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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 6256225" data-attributes="member: 20323">[MENTION=37579]Jester Canuck[/MENTION]I really appreciate the thoughtfulness of your post <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I enjoy DMing 4e most, but I have noticed the same thing about monsters being divorced from noncombat abilities. At least compared to 2e which, albeit individual monsters were hit or miss, I feel had much greater lore. The ultimate question for me is: How usable is this?I don't mean for my campaign. I mean, how readily usable is this information? How readily does it leap of the page and say "here is how you can use me in with your players now"? How much time do I need to spend in prep in order to just use it? How much time do I have to spend comprehending a power or looking up a spell or tracking an effect?For example, while monster prose can be evocative and help to activate the imagination in a unique way, a time-harried DM who flips open the Monster Manual would be better served by a bulletpoint format of ways to use the monster in an encounter. Another example, including monster material components I the monster's description.When it comes to "a fireball is a fireball is a fireball", I tend to err on the side of assuming the the DM doesn't know how a fireball works mechanically even if they get it narratively. For example, if you threw me in any edition of D&D and asked me to quote what a fireball spell does exactly from memory I couldn't do it; I'd get close...a 20' burst which does 6d6 fire damage and half if they make their save I'd need to reference the book for specifics.</blockquote>

Verification