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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="deClench" data-source="post: 3683176" data-attributes="member: 27388">There's two major monster-entry design issues in the article, both geared toward making gaming "easier." I haven't seen the actual MM5 yet, and this is based solely on the two articles.1) Making monsters more streamlined and easier to play--most notably by stripping away spell-like abilities. I'm all for this as long as the monsters are still interesting, and anything that makes my life as a DM easier is better. However, it's interesting that that sentiment is in the same article as the introduction of "thresholds" and other potentially time-consuming new abilities. They sound interesting though.2) Reducing the content of ecologies and backgrounds for the monsters to make them less irrelevant to players. While I support streamlining the mechanics for the monsters, I hate the idea of losing so much of the background. I love the ecologies and backgrounds. That's what helps me understand a monster and utilize it well. That's why I purchase the monster manuals in the first place.To my thinking, the monster entries should be equal parts mechanical information and background information. In my opinion, why bother with the manuals otherwise? Does this mean we'll get more focused products like Lords of Madness or ecology articles (ala Dragon)? I don't need a monster generator. I need interesting material. I don't want to have to make it all up myself.With this design philosophy, would we ever have gotten something as cool as the shadar-kai? It would have just been a fey from the Plane of Shadow that does some cool stuff. There's no soul in that.Just my thoughts.</blockquote>

Verification