Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5981202" data-attributes="member: 87792">There are a lot more than 4 editions - Brown Box, oD&amp;D, BECMI, and RC come to mind.&nbsp; And 3.5 does not say the same thing as 3.0.&nbsp;&nbsp;My point was that the two were very different.&nbsp; And that was why there were so many arguments.&nbsp; I certainly haven't gone back on that.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;And from the perspective of a 4e player, the monsters are simply risible by 4e standards.&nbsp; By the standards of the filler monsters in the MM1 (the worst mechanically designed MM) that were just put in there to be there, they are ill thought out (seriously, &quot;impale&quot; - the Hook Horror was a filler monster in the MM1 and even that didn't imply it stuck those hooks right the way through an enemy).&nbsp; That said, I'd far and away rather use them than the literally incomplete 3.X monsters that require you to look in numerous other sourcebooks or even other pages on that sourcebook to be able to say what they actually can do.&nbsp;If anything they are closest to a watered down version of the 2e Monstrous Manual.&nbsp; But then the whole thing appears to be closest to a 2e retroclone - and what made 2e good was emphatically not the rules or mechanics.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5981202, member: 87792"] There are a lot more than 4 editions - Brown Box, oD&D, BECMI, and RC come to mind. And 3.5 does not say the same thing as 3.0. My point was that the two were very different. And that was why there were so many arguments. I certainly haven't gone back on that. And from the perspective of a 4e player, the monsters are simply risible by 4e standards. By the standards of the filler monsters in the MM1 (the worst mechanically designed MM) that were just put in there to be there, they are ill thought out (seriously, "impale" - the Hook Horror was a filler monster in the MM1 and even that didn't imply it stuck those hooks right the way through an enemy). That said, I'd far and away rather use them than the literally incomplete 3.X monsters that require you to look in numerous other sourcebooks or even other pages on that sourcebook to be able to say what they actually can do. If anything they are closest to a watered down version of the 2e Monstrous Manual. But then the whole thing appears to be closest to a 2e retroclone - and what made 2e good was emphatically not the rules or mechanics. [/QUOTE]

Verification