MM4 Table of Contents up

[d20Dwarf]

You know, it actually does get tiresome to read the endless "WotC does no wrong" posts from the freelancers. This seems to be a realtively new activity, but it has been quite apparant recently. (Perhaps the point made in Mearls recent Blog entry has something to do with it?)

Sorry if it is an outrageous taboo to actually point it out. But that doesn't make it any less obvious.

Cite please.

 

[Odhanan]

Agreed -- Yes, when I have time I certainly like to stat up my own drow and other bad guys, but this looks like a useful move to have more ready-made stats at the DM's fingertips. Heck, I wouldn't mind a whole book like that just based on the first four/five MMs.

I agree as well. I'm interested in variations of base creatures rather than weird monsters I'm unlikely to use in a game.

As a side note, I'd really like a NPC Manual. Like the DMG2's NPCs, but a whole book of them for a wide array of archetypal roles in a campaign.

 

[Shemeska]

FAILURE!

The red gem on your hand should now be blinking. Please report to carousel.

I adore that movie...

 

[d20Dwarf]

I adore that movie...

I did until I found out it was real.

 

[Mr Baron]

Looks light, but I do have it on pre-order (I like the Dragonspawn)

While I admit it seems a bit light in comparison to some other MM's (& ToH's), I still think it will be good.

I am really liking the dragonspawn. We do have tons of dragons, and 1/2 dragon templates, so this is something a bit different. For those of us with Red Hand, I think this will provide a plethora of ideas to throw into the module. To be honest, I am ok with the number of dragons we currently have, so not seeing any new dragons is not an issue for me. Dragonspawns look cool, so this is a selling point for me. Although the bluespawn digger thing looks like a giant sloth with a horn...probably will not make my cut.

I am not a big fan of the weird monsters. If WotC puts out a MM of the Weird, they can keep it. The windsock (you know the one) from FR that is all powerfull, does nothing for me. I keep thinking to myself, who created that one? What was the pitch that resulted in development of a giant windsock with wimpy arms and a large mouth? Yikes! We all have monsters that will never make it into our campaign. So on that note, I am ok with variants of the classics (orcs, ogres, etc...). These have a higher probability of making it into my campaign than an all powerful wind sock. And yes, the monster needs to look cool before I look at it. The blob with hands does not get a second look.

I will also say that there are a bunch of the classics and some from the older campaign settings that I would like to see get put into a MM. Some of these have already made it into Dragon, but I would not mind to see a reprint.

I appreciate the commentary from Mike & Wil...thanks, and keep'em coming.

PS...As long as there are no windsocks, I good with it

 

[Dire Bare]

You know, it actually does get tiresome to read the endless "WotC does no wrong" posts from the freelancers.

Not nearly as annoying as the "WotC does no right" posts from the crankies . . . (this is in general, not necessarly aimed at BryonD)

 

[Cam Banks]

Question: Wouldn't the Draconions from dragonlance be an example of where this has been tried before?

Yes, it is. And we have dragonspawn, too. But, you know, we're just Dragonlance, and stuff. Apparently this whole Tiamat thing is the latest hot idea and it's the Year of the Dragon and etc etc.

I still think "arcaniss" is a silly name.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Cam Banks]

You know, it actually does get tiresome to read the endless "WotC does no wrong" posts from the freelancers. This seems to be a realtively new activity, but it has been quite apparant recently. (Perhaps the point made in Mearls recent Blog entry has something to do with it?)

I'm always the first to leap to the defense of the people I freelance for, too. And support and praise the other people who're writing for them. So long as it's clear that the reason I'm doing it is because I genuinely like the stuff those people publish, it's not too disingenuous.

Of course, if it starts becoming "hey, this new book Company I Freelance For is putting out is really awesome and great" and nothing else, I'd expect to be called on it.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[d20Dwarf]

I'm always the first to leap to the defense of the people I freelance for, too. And support and praise the other people who're writing for them. So long as it's clear that the reason I'm doing it is because I genuinely like the stuff those people publish, it's not too disingenuous.

Of course, if it starts becoming "hey, this new book Company I Freelance For is putting out is really awesome and great" and nothing else, I'd expect to be called on it.

Cheers,
Cam

For the most part I just don't talk about products I don't like by people that I do like. I haven't seen this mythical bloc of freelance cheerleaders that the cynics are talking about...I see enthusiastic people that obviously love the game enough to sub-optimize their time in order to write for it, and for the most part they tend to be not of the type to go on internet message boards to complain about every little thing. So maybe they come off as positive and enthusiastic, but I don't think those are bad qualities.

 

[Cam Banks]

For the most part I just don't talk about products I don't like by people that I do like. I haven't seen this mythical bloc of freelance cheerleaders that the cynics are talking about...I see enthusiastic people that obviously love the game enough to sub-optimize their time in order to write for it, and for the most part they tend to be not of the type to go on internet message boards to complain about every little thing. So maybe they come off as positive and enthusiastic, but I don't think those are bad qualities.

You'll notice I'm not disagreeing with you.

Cheers,
Cam