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

[the Jester]

Why not?

Because it leaves a smaller number of monsters in the Monster Manual.

 

[Mistwell]

Encounter building is something that should be in the DMG, not custom monster building.

Custom monsters are part of encounter building. They are as much a part of it as custom traps, custom terrain effects, and custom secret doors. You've responded to a lot of people arguing it works just find being in the DMG, and yet none of your responses seem to give any reason WHY it should be in the MM instead of the DMG with all the other custom-building rules. I mean, why should you flip back and forth between the MM and the DMG to build all aspects of an encounter, is the counter-argument to your claim that you don't want to flip back and forth between the DMG and the MM to build custom monsters. If that encounter has a trap in it, or a terrain effect, in addition to a custom monster, why should you have to flip back and forth between the MM and DMG for that instead of just having all the custom encounter rules in the DMG together?

Bottom line, it works fine in either, and they opted to put all the customization options in the DMG instead of spread between the MM and DMG. That functionally is just as utilitarian as having them in the MM, given monsters are just one of many aspects of an encounter.

Why?

Why not?

Any time the answer to "Why are you objecting to X?" is "Why not object to X?" it's a weak argument you're making. And it sure isn't enough of an argument for a thread title like "I think the really nice art detracts from the mediocre functionality of the book." It sounds like you don't even have strong convictions yourself about this issue, when it really comes down to it.

 

[Sailor Moon]

Custom monsters are part of encounter building. They are as much a part of it as custom traps, custom terrain effects, and custom secret doors. You've responded to a lot of people arguing it works just find being in the DMG, and yet none of your responses seem to give any reason WHY it should be in the MM instead of the DMG with all the other custom-building rules. I mean, why should you flip back and forth between the MM and the DMG to build all aspects of an encounter, is the counter-argument to your claim that you don't want to flip back and forth between the DMG and the MM to build custom monsters. If that encounter has a trap in it, or a terrain effect, in addition to a custom monster, why should you have to flip back and forth between the MM and DMG for that instead of just having all the custom encounter rules in the DMG together?

Bottom line, it works fine in either, and they opted to put all the customization options in the DMG instead of spread between the MM and DMG. That functionally is just as utilitarian as having them in the MM, given monsters are just one of many aspects of an encounter.

I disagree.

Customer monster building doesn't have to be tied to encounter building.

 

[Sailor Moon]

I have DM'ed a LOT of sessions of 5e. And yes, CR is a loosely based guideline. That you think it's a very hard and fast line as opposed to a loose guideline, is a curious thing to me. I've used plenty of creatures with a CR higher than the PCs, and it hasn't resulted in party deaths - though death is a distinct possibility in some of those encounters, and not in others. I've found on the whole it's a pretty loose guideline which varies with circumstances, like most things in D&D.

Never said it was hard and fast. Might want to try not putting words in my mouth next time.

 

[SilverfireSage]

Quick question.

Have you actually DMd the game yet? Thinking CR is a loosely based guideline will give your players a world of hurt, also if you are trying to go off past editions then you will fail because the difficulty of monsters has changed.

You miss understand my spellcasting comment, instead of a real variant they are just offering spells. I didn't say anything about too many spellcasters.

Yes, I have actually. Four sessions, two with the starter set, one with HotDQ and one with a continuing campaign from pathfinder that I converted. And yes, CR is a loosely based guideline, as you don't even use it when creating encounters, you use experience points. In fact, the CR rating seems to just be a conversion of the experience point number to make it simpler, as you never use it except as a rough basis for how powerful a monster is. And I guess I misunderstood you saying "they are really overusing giving monsters spellcasting".

 

[Mistwell]

I disagree.

Customer monster building doesn't have to be tied to encounter building.

How is it not part of an encounter, which must be built?

Never said it was hard and fast. Might want to try not putting words in my mouth next time.

You said, "Have you actually DMd the game yet? Thinking CR is a loosely based guideline will give your players a world of hurt". How is you saying CR is not a "loosely based guideline" not the same as you saying "CR is a hard and fast rule"? If you're saying it's neither a hard and fast rule nor a loose guideline, then what the heck are you saying?

 

[Chest Rockwell]

Yes, I think any sort of creation/customisation rules (races, classes, monsters, magic times, etc) would be in the DMG.

On another note: I am still simply thrilled that Modrons are in the MM, but bummed at the continued diminishment of Daemons/Yugoloths (the Ultroloth should be on par with the Balor and Pit Fiend)

 

[Sailor Moon]

Yes, I think any sort of creation/customisation rules (races, classes, monsters, magic times, etc) would be in the DMG.

On another note: I am still simply thrilled that Modrons are in the MM, but bummed at the continued diminishment of Daemons/Yugoloths (the Ultroloth should be on par with the Balor and Pit Fiend)

I don't get why the Balor and Pit Fiend don't get legendary actions.

 

[Chest Rockwell]

I don't get why the Balor and Pit Fiend don't get legendary actions.

That I can see, the playtest Pit Fiend was more interesting, it could cast fireball as part of its Multiattack, and had the Sign of Agony action and Wing Slam reaction.

 

[the Jester]

How is it not part of an encounter, which must be built?

Actually, though I disagree with Sailor Moon in most of what she (or he) is saying in this thread, I do agree here. I do tons of monster creation/conversion work without having a specific encounter in mind. Heck, once I've got reliable 5e monster creation guidelines (i.e. once the DMG is in my big sweaty hands), I will probably start a 5e version of my Monster Project, converting all the monsters that I wish were in 5e, many of which I'll probably never get around to using (based on my experience with my 4e Monster Project, which has hundreds of monsters that I've not used in 4e).