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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5721101" data-attributes="member: 42582">The Monster Manuals 1 and 2 had, in my view, the right amount of story elements. More than 1st ed AD&D. About the same as 3E's Monster Manual. Considerably more than RM or RQ monster entries. And helpfully organised under entries for knowledge skill checks that players might make for their PCs.The Monster Manual 3 and the Monster Vault tend to have more than I want, and not as well organised. The writing is generally wordy, overblown and overlong. In some cases, the Monster Vault entries add nothing to the Monster Manual ones (it is more-or-less the same text), but lose its arrangement under skill check entries - so it is harder to adjudicate monster knowledge checks. The Threats to the Nentir Vale book is a different kettle of fish, because it is really a setting book with some monsters included. Even it, though, would benefit from arranging the informatin under skill check entries.Luckily, the 4e MM tells me that a bulette is sometimes called a "landshark" and describes it as a "heavily armoured predator" (p 38). Maybe there are some people who can't tell, from this plus the other information that [MENTION=6676736]Pentius[/MENTION] mentioned, what a bulette eats. I'd imagine that they're a minority, however.This idea that the Monster Manual had no story elements is just not true. I'm pesonally a bit disappointed that WotC has once again bowed to pressure from those who, as far as I can tell, do not primarily play the game it is publishing. It makes it more likely that future monster books will be unnecessarily padded with bad fiction.</blockquote>

Verification