Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5072473" data-attributes="member: 2067">At least, for it to act like a bat (e.g.: fierce to its prey as it swoops in out of nowhere, scared of other stuff)At best, for it to act like a bat of myth (e.g.: inspiring dread and fear).And if it's just meant to be another monster's sidekick, maybe we don't need a "monstrous bat" entry at all. Slap a statblock up with that other monster, where I will actually pay attention and use it because it supports that other monster better than it works by itself. Certainly I don't expect berzerker-bats.  Mostly 'cuz it's not about the Bodak (who the entry is named after), but about the Nightwalker (which is just present as a Bodak power-up). And if they don't kill for the sake of killing, then telling us right under the name that they kill for the sake of killing is a really strange way to tell us what a Bodak is.And even being created by Nightwalkers ain't that special. Undead spawning minions is as old as Vampires. It's better than "kill for the sake of killing," but it doesn't take much to trump that little treat. BUT, this is not really about the specifics anyway. You said the MM doesn't have those things, and I pointed out where it does. I've certainly met the necessary requirements for refuting that argument.I don't dispute your case that the MM also has some pretty good fluff. As I said above, fluff quality is pretty subjective (not every newbie DM knows every undead worth its salt spawns, so when they first hit that Bodak entry, it will be pretty nifty to them). Quantity-wise, I think we can all agree that there's more fluff than most 3e monsters overall, but less fluff than most 2e monsters, with some monsters getting significantly more love than others (Formorians, loved. Dragons, not so much). The Grigwartha stuff isn't too shabby, and, yes, if the players make a DC 35 Arcana check, they gain a nice plot hook for all that effort. But it's not the kind of stuff I can use at the table. It should be kind of plot hook that comes at the end of a chain of other challenges in that "vast network,"  or one that lurks with Grigwartha's entry somewhere else in the book, and if I was going to use that plot hook, I think rolling for that information just because you see one of these skeletons is a pretty awkward way of kludging it in (what if they roll poorly and miss?). It's not a bad little seed for all that, but the presentation is all strange and un-usable. And it comes after a full half-page of  goofy-sounding stuff like...AKA: "Boneclaws are made pretty much like any other undead, and hang out with death critters, also like other undead. They also have retractable claws for some reason?"And:As opposed to other undead, perhaps slightly less intelligent, that enjoy hugging living creatures and giving them flowers?"Why is this zombie kissing me?""Awww, he's just not smart enough to want to kill you."I mean, if I can get through all that without being more inspired to run a battle where zombies want hugs than to use the Boneclaw at all, yes, I find a pretty good seed, buried at the end of the entry, for a villain that I have to generate myself. But, again, this isn't about specifics. It's enough to say, "Yes, there are plenty of things in the MM that I think are completely ridiculous." I provided supporting evidence. I, also, clearly wasn't the only one. You don't need to defend it from me. In fact, doing so is going to result in little more than he said/she said, because fluff is pretty subjective, and how important it is differs depending on a DM's style. MM1 and MM2 didn't meet my needs, and you questioning my criticism (which, yeah, can be hyperbolic) is just internet people telling people they don't know how they should feel. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I am excited that I am getting better and more information on each monster. I (and many other people) thought the old one was not as good as it could have been. If you think this is a change for the negative, what do you think we are giving up, here? If you think this is a change for the positive, or are neutral on it, we're pretty much in the same place, and are really just quibbling about how much of an improvement we each expect it to be. Chalk it up to different styles. You clearly don't need dynamite bats. I do. You can endure 200 words of "Undead monster is undead, and also a monster." I can't. We have different needs, and I hope the newest MM's will be as good at providing for mine as they are in providing for yours, because the last two suuuuuuucked for my needs.</blockquote>

Verification