Why is the Monster Manual a Core Rulebook?
- Thread starter SableWyvern
- Start date
As others have pointed out, that's not true; D&D isn't the only game to consider monster rules "core". At any rate, I'd consider monsters and spells equally core or non-core. If you wanted a generic game, you'd have to swap out many or most monsters and spells depending on the setting -- but D&D isn't so much generic as full of examples.
SableWyvern
Cruel Despot
Re: Re: Why is the Monster Manual a Core Rulebook?
Just because that comment was probably the most moronic one by anyone who has participated in this thread does not give you the right to bring it back up at this point.
(Actually, I did admit the stupidity of my ways on that quite early on).
mmadsen said:
Just because that comment was probably the most moronic one by anyone who has participated in this thread does not give you the right to bring it back up at this point.
(Actually, I did admit the stupidity of my ways on that quite early on).
coyote6
Adventurer
As to "following the rules" -- I like the "rules-y" nature of some of the MM stuff because it gives a frame of reference to start from.
Then when I want to break the rules (e.g., "these axiomatic orcs have +2 to Will saves and firearms proficiency, and no smite ability" or "Eh, these guys need higher skills. Racial skill bonus time!"), I do so with some idea of what I'm doing and why. (Call it "three-quarters assed" rather than "half-assed" )
More importantly, it gives other publishers & authors the same frame of reference, so that (hopefully) critters have some consistency or at least explicit acknowledgement of inconsistency. That helps me figure out whether a book I'm spending money on was written carefully or sloppily. I'd rather give my money to the former. I can usually do the latter all by myself -- it's quick and easy; and if I can't, there are plenty of people on the 'net.
Also, I find it tiresome when a game system continually invents new ways to do the samed damn thing ("Oh, gee. A new way to work poisons. Yay."). I like some systemization in my systems, y'know?
Of course, I could probably blame that on all those math and CS courses.
(I think I'll go look forward to Tome of Horrors now.)
Then when I want to break the rules (e.g., "these axiomatic orcs have +2 to Will saves and firearms proficiency, and no smite ability" or "Eh, these guys need higher skills. Racial skill bonus time!"), I do so with some idea of what I'm doing and why. (Call it "three-quarters assed" rather than "half-assed"
)More importantly, it gives other publishers & authors the same frame of reference, so that (hopefully) critters have some consistency or at least explicit acknowledgement of inconsistency. That helps me figure out whether a book I'm spending money on was written carefully or sloppily. I'd rather give my money to the former. I can usually do the latter all by myself -- it's quick and easy; and if I can't, there are plenty of people on the 'net.
Also, I find it tiresome when a game system continually invents new ways to do the samed damn thing ("Oh, gee. A new way to work poisons. Yay."). I like some systemization in my systems, y'know?
Of course, I could probably blame that on all those math and CS courses.
(I think I'll go look forward to Tome of Horrors now.)
Similar Threads
