[3.5] Monster Manuals: Best/Worst/Favourite

[Ice&Fire]

What's everyones favourite monster manual, or the Monster Manual they consider to be the best/worst of the 5. My personal favourite is MM III, as I enjoy using the monsters in there as a DM

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Inverse Star Trek rule: 3>1>5 are good, 2 and 4...aren't.

[Kol Korran]

i only have 1-3. from them i like 1>3>2 (the last is horrible)

[Grumman]

I like 3 best. It has the warforged and the Spellwarped and Woodling templates.

[Ice&Fire]

Inverse Star Trek rule: 3>1>5 are good, 2 and 4...aren't.

Boring monsters, bad design or a combo of both?

[JellyPooga]

MMIII far and away blows the others out of the water. If it weren't for the fact that it doesn't have the staple fantasy monsters (orcs, elves, etc.) in it, I'd have voted for it to be the MM.

Then again, I'm somewhat biased by the fact that I loooove Poisondusk Lizardfolk (they're what lizard-men should be)

[sonofzeal]

MMIII far and away blows the others out of the water. If it weren't for the fact that it doesn't have the staple fantasy monsters (orcs, elves, etc.) in it, I'd have voted for it to be the MM.

Then again, I'm somewhat biased by the fact that I loooove Poisondusk Lizardfolk (they're what lizard-men should be)

So true. Poison Dusk Rogues are amazing, and utterly worth the LA.

[Magnor Criol]

I like MM1 a lot, but maybe I'm just a traditionalist. 2 and 3 are also good, in my opinion.

I would like 3 a lot more if it didn't feel like the "Let's Pimp Eberron" monster manual. It's like they sat around and decided "We can push Eberron by including a '[Monster] in Ebberon' paragraph at the end of each entry!" "Sounds good, but what about Forgotten realms?" "Okay, I guess if we have room we'll fit in a '[Monster] in Faerun' bit, but only if there's room after everything else goes in. Just to make it look less biased." Also, most of the '[Monster] in [Setting] paragraphs feel decidedly uninspired.

4 and 5 suffered from the flawed, somewhat vapid-feeling design attitude that seems to be in a lot of WotC's later 3.5 material, but overall I liked the stated intent behind them - updating and re-picturing some of the old monsters with new material in mind, and presenting new stuff alongside. They didn't accomplish this very well, but I can appreciate them trying to do so.

Also? I'll say it: I kinda like the stat block format they use in MM4 and 5. It's not the best way they could've done it, but I do like how some of the features are organized, it makes sense and is pretty accessible. I stick with the old format most of the time just because that's what I'm most familiar with, but I like the direction they were heading.

[Ice&Fire]

I like MM1 a lot, but maybe I'm just a traditionalist. 2 and 3 are also good, in my opinion.

I would like 3 a lot more if it didn't feel like the "Let's Pimp Eberron" monster manual. It's like they sat around and decided "We can push Eberron by including a '[Monster] in Ebberon' paragraph at the end of each entry!" "Sounds good, but what about Forgotten realms?" "Okay, I guess if we have room we'll fit in a '[Monster] in Faerun' bit, but only if there's room after everything else goes in. Just to make it look less biased." Also, most of the '[Monster] in [Setting] paragraphs feel decidedly uninspired.

4 and 5 suffered from the flawed, somewhat vapid-feeling design attitude that seems to be in a lot of WotC's later 3.5 material, but overall I liked the stated intent behind them - updating and re-picturing some of the old monsters with new material in mind, and presenting new stuff alongside. They didn't accomplish this very well, but I can appreciate them trying to do so.

Also? I'll say it: I kinda like the stat block format they use in MM4 and 5. It's not the best way they could've done it, but I do like how some of the features are organized, it makes sense and is pretty accessible. I stick with the old format most of the time just because that's what I'm most familiar with, but I like the direction they were heading.

Actually the [Monster] in Eberron part of MMIII is one of the reasons I really liked it, but it could have had some more entries for Faerun

[AslanCross]

III is far and away the best. I think V is pretty good too. 4 I like only for the Spawn of Tiamat. 2 has a lot of really weird monsters that I never use. Those that I consider worth using (some of the devils) have been updated in Fiendish Codex II. I just bought it because it was 60% off at the time and was the last copy.

I is core, of course, so it always sees play.

[Temet Nosce]

I'll echo the others with fondness for III (mmm, Fleshraker), however I think II isn't that bad. I'm fond of both Spellstitched and Monster of Legend among others.

[AslanCross]

Ah, yes, I'd like to echo approval for the statblock format used in MMIV and V. (It was originally introduced in DMGII if I'm not mistaken.) It's definitely a huge improvement over the original "everything in a paragraph" statblocks that were used in the oldest 3.0 publications and even some 3.5 adventures.

I liked this format so much that I use it whenever I stat up monsters for my campaigns.

[Wings of Peace]

I like MMII a lot. Hellfire Wyrm has a special place in my heart for evil monsters and both Elemental Weirds and the Immoth just made me feel warm inside being a big elemental fan myself. There were others I like such as the Jermalaine but those would be some of the big names from the book for me.

[The Gilded Duke]

Monster Manual V is my favorite by far.
Mindflayers of Thoon
Dragons of the Great Game
And so on.

Monster Manual IV is the worst.
Do you like drow?
Did you know they can have class levels?
Now lets show you four pages of drow with class levels!

And they do this again and again.
Pumping up page count with no real new content.

Monster Manual V unfortunately continues this practice, but the awesomeness of its other stuff makes up for this sin in my mind.

[Zeta Kai]

MM1 is pure gold; it has almost everything that I could want, & it suggests ways that I could make the rest myself. Almost all the classic monsters are there: vampires, zombies, werewolves, orcs, demons, ect. They're all there, in great detail & variety. Also, templates add a lot of potential variety to the mix.

MM2 is good, but suffers from having so much territory already covered by its predecessor. It feels like the designers were suffering from writer's block. Don't get me wrong, I use monsters from this book all the time (I don't think I've had an out-of-control fire without ash rats since this book came out). But it just can't compete with the first one.

MM3 is a return to form. The designers took their time with this one, making interesting monsters that fill unique niches. It feels like they asked "why?" before introducing every creature, & they always had an answer. Also, monsters in this book seemed to be made to create an interesting encounter. Lastly, the Eberron material brought a fresh infusion of energy, which was sorely needed by this point.

MM4 felt like the designers were running out of creative steam again. To compensate for this, I think they covered it up by writing exhaustively about classic monsters with minor tweaks & class levels. It was nice to see groups of orcs, drow, gnolls, lizardfolk, & ogres, each with their own niche & role. But that was stuff that I was already doing for myself for a long time, & I didn't need to pay $30 to see WotC clumsily make a stab at it. Also, the Spawn of Tiamat just went on & on, without much purpose or cohesion. If they'd cut the spawn in half, the whole section would've had a lot more impact; it it was, the SoT just felt bloated & absurd. Lastly, the new stat block, however superior it may be, came way too late, & was justifiably unwelcome.

MM5 was a minor resurgence in quality. It still featured some of the Old Monster Redux issues that brought down the last book, but this time they went farther, making more radical & interesting changes to the existing creatures. The epitome of this was the section about the Mindflayers of Thoon, which were awesome. Leaner & more focused than the Spawn of Tiamat, the MoT were dripping with flavor & utility, making them compelling & detestable antagonists. Also, the focus on adventure/encounter design, albeit quite late, was very nice. The previous monster books just gave you monsters, alone & in a vacuum. This book spent more time focusing on how the monsters would fit into a particular location. The previous book did a bit of this, but not as much & not as well. The only major problem with this book was the unimaginative names of many creatures (the NounVerber Syndrome), which was a bad sign of worse things to come.

BTW, the Fiend Folio was also a great book. It's a monster manual in all but name, & a solid one at that.

[peacenlove]

I mostly agree with Zeta Kai about the monster manuals and i would like to add the Monsters of Faerun as a good book. Few pages but each of them counts for me. Lich and ghost variants, Beast of xvim and gibberlings rank as my favorite monsters.

Fiend Folio was also good and it had the first graft rules and symbiont creatures as well as more evil extraplanar creatures than you will ever use (most of them returned from 1st or 2nd edition).

[Leon]

Absolute Best - Monsternomicon One and Two for Iron Kingdoms

For Core D&D
Three
One
Two

After that it drops off the edge of reason and plummets to to the bottom of the abyss

[Zaydos]

I'd say I like the Monster Manual the best because it has the staples, it is what I use the majority of the time. Next would be MMIII, and MMII would follow except everything is 3.0 and I'm too lazy to update (not to homebrew though), Monsters of Faerun had some neat and useful ones in it despite being Forgotten Realms (I don't play Forgotten Realms), more than the Dragonlance one. MMIV and MMV always seemed a little eh to me, but I've used some of the Spawn (completely divorced from their original fluff, they're dragonoids and the PCs never needed to know more). Fiend Folio is nice, but the demons and devils were CR errata'd in the Fiendish Codex and I'm always a little unsure of CR and power level (more than I normally am) when dealing with that book. Actually I love the Fiendish Codexes as monster books and am quite willing to use them and the monster sections from both the Draconomicon and Lords of Madness, the latter really helped a campaign with aberrations as the bad guys.

[arguskos]

I'm gonna hit up MMV, actually. I loved that book. III was excellent, but V had Thoon, which makes it AWESOME.

[peacenlove]

...
and MMII would follow except everything is 3.0 and I'm too lazy to update (not to homebrew though)
...

MM2 Update for 3.5 edition.

[Gralamin]

Five, in my opinion, was the best. All the creatures in there are well designed, and give a good idea where they fit into the world. Plus, it has Dragons of the Great Game and Thoon (THHHHHOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNN) two of the best fluff pieces in all of 3.5. If they just didn't have that terrible format. (Even though the format is basically the 4e one, 4e's nature makes it work a lot better then it does for 3.5)

Three is the next best. It has a lot of good stuff, but it is not as well designed overall. Still good.

One is core, and has the staples.

Four has... well, not much good. A total waste of money in my opinion.

Two only has one or two monsters I enjoy (Spellweavers, nimblewrights), and a lot of the other content is as broken as it gets.

Fiend Folio is somewhere in between One and four. It has good monsters, but also a lot of broken stuff.

[arguskos]

I actually have a tangential question: why the hate for the MMIV and MMV statblock change? I personally REALLY enjoy it, and think it's well designed. I even patterned my personal custom creation stat block off of it, and it's been great so far.

[Starscream]

Plus, it has Dragons of the Great Game and Thoon (THHHHHOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNN) two of the best fluff pieces in all of 3.5.

Have you ever used the Dragons of the Great Game? I was wondering if they are any good.

You get some impressive stuff at the expense of spellcasting, but in 3.5 spells usually are the most powerful mechanic in the game. The book claims giving it up doesn't change the monster's CR, but I suspect that isn't true.

I really like the idea of making dragons more "Dragony" and less "Sorcerers who also have scales and breath weapons". Does it work well?

[jiriku]

My favorite is MMV for the statblock changes (so useful I adopted it myself when scratch-building monsters) and the groups of thematic monsters (THOOOONNN indeed!). The collection of themed monsters in different roles didn't reach its perfect I don't even make spellcasting dragons any more, the Xorvintaal template is so great. My players don't have MMV, and when dragons started busting out immediate-action interrupts, and every dragon they encountered had different unique abilities, their respect for the critters (and for me!) when up quite a bit.

MMI gets honorable mention for having all the staple D&D monsters in it.

MMII was just awful. I mean, it had a couple good things in it, but so many of the monsters were silly in concept and had names that sounded like the author just played with a bowl of Alphabits until he found something he liked. I mean, seriously, Abeir, Gravorg, Julajimus, Vaporighu? The vaporighu wins my woof! prize for lazy design, as it is a gratuitously ugly creature whose description actually SPECIFIES that it has no function or ecology except to hide near portals, then attack whatever comes along and fight to the death.

[wizuriel]

I like the ravenloft monster manual

I actually really liked the additional fluff in MM4 and 5.

[TheCountAlucard]

The book claims giving it up doesn't change the monster's CR, but I suspect that isn't true.

Keep in mind that most of the dragons are massively under-CR'ed in the first place, so it's actually probably correcting their CR.

Oh, and in this order: 3, 1, 5, Fiend Folio, 2, 4.

[Oslecamo]

Fiend folio is my personal favorite, but lords of madness comes on a close second. So much stuff to screw with your player's minds...

[Ice&Fire]

Fiend folio is my personal favorite, but lords of madness comes on a close second. So much stuff to screw with your player's minds...

I loved Lords of Madness. Such a good read, and I loved the section on mind flayers especially

[starwoof]

MM3 was the best, easily. Four and Five are garbage to me because I can't read their stat blocks. Mockery Bugs are fun though.

Fiend Folio is also great... better than the MM2. Its got the SENMURV!

SEEEEEEEEENMUUUUUUUUUUURV!

[Gralamin]

Have you ever used the Dragons of the Great Game? I was wondering if they are any good.

You get some impressive stuff at the expense of spellcasting, but in 3.5 spells usually are the most powerful mechanic in the game. The book claims giving it up doesn't change the monster's CR, but I suspect that isn't true.

I really like the idea of making dragons more "Dragony" and less "Sorcerers who also have scales and breath weapons". Does it work well?

I have used them. I'll put it like this:
Xoorvintal makes Dragon's interesting, and not just another casting monster. This has a good point in making them more interesting opponents and giving them an array of options (And brings White dragons almost up to par). However, as spellcasting is the name of the game of 3.5, they are weaker yes. Do they deserve to lose a CR? I'd say no, against the "Standard party" (Evoker, Heal Cleric, Tank Fighter, and Skill Rogue) they are still a massive challenge at their presented CR.
That said, CR is a very very imprecise tool, and as usual, a DM needs to consider what they are doing carefully.