Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pinotage" data-source="post: 4104935" data-attributes="member: 15194">I was talking about MM4, not MM5, but it looks like we agree on that in any case. I believe people thought MM5 was an improvement on MM4.However, I fail to see the difference between having a single goblin entry in 3e and building an archer, a two-handed weapon wielding brute, a slinger, a scimitar and shield user, etc. (ala MM4) and the 4e approach of just giving you those builds. Isn't 4e just custom monsters that we can do ourselves? Giving something a different role is hardly a differentiating factor that warrants an additional monster.I wasn't arguing for 3e in this instance. I was indicating that there was an apparant shift in mentally about what appears to be essentially a MM4 style approach in 4e. While having different roles in 4e does reduce preparation time, I'd rather see more monsters than the same one with a different role ala MM4.Pinotage</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pinotage, post: 4104935, member: 15194"] I was talking about MM4, not MM5, but it looks like we agree on that in any case. I believe people thought MM5 was an improvement on MM4. However, I fail to see the difference between having a single goblin entry in 3e and building an archer, a two-handed weapon wielding brute, a slinger, a scimitar and shield user, etc. (ala MM4) and the 4e approach of just giving you those builds. Isn't 4e just custom monsters that we can do ourselves? Giving something a different role is hardly a differentiating factor that warrants an additional monster. I wasn't arguing for 3e in this instance. I was indicating that there was an apparant shift in mentally about what appears to be essentially a MM4 style approach in 4e. While having different roles in 4e does reduce preparation time, I'd rather see more monsters than the same one with a different role ala MM4. Pinotage [/QUOTE]

Verification