Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 5981230" data-attributes="member: 17106">There are plenty of variants, but the term "edition" and the use of a number is pretty unambiguous. The term "revised third edition" or "version 3.5 revision) (which is what is in the books) also pretty clearly delineates that they are still part of 3e. I suppose that-more germane to the thread topic, this is one of the issues WotC has to address. It sounds like you are a person who uses the monsters that are in the book without much modification, and, on top of that, looks at the book during a game session and reads the statistics and expects them to be complete.I, OTOH, typically walk into a session with a small pile of books, but no monster manuals. I expect my monster manual to give me something more akin to a class progression, as I want to be able to develop a detailed, customized, distinctive exemplar of the monster in question, which I do weeks or months before the session. I don't want all the monster's abilities to be fully explained in its stat block because it ends up being an enormous waste of space to repeat the same abilities over and over again; I expect my monsters to have many class abilities, and I expect to refer to the class descriptions to find them. By my standards, the 2e presentation was pretty poor, 3.0 was mediocre, 3.5 was decent, the new ones from late 3.5 were a huge step back, and 4e was probably even worse than 2e (and 5e is pretty uninspiring thus far).Not that there's anything wrong with the contrary; I'm well aware that plenty of people do use monster books during the game, which I'm sure has advantages and is perfectly reasonable. Making monsters to satisfy everyone sounds like it will be a tough job.</blockquote>

Verification