Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Yeah, and I'm pretty psyched. I don't really care much for monster books (though I generally feel obligated to purchase them), but I really like the direction WotC is going. I need a leveled orc far more often than I need the latest evil pixie. And a lair is always good.
In fact, I'm going to go so far as to say that when 4e comes out, I'd prefer if monster books provided less breadth and more depth. There are a lot of kookie monsters that you don't use much in the core rules - I'd much rather have a few core monsters with a lot of detail than a large variety of monsters with little detail.
|
I have never seen an opinion from another human being more dimetrically opposed from my own in my life. If I was a Native American contraire warrior, that is EXACTly what I would have said.
Suffice it to say, I'll reserve judgment (no pun intended) until I actually lay hands on the thing.
Heathensson (The Sebastian from the Bizarro Universe)
I agree with Sebastian. I use very few creatures from the MM3 and Fiend Folio, and I'd prefer to have variations of the more commonly used ones detailed in stat blocks.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I have never seen an opinion from another human being more dimetrically opposed from my own in my life. If I was a Native American contraire warrior, that is EXACTly what I would have said.
Suffice it to say, I'll reserve judgment (no pun intended) until I actually lay hands on the thing.
Heathensson (The Sebastian from the Bizarro Universe)
The really weird thing is that I found a picture of you on the web and you look just like me, but with a little beard and moustache...
I take it you would prefer a greater variety of monsters? I really can't stand the way D&D churns out monsters (or spells for that matter). I figure that you really only need a few good iconic creatures and then variations on that theme.
Undead are particularly annoying in their infinite (and pointless) variety. There's a flavor of undead for any and every way you could possibly die. And the more undead that get created, the more stupid and specific the criteria for rising as that particular monster. Burned to death - okay, we got an undead for that. Burned to death cursing your mother - got a different kind of undead for that. Burned to death cursing your mother and you're an elf - you're covered!
There are so many undead in the D&D universe that it's just about impossible to die w/o becoming one, particularly if you are evil.
Yeah, and I'm pretty psyched. I don't really care much for monster books (though I generally feel obligated to purchase them), but I really like the direction WotC is going. I need a leveled orc far more often than I need the latest evil pixie. And a lair is always good.
In fact, I'm going to go so far as to say that when 4e comes out, I'd prefer if monster books provided less breadth and more depth. There are a lot of kookie monsters that you don't use much in the core rules - I'd much rather have a few core monsters with a lot of detail than a large variety of monsters with little detail.
Hear hear. I felt that the elimination of the society, habitat and ecology sections for the monsters in 3rd edition was a big mistake. Especially considering that monster encounters take a lot longer in 3rd edition. Its way more important that each encounter emphasize the traits of the monster since even if the PCs are just going to kill it thats likely to take at least 45 minutes of the game.
If a creature is going to be on stage for a minimium of 45 minutes it'd be nice to have some details to flesh out the creature beyond just how it fights. How did it live before the PCs showed up? Thats the sort of thing I would like to know because then I can make its lair more interesting and tie it into the rest of the adventure more effectivly.
Doesn't the Undead template thingy effectively pre-empt the need for them to ever make another Undead again? Sorta thing?
I also think DMs would be better assisted by depth rather than breadth. There doesn't seem to be much point in having a hundred enemies you can tell the players nothing about or use in a "realistic" way. I'd be okay with books that drop 80% of the monsters in order to scale each one up to an Ecology'd scope. Same page count, though. And more picture. Action poses, resting poses, gloating over defeated adventurers...
|
|
I guess I just am a "novel new monster" buff. What I enjoy is throwing something new at the characters, something they don't exactly know how to fight. None of this "here comes the rust monster--DRUIDS TO THE FRONT!" I also reserve the right, as dungeon master, to alter the way in which vampires are killed from campaign to campaign.
One of the things I also enjoy is along the lines of Chris Wissel's article where he described the invention of variations of common monsters.
I designed a few things along those lines once, one being the penguistirge. I know it sounds stupid, but hear me out.
The party pulls onto shore on an arctic island and sees "10 little creatures, with black backs and white bellies, 2 feet tall, hobbling on their hind flippers as they walk up to you." The metagamer within thinks, "oh, penguins. No big deal." Then, they start inserting their 10" probosci into the characters' shins.
To this end, I am constantly on the lookout for a decent compilation of novel new fiendish menaces.
But I also realize that there's only so many monsters that can be thought up.
I'm going to straddle the fence on this one. I like monsters that feel old (i.e. like they just stepped out of your copy of Bulfinch's Mythology or an old Ray Harryhausen flick), with cool (non-class-based) abilities that fit the character of the monster and look cinematic. It really does take a lot to scare jaded gamers these days so I pull monsters from everywhere in my games (wang-liang from Oriental Adventures, the elemental template from Manual of the Planes, d20 Modern monsters, d20 Call of Cthulhu monsters (I replaced a byakhee for a harpy once to great effect), third party monster books, and the occasional titanic templated animal from Monster Manual II). It's all good.
GGG
"I also reserve the right, as dungeon master, to alter the way in which vampires are killed from campaign to campaign."
"I throw garlic at the Werewolf!"
"Wolfie-kins likes the nummy-nummy garlic. He is no longer hostile, and simply unfriendly."
"But..."
"NO XP FOR YOU!"
The main thing is to let the players know before hand you intend to make changes to the MM content and that they would be well advise to research a foe before hunting them. I remember once telling my players that they would need parsley to take on a vampire, and they seemed to get the hint. They stopped and thought. Following the MM verbatim kills the game by monotony and the expected.
My favorite monsters, which isn't the My Pet Monster that I had when I was a kid, have always been the ones that gave me an idea of their raison d'etre - the ones that gave a simple idea of how their societies (if applicable) and why they do what they do. It would be like if mind flayers were introduced and not being told why they have tentacles on their face. Why do gnomes have the ability to speak with burrowing animals? Why do elves have such a tie to arcane magic (when they're supposed to be nature-oriented...never mind, rant for another day)? Why do orcs and elves hate each other? Why do dwarves hate orcs?
While some of these questions have been answered in some fashion or another, my perfect new creature would have interesting abilities combined with a tidbit of racially identifying features or history, while avoiding a "haven't I seen this before somewhere, except they were blue" feeling.
Some of the more memorable creatures that I've used have been a swarm-shifter (Libris Mortis), the LeShay (Epic Level Handbook) and a serpentflesh golem (FR: Serpent Kingdoms).
Some of the ones that I haven't used and haven't found a place for them (yet) in my campaign are blues (psionic goblins, but their back story is cool), dissolution oozes, angels of decay, living spells...there's probably a couple more, but the Food Network is distracting me with a show on pancakes.
Mmmm...pancakes...*hustles off to kitchen*
Pancake Batter + Negative Energy = something Poltergeistly.
Makes me think of Assassin Rugs and what not.
So do we call dibs, or do we all make a DC Craft Critical Threat checks? (highest roll takes all?)
Personally, I'd much rather see more of the "Advanced" style monster line books, i.e. the Draconomicon, Libris Mortis, Lords of Madness, and of course, the Fiendish Codex. You still get a handful of cool new things, but you get a lot more information to hang a campaign, or at least a memorable encounter, on. I know its got to be hard to come up with whole books of new monsters for the MM style books, but 50% of the things being monsters that we have seen before, only with class levels?
Where is my "Draconomicon" for Giants, Fey, or Elementals?
Oooooh, Draconomicon for Elementals.
Be sweet if that was Mr. Mona's secret project...
Personally, I'd much rather see more of the "Advanced" style monster line books, i.e. the Draconomicon, Libris Mortis, Lords of Madness, and of course, the Fiendish Codex.
Where is my "Draconomicon" for Giants, Fey, or Elementals?
Emphasizing the different types of creatures, like Giants, Fey, Elementals, Constructs...that sort of thing, right? If so, sweeeeet.
Have no fear gentlemen, the dreaded Batter Golem was defeated with the application of heat, butter and maple syrup. Its gooey pseudopods shall threaten the Realm no longer!
*belch* *burp*
|
Personally, I'd much rather see more of the "Advanced" style monster line books, i.e. the Draconomicon, Libris Mortis, Lords of Madness, and of course, the Fiendish Codex. You still get a handful of cool new things, but you get a lot more information to hang a campaign, or at least a memorable encounter, on. I know its got to be hard to come up with whole books of new monsters for the MM style books, but 50% of the things being monsters that we have seen before, only with class levels?
Where is my "Draconomicon" for Giants, Fey, or Elementals?
YESSSSS! Must! Have! Gianticon!
That would indeed be sweet. Make it so!
DR 10/syrup.
Gotta love it.
Have no fear gentlemen, the dreaded Batter Golem was defeated with the application of heat, butter and maple syrup. Its gooey pseudopods shall threaten the Realm no longer!*belch* *burp*
Way to go MacGillith! (and next time save ME some =p).
|
|
I really like monster books (with 'Monsternomicon' (IK) and 'Fiend Folio' being my favorites). I agree that there's little need for even more monsters because the huge amount of cool creatures and templates from several scources provide an endless possibility of variations. Even if there'd never ever be a new monster book for 3.5 you could torture your players with "new" creatures weekly for generations to come...
But i'm looking forward to MM 4 because i was really, really surprised by the quality of the MM 3. I found MM 2 to be really terrible and hadn't very high expectations on the follow-up, but i was very happy with it.
I don't think that the index provides a view on the quality of the content but i like the fact that WotC changes its concept of monster-description. I'd like to see more in-depth information too and I care more for well designed critters with an interesting background than for a huge number of half-heartly designed creatures.
What i don't like is the trend to make up thousand versions of already known monsters. Who needs stats for a 5th Lvl orc-fighter? You could make one yourself in a couple of minutes.
Sure, some people don't have much time to prepare adventures and might appreciate it, but i don't see why this has to be within an MM. I was really bored and annoyed by the several frost giant variations in Frostburn too...
Sure, i'd like to use a pre-made creature that fits my needs too and i'd rather use this than make one up myself, but i already have thousands of useable stats in my issues of Dungeon.
This is one important reason for me to buy the mag every month.
I have a list with all NPC's that appear in the Dungeon issues i own and if i need, for example, a 6th Lvl grimlock ranger i flip through the list to see, if there's something like this in one of the issues. Usually i find the exact thing or a similar NPC that needs only slight modifications to suit my needs.
I don't need this within a 30$ scource book! I expect to see new creatures, new templates, maybe sub-races of already known creatures in a new MM, but definitly no standard-monsters with class-levels that appear in hundreds of Dungeon-adventures.
Okay, i'll stop my rant now. These are just my two cents...:D
|
Where is my "Draconomicon" for Giants, Fey, or Elementals?
They're probably having trouble with what to name books like that. Here are my suggestions (hey, we could make an unofficial contest out of it):
Elementals - Librim Elementis: Earth, Wind, and Fire (and Water)
Giants - The Vertically Challenged Tome
Fey - ....sorry, can't think of a good joke that wouldn't offend someone.
OK, I'll probably get flamed for this but here goes...and for the record it has been almost two years since MM III was published and I have been looking forward to the MM IV for just as long...
One of my little peeves with 3.0/3.5 is that every prestige class and some monsters are given an "example", like "here is the dread pirate DR and here is a dread pirate" or "here is the basilisk and here is the abyssal basilisk” (putting the spin more on the abyssal basilisk a separate species (like a troll to a scrag) and not so much as an advanced version of the basilisk with a template).
As an experienced DM I personally do not need all these “examples” as I am well capable of advancing and applying a PR or template but I also do appreciate that sometimes you need something pre-generated when you are flying by the seat of your pants. My peeve is more about the amount of space taken up in the books for these “examples”, how many pages that could be saved for more new monsters, templates, artwork or expanded biology/depth on a monster (which is sorely lacking, considering the 2nd Ed. monster compendiums, which is why (IMO) they are going into the “-nomicon” book series, to flesh out their monsters, which other d20 supplements have been doing for years now).
That’s why it is just a little peeve; I understand how less experienced DMs may need these pre-generated monsters and NPCs.
Or at least until I also studied the table of contents for the MMIV. I really hope I’m wrong about the new MM, I realize these judgments are only based by the ToC but anyone playing for the last 10 years could figure out the same
I am pretty disappointed in the MMIV for a number of reasons.
First it looks like 1/3 of the “new” monsters are not actually new but just old monsters with classes, prestige classes and old templates. Unlike, for example, the greathorn minotaur which seems to be a true variant of a minotaur, there are seven older monster races chosen for “new monsters”. The drow, githyanki, gnoll, lizardfolk, ogre, ogre and yuan-ti are all represented this way and by my quick count, there are 26 “new versions of old monsters” are in the MMIV...something any DM with a bit of experience could do on their own...that a 1/3 less monsters that could have been
(my gut tells me many of these drow, orcs, lizardfolk etc. are from the “fantastic location” and other recent D&D adventure modules but since I don’t own any of them I can’t prove this)
Next there appears to be 10 (or so) variant “examples” of the new monsters, like the abyssal basilisk to the basilisk. This is close to a dozen more pages that could have been new monsters
And last but not least are the 7 “sample lairs”...this is what really ticks me off. Go back to the 1st Ed. original monster manuals and fiend folio (which had about no depth), the 2nd Ed. equivalent compendiums (which had much depth) there were no lair, stronghold, etc. examples...a monster manual was about presenting MONSTERS, not mini-hooks and adventures...there were some books for that, they were called BOOK OF LAIRS. There is no reason to have “lairs” in the MMIV, it takes up space and artwork that should have been reserved for new creatures and templates
Now don’t get me wrong, I think a “book of lairs” accessory for each 3rd Ed. MM/FF would be a great idea (especially in a soft cover like the early 3.0 products) and accessories with NPCs (races and monster NPCs) using new races, monsters and prestige classes are also cool (like the old Enemies and Allies 3.0 or earlier NPC anthologies like Hall of Heroes) but in a new Monster Manual it only seems like extra and unnecessary crunch added in, like they were trying to do too much
It wouldn’t surprise me that there is practically less than 50% the amount of new creatures in the MMIV than in the earlier monster accessories
So there you have it...but on the bright side there seems to be around 56 new monsters and 2 templates that are new, look cool and should fit in well (I don’t know what to make on the spawn of tiamat yet). I’ll still be buying the MM IV (my players and myself all love new monsters) but I hope any future MM V will go back to the tried and true structure of a MM
Kalin
P.S. I do really hope this will be a good book
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
OK, I'll probably get flamed for this but here goes...and for the record it has been almost two years since MM III was published and I have been looking forward to the MM IV for just as long...
<snip>
That’s why it is just a little peeve; I understand how less experienced DMs may need these pre-generated monsters and NPCs.
If you don't want to be flamed, I'd recommend reading all the other posts on the thread by experienced DMs expressing a different opinion than yours and try not to insult us by inferring that a preference for pre-generated monsters, NPCs, and lairs makes us less experienced.
If you don't want to be flamed, I'd recommend reading all the other posts on the thread by experienced DMs expressing a different opinion than yours and try not to insult us by inferring that a preference for pre-generated monsters, NPCs, and lairs makes us less experienced.
I apologize strongly if I insulted anyone, I never meant to infer that any of you were less experienced nor that I was more experienced
While I was typing this post I was thinking of the young DMs with only a year or so of RGP experience that may depend more on pre-generated material than their own home brewed adventures as they learn to grasp the balance of stats, rules, etc. and as I said I have also and still do use pre-generated material when I do not have the time to whip something up from scratch.
The rambling point I was trying to make was I think that the format of the MM IV appears to have changed from past monster manuals and now has too much additional information that while would be useful for DMs, takes away from the (IMO) purpose of a monster manual, introducing new monsters. The pre-generated material would fit better in another type of accessory, like a Book of Lairs or a NPC accessory
Once again, I never meant to insult or offend any DM or role player.
Kalin
|
|
If you don't want to be flamed, I'd recommend reading all the other posts on the thread by experienced DMs expressing a different opinion than yours and try not to insult us by inferring that a preference for pre-generated monsters, NPCs, and lairs makes us less experienced.OK, I'll probably get flamed for this but here goes...and for the record it has been almost two years since MM III was published and I have been looking forward to the MM IV for just as long...
<snip>
That’s why it is just a little peeve; I understand how less experienced DMs may need these pre-generated monsters and NPCs.
Objection, your honor. Counsel is definitely badgering the witness.
|
|
I'd recommend reading all the other posts on the thread by experienced DMs expressing a different opinion than yours and try not to insult us by inferring that a preference for pre-generated monsters, NPCs, and lairs makes us less experienced.
I thought that the views of the other posters were interesting and differing from my own and (originally) thought about not posting.
While I understand what most people here are saying, I personally feel that a monster manual should have a whole mess of new monsters. I appreciate advanced monsters in things like Dragon or Dungeon magazine, or in other adventures or books like a book of lairs, etc, I just don't know if I want it to be half or more of the content of a monster manual.
The table of contents for this book makes it feel like another Libris Mortis only more random in its selection of monsters.
I feel like this has a fair amount to do with expectations. I was expecting 157 new monsters. I still think that it will be a valuable book -- semantics, but I just wish that they had called it something different.
I too would like a book of Giants and/or Fey and/or Elementals, etc. Hopefully they will hear us and work on these projects.
A few random thoughts.
I have to agree largely with the people desiring depth over breadth. As demsonstrated by the "Ecology of the Kobold, Anyone?" thread, I find the current monsters (and all demihumans, etc.) to be extremely lacking in detail for campaign use- culture, behavior, psychology, etc. I don't just want a ball of numbers and tactics. I want to know how to actually work this thing into my campaign. The Fiendish Codex took an amazing step forward in doing this (although I don't like their omission of a "treasure" line from the actual statblock and substitution with a separate entry later, especially when they factor the treasure into the stats as with the Molydeus), and I love all the attention that new classes and feats have been getting in recent books, such as Tome of Magic, helping a DM figure out how to use this new stuff. In that regard, I'm really looking forward to more "monster feature" books.
I agree strongly with GGG and Lillith; I don't mind new monsters, so long as they "feel old." Trying to produce just a batch of new monsters can lead to things like the Rukarazyll in the MM2. What the hell is that thing? And I don't mean that in a good way! I'd run a campaign where the only enemies are various combinations of classed humanoids before I'd ever use that god-aweful thing.
I also agree that there are too many specifics in things like undead. I also am tired of subraces of previously known creatures. I don't want another type of elf, or dwarf, or anything like that. I don't want another type of minotaur. Let minotaurs be minotaurs.
An ecology section, that explains what this creature is really like, outside of combat, is what I really want. One may think, "well, how will that be useful?" It lets me know how to design encoutners and adventures with them; it directly applies to how I use the creature.
I'm happy to hear that it will have classed humanoids, because there are many times that you want to use one of those things, and it's simple, but if you need to make three different types, then it actually takes a large amount of time that could be used for other things, like making the plot of the adventure.
I do agree that an overly large amount of other books is wasted on example PrCs and such. I can figure it out on my own, and you know what, the likely hood that I need that exact thing at that exact level to plug into a game is really slim; I'd probably just use the DMG tables for random NPCs first. So stop filling up space with that crap!
I have to also agree with Sebastian that I would really appreciate slowing down the production of spells (and feats and PrC, for that matter) as it's simply overwhelming.
And finally, I don't want a "Book of Lairs" when you can cut the crappy monsters out of the new MM and fill that space with something useful. It's a double win that way: I'm more likely to buy the book in the first place since it has all the things I need, AND I don't have to buy a second book to properly use the first, which would typically result in me not buying either.
Actually, the MMIV is the first one that's looked interesting to me since Monsters of Faerûn. I like detail!
-The Gneech
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I apologize strongly if I insulted anyone, I never meant to infer that any of you were less experienced nor that I was more experienced
and I apologize for coming down hard.
The rambling point I was trying to make was I think that the format of the MM IV appears to have changed from past monster manuals and now has too much additional information that while would be useful for DMs, takes away from the (IMO) purpose of a monster manual, introducing new monsters. The pre-generated material would fit better in another type of accessory, like a Book of Lairs or a NPC accessory
Maybe the problem is the title. It seems like there is a middle ground between the various libram/draconomican books and a pure monster manual, and that this volume fits that bill.
I wouldn't necessarily mind more monsters if the quality was as high as the quantity. I find that a lot of the monsters in MMII and FF are niche monsters, monsters that are too similar to existing monsters, or the 85th variation on undead/evil fae as discussed above.
There's also a certain network effect in having a core pool of monsters. If I say to you that the party fights an owlbear, chances are you know instantly what sort of encounter it is and the approximate CR. If I say that the party fights a Bearowl, from FF, you have no idea what I'm talking about unless you go look it up.
Ultimately, I prefer classic iconic monsters. I have a much greater need for a goblin chief on the fly than I do for an earth elemental that is evil (but in a different way from a mephit).
YMMV.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Actually, the MMIV is the first one that's looked interesting to me since Monsters of Faerûn. I like detail!
-The Gneech
I agree - MoF is one of the best monster books ever. The Planescape Monstrous Compendiums are also in the same league. Two page spreads for each monster with a lot of flavor text and tangential information. Good stuff.
The rambling point I was trying to make was I think that the format of the MM IV appears to have changed from past monster manuals and now has too much additional information that while would be useful for DMs, takes away from the (IMO) purpose of a monster manual, introducing new monsters. The pre-generated material would fit better in another type of accessory, like a Book of Lairs or a NPC accessory
I entirely agree. Based on the Table of Contents I will be looking this one over carefully before considering a purchase unlike previous Monster Manuals.
I'll give it the old Border's "I'm not working this afternoon and my wife is still at work" examination when it comes out. I may buy it, and I may not, but I have to say initial reaction to the table of Contents does not do much for me.
I have played D&D for 20 years and I still wouldn't mind already statted up NPC "monsters" for encounters, mainly because you never know when your players will do something you absolutely didn't expect, and the one area that you didn't make NPCs for will come into play before you expect it.
I also don't mind the example monsters that were part of the 3.5 MM. I kind of like them, actually, because before that I knew you could advance monsters, but had no drive to do so. The ones that they showed in there kind of made me go . . . hey, thats a cool idea. Maybe I can use that with (insert monster here) instead of the one in that entry. In fact, I liked the frost giant "classed" NPCs in Frostburn.
On the other hand, I don't like the fact that instead of coming up with some other kind of product with statted monsters, this now becomes material for a Monster Manual. Its kind of annoying, because if you did this differently, you could have a book with some different monsters with NPC levels of various levels, and a Monster Manual, and people with no interest with one or the other would be happy. As it is, you create a product that tries to cater to different tastes.
One of the things I do like is that if you read the other preview, I like the idea of expanding the ecologies and societal information on the monsters. I kind of miss the old 2nd edition monster entries that actually made you feel like the monster was more than just stats, so something that moves back in that direction is good.
What else DON'T I like? Cute naming conventions are grating. Plays on words are annoying, and catchy, flashy names are even more annoying. The biggest offenders from the ToC here? Tiamat's brand new spawn.
Wow, look Redspawn Fireflasher, Bluespawn Zapmasters, Greenspawn Gasblasters, Blackspawn Aciddashers, Whitespawn Snowsneakers . . . you get the idea. What worries me with these, ahem, creatures is that they sound like they were created for a collectable miniatures game first and foremost. I hope its just that someone has really bad taste in naming creatures. Flashy names, I think, are what some of my fellow posters are referencing when they mention that they like "old feeling" monsters.
When you find out that the Ancient Nightmasters are some kind of hidden aberrations that have been manipulating humanity for centuries, you can deal with it, but when you make the same creature and try to give it a name like "the Ultratentaslashers" it breaks the whole "ancient world" feeling of the game.
|
|
The Planescape Monstrous Compendiums are also in the same league. Two page spreads for each monster with a lot of flavor text and tangential information. Good stuff.
Here is a little related question to all -- You say that you don't need/want any more new monsters -- would you want a monster manual that updated a whole mess of 2nd edition monsters (there were a whole lot of "annuals" and then there were all the looseleaf pages from different worlds) and compiled them for 3rd edition?
I almost forgot . . . slow down on the new monsters already. There are tons of 1st and 2nd edition creatures that haven't gotten 3.5 loving yet. How 'bout we work on a few more of them before we get any more Redspawn Firecrackers, and Bluespawn UngroundedMainlines . . . (sorry, those Tiamat spawn things bug me with their names).
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The Planescape Monstrous Compendiums are also in the same league. Two page spreads for each monster with a lot of flavor text and tangential information. Good stuff.Here is a little related question to all -- You say that you don't need/want any more new monsters -- would you want a monster manual that updated a whole mess of 2nd edition monsters (there were a whole lot of "annuals" and then there were all the looseleaf pages from different worlds) and compiled them for 3rd edition?
I'm not sure how the question relates to the comment about not wanting a bunch of new monsters, but no, I wouldn't particularly want a whole mess of updated 2e monsters either. Most of the quality monsters were updated in the first MM and MoF. MMII had a handful worth updating, FF had about the same. I'd rather have quality monsters than quantity monsters.
My comparison to the PS Monstrous Compendiums was not in the sense that the monsters were better creatures; they weren't necessarily. However, the presentation was better than the modern monster books.
|
|
I really feel like I am in the minority here (which is interesting to me).
It sounds to me like the majority of people here want an "Ecology of ... Manual" instead of a Monster Manual.
I would much rather have a lot of creatures with new and different abilities and effects and how to use them than tons of background material. I feel that I don't want someone else to come up with the background material for me. In many ways, I feel that inhibits my creativity and how I envision using the creature. I thought that MM3 was one of the best books out there and I'm not sure why they couldn't do it again. I loved the planar golems, I loved the skindancer, I loved the dracotaur. As I was reading the entries I kept thinking of all the ways that I could use the creatures. I was also thinking of "moving" abilities from one creature to another (an ogre with the skindancer's ability for instance).
I also don't want my players to get ahold of a book and tell me "but that creature is supposed to behave like ..."
I have mixed feelings about tons of subraces. I like Flinds. I like Poison Dusk Lizardfolk. I like Blues. I don't like that there are Gold Elves, Wood Elves, Wild Elves, Drow, Moon Elves, Aquatic Elves and Half Elves (Did I miss any?). Maybe it is just silly. I see Poison Dusk Lizardfolk as a different race rather than a subrace.
Overall, I typically want just enough information to give me a "push" with a whole lot of ideas. I typically don't want a whole lot of things fully fleshed out for me -- I would prefer to do that part myself.
I felt that it was odd that WotC seemed to be moving toward a lot more description than before. Perhaps they are listening more than you think.
|
|
My comparison to the PS Monstrous Compendiums was not in the sense that the monsters were better creatures; they weren't necessarily. However, the presentation was better than the modern monster books.
That makes sense. I too loved the presentation in the PS monster books. At the very least, it was a fun read, eh berk?
The Planescape Monstrous Compendiums are also in the same league. Two page spreads for each monster with a lot of flavor text and tangential information. Good stuff.Here is a little related question to all -- You say that you don't need/want any more new monsters -- would you want a monster manual that updated a whole mess of 2nd edition monsters (there were a whole lot of "annuals" and then there were all the looseleaf pages from different worlds) and compiled them for 3rd edition?
Not all the 2nd ed. monsters, some were as odd or silly as some of the new 3rd Ed. ones
one thing I am pleasantly surprised with is that there have been many new 3rd Ed. monsters that never appeared in 2nd Ed. and the 2nd. Ed. translations have been a slow trickle
I'd rather a 1 page summary, like the looseleaf pages, for each monster, and a "-nomicon" book for each creature type...the Planescape "Manual" books (though there was a MC Outer Planes appendix, it was not a Planescape accessory and had really screwed up monster XPs) were much more detailed and fun to read, but 2 pages:monster would make a much huge hardcover book
and just a FYI, the 4 "MC Annuals" were 95% (or more) reprints from the Dragon Magizine, Dungeon/Polyhedron and the numerous 2nd Ed. Campaign worlds (Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Birthright, Mystra, etc.) and were generalized for base AD&D use. They really didn't give anything new.
Maybe for D&D 3.5 the annual can be reintroduced to convert/reprint the 2nd Ed. monsters for new players who don't have the old, out-of-print material. Or something like a regular Creature Catalogue in Dragon maybe.
Kalin
|
|
I guess I'll just wait until I get to ogle the statted up variations of the orcs and/or/et. al. and see if any of it floors me.
Made my wil save so I'll spell it right...
Maybe I should look at this as more of a "Rogue's Gallery" for monsters, and less as what I expect from a book titled Monster Manual "X": a gigantic compendium of new creatures (and/or somewhat new creatures culled from Dragon, adventures, sourcebooks, and earlier D&D editions).
|
|
I'm torn about the "depth" issue. It looks exciting, but when I see it being orcs and gnolls ... well, I've run both races pretty much into the ground in my campaign.
Besides, all you need is a freeware generator - make a character class in human, cut and paste into Word or WordPerfect, delete the extra skill ranks and feat, add the racial attributes and voila! New monster.
For example, check out www.hailscape.com. Also, there's www.andargor.com. The first is 3E, but what player will pick up on that? Moreover, it already has a slew of humanoids included ... and adds equipment as a nice bonus. The second is 3.5, but doesn't have equipment, nor a variety of races. Neither has a broad array of classes - just the basics.
That said, I'll withhold judgment until I get my hands on the book.
I like monster descriptions giving more than pure stat blocks.
In the MM for D&D3.0, there were some examples with quite minimal or non-existent descriptions beyond how it looks like and how it fights. This may have been an attempt to recreate 1st Ed. "feel", but to me, it was not enough, especially considering the 2nd Ed. Monster Manuals, which had set a
standard. This is better in 3.5.
I don´t need ever more cheesy monsters without explanation, and as stated above not the umpteenh undead or faerie, even less if all those critter are nearly Epic-Level challenges.
On the other hand, innovative Monsters are always nice to have, especially if you have experienced players.
But with the ToC for MM4, I don´t really know what to make of it. It seems to be a mixed bag, too mixed perhaps. Some entries could be interesting, the Avatars of Elemental Evil sound interesting, and a few of the new entries as well, but an orc berserker ? Come on, that should not be too hard to design yourself. And 30+ pages on the spawns of tiamat seems very much, too.
So, if I would decide what a MM should look like, each monster would get an entry describing enough detail about the monster to use it immediately and giving some info on its background if the monster should play a bigger role, which would probably amout to one or perhaps two pages per monster.
And themed books on groups of monsters would go into more detail about their society, giving an example lair, giving some information about their interaction with the rest of the world. A ecology and book of lairs with a short adventure rolled in one. Like what the thread about kobolds seems to aim at.
Stefan
Not sure if anyone's following the discussion on EN World. I think the consensus so far is very negative.
When the first preview (the redspawn arcanis I think) came out many of the posters there liked the new ecology format. Some people said "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if they went back and redid the original MM like this? I'd buy it!" Now we find out that many of the iconic monsters from the MM will be in this one, and I think it's still considered by most on those boards to be a waste of money.
I'm getting this book and I'll definately find use for it, but if I could only choose one book for July it would be Secrets of Xen'drik. That book will have many new monsters, more flavor than the vanilla stuff in MM4, and should be portable enough to stick in any campaign.
I'm not springing the $30 bucks for it.
Aren't there enough monsters already? As it stands, my players and I will never fight every single one of them anyways. Besides, if you want a new monster that will be alien to your players, make it yourself. Even an occasional custom creature will make for a memorable and thrilling encounter. All the rules to do so "by the rule" are found in MMI.
As I skimmed the Table of Contents, I read: Orc, Drow, Githyanki, etc. Basically all creatures that advance by class. I can do that myself - I would bet that most of us have. I spent a few hours in a loose-leaf notebook making a "Drow Archer" and other archetype creatures.
I'll admit that it would be convenient - I'm just not sure I'm willing to part with $30 AND cart around another hardback in my already 100 lb. bag (which qualifies as a heavy load for me).
I almost forgot . . . slow down on the new monsters already. There are tons of 1st and 2nd edition creatures that haven't gotten 3.5 loving yet. How 'bout we work on a few more of them before we get any more Redspawn Firecrackers, and Bluespawn UngroundedMainlines . . . (sorry, those Tiamat spawn things bug me with their names).
Ah, so you are a lava child (half-fire elemental young Ron Howard) fan too.
As for the names (which didn't inspire much hope from me either) just remove the "cayon spawn" portion and use the rest. Godslayer sounds pretty cool.
GGG
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'll admit that it would be convenient - I'm just not sure I'm willing to part with $30 AND cart around another hardback in my already 100 lb. bag (which qualifies as a heavy load for me).
I agree - carrying capacity is as much an issue as cost. I find that not wanting to lug around additional books (or have them clutter my space when prepping for a game) is a major reason for not purchasing. As is a constant refrain on these boards, there are so many options now it's overwhelming.
(which is why Sebastian stands ready to reboot in the near future - 4e baby, 4e.)
(which is why Sebastian stands ready to reboot in the near future - 4e baby, 4e.)
Nooooo! Then we'll all have to by the same books all over again updated for the new edition. At least 3 and 3.5 are close enough to fudge.
Seriously, I'd be much more interested in the type-focused books. "The Giant Grimoire" or "the Fey Folio" or "the Tome of the Elements" all sound quite promising to me. I've purchased FF and MMII, but use them very little--I was mostly interested in the 10-15% of the material in them that was somehow classic D&D or had mythical roots, but I haven't even used everything in the 3.5 MM yet, so I don't feel like I need a huge additional collection of random monsters that don't seem to have a clear place in my campaign world. I'd be more interested in some real development of themes, with a few well-developed sites I could use in adventures, some ecology, some culture, and so forth.
|
|
(which is why Sebastian stands ready to reboot in the near future - 4e baby, 4e.)
'ahem'
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!I'm gonna be an 86 y.o. crumudgeon at the gamers' retirement home playing 3.5 e, and shaking my cane at the 68 y.o.'s with their 8th edition crap. I'm not switching until my 3.5 books disintegrate like my 1 e. books almost have.