Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="aurickandrien" data-source="post: 1724100" data-attributes="member: 21098">As I said it is not strictly necessary, and as for the monsters being defined entirely; sure they've got the stats and that, but c'mon the Monster Manual was an exercise of cramming in as many monsters into 320 pages as possible.&nbsp; And as for the other supplements I'm sure they couldn't at least have managed to fit the words &quot;Dark Sun&quot; next to environment for such setting specific monsters.&nbsp; Really, though my post wasn't about bagging 3.x WotC monster supplements.The whole point of my post was that whilst old edition may be new to me that they are decidedly not new to my playgroup, and thus not really all that new at all; in response to Razz's theory that they were entirely new to new players.&nbsp; So, if you're done bagging my desire not to simply drop setting specific monsters onto my party, who are more familiar with them than me...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="aurickandrien, post: 1724100, member: 21098"] As I said it is [b]not strictly necessary[/b], and as for the monsters being defined entirely; sure they've got the stats and that, but c'mon the Monster Manual was an exercise of cramming in as many monsters into 320 pages as possible. And as for the other supplements I'm sure they couldn't at least have managed to fit the words "Dark Sun" next to environment for such setting specific monsters. Really, though my post wasn't about bagging 3.x WotC monster supplements. The whole point of my post was that whilst old edition may be [i]new[/i] to me that they are decidedly not new to my playgroup, and thus not really all that new at all; in response to [b]Razz[/b]'s theory that they were entirely new to new players. So, if you're done bagging my desire not to simply drop setting specific monsters onto my party, who are more familiar with them than me... [/QUOTE]

Verification