Well that was fun...

[Imaro]

You have to read the entirity of the entry in the 4e MM, especially the Lore entries. Have a look at the Lore entry for the Cyclops (page 48).

Honestly, I've been really inspired by the new descriptions in the 4e MM for all the primordial vs god details and the creatures that have come out of that. I think that some monsters have had their descriptive text pared back simply because it is dull.

Cheers!

But then there are also monsters who get nothing...and I do mean nothing description wise. Prime example of this is the Gulvorg. The only information it gives are that it is often encountered in pairs and can carry a rider. I've never seen or read about this monster before and the lack of information on it was kind of jarring when I looked at it. It looks like a cool monster but my first instinct was to ignore it. This just seems, I don't know, wrong for a system that claims to be beginner friendly.

 

[MerricB]

But then there are also monsters who get nothing...and I do mean nothing description wise. Prime example of this is the Gulvorg. The only information it gives are that it is often encountered in pairs and can carry a rider. I've never seen or read about this monster before and the lack of information on it was kind of jarring when I looked at it. It looks like a cool monster but my first instinct was to ignore it. This just seems, I don't know, wrong for a system that claims to be beginner friendly.

That's rather odd - however, a couple of notes:

It's a worg, an evil wolf that hunts in pairs. For wilderness encounters, that is pretty much all you need to know. Animals don't make for great descriptions: they are interested in food, and you need to know how they hunt. That's about it, when you come down to it.

That it can carry large riders is more interesting. I do note that the example encounter has the guulvorgs with Cyclops Hewers. Personally, I think it'd work better if there more references to the Guulvorg.

Cheers!