D&D 5E 5th edition Monster Manual: I think the really nice art detracts from the mediocre functionality of the book.

The Mirrorball Man said:

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Click to expand...

You don't have to stretch out combat to make sure a monster can use its nifty powers, combat is stretched out in 4th Ed, regardless (it is designed that way).

Chest Rockwell said:

You don't have to stretch out combat to make sure a monster can use its nifty powers, combat is stretched out in 4th Ed, regardless (it is designed that way).

Click to expand...

Heh Yeah, that's what I meant. I'm not making myself clear in this thread, I'm sorry about that.

The Mirrorball Man said:

That's right, the encounters were designed to last long, which gave you the opportunity to use these powers, that doesn't mean at all that you had to stretch the combat in order to use them all.

Click to expand...

Even after reading further into the thread I'm still not sure I understand what point you are trying to make here. My point was that in order to have 4e-esque powers for monsters... many of the monsters would need a mechanism to increase their combat life (How much time does a 5hp kobold have to use powers... or are we using the power in the first round for every single kobold?)... thus we would get hp bloat or whiff/miss factor increases which would in turn drag out combat.

The Mirrorball Man said:

I'd rather have fewer creatures rather than lots and lots of HP bags.

Click to expand...

I find this phrasing slightly ironic as I felt many of the monsters in 4e were "HP bags" that one had to slog through in combat. Anyway it's a good thing that 5e gives us base monsters in the MM for those who want something quick, uncomplicated and less defined in combat mechanically to throw at their players as well as upcoming customization/creation tools in the DMG for those who want defined combat powers, and more complicated monsters.

Mistwell said:

Why would richness need to be in the form of mechanics?

Click to expand...

When I look at the kobold entry, I see half-a-column of mostly bland mechanics (incuding 4 lines plus spacing to tell me that it stabs somewhat feebly with a dagger and hurls stones with a sling). I think the most rooky GM could come up with that sort of thing after a session or two, and if that is all the MM is offering, mechanics-wise, then why bother? Just provide the flavour text and a reference to some generic "small humanoid" stats.

The interesting mechanical features of a kobold are its pack tactics and its sunlight sensitivity. This is the sort of thing that professional designers can come up with. I read the posters that I agreed with asking for more along these lines. I agree with them: if the Monster Manual is going to be built around mechanical stats, I prefer them to be interesting.

(This is why, of the MM entries I've seen previewed, the one that I think is best, and with the exception of its spellcasting a manifest improvement on what has gone before, is the sphinx. I am likely to adapt it, or at least elements of it, to my 4e game.)

Conversely, if the point of monsters is flavour and not mechanics, than why have a half-column of stats at all? The game could just use "monster dice" along the lines of Tunnels & Trolls - this speeds up combat and makes the non-combat story/exploration elements even more prominent.

Well having had a few days to digest the MM, I'm liking it.

The Layout, design and presentation are superb, its a gorgeous book and an enjoyable read, the lack of a CR list is a bit of an oversight, but I like the idea of a centrally maintained list on the website that can be updated as and when new releases come along.

The Fluff for the monsters is great, there is a lot of inspiration in this book, and certainly i've already had a few ideas for adventures simply from reading a monsters entry.

However I find the mechanics a mixed bag, I love the idea behind the legendary monsters, and lair actions are a great idea, adding an extra element of danger into the mix, and also great roleplaying/tactical decisions.

I do however agree with a lot of comments that there are too many monsters that only have very generic attacks, too many claws/bites and swings weapon attacks, placing the emphasis more firmly on the DM to make the fluff tie in with the game, I'd have preferred it if more of the monsters had been given unique attacks/abilities that tied into the fluff more, not every monster as the basic ones are needed as well, but i still see it as a bit of a missed opportunity.

Overall i think its my favourite mainstream Dungeons and Dragons monster manual, however I think its just behind Threats of Nentir Vale in terms of monster books that TSR/Wizards have produced.

pemerton said:

When I look at the kobold entry, I see half-a-column of mostly bland mechanics (incuding 4 lines plus spacing to tell me that it stabs somewhat feebly with a dagger and hurls stones with a sling). I think the most rooky GM could come up with that sort of thing after a session or two, and if that is all the MM is offering, mechanics-wise, then why bother? Just provide the flavour text and a reference to some generic "small humanoid" stats.

The interesting mechanical features of a kobold are its pack tactics and its sunlight sensitivity. This is the sort of thing that professional designers can come up with. I read the posters that I agreed with asking for more along these lines. I agree with them: if the Monster Manual is going to be built around mechanical stats, I prefer them to be interesting.

Click to expand...

Ok if these are the type of abilities (as opposed to 4e-esque powers as I assumed earlier) people are clamoring for... then what's the issue? Now I don't have the full MM yet but looking over the previews of the monsters so far most if not all seem to have at least one or two of these types of abilities... is it the number of them? If so how many individual special abilities does each monster need to be at to reach a number that would be acceptable to those who are complaining?

Blackwarder said:

I disagree with the OP on almost everything, I think that the MM is a great book, very functional at what it does which is as a creature catalogue, basically, if you are fine with using stock monsters (like most of the DMs are, and I'm not talking about us nutjobs in the forums) than you don't need anything else but the MM.

If you are the kind of DMG who likes to tinker and build your own monsters than the DMG a is the book for you, otherwise you can just buy the PHB and DMG and be done with that.

I kinda agree about the monsters by CR list but I got a strong suspicion that one of the reasons for omitting this is because the monster list will grow in the future and WotC felt that it will be more helpful to have a central list for those, couple that with the fact that you don't realy need to adhere closely to the CR rating like in older editions and for me it's not such a great concern.

Warder

Click to expand...

So do I.
I think the OP forgets that much of this was due in part to playtest feedback. CR tables and creating monsters belongs in the DMG. Plus, its coming across that the OP just wants to find fault. Wizards is providing a list to download. I find the MM the best MM that has been put out for D&D becuase it give me a thoroughly comprehensive catalogue of monsters in a very simple to follow format.

Joe Burgos said:

So do I.
I think the OP forgets that much of this was due in part to playtest feedback. CR tables and creating monsters belongs in the DMG. Plus, its coming across that the OP just wants to find fault. Wizards is providing a list to download. I find the MM the best MM that has been put out for D&D becuase it give me a thoroughly comprehensive catalogue of monsters in a very simple to follow format.

Click to expand...

There is no proof the playtest consisted of the majority of players. Also, I don't remember a section in the survey about the monster manual and custom creation.

My only quibble is that I still miss the three ring binder form factor of the 2e Monstrous Compendium. It was modular, customizable, expandable, and laid flat on the table during the game. It's a nitpick though, I really love this book.

Gargoyle said:

My only quibble is that I still miss the three ring binder form factor of the 2e Monstrous Compendium. It was modular, customizable, expandable, and laid flat on the table during the game. It's a nitpick though, I really love this book.

Click to expand...

It was a neat idea, but you might be the only one who misses it.