Monster descriptions, please?

Post/Author/DateTimePost
#1

aljergensen

Nov 06, 2008 9:17:30
I'm running CORE1-5 this weekend. I think overall it's a fun mod, but can I make a simple request? When including monsters, please include descriptions. Especially for creatures that don't come out of the Monster Manual.

There are a couple of monsters with no description (unless I missed it), just a stat block. I was able to find one in the FR Campaign Guide, the other I still don't know where it came from. I have enough information to run the game, but I'll be making up what the creature looks like.

I'm not asking for detailed information, just the standard line or two of physical description that we normally get with monster information. I've noticed this now in a couple of mods now and every time I hunt for the monster's source book just so I can tell people what they see. As a DM I shouldn't be required to own every book and supplement just so that I can describe monster "X" consistently with other DM's.

Allen.
#2

gomeztoo

Nov 06, 2008 10:20:01
Also, if you modify a monster (or base a monster on another), and do not include a description in the new statblock, it will get the old description in the D&D Compendium,even if that is not appropriate...
#3

_metz_

Nov 06, 2008 15:05:27
I second this call for monster descriptions, it's really frustrating not being able to describe a critter to my players, as when DMs do that to me I often treat it as bad GMing!!!
#4

puggle_halfwine

Nov 06, 2008 18:17:00
Vote 1 monster descriptions. Change we can believe in.
#5

Madfox11

Nov 07, 2008 4:05:55
CORE1-5:
Show
The kir-lanans lack a description, but they can be found in FRCG. The rest are humans, although in case of Felomin we could have made it clearer.
#6

fleetfang

Nov 07, 2008 10:25:36
I can appreciate a desire to shorten mods, but that requirement should really be weighed against the potential benefit that could be gained from additional information.

Monster descriptions, essentially a sentence or two for each monster type in the adventure, would pay off greatly in role-play dividends for the players.
#7

fiupntballr

Nov 07, 2008 10:40:56
I agree with adding a short line to the monster descriptions...
In my opinion even if it is already in the MM
#8

aljergensen

Nov 07, 2008 11:55:58
I agree with adding a short line to the monster descriptions...
In my opinion even if it is already in the MM

I agree. If I have to run a mod and haven't had prep time, it helps. I'm only asking for a sentence or two of physical description, not the whole writeup.

Allen.
#9

bgibbons

Nov 07, 2008 12:21:22
Still, it is one of those things that clash with the requirement to keep the amount of text limited in an adventure.

Of the things to be concerned about, keeping the amount of text limited strikes me as one of the least important.

Sure, save some bandwidth and a few trees by not including completely pointless material (like random artwork), but having this as even a minor priority strikes me as completely missing the point.

The goal is to have a good adventure, not the best adventure possible under the limitation of needing to fit in X pages. Cutting out completely extraneous and valueless text is fine; cutting out text useful to a judge for no other reason but an arbitrary limit is not.

I would like to see all creatures, down to and including common humanoids, have a brief description listed.
#10

dkay807

Nov 07, 2008 13:29:27
CORE1-5:
Show
The kir-lanans lack a description, but they can be found in FRCG. The rest are humans, although in case of Felomin we could have made it clearer.
#11

timlagor

Nov 07, 2008 21:26:38
Of the things to be concerned about, keeping the amount of text limited strikes me as one of the least important.

Sure, save some bandwidth and a few trees by not including completely pointless material (like random artwork), but having this as even a minor priority strikes me as completely missing the point.

The goal is to have a good adventure, not the best adventure possible under the limitation of needing to fit in X pages. Cutting out completely extraneous and valueless text is fine; cutting out text useful to a judge for no other reason but an arbitrary limit is not.

I would like to see all creatures, down to and including common humanoids, have a brief description listed.

Wot 'e sed.
#12

JohnduBois

Nov 08, 2008 19:02:58
CORE1-5:
Show
The kir-lanans lack a description, but they can be found in FRCG. The rest are humans, although in case of Felomin we could have made it clearer.
#13

gomeztoo

Nov 09, 2008 6:47:55
There is a system for it: a line in the statblock, as done in the rules compendium.

Gomez
#14

Keithric

Nov 09, 2008 11:12:39
Pieter,
I just ran CORM1-1. I feel that the way the monster descriptions are done in that adventure, in one or two lines above the monster stat block, is an unobtrusive and helpful way to place basic descriptive information about the monsters in the adventure.

I was actually hopping onto this thread to say the same thing.
#15

fugacityfixyoursite

Nov 10, 2008 10:53:38
I was actually hopping onto this thread to say the same thing.

Yes, this is a bandwagon I can get behind.
#16

Solodan

Nov 19, 2008 15:53:02
I agree - just a little something so I can get a feel and thus convey that feel to the players. I've had to google a lot of monsters so far to get a good idea of what they are - and who knows if that's what the intent was. Monster manual is helpful, but not always.

I like to find images of every monster and sometimes I'm so in the dark its just... meh.
#17

eudemonist

Nov 19, 2008 19:43:00
One more vote in favor of a short description.

Stat blocks usually get their own page anyhow, and most of those pages have a couple of lines to spare.
#18

Uthrac

Nov 20, 2008 8:14:16
I think a DM aid with not only monster descriptions, but also information to provide players based on various monster knowledge check results would be invaluable.

Seconded.

And put this little chart on the monster-stat-block page to save a tree. It's worth the ink!
#19

jeffv

Nov 22, 2008 10:29:16
I don't think it's necessary to put the information for monster knowledge checks in the stat block. If we were still in 3.5 (where we gave "bits of information") you'd have my vote early and often, but with 4.0 it's set DCs based on tier for specific information. I don't have the books in front of me, but I seem to recall it being 15 = name and types, 20 = powers, 25 = resistances at heroic tier. Jot down a list of which creature type goes with which skill and you really don't need anything additional written in. Putting a knowledge chart in for each monster would just be a duplication of the stat block in read-aloud form.

That said - I'm completely in favor of a short physical description of each monster, especially if it's a variation on an MM critter that's not completely obvious what it's a variant of.