Does 3.5e monster desciptions annoy anyone?

[shadow]

I'm just wondering. In some ways it's nice to have some description of the monsters but so many of them are poorly written. And too many times the description seems to dictate the monsters action monster x approaches you. What if the monster doesn't approach the party? What if it stays back cautiously? What if it tries to run and hide? I would really have liked it if the designers included a little paragraph about the monster description rather than a poorly written sentence to read to the players. By the way, does anyDM actually use the 3.5e monster descriptions in game?

 

[Richards]

Yeah, I preferred it when there was just a paragraph (or even a few short sentences) describing what the monster looked like. It's impossible to write up a narrative description that fits every possible way the monster can be encountered.

Johnathan

 

[Saeviomagy]

Is it really that difficult to adapt the description, or for that matter read the rest of the text, or look at the picture?

 

[Richards]

Don't even get me started on pictures not matching a creature's written description...it's one of my "hot buttons."

Johnathan

 

[Pants]

Just because it's there doesn't mean you have to use them. It's a good option for newbie DM's, but that's really about it.

 

[Zappo]

Well, consider this: with a normal description, you always have to adapt the text to the situation. With the narrative, at least if the monster does approach, you already have a readable desc.

Seriously, I dislike everything that's supposed to be "read aloud to the players". I think that every DM has a narrative style of his own, and a pre-written text can't fit it. Besides, reading gives you a boring voice tone until you get a bit good at it.

I hate hate hate when a monster's picture doesn't match the desc, though. I mean, I often describe the creature and then show the illo; what if it doesn't match?

 

[Kichwas]

I like expanded descriptions for the mood they help to evoke. Getting a feel for a creature is what I need to run it.

 

[Mystery Man]

I'm just wondering. In some ways it's nice to have some description of the monsters but so many of them are poorly written. And too many times the description seems to dictate the monsters action monster x approaches you. What if the monster doesn't approach the party? What if it stays back cautiously? What if it tries to run and hide? I would really have liked it if the designers included a little paragraph about the monster description rather than a poorly written sentence to read to the players. By the way, does anyDM actually use the 3.5e monster descriptions in game?

Would you like some cheese with that wine?

Sheesh!

Better than what was there before, which was nothing?

 

[Richards]

Better than what was there before, which was nothing?

Uh, that's actually not true. The 3.0 Monster Manual (and all of the various ones before that) had a brief description of the monster in question, sometimes an entire paragraph. While these read-aloud "description blurbs" might be helpful for the newbie DMs, they're a bit of a disservice in the long run.

Randomly picking a "new to 3E" monster, the chuul, here's what the 3.0 MM had to say:

A horrible mix of crustacean, insect, and serpent, the chuul is an abomination that lurks submerged or partially submerged, awaiting intelligent prey to devour.

A chuul has huge pincerlike claws, four webbed legs, a wide tail, and a mandibled mouth surrounding by squirming tentacles. Its entire body is encased in an orange and black carapace.

And here's the 3.5 blurb:

Like some large insect or monstrous crustacean, the creature rises from the still pool, its pincerlike claws snapping angrily as torchlight reflects off its mottled, armored carapace. Its small dark eyes fix you with a hungry stare, and the tentacles dripping from its mouth squirm excitedly as it emerges from the water.

So, how many legs does a chuul have? What color is its carapace? What shape is its tail? You don't get any of that from the 3.5 treatment. (And don't tell me you can just tell from the picture, either, as the picture - which is the same in both the 3.0 and 3.5 MM, by the way - has a differently-colored carapace than the description states.)

In my more cynical moments, I swear the dropping of details about the monsters' appearances was a deliberate attempt to remove a ton of "ammo" from those of us who notice such discrepancies and complain about them on message boards.

Johnathan

 

[BOZ]

Don't even get me started on pictures not matching a creature's written description...it's one of my "hot buttons."

Johnathan

i was just reading the locathah entry yesterday, and the description says how they "have no teeth", but the picture clearly displays teeth.