PDA

View Full Version : Monster Manual V?



The Vorpal Tribble
2007-02-08, 06:28 PM
Well, apparently another MM is already in the works to be revealed this July...

http://www.wizards.com/global/images/products_dndacc_956817200_lgpic.jpg


Sure are dishing these things out like there is no tomorrow. However, the more I read about them the less interested I become.

#1. This line makes my blood begin to boil:

This 224-page D&D supplement presents a fully illustrated horde of new monsters, as well as ready-to-play variations of previously existing monsters.

Y'know what, make a book devoted to this stuff. Otherwise don't fill our already rapidly dwindling monster manuals with stuff the DM can bloody well do on his own. Oh, wait, with the new monster format that makes it rather difficult? Oh well, more money for Wizards...

#2. Yeah, already mentioned it, but the books are growing smaller and smaller, and more of the content is becoming unneccessary. I want monsters, not an orc with an example of every class known to man and beast.

jjpickar
2007-02-08, 06:33 PM
Well it does save time giving the orcs the class. Still as long as people buy the stuff the trends will continue.

Matthew
2007-02-08, 06:53 PM
I think Vorpal Tribble's point is that a separate type of book might be more suitable for such things, rather than a Monster Manual.

Fax Celestis
2007-02-08, 06:59 PM
I'll still probably get my hands on it regardless. I rather enjoyed the MM-IV.

Jade_Tarem
2007-02-08, 07:14 PM
I kinda liked MM-IV too... And there weren't that many playable monsters, on account of most of them having very high HD.

The Vorpal Tribble
2007-02-08, 07:20 PM
I haven't yet gotten my hands on a MM IV, but just the new monster style is enough to put me off of it... you guys are actually the first folks I've heard yet to give it a positive review.

Khantalas
2007-02-08, 07:23 PM
I'm with Vorpal on that the new format is less than useful, but MM IV wasn't a bad book. It was just... hard to use properly, IMHO.

Behold_the_Void
2007-02-08, 07:55 PM
I'm not likely to purchase any Monster Manuals beyond what I have (I and II). I looked through III and it was some of the weirdest collection of things I've ever seen.

Personally, I'm just waiting for Vorpal Tribble to release HIS Monster Manual :smallbiggrin:

SpiderBrigade
2007-02-08, 08:06 PM
So what is it about the new monster format that is so terrible? I don't do the massive amounts of monster customization that you do, VT, so it doesn't jump out at me. Or is a lot of it simply the fact that it's a big change from the old style?

Zherog
2007-02-08, 08:09 PM
The new format is actually quite useful, once you get used to it. The information in the stat block is organized into groups of data that you need at certain times.

1) The first piece of data has the creatures' name, alignment, languages spoken, and senses - Spot and Listen checks, vision type, etc. This is the stuff you need right at the very, very beginning of the encounter.

2) The next section includes the defensive information - AC, hit points, saves, resistances, and so on.

3) The third section has the offensive info - attack info, damage, any "tricks" that can be done combat, equipment that could be used in combat, and so on.

4) Finally, the rest is "bookkeeping" information - ability scores, feats, skills.

As for MM5 having pre-statted creatures and such: please note that MM4 has the same thing.

Jack Mann
2007-02-08, 08:11 PM
Fewer actual monsters in favor of simple alterations to existing monsters (such as the drow in MM IV... who have PC classes! Dun Dun Dunnnnnnn!) I mean, there's some cool stuff in MM IV, but I think we can build our own NPCs.

Dervag
2007-02-08, 09:00 PM
If Wizards is going to print new books, then they should have new content, not rehashing of old content. The fighter class is not new. Orcs are not new. Therefore, orc fighters are not new. If the DM wants orc fighters, they can easily create orc fighters without needing a specific entry in the Monster Manual for them. Whereas if the DM wants a totally new kind of dreaded jungle monster that comes complete with a plausible and consistent set of abilities, they cannot easily create those without a Monster Manual. So Monster Manuals should contain more dreaded jungle monsters and fewer orc fighters.

Fizban
2007-02-08, 09:19 PM
I liked a few things in the MMIV, maybe 6-8 monsters total. Once you get rid of the spiders, NPC blocks, and spawn of tiamat, there's hardly anything left.

In addition to shrinking (looking back at the MMII and Fiend Folio, I kept thinking there were other books I forgot about, there were so many monsters to remember, now you're done before you start), the monster manuals are becoming more and more about the campaign settings. MMIII was full of Ebberon stuff, but it was good stuff. MMIV was full of the OMG spawn of tiamat and random spiders!, along with NPC filler stats. This is both good and bad. On one hand, you get the setting specific monsters in the same book, and you don't have to buy a separate setting monster book. On the other hand, you don't get as many original monsters. It seems that WoTC is running out of spontaneous original ideas though, and is putting all they've got into the settings, so we're not likely to see a pure MM any time soon.

Old monsters with class levels: besides the fact that any DM worth the title can do this himself, what I really don't like is that they make assumptions about the campaign. Some campaigns count even level 10 as extremely high, some consider 15 to be common. The NPC's wizards is filliing up the MM's with are not only pointless, they assume that every world has the same level balance, and this bugs me.

As for the new stat blocks: I do like some things about them, but really, speed is something you need to know at the start of the encounter. Don't stick it in the middle of the block where you can't see it. (I can never find a creature's speed in the new format, can't you tell?)

Fax Celestis
2007-02-08, 09:24 PM
And for the counteroffensive: Preexisting stat blocks are extraordinarily useful for us DMs who have both inventive players and little free time.

Thomas
2007-02-08, 10:07 PM
I dislike the new format, simply because I have to copy all the stats I want to use into a .rtf file, and my format works best with the original MM format - the entries are in the same order.

But MM4 wasn't a bad book, as such. Not great, and the ready-to-play variations seem like unnecessary filler, but it's not bad overall.

Logos7
2007-02-08, 10:15 PM
I rather Enjoyed the Book Actually,

And as far as the rehashing of Old Content Goes, Sometimes you need someone to show you the way, not that you can't do it on your own ,but that you wont until you see that hey Half Yanti Barbarians are preety kewl in their own right.

of course I both approve of the new Format , and enjoy new idea's , Drow Ninja's as apposed to Orc fighters for example

I also don't own 2 and 3 so my tolerance for the MM is perhaps a bit higher than would be otherwise expected.

What i'd like to see is a class appendix at the end, and lots of wierdo class.race combo's Dwarvish Shadowmancers, Elvish Samurai, Gnomish Barbarians/Scouts/Frenzied Berserkeres of Legend!

L

AtomicKitKat
2007-02-09, 07:02 AM
Is there any way we can sign like an online petition for them to NOT put in the rehashed crap? -_-

BrokenButterfly
2007-02-09, 07:09 AM
I really had nothing against the rehashed retro monsters. I'm more likely to put gnolls into a campaign than yugoloths, so why not see examples of the race so that the PCs don't come up against swarms of warriors or fighters?

I was much more interested in the greater levels of detail given to the monsters, so you knew more about them, rather than just being stat-jockeys with one or two weird abilities?

Hated the Spawns though, I like detail and all, but give it a break, not everybody is going to run some sort of Tiamat invasion!

Got MM 1-4 and the FF, so I will get this too.

Last point, I like the new stat block a lot, although it can be annoying scanning it in the middle of a session trying to find out how many languages an aranea speaks, to see whether the PCs can even talk to her!

Arlanthe
2007-02-09, 07:19 AM
Wizards has turned into stink ink. I don't like this direction. I would prefer more work on fleshing out a bunch of campaign worlds.

Zherog
2007-02-09, 08:06 AM
Is there any way we can sign like an online petition for them to NOT put in the rehashed crap? -_-

You can send them e-mail to Customer Service, or call their customer service telephone number.

Be aware, though, that you're in a vocal minority. WotC's market research shows people want it - that's why they put it in MM4; it was successful, so they're doing it again in MM5.

jono
2007-02-09, 09:33 AM
My main criticism of monster manual iv was the constant reference to non-core classes. Yes I'd imagine that a ninja of some description would be interesting. It's just a shame that I can't play it without shelling out another £15 on a copy of complete adventurer.

There was some really good stuff in there. (I liked the new undead and the spawn of tiamat especially). There was also some complete crud. The worst example I think was the new Varags, where the authors casually demolished pretty much every single rule regarding ECL, Level adjustment, and character advancement just so they could make them player characters.

Alas! It's also the only monster manual I own, seeing as my local gaming outlet is rather lacking!

AtomicKitKat
2007-02-09, 09:35 AM
I really had nothing against the rehashed retro monsters. I'm more likely to put gnolls into a campaign than yugoloths, so why not see examples of the race so that the PCs don't come up against swarms of warriors or fighters?

That's more a problem with an unimaginative DM than an inflexible monster. Creative DMs should be and are capable of coming up with crazy combinations on their own.

I'm aware that I could contact them directly, but it looks better when they're sent a link to a page with a few hundred names protesting recycled material.:smallcool:

Woot Spitum
2007-02-09, 09:58 AM
Sadly, as long as the demand for new, readily statted monsters is high, WoTC will keep cranking out rushed, thrown together monster manuals. If you really hate the new monsters though, there's always the Swords and Sorcery creature collections.

ken-do-nim
2007-02-09, 10:12 AM
Sadly, as long as the demand for new, readily statted monsters is high, WoTC will keep cranking out rushed, thrown together monster manuals. If you really hate the new monsters though, there's always the Swords and Sorcery creature collections.

The Tome of Horrors series is great. The Red Jester is probably my single favorite monster in 3.5. I actually own a deck of many things, cut out from a Dragon magazine article long ago, and throwing random cards at the players ... priceless.

Leush
2007-02-09, 10:49 AM
Sadly, as long as the demand for new, readily statted monsters is high, WoTC will keep cranking out rushed, thrown together monster manuals. SNIP

As long as you have enough ranks in bluff you can create demand on a whim. Demand doesn't exist because people want to have lot of examples of rehashed poo (although to be fair, with the increasing numbers of people playing d&d the numbers of people wanting poo will increase accordingly as some of them will want poo of their own accord). By that logic they will continue to spew poo forever, but it's no excuse to acknowledge its existence.

Any new monster manual is completely and utterly pointless. In fact I think any new published material is completely pointless. With the SRD and the vast numbers of good homebrewed monsters (the from the playground compendium is a very good example of that) anyone with half a brain can create a near infinite number of combinations. Okay, most people will actually want to get things like phb and dmg and the original mm, but ya know, anything beyond that is just an expensive homebrew and I don't need WOTC to tell me what is worthy of being placed in an imaginary place and what isn't.

Sahegian
2007-02-09, 11:26 AM
I like new books even if there isn't that much of use in them. It would be completely unamerican for WotC to put out useful books at a reasonable price and not try to sell us nearly useless crap that we don't need. That is part of the fun. Aside from the DMG and PHB, I don't think I've ever used more than 10% of the stuff in any other book.

Jack Mann
2007-02-09, 12:41 PM
I understand that pre-generated NPCs can be useful. I get that. But I'd rather have more room for new monsters.

I do like having more information on the new monsters, mind. That part of MMIV was good. A praiseworthy goal. Better information from knowledge checks. I like that! But I don't need some pregenerated NPCs to fill out pages. I'd rather have more new material. I can make my own drow ninjas.

Fax Celestis
2007-02-09, 12:50 PM
I understand that pre-generated NPCs can be useful. I get that. But I'd rather have more room for new monsters.

I do like having more information on the new monsters, mind. That part of MMIV was good. A praiseworthy goal. Better information from knowledge checks. I like that! But I don't need some pregenerated NPCs to fill out pages. I'd rather have more new material. I can make my own drow ninjas.

Agreed. Hell, I'd be happy with a book of pregenerated NPCs and locations seperate from a book of monsters.

jono
2007-02-09, 01:17 PM
I understand that pre-generated NPCs can be useful. I get that. But I'd rather have more room for new monsters.

I do like having more information on the new monsters, mind. That part of MMIV was good. A praiseworthy goal. Better information from knowledge checks. I like that! But I don't need some pregenerated NPCs to fill out pages. I'd rather have more new material. I can make my own drow ninjas.

The job of the monster manuals should be to provide rules and stats for creatures and races that you might wish to incorperate into a campaign, however you wish to go about it. It should not be filling up space by creating new variants of existing monsters, and self-publicising their other works. Further, any back-story and motivation included should be purely subjective and notional, rather than trying to tie each monster to a specific setting or role.

The spawn of tiamat in MM IV I though were an excellent idea. However, was there really any need to lock them into one back story? If you ignore the whole dragonfall war you could easily incorporate them in a campaign as a substitute for the more traditional fodder races, such as orcs and gnolls. Perhaps they're magical experiments gone wrong? Maybe they've always existed as dangerous tribes that live in the mountains. Perhaps they're the head of a malevolent empire. There are so many possibilities that are effectively blotted out because the guys at wizards decided to niché their new monsters into their questionably concieved dragonfall war!

Fax Celestis
2007-02-09, 01:24 PM
The spawn of tiamat in MM IV I though were an excellent idea. However, was there really any need to lock them into one back story? If you ignore the whole dragonfall war you could easily incorporate them in a campaign as a substitute for the more traditional fodder races, such as orcs and gnolls. Perhaps they're magical experiments gone wrong? Maybe they've always existed as dangerous tribes that live in the mountains. Perhaps they're the head of a malevolent empire. There are so many possibilities that are effectively blotted out because the guys at wizards decided to niché their new monsters into their questionably concieved dragonfall war!

I'd personalyl like to play an evil campaign where all the characters were dragonspawn.

Twisted.Fate
2007-02-09, 01:24 PM
I got the book for Christmas. Though I haven't used it much yet, I rather like it.

Things I liked:

The variety of classes used in the pre-made NPCs. An orc bard? May not be overly mechanically useful, but it's darn cool.
The Corruptor of Fate yugoloth was just neat ^_^
The pre-made encounter ideas. They give you just enough of a framework to pick it up and weave it neatly into your game.Things I didn't like:

New statblocks >_< Why change what works? We were used to the old one, WotC!
All those Spawn of Tiamat! Mother of god, those are a third of the book's original content! How utterly boring is that?
Lack of templates. Boo! Templates are amazing for easy customization of creatures. Monster Manual II, for example, has been the greatest thing I've ever seen. Minotaur of Legend, anyone?
NPCs built with non-core classes - thanks for building an NPC that I can't advance unless I shell out for another book, Wizards.All in all...it's not an evil book. If you own lots of splatbooks, my fourth criticism becomes moot. I got it for a present, so I'm not arguing.

Quietus
2007-02-09, 01:33 PM
I think that the problem is when Wizards starts to cater to the lowest common denominator. They aren't making the books for DM's any more, they're making them for anyone. A DM can make his own NPC's - hell, they could even add in a small two or three paragraph block suggesting NPC classes for the monsters, like, say "Here's some Drow, they use Warrior, and if they were to use Rogue they might do this, or if they were Ninja they might do this." That, I think, would be perfectly reasonable, serve the purposes of the NPC statblocks, and allow for more original content.

ImperiousLeader
2007-02-09, 01:50 PM
I like the new stat blocks, I find it easy to read and fairly logical. A few nuisances, like hiding the types of hitdice, but in general, I like it.

IMO, MMIV was designed to help DMs who don't have the time to futz with templates and classes. Which is fair enough, and I liked a few of the ones in MMIV, but I think MMV needs to adjust the balance towards more new monsters.

talsine
2007-02-09, 02:08 PM
I'm so used to the origonal stat blocks that the new ones just throw me off, i can't find what i want when i want it. That being said, its rare i run something directly out of one of the books, but i have lots of free time to work on critters an such when we're doing D&D. Which isn't know, stupid GURPS why do you have to roxxor my boxxorz so hard...

My roomate has FF, and i have MM and MMII, havn't been interested in any of the other monster books, took a look and made a pass. Though I might end up picking up MMIV anyway cause the next game looks like it might turn into a dragon centric game and more dragonic critters is a good thing for that i suppose.

Person_Man
2007-02-09, 03:53 PM
Good. The sooner D&D 3.5 becomes unprofitable, the sooner 4.0 will come out. Hopefully, they're already working on it.

Piedmon_Sama
2007-02-09, 03:59 PM
A wise man once said, "let me tell you something--no one ever went broke underestimating the bad taste of the American public." :rolleyes:

(As you can guess, I will not be among those to buy this suppliment. I felt cheated after buying MMIV, although I deserved it for not taking the time to check it out first. If people like it, more power to them, but I will be strictly ambivalent towards the whole enterprise.)

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-02-09, 05:19 PM
Well, I can't fault them for creating new books. That's how they keep in business. Most of us have our Player's Guides, Dungeon Master's Guides, and Monster Manuals I; and we're not about to buy more of the same.

I've gotten some good things from the new monster manuals, but at the same time I've not been wowed by anything. I'm frequently tired of seeing new core classes, new prestige classes, new monsters, and new books that refer to all these new classes and monsters, making it somewhat difficult. Still, amidst the junk, there are gems such as Lords of Madness, Hordes of the Abyss, and Tome of Magic. As of late, I've just become more selective of what I buy and don't buy.

At present, Monster Manual V is not on my must have list.

We should just make our own.

ken-do-nim
2007-02-09, 05:45 PM
Agreed. Hell, I'd be happy with a book of pregenerated NPCs and locations seperate from a book of monsters.

I picked up the 3.0 book Enemies & Allies on eBay for that reason. It's pretty good.

Thrawn183
2007-02-09, 09:17 PM
I think one of the reasons they should focus on new monsters rather than monsters with class levels is so that you can throw something new at a jaded group. Who cares about beating a kobold with class levels? I want to throw something at my party that they will have never seen before. I want them sitting there going "Omg, what did that thing just do?"

Zherog
2007-02-09, 09:36 PM
My main criticism of monster manual iv was the constant reference to non-core classes. Yes I'd imagine that a ninja of some description would be interesting. It's just a shame that I can't play it without shelling out another £15 on a copy of complete adventurer.

The first creature with ninja levels that I came across was the drow ninja on page 55 of MM4. And you don't need Complete Adventurer to use that NPC as is - everything about it's class abilities is described right in the entry.

Twisted.Fate
2007-02-09, 09:46 PM
The first creature with ninja levels that I came across was the drow ninja on page 55 of MM4. And you don't need Complete Adventurer to use that NPC as is - everything about it's class abilities is described right in the entry.

But you can't tweak it. What if I want to give the ninja a few more class levels - oops, I don't have Complete Adventurer, can't do that! On the other hand, I can easily level up something that has core classes, like an orc barbarian; or I could add a few hit dice to the Spawn of Tiamat which are listed.

The use of non-core classes makes further customization difficult, and isn't that supposed to be reasonably simple to do?

Zherog
2007-02-10, 12:08 AM
Of course, nothing prevents you from adding levels of a core class - rogue, for example, would work well with the drow ninja.

As another point... your missing the target audience for those creatures anyway. They aren't they so you can level them up further. They're there for other DMs - who wanted that sort of material - to pick it up and drop it into their campaign.

jono
2007-02-10, 03:26 PM
Of course, nothing prevents you from adding levels of a core class - rogue, for example, would work well with the drow ninja.

As another point... your missing the target audience for those creatures anyway. They aren't they so you can level them up further. They're there for other DMs - who wanted that sort of material - to pick it up and drop it into their campaign.

Hey, I have nothing at all against drop-in things. I know it can take between 30 minutes to over an hour to build a character from scratch, and sometimes just grabbing a pre-made stat block makes for a good random encounter. I dislike the fact that you can't advance a character by class without other books. Ninja was just one example, and you could in theory just add levels of monk or rogue. But why shouldn't you be able to advance it as described.

There needs to be a segregation between creature stats, and creature varients. I think that the monster manuals should put more emphasis on creating new monsters, and giving stat blocks and rules for existing folk-ledgends so that they can be incorperated into a campaign with minimal effort on the part of the DM. Let's face it; Creating a whole new monster, complete with it's own stats and abilities is difficult, or at least more difficult, than throwing Hit Die and class levels onto an existing stat block.

I'm not saying that variants should stop being created. I think they should release a series of books called, for example, "the complete goblinoid/outsider/draconic manual". it would contain stat blocks for various class mixes of existing monster types. It'd have sections on various possible histories, backgrounds and settings. By that I mean de-railing these linear views of monsters as having only one possible niche and role. No more crud about the blood and dragonfall wars (or at least sidelining them as possibilities rather than the default), and reducing the self-serving emphasis on Forgotten realms and Eberron.

BrokenButterfly
2007-02-12, 10:10 AM
That's more a problem with an unimaginative DM than an inflexible monster. Creative DMs should be and are capable of coming up with crazy combinations on their own.:

Yes, but DMs should be able to come up with weird, original monsters on their own too. When it all comes down to it, the MMs are advertised as books featuring monsters that any DM can slot into their world without having had to make them themselves. On that basis a lizardman with warlock levels is just the same as a concordant killer, they serve the same purpose.

geez3r
2007-02-12, 10:55 AM
IMO, the Monster Manuals is becoming like Pokemon. MM1 was the equivalent of the old, original 150 Pokemon. All the bases are covered, each idea was original and everyone was happy.

MM2 is like the next 100 something Pokemon they added. Still good ideas, added more depth, but there were a few repeats that took a little away. It was good, but wasn't met with as much excitement because it had been done before.

MM3, this is when a few voices beging popping up and asking "Why?"

With each progressing MM, more and more people are asking "Why?" There isn't much original material out there, and if there is, it's buried under stuff you don't want to sift through.

Sometimes, basic is better.

SpiderBrigade
2007-02-12, 11:19 AM
I'm not saying that variants should stop being created. I think they should release a series of books called, for example, "the complete goblinoid/outsider/draconic manual". it would contain stat blocks for various class mixes of existing monster types. It'd have sections on various possible histories, backgrounds and settings.Maybe I'm cynical, but here's why I think they won't do that: not enough people would buy those books. Whereas a new monster manual? Everyone is going to want that, even if a big chunk of it is rehashed example stat blocks.

At the same time, if they removed that material from the newer MMs, the books would be much skimpier and might not fit into that $20-30 niche that WotC wants them to. So they'd have to add more actual monsters. Hey, you said it yourself:
Creating a whole new monster, complete with it's own stats and abilities is difficult, or at least more difficult, than throwing Hit Die and class levels onto an existing stat block.

Fax Celestis
2007-02-12, 11:23 AM
Yeah. Well, if they're running out of monster ideas, perhaps they should ask VT and D1 and myself for some. We've got plenty, believe me.

Everyman
2007-02-12, 08:14 PM
Sadly, they would gladly take your suggestions. However, there is no guarentee that those suggestions would ever make it to the publishing state. Even if they did, there's the issue of ownership of the creative material and whatnot.

What I would like to see is a GitP compliation of monsters into a splatbook (getting everyone's permission and creditting as necessary). After compiling all the material that our forums create into a pdf, one could just post a download link and allow all kinds of people to use it.