is paramount to providing usable material.
Oh. Is that all?
Ah, no, "and so on", you say? Eggin' for that 1,000 pager, are we?
zoroaster100
First Post
I agree with the suggestions to use the 2e description, just tweak things when they feel something should be changed for a specific reason, and of course update the stats.
Jacob Marley
Adventurer
+1
Between the last two week's Legends & Lore and James Wyatt's Wandering Monsters series I have gone from neutral-positive to neutral-negative on D&DNext.
Here are a couple excerpts from the MV.
https://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20101105b
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20101025b
The Purple Worm and Red Dragon.
And the Monsernomicon from Iron Kindgoms is by far the best 3.X/d20 monter book and probably my number 2 book over all it was very well done. I just wish there was more to it but that is a good thing most of the time.
https://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20101105b
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20101025b
The Purple Worm and Red Dragon.
And the Monsernomicon from Iron Kindgoms is by far the best 3.X/d20 monter book and probably my number 2 book over all it was very well done. I just wish there was more to it but that is a good thing most of the time.
Here are a couple excerpts from the MV.
https://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20101105b
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20101025b
The Purple Worm and Red Dragon.
And the Monsernomicon from Iron Kindgoms is by far the best 3.X/d20 monter book and probably my number 2 book over all it was very well done. I just wish there was more to it but that is a good thing most of the time.
https://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20101105b
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20101025b
The Purple Worm and Red Dragon.
And the Monsernomicon from Iron Kindgoms is by far the best 3.X/d20 monter book and probably my number 2 book over all it was very well done. I just wish there was more to it but that is a good thing most of the time.
