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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Undrave" data-source="post: 8949782" data-attributes="member: 7015698">I still haven't seen a convincing argument that 5e does monsters better.Because the stat block is what you need at the table when a fight breaks out. All that flowery 2e ecology is nice to read about, I'm sure, but I'm not gonna want to start scanning half a page of fluff when somehing comes up in a fight. And honestly the 5e stat block isn't that much different, except for that part I hate with the spells. Maybe you don't think the 4e lore goes into enough details, maybe the 5e one is way better (I don't own the 5e MM) but I'm not sure what you exactly need. 4e monsters works on a philosophy of economy of details. It won't tell you how many kids on average a Bulette can have, or how long the gestation period of Warg, but it'll tell you if they'll attack adventurers and where you're likely to encounter those creatures. It will tell you the essential and trust you to fill in the rest and give your world your own flavor. That's what DMs have been doing forever after all. It's why they don't give spellcaster monsters a series of Rituals in their stat blocks or anywhere on the page. Because the base assumption is that you'll decide what rituals they need if you think they need one, and if you only encounter that monster in a fight you'll have every data and rule bits you need on hand.It's not the same philosophy as 3.X or even 5e. It might not appeal to you but it appealed to me and if I was redoing 4e I wouldn't be trying to appeal to you since you're already satisfied by 5e. I'm trying to scratch my 4e itch here.</blockquote>

Verification