Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 7376846" data-attributes="member: 6677017">It would be a really silly thing to not put all of the nine in. With as much as we already know or suspect is going in, that would mean intentionally holding back monsters to get you to buy a future product. So far 5e has done a pretty good job of *not* pulling nonsense like that. Take the MM entries for the demons and devils. They gave us a pretty complete picture of the classic hierarchies, the same as they did in 2e when the monster entry was &quot;Baatezu&quot;, and then had a similarly complete list in a single product. Sure, they still publish obscure ones in later products, but nothing like the fail that was 3e, where they didn't even include manes. Now, they can still do better. Abishai should have been in, and they dropped the ball on the yugoloths. But my money is on all of the Lords of the Nine, plus a smattering of some other prominent ones.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sword of Spirit, post: 7376846, member: 6677017"] It would be a really silly thing to not put all of the nine in. With as much as we already know or suspect is going in, that would mean intentionally holding back monsters to get you to buy a future product. So far 5e has done a pretty good job of *not* pulling nonsense like that. Take the MM entries for the demons and devils. They gave us a pretty complete picture of the classic hierarchies, the same as they did in 2e when the monster entry was "Baatezu", and then had a similarly complete list in a single product. Sure, they still publish obscure ones in later products, but nothing like the fail that was 3e, where they didn't even include manes. Now, they can still do better. Abishai should have been in, and they dropped the ball on the yugoloths. But my money is on all of the Lords of the Nine, plus a smattering of some other prominent ones. [/QUOTE]

Verification