Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="dave2008" data-source="post: 9115496" data-attributes="member: 83242">Need is to strong of a word, it is a preference. I can use a setting specific book, but I find they tend to have a lot of stuff I ignore or need to rewrite / rethink / adjust. The less of that the better IMO. Here are few other thoughts:More monsters: With less setting specific fluff (and therefore less fluff) we can get more monsters. That is a good thing IMO.More flexibility: Similar to my initial comment, more generic is more flexible without having to put in effort to revise setting info I don't wantMore flavor: If the core book is generic, the setting books can be more flavorful. If you are familiar with 4e, it is the difference between the <a href="https://www.dmsguild.com/product/158946/Dungeons--Dragons-Essentials-Monster-Vault-4e?filters=0_0_0_0_45360_0_0_0" target="_blank">Monster Vault</a> and <a href="https://www.dmsguild.com/product/158948/Monster-Vault-Threats-to-the-Nentir-Vale-4e?term=Monster+Vault%3A+Threats+to+The+Nentir+Vale&filters=0_0_0_0_45360_0_0_0" target="_blank">Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir Vale</a>.Or take alignment. The core book should be flexible, Orcs can be any alignment, but usually chaotic evil (or something similar). However, in a setting book you can straight up say Orcs are neutral evil or whatever.</blockquote>