Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5894597" data-attributes="member: 2067">Ah, but the desert and the illusion and the lightning breath -- all these things are part of what it means to go up against a blue dragon. A dragon with that context is telling me to use it RIGHT NOW TONIGHT, a dragon without that context is telling me to put it in something later. I think it's key to put generic things into entries where they won't be generic, or there isn't going to be much reason to use them. As for looking up a trap or monster during play, the main benefit offered of this layout is that you won't need to flip around like that: any traps you need are part of the monster entry. If you're prepping a game early and you need other/different traps, then you can afford to look it up in the Compendium, or suss it out of the individual monster entries. If you are at the table and you suddenly need a trap, though, that's where things like 4e's monster creation system come in handy: it can give you what you need during a "DM's Bathroom Break" if you really need it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />So, in other words, part of what this design tries to solve is the problem of having to flip through random books in the first place. If you need a trap, the traps are right there with the map you're using and the monsters that are there. IMO, there shouldn't be a "bear" entry alone. This is because the races that use them as pets or mounts should have "bear" entries for their pets and mounts, and the deity that favors bears should have "bear" entries for the companions of its priests, and the predator that preys on bears might have "bear" entries for its prey (though that last one doesn't seem incredibly game-useful, typically). Bears don't earn their own entry, really. They're only interesting by virtue of being associated with more interesting creatures. They're not good "anchors" -- they can't usually hold down an adventure all by themselves. So they should be paired with creatures who can use them. Like, say, werebears. Mimics fall into a similar camp. They're not good anchors.But kobolds? Drow? Orcs? Giants? Dragons? Demons? Devils? Yeah, usually those creatures are good anchors. If 5e is going to have a tighter focus on the adventure, I really think it pays to look at creatures that can inspire an entire adventure as main entries, and include support creatures like bears and mimics (and dire rats and beetles) as creatures that make interesting encounters within those adventure-inspiring main entries.</blockquote>

Verification