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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 8618072" data-attributes="member: 1465">In theory the more the better.However, after Volo's Guide to Monsters, I didn't get the feeling I really wanted to get more monsters books... I looked into Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes but both the lore part and the bestiary part of the book seemed seriously less inspiring than Volo's, very boring lore, and too many garbage monsters in the bestiary. So when Fizban came out I didn't even bother checking out what it offers.As a DM I absolutely need both the tactical/stats side of a monster and the narrative/lore side to be interesting. I want monsters I can build either a bit of story or a reasonable ecology around. But if I am going to use the monster in combat encounters, then I also need interesting abilities that call for new tactics or tactical adaptations by the players. I think 5e designers are too conservative and don't have the guts to really do something new, every time they have a provocative idea they first brag about it and then silently remove it before release. It started off with the "intoxicated" condition... Mike Mearls claimed it was his favourite during playtest, have you seen it afterwards? The latest example is the Kender's ability to take out objects semi-randomly from their pockets, a brilliant idea to reconcile the old Kender's narrative of being cleptomaniacs with the fact that other players don't want to be stolen from: of course, now removed, so Kender will be yet another race of... samey humanoid.</blockquote>

Verification