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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5237359" data-attributes="member: 2067">I'm excited this thread took off! And with mearls and Shemeska coming to an accord, I can only assume the apocalypse is nigh.That's something I do miss about the 3e philosophy of "a rule for everything!" I get that rules make it harder for some DM's to improv, but they make it so much easier for me, since I've got that net waiting to catch me when I take a flying leap off-script. It's like having a good improv partner. Well, it's still combat terrain. It's still (weirdly enough) only interacting with them in the context of stabbin' time. So that's part of what this new vision of a monster manual needs -- CONTEXT! Why shouldn't a book of interesting encounters include the game experience that goes along with encountering something like a campestri? That's part of what makes any monster cool, what makes us want to use them. If the succubus was just a statblock and a "grr, adventurers" tag line, that's not nearly as cool as the succubus as a manipulative fiendish force of alluring evil corrupting entire kingdoms from behind the throne. So when "succubus" pops up in the MM, give us the skill challenge involved in uncovering the hidden identity, or in convincing the king she's really evil, or the combat in which she is finally revealed. Ayup. I don't think it's a question of quantity of fluff. I think it's a question of organization of information. 4e has the infamous <a href="http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Bear_Lore" target="_blank">Bear Lore Meme</a>, which is actually a symptom of the "write this because it's standard" problem. A bear doesn't need to be center stage in any respect (unless it's being a hell of a prima donna). They can just be stat blocks in encounters with other things. Most normal (and dire) animals probably fill that role, too: they don't need their own entry, they need to be packaged with other things, more interesting things, things that would recruit and domesticate bears. Instead of bear lore, I should be seeing bears as part of this encounter:<img src="http://1d4chan.org/images/2/28/Bear_cavalry.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" />...with lore entries devoted to who ever the heck those bearded gods amongst men are who have ridden them! (and how maybe my fighter gets to be one!) Sure. Creating and running monsters is part of the 4e DMG, too.And then we have a big book full of 'em, also.Why can't we get guidelines for creation in the DMG, with examples ready for instant play in the "MM"? Why do traps and weather effects and other interesting encounters need to be relegated to whatever tiny scoop of pagecount they can weasel out of a DMG? The terrasque is a good example of why I think the concept of what an MM is needs to be grown. Godzilla was not taken down by four dudes who met at a tavern walking up to him and hitting him in the ankles with toothpicks. An encouter with Big T shouldn't be about damage and action economies. It should probably be about getting out of his way and finding someone to put him back to sleep for a millennium. In other words, not really a combat encounter. I still think it belongs in the MM, for all that, and not in some generic DMG "how to make an encounter" advisory panel. It needs to be in all its full-fledged glory, out there, ready to be plucked up and plunked down in your home game.</blockquote>

Verification