Does 3.5e monster desciptions annoy anyone?

[Wombat]

For my money since 75+% of the monsters are just darn silly, I never have a problem with this.

This probably also explains why I dislike monster manuals in general. They rank just slightly above pre-packaged adventures for me.

 

[Ferret]

I show them the picture and say something, good thing I'm good at that.

 

[Wikidogre]

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?

Thats why the Gods made DM's, for one too create there own description if needed.

 

[Wikidogre]

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

This has too be the greatest reply i have ever seen!
Being a huge goblinoid fan, i agree fully.

 

[Desdichado]

Take 'em or leave 'em. No difference to me.

 

[F5]

I haven't got the 3.5 books, so I had no idea they added these kinds of descriptions to them creature entries.

I like the idea IN THEORY, but I from what I've heard in this thread, it sounds like they bungled the idea. Flavorful, narrative descriptive text that a newbie DM can read verbatim is good, as long as it describes the creature's appearance and attitude in a useful way. The examples I've seen here aren't useful. I'll have to take a look at the book in person now, though.

I like the round-by-round tactics for the tougher monsters, even though I don't really use them. The descriptive text sounds like the same kind of mentality, but a poor implementation.