Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
5E Retrospective: Dissecting the MM and the DMG
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="the Jester" data-source="post: 9243292" data-attributes="member: 1210"><p>Oh man. Yeah, let's talk about the organization of the Monster Manual and the supposed shift to "everything is alphabetical" in Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse. </p><p></p><p>When they initially announced this change, I was excited for it. I thought that it was a great idea; especially new DMs shouldn't have to look for "glabrezu" under D for demon. It made sense. </p><p></p><p>Then I went through the book and the actual delivery was half-hearted. If you're going to do that, why the hell would you choose to move "necromancer" to W for wizard??</p><p></p><p>In my opinion- and it's quite a strong opinion- if you're going to go all alphabetical, ACTUALLY GO ALL ALPHABETICAL. The only exception should be dragon age categories, and even then, instead of "Adult Red Dragon" under D for dragon, it should be rewritten as "Red Dragon Adult" under R. And "red dragon hatchling," "red dragon ancient," etc. </p><p></p><p>Giant eagle? Under G. Monstrous pertyon? Under M. If you want to put it under P, find a way to make it "Peryton" first- "Peryton Monstrous Killer" or something. </p><p></p><p>Now, on spells- yeah, I am in the minority in that I am okay with spell lists referencing the PH. My compromise position- because oh my God do stat blocks get bloated if you include ten spell descriptions- is to write out the most important combat spells in the stat block. I think Candlekeep basically does this, as opposed to MMM's approach of "well, let's just make something up that pcs can't get access to and then we'll list a few meager options as spells too anyway". </p><p></p><p>And let's take a moment to reflect on how poor the design of a lot of monsters in 5e is, at least compared to the end of 4e, where monster design reached (IMHO) its apex in D&D. So many boring monsters, when you really just need one interesting trait or option to make them far more fun. So many of 4e's great innovations got tossed in a reactionary way, and it's a damn shame. I've long made variants and versions of monsters that integrate 4e design principles to make them more fun in 5e, and I've tried to integrate more uses of reactions and bonus actions to make it so that things that take away reactions and bonus actions actually matter when you use them. I find the lack of using the amazing lessons learned in 4e to be frustrating and sad. While some of 5e's monster design choices are good- let's not give everything that flies the same Flyby trait- others are baffling. None of them need to be boring.</p><p></p><p>/rant</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="the Jester, post: 9243292, member: 1210"] Oh man. Yeah, let's talk about the organization of the Monster Manual and the supposed shift to "everything is alphabetical" in Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse. When they initially announced this change, I was excited for it. I thought that it was a great idea; especially new DMs shouldn't have to look for "glabrezu" under D for demon. It made sense. Then I went through the book and the actual delivery was half-hearted. If you're going to do that, why the hell would you choose to move "necromancer" to W for wizard?? In my opinion- and it's quite a strong opinion- if you're going to go all alphabetical, ACTUALLY GO ALL ALPHABETICAL. The only exception should be dragon age categories, and even then, instead of "Adult Red Dragon" under D for dragon, it should be rewritten as "Red Dragon Adult" under R. And "red dragon hatchling," "red dragon ancient," etc. Giant eagle? Under G. Monstrous pertyon? Under M. If you want to put it under P, find a way to make it "Peryton" first- "Peryton Monstrous Killer" or something. Now, on spells- yeah, I am in the minority in that I am okay with spell lists referencing the PH. My compromise position- because oh my God do stat blocks get bloated if you include ten spell descriptions- is to write out the most important combat spells in the stat block. I think Candlekeep basically does this, as opposed to MMM's approach of "well, let's just make something up that pcs can't get access to and then we'll list a few meager options as spells too anyway". And let's take a moment to reflect on how poor the design of a lot of monsters in 5e is, at least compared to the end of 4e, where monster design reached (IMHO) its apex in D&D. So many boring monsters, when you really just need one interesting trait or option to make them far more fun. So many of 4e's great innovations got tossed in a reactionary way, and it's a damn shame. I've long made variants and versions of monsters that integrate 4e design principles to make them more fun in 5e, and I've tried to integrate more uses of reactions and bonus actions to make it so that things that take away reactions and bonus actions actually matter when you use them. I find the lack of using the amazing lessons learned in 4e to be frustrating and sad. While some of 5e's monster design choices are good- let's not give everything that flies the same Flyby trait- others are baffling. None of them need to be boring. /rant [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
5E Retrospective: Dissecting the MM and the DMG
Top