Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Shemeska" data-source="post: 6239103" data-attributes="member: 11697">Both the 1e and 4e entries don't have a ton of description, neither has the lore as a selling point IMO. I find the 2e approach to be the high point of lore in D&D, with 3e not bad, and PF moving closer to 2e but with room for improvement.The 4e MM was the first 4e book I read, so yes, I read the "lore" entries.[ATTACH]60128[/ATTACH]The profound lack of visual description for monsters in the book, combined with many of the lore entries recycling the sparse intro text were things that 4e botched out of the gate. Now in its defense, they did get much better in this regard in later books such as the Monster Vault. I think they realized how poor of an approach to monster fluff the edition began with, and to their credit they really tried to improve on it (though the fact that much of that lore was PoL centric and tried to replace/retcon large amounts of 1e/2e/3e lore on monsters made it something of a lost cause even if I approve of the approach to expanded lore in some of those later books).</blockquote>