Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
New Monster Swordwing!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4200219" data-attributes="member: 2067"><p>There has been some good fluff, but most of that good fluff has been "supplementary." The info about the formorians, the stuff about the archons, all of that is good, but, so far, it doesn't look like it's going into any of the core rulebooks. Every excerpt and preview and photographed page from the MM we've had so far has been monumentally boring, even going so far as to <em>actively remove</em> interesting things about the monster (the bodak is the example I keep bringing up, but the phane isn't a bad example, either). </p><p></p><p>The interesting stuff is in the DDI. </p><p></p><p>If this perception is accurate, I think it's really boneheaded, and whoever made that decision needs to be bludgeoned with a 13-foot tall beholder statue. </p><p></p><p>A monster book should always inspire you to use the mosnters in interesting ways, and give you the guidelines that you'll need for running them in those ways. One of those ways, the most important of those ways, is absolutely combat. But combat is not the only way.</p><p></p><p>The "collection" angle on this guy is pretty weak sauce. The "predatory" angle on the phane is kind of sad. The "it likes to kill" angle on the bodak is hilariously awful.</p><p></p><p>I think the team will succeed at whatever they really want to succeed at, I'm mostly concerned that somewhere, they decided that giving the DM interesting ideas of plots in which to use the monster was not something they really wanted to worry about for the MM. </p><p></p><p>I do think it's a big problem, because the monsters in 3e that worked that way were rather universally mocked -- phantontom fungi and ythraks and digesters and whatnot. These were not good monsters, though their mechanics were fine. These were poor monsters because they didn't give the DM any reason to want to put them in an encounter. </p><p></p><p>Really, I'm kind of ranty about this because this was one of my FIRST fears about 4e, back when they were proud of how fast and easy mosnter customization was, and I've only seen things that would confirm the fear. </p><p></p><p>*Sigh*. It's a good thing Necromancer is on point.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 4200219, member: 2067"] There has been some good fluff, but most of that good fluff has been "supplementary." The info about the formorians, the stuff about the archons, all of that is good, but, so far, it doesn't look like it's going into any of the core rulebooks. Every excerpt and preview and photographed page from the MM we've had so far has been monumentally boring, even going so far as to [I]actively remove[/I] interesting things about the monster (the bodak is the example I keep bringing up, but the phane isn't a bad example, either). The interesting stuff is in the DDI. If this perception is accurate, I think it's really boneheaded, and whoever made that decision needs to be bludgeoned with a 13-foot tall beholder statue. A monster book should always inspire you to use the mosnters in interesting ways, and give you the guidelines that you'll need for running them in those ways. One of those ways, the most important of those ways, is absolutely combat. But combat is not the only way. The "collection" angle on this guy is pretty weak sauce. The "predatory" angle on the phane is kind of sad. The "it likes to kill" angle on the bodak is hilariously awful. I think the team will succeed at whatever they really want to succeed at, I'm mostly concerned that somewhere, they decided that giving the DM interesting ideas of plots in which to use the monster was not something they really wanted to worry about for the MM. I do think it's a big problem, because the monsters in 3e that worked that way were rather universally mocked -- phantontom fungi and ythraks and digesters and whatnot. These were not good monsters, though their mechanics were fine. These were poor monsters because they didn't give the DM any reason to want to put them in an encounter. Really, I'm kind of ranty about this because this was one of my FIRST fears about 4e, back when they were proud of how fast and easy mosnter customization was, and I've only seen things that would confirm the fear. *Sigh*. It's a good thing Necromancer is on point. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
New Monster Swordwing!
Top