D&D 5E New Wandering Monsters - Hulking Out

[Weather Report]

Indeed I guess we have to agreee to disagree with Hussar. I mean MoP was published within a year of 3E.

I can only assume it's part of a broader agenda, and the anti-Planescape crusade.

 

[Nymrohd]

I can only assume it's part of a broader agenda, and the anti-Planescape crusade.

I'd rather not assume and remain perplexed, it's better manners

 

[Hussar]

Yup, all supplements, and nothing in core. Which is what I've been saying all the way along. Again, I agree that 2e material came in later on but, in core? It's not there.

Oh, and Greyhawk? How is that a 2e thing? Did you forget that 2e rejected Greyhawk?

 

[Umbran]

Yup, all supplements, and nothing in core.

Given how little setting-specific material or flavor appears in the core of any edition, that doesn't really seem relevant, does it?

Let us think about the logic for a moment - You say that 3e didn't have this setting material in its core, so it wasn't "in the edition"? But then, that setting material appeared largely in supplements of 2e, not in the core. So, by your measure it wasn't really "in the edition" of 2e to eject in the first place!

Consistency matters. Either supplements count, or they don't - you can't cherrypick supplements count in one edition, but not the next.

 

[Sunseeker]

I'm gonna put on my nerd hat and say what's been bugging me about the original blog. All of these monsters are just Hulks. Big, brawny, aggressive brutes. None of them actually "hulk out", which is what makes The Incredible Hulk so cool and reference worthy. I mean, imagine you come across a lone kobold, he's hiding in a corner, and you draw your swords to kill him, and suddenly he turns into an Umber Hulk! The whole point of the Hulk and similar heroes and villains was that appearances can be deceiving.

But then deception is something that is very difficult to pull off in D&D, and a LOT of monsters are simply exactly what they look like. It would be nice to see D&D come up with monsters that may not be what you expect at first sight.

 

[pemerton]

Given how little setting-specific material or flavor appears in the core of any edition, that doesn't really seem relevant, does it?

Slightly tangential, but the 4e PHB and MM have a lot of setting-specific material and flavour, and the DMG sets out a framework (the "core conceits" of the D&D world) for using this stuff.

It's one of the things I like about 4e.

 

[Nymrohd]

I'm gonna put on my nerd hat and say what's been bugging me about the original blog. All of these monsters are just Hulks. Big, brawny, aggressive brutes. None of them actually "hulk out", which is what makes The Incredible Hulk so cool and reference worthy. I mean, imagine you come across a lone kobold, he's hiding in a corner, and you draw your swords to kill him, and suddenly he turns into an Umber Hulk! The whole point of the Hulk and similar heroes and villains was that appearances can be deceiving.

But then deception is something that is very difficult to pull off in D&D, and a LOT of monsters are simply exactly what they look like. It would be nice to see D&D come up with monsters that may not be what you expect at first sight.

Well we do have a few creatures who hulk out. Duergar are great at this (nothing like facing a charge of enlarged grey dwarfs) and the spriggans change to hulks as well.

 

[Weather Report]

Slightly tangential, but the 4e PHB and MM have a lot of setting-specific material and flavour, and the DMG sets out a framework (the "core conceits" of the D&D world) for using this stuff.

It's one of the things I like about 4e.

Ugh, could you be more transparent with that last sentence...*shudders*

 

[Hussar]

Given how little setting-specific material or flavor appears in the core of any edition, that doesn't really seem relevant, does it?

Let us think about the logic for a moment - You say that 3e didn't have this setting material in its core, so it wasn't "in the edition"? But then, that setting material appeared largely in supplements of 2e, not in the core. So, by your measure it wasn't really "in the edition" of 2e to eject in the first place!

Consistency matters. Either supplements count, or they don't - you can't cherrypick supplements count in one edition, but not the next.

Really? Look at the original 2e Monster Manuals - the loose leaf ones that originally came out with the game. You had 1 monster per page with extensive notes about habitat/society and background. There's a huge volume of information in those books.

A great deal of setting material appears in 2e core. Although, to be fair, core in 2e is a lot fuzzier concept. Where does the core in 2e end? 3e? That's easy. But 2e did tend to sprawl a bit.

 

[pemerton]

Ugh, could you be more transparent with that last sentence...*shudders*

I don't understand - are you shuddering because another poster likes something about 4e?