Does 3.5e monster desciptions annoy anyone?

[Will]

I really wish the blurbs didn't _mention the fricken name of the creature_. If you're just looking to quickly convey the creature, it's kind of annoying to have to skip the name.

Or, even worse, things they shouldn't be hearing. I was describing to someone with See Invisible up what a phantom fungus looked like. And had to keep avoiding the lines like 'main mass, though it is visible only when dead.' Doh!

It didn't really seem like these descriptions were aimed at actual use in play in many cases. Ah well. I don't mind tremendously having to describe the buggers from the pic. Some are tough, though, like... well, a phantom fungus.

 

[Arnwyn]

Better than what was there before, which was nothing?

Nice try, d00d, but as noted above there *were* descriptions before - just not in poorly-written "read aloud" text that often can only apply to strict situations.

What was there before *was* better, IMO.

(And yes, it is infuriating when the description doesn't match the picture. Thanks for making the DM's job oh-so-easier! And when the description names the creature - that's annoying, too. All said, that 3.5 "improvement" is not an improvement at all.)

 

[isoChron]

I never use these descriptions.
I just visit the art gallery of WotC and print out a picture of the monster and present this to the players. A picture tells you more than thousand words. If there is something to say about movement or behavior I tell it with my own words and don't stick to some wording in the books.
BYE

 

[diaglo]

it is the same mistake with people thinking goblins are green.

 

[Mystery Man]

Nice try, d00d, but as noted above there *were* descriptions before - just not in poorly-written "read aloud" text that often can only apply to strict situations.

What was there before *was* better, IMO.

(And yes, it is infuriating when the description doesn't match the picture. Thanks for making the DM's job oh-so-easier! And when the description names the creature - that's annoying, too. All said, that 3.5 "improvement" is not an improvement at all.)

What really gets on my nerves is they put the name of the monster right by the picture! I go to show my players what it is theyre fighting and they're like "oh, a destrachan, cool!"

Doh!

Whats up with that??

 

[Grazzt]

What really gets on my nerves is they put the name of the monster right by the picture! I go to show my players what it is theyre fighting and they're like "oh, a destrachan, cool!"

Doh!

Whats up with that??

Dude. Cover the name up. How hard is that?

 

[Voadam]

At least they are in the srd now so publishers can use official descriptions of the released monsters without worrying about infringing on WotC IP in the images.

 

[Mystery Man]

Dude. Cover the name up. How hard is that?

*smacks forehead*

Now why didn't I think of that?

 

[Seule]

I love having the descriptions. It's an additional tool to use, if you don't like it, don't use it. I use them some of the time, adapt them some of the time, and ignore them the rest of the time, but in any case, I think they are something that has been needed for 25 years now.


--Seule

 

[Gez]

Yep. The non-revised descriptions were better. The new are rather patronizing, in a "that's how you are supposed to describe the creature" sort of way.