|
5 months ago ::
Jan 13, 2013 - 8:43AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2012
|
I think giving people the option is the best way. Having a monster index in the back that has the bare minimun would suffice for those who want numbers and having the rest more detailed descriptions of monsters and enemies.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 13, 2013 - 10:18AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2004
|
Full page stat block.- Gods no.
Agreed.
Full page monster description - Please, yes.
I'd like to see descriptions (race, monsters, ect) to be in the setting books. Why would a monsters 'descriptions, combat tactics, information about the society/culture (if applicable), etc.' be the same in darksun, eberron and maztica? So I say bare bones in core and put fluff in setting books.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 13, 2013 - 2:42PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2013
|
Full page stat block.- Gods no.
Agreed.
Full page monster description - Please, yes.
I'd like to see descriptions (race, monsters, ect) to be in the setting books. Why would a monsters 'descriptions, combat tactics, information about the society/culture (if applicable), etc.' be the same in darksun, eberron and maztica? So I say bare bones in core and put fluff in setting books.
In the bare bones books, as a DM, I would appreciate some suggested tactics and lore for the monsters--but it shouldn't be full pages for everyone. Perhaps a few suggestions that could be used to grant info if PCs make the appropriate check. I love your idea of specific culture and tactics being filled out in the setting books.
Perhaps it could be treated like the giant lizards in the current beastiary. The setting books give appropriate, but optional add ons for monsters crucial to the setting. For instance, what if you met Orcs who liked to use squad tactics due to strong regimental traditions, as opposed to berserker rages?
Nonstandard tactics can be a pleasing surprise for players.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 14, 2013 - 3:00PM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2010
|
/thread derail initiated "For instance, what if you met Orcs who liked to use squad tactics due to strong regimental traditions, as opposed to berserker rages?" I would in this specific instance use hobgoblin stats and tell the players they are meeting orcs, but thats just me  /thread derail desisted
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 14, 2013 - 5:16PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
I would in this specific instance use hobgoblin stats and tell the players they are meeting orcs, but thats just me
and that's why full-page monsters are completely harmless.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 16, 2013 - 5:58AM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Sep 30, 2009
|
I agree with a couple of posters - we dont need the full AD&D stat blocks, keep the current/4E format - but a decent amount of 'fluff' is needed too
My major concern is that the developers are moving back to a 3.5 and early method of having a vanilla 'orc' and letting DM's customise it to their needs - i would much rather see several pre genererated customisation as seen in 4E (think goblin cuthroat, goblin slinger, etc etc) each with their own semi unique style of play, with the view to modify a base monster with thematic options if required.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 16, 2013 - 6:15AM
#17
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
Look at Kobolds- they have the generic 'grunts,' the dragonshields, the urds, and the alchemist. It seems they ARE having a few specializations within the monsters for the ones that you'll fight many of. Some of the monsters don't have as many, but the Kobolds are only missing a chieftain from being able to throw together many combat encounters that make sense and have an entire kobold tribe ready to roll.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 16, 2013 - 9:53AM
#18
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
I agree with a couple of posters - we dont need the full AD&D stat blocks, keep the current/4E format - but a decent amount of 'fluff' is needed too
We don't need them, but having full-page monsters doesn't harm anything.
|
|
|
