Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Faolyn" data-source="post: 9559291" data-attributes="member: 6915329">We've seen the layout of the individual pages. I don't need to know how the table of contents is organized to know if the monsters are laid out well or contain useful information.No, Sly's claim is that they got more useful information for each monster out of Level Up's Menagerie than he does from D&D books.You are moving the goalposts by talking about the book's layout in general.From the Menagerie:[ATTACH=full]393453[/ATTACH]"Optional." "For inspiration only; feel free to use another setting's lore or invent your own."I guess you should have looked at the entire book before you decided, huh?Again, you're nitpicking and moving goalposts. Sly was talking about how they felt the book was more useful. How 'bout instead of saying "but, but, the kerning!" you instead look at the actual content, hmm?Welp, their loss for not actually reading it.Which is what you're saying about me, for not looking over the entire MM24 before making a judgement call, right? In fact, I don't think you're allowed to say anything else non-positive about the LU MM until you've actually read the entire book. That's only fair.Yes it is. I have to move my mouse around, possibly several times if I forget the rules between uses of the ability, meaning I can't easily concentrate on other aspects of the encounter. That's going to be terrible for people who have mobility issues, poor short-term memories, or whose mouse or internet decides to crap out on them.Also, in my opinion, that's an absolutely crappy and greedy way to write a book, since it means I can only get full use if I buy a subscription to DDB. What happens if I only have the books with me?Oh, and while I'm at it: here's a spell entry for guiding bolt, from the NPC priest.[ATTACH=full]393463[/ATTACH]No hovering needed, and I can use the info. In comparison, here's the same spell taken from the MM24's <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/monster-manual-2025-stat-block-compilation.709621/#post-9556890" target="_blank">gold dragon</a>:[ATTACH=full]393462[/ATTACH]I can say with 100% certainty that in comparison, the gold dragon's entry is not useful.You're saying that the LU design is objectively bad, or at least worse than the MM design. Do you represent everyone now?So your answer is that people should spend money they may not have to buy the books to compare them before they're allowed to have an opinion. How privileged, to think we can all afford to do that!Or are you saying that we should wait until we watch review videos made by influencers and take their opinion as gospel? If an influence says that the book is bad or un-useful, are we allowed to listen to them, or must we only listen to positive reviews?There's one. That whole paragraph is about how the MM is better because it doesn't have "superfluous" information and because, in your opinion, it's laid out better, but the bolded bits are far more specific about it.(Thinking about this paragraph again, it's quite short-sighted. Who says that I only use a monster for a "quick 3 round encounter"? My monsters have lives outside of combat. Some of that information in LU is useful for fleshing them out as living, thinking beings.)You haven't shown that the LU Menagerie is unusable or less usable. Just that you don't like how its laid out.Your argument started with "SlyFlourish is disparaging the MM by saying that to them, the LU Menagerie looks more useful," when he hasn't even seen any of it. And when I pointed out that you could compare some of the monsters side-by-side, you started talking about tiny details of design rather than focusing on the quality of the content.We haven't been talking about other monster books. If SlyFlourish wanted to say that the ToV Monster Vault is the Best Monster Book Evah!!1!, then I could probably argue with him about it, since personally I was underwhelmed. But he hasn't.</blockquote>

Verification