Paul Farquhar
Legend
Original ones, created by Gygax. D&D is literature too.What mythical or literary archetypes is a beholder or a rust monster being build around?
Sorry, no. You are just wrong here.
Original ones, created by Gygax. D&D is literature too.What mythical or literary archetypes is a beholder or a rust monster being build around?
Sorry, no. You are just wrong here.
I'm tempted to say "More fool you" especially as 1e was the most shameless cashgrab in D&D history, written to take Arneson's name off the rulebook. But that isn't fair and design standards have moved on - instead I'll say that what was acceptable for a game, a car, or a computer in the 1970s isn't in the 2020sI paid good money for 1st edition!
So that's nonsense.
LOL. An "original" archetype is something of a contradiction in terms. If it's original, it's only an archetype if other things start following along in a similar vein. A rust monster isn't an archetype at all. Nor is a beholder.Original ones, created by Gygax. D&D is literature too.
Recent studies have revealed that 1e may be up to 3 editions removed from the modern era and perhaps as many as 10% of all D&D players are not actually you.I paid good money for 1st edition!
So that's nonsense.
Mod Note:But we can 1 billion percent call what happened back in the day lies.
I'm going to take it a step farther and argue that WotC's intention is for it to function how you(general you) want it to function. That's why they are constantly drilling in that it's "rulings over rules", and "the rules serve the DM, not the the other way around", and "check with the DM to see if there are any rule changes", and the "DMG is just guidelines", and...The reason is simple. If WotC stays silent about their intentions, everyone can argue that WotC supports "their conclusions" about how the game is meant to function- ie, the way they want it to function. Thus 5e is "their kind of game, not yours".
If they communicate what their intent is, it could become "not their kind of game" and they won't be happy, and possibly not buy their product.
So vagueness = success when your game plan is to try and appeal to the broadest base of consumers possible.
As do I. But since a beginner friendly D&D that generate DMs that has confidence in the material is good for the hobby I wish WotC would be more consistent in what they aim for. Or how it manifests in the newer material.I didn't say I liked the change. But it doesn't really affect me, since I stat up monsters however I like.
I mostly run modules but I still rely upon monster manual monster entry characterization a lot for how I portray the monsters in a module.If monster stat blocks and fluff doesn't hold the DMs hand in at least some way the newer gamers will be more dependent on readymade adventures and campaigns - which can be fun and all, but I think most of us older gamers have fond memories from our homegrown campaigns. Those will be harder to make and play if you for example don't know what an Otyugh is supposed to be.