Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4179392" data-attributes="member: 2067">True enough. I think that, by itself, it's a minor flaw, but when combined with a dull ability set, it just looks worse. Yes, but we've received more than the stat block in this preview, and perhaps each monster entry should contain more than a statblock and a way to kill PC's, since monsters are much more than simple combat nuggets of XP.I, at least, am not criticizing the statblock. I'm criticizing the *entire* monster entry, and only fairly mildly at that.Well, I think the big thing you're missing is that most of the people irked about the fluff in the PH are specifically irked about campaign-specific fluff. And none of them are complaining about the phane's campaign-specific fluff (that it was created in a war of gods vs. primordials.) at the moment. A lot of people are also irked at the meaninglessness of the names of game mechanics, like feats. Since a monster is more than a mechanical effect, since it actually exists in the world and has a name that people call it, you're going to get less complaints about that.And there's also the point that any absolutist position is probably deeply flawed. Just as there should be no "Out of the box....full stop....nothing that can't be!" in 4e, there should be no "NEVER INCLUDE FLUFF" in 4e. Fourthly, for my own milage, I am only mildly annoyed at meaninglessly vapid feat names, just like I'm only mildly annoyed by absolutely plot-boring monsters, but they are different criticisms. I'm not bringing the phane to task for its ability names or its own name ("phane" is fine...not great, but at least inoffensive, and the ability names are the kind of names that feats should be using -- useful, descriptive names that aren't named 'Purple Monkey Apocalypse'). I'm bringing the 4e phane to task specifically because, outside of an encounter with one, it's boring.From my history posting here since the first hints of monsters in 4e, I've been wary that 4e monsters would rock in combat, but be kind of absolute suck outside of combat, not having a good place in the world. The Bodak, the phane....at least two monsters now revealed that have received significant "fluff demotions" into generic things that beat up PC's. In different ways that are perhaps interesting to fight, but without much of an existence outside of the fight. Hey, maybe they're exceptions to the rule of monsters that you desperately want to use right out of the MM because your mind can't stop spinning plots around their machinations, their troubles, their powers, their potential for havoc in the campaign world....What I've noticed with the phane was that the 3e phane wasn't too shabby in this regard (partially because of some interesting and evocative abilities), and the 4e phane kind of sucks in this regard (partially because of boring damage + status ailment abilities, partially because of "Kills because it kills" fluff). I really don't want a MM filled with 4e's versions of Phantom Fungi and Destrachans, and I'm concerned that this phane is ripe to become one of them."Invisible mushrooms!" "Sonic dinosaurs!" "Cat-centaurs that shoot AARP memberships!"Combat power alone doesn't make these things interesting or worthy to use in an encounter. Maybe that was a deliberate decision by WotC to reduce the "epicness" of the phane, but that's a decision with kind of questionable motives to begin with...</blockquote>

Verification