> > From: woodelf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >> are you able[0] to answer this question, then?: >> is this why the creatures in the MM have such sparse, often >> incomplete, descriptions? > >You mean "monsters in the SRD", right?
no, i mean monsters in the D&D3E MM. it was my second-biggest disappointment upon seeing the new book: in many cases, you could not reconstruct the illustration provided using only the text provided (in some cases because the description and illustration are contradictory). since i'm sure this will get to "prove it" sooner or later, i'll be preemptive: insufficient:Gray Render, Aboleth, Tarrasque, Umber Hulk, Bullette, contradictory: Grick, Otyugh, Spider Eater, Delver, iffy: Lamia, Roper (strands are referred to in Combat section, but not mentioned in description),Shocker Lizard (have to infer from attacks entry that it is quadrapedal), Displacer Beast [these are not comprehensive lists--i just skimmed through the book and picked a few out at random, and then listed those of them that didn't pass muster.] ok, i'm going to have to revise my statement. it appears that my first inspection of the book, in focusing on some of my favorite creatures, found a disproportionate number of the poor descriptions. nonetheless, i *do* still see a general trend towards relying on the illustration (or name: it never actually *says*, frex, that a "purple worm" has a worm-like body (i.e., no limbs)--and, ironically, the description of the Remorhaz likens it to a "worm with legs" rather than, say, a millipede) to make up for the description. however, i concede that most of the physical descriptions are adequate, if not very detailed. so i guess what i've seen is not a deliberate plan to limit descriptions, but just a few cases of poor writing/editing. my only defense is that since i'm not running a D&D game, and was so turned off by the MM (for a number of reasons, mostly content, but some organization/layout), that i haven't read it cover-to-cover. i find it interesting that something that is very close to human in appearance (Goblin) gets a good, detailed description, while something that you have much less to start with (Spider Eater) gets a barely-sufficient one. it seems like the good descriptions go not to the creatures that need them, but to those that someone felt like describing. [snip] >WotC is giving you a lot of free stuff. They're just not giving you all >the stuff they could. And suggesting that giving you part of something >is worse than giving you all of something seems silly to me. i'm not one of the ones saying that. i *would* say, however, that sometimes giving you part of something is no better than giving you none of it. (and mind flayer might be one of those cases. -- woodelf <*> [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://webpages.charter.net/woodelph/ If any religion is right, maybe they all have to be right. Maybe God doesn't care how you say your prayers, just as long as you say them. --Sinclair _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
