Shades of Eternity
Hero
It has come to my attention that a lot of people don't like mm IV.
I'm kinda curious to see what that is?
I'm kinda curious to see what that is?
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 - mmiv why do people not like it
- Thread starter Shades of Eternity
- Start date
the Jester
Legend
About 65% of it is the stupid dragonspawn.
Also, there are a bunch of stupid, easy to make on the fly variants of the same ol' same ol'. Isn't there like a 1st-level hobgoblin ranger or something? I mean, come on.
Also, there are a bunch of stupid, easy to make on the fly variants of the same ol' same ol'. Isn't there like a 1st-level hobgoblin ranger or something? I mean, come on.
pawsplay
Hero
Gimmicky and/or boring monsters. Not ready for prime-time stat block format. Poor monster/page ratio. Too much adjective-noun noun-verber names creeping in. Dragonspawn. Shift in artistic and design tone. Lots of exception-based monster abilities.
Basically, they took everything that made MM III cool and made sure they did the opposite.
Basically, they took everything that made MM III cool and made sure they did the opposite.
PlzBreakMyCampaign
First Post
eh Its my favorite. There is so little Unholy Toughness in the wimpy undead for the other MMs.
Because if I could command ANY non-epic turn vulnerable undead in existence, I know what MM I would want access too...
Oh wait, I can!
(By almost +90%)
Because if I could command ANY non-epic turn vulnerable undead in existence, I know what MM I would want access too...
Oh wait, I can!
(By almost +90%)
Last edited:
Me, I only liked the odd numbered Monster Manuals: I, III, and V.
I: butter & bread; templates!;sufficient to play a whole campaign without repeating yourself.
II: suffers from being 3.0; showcases some of the problems of 3e monster design.
III: the 'true' fiend folio for 3e; a collection of interesting, odd, and tough monsters.
IV: (too) large section of dragonspawn; dull, classed monsters; lair maps wasting space.
V: large section on mind flayers (yay!); fixes points of criticism in MMIV; glimpses of 4e monster design
I: butter & bread; templates!;sufficient to play a whole campaign without repeating yourself.
II: suffers from being 3.0; showcases some of the problems of 3e monster design.
III: the 'true' fiend folio for 3e; a collection of interesting, odd, and tough monsters.
IV: (too) large section of dragonspawn; dull, classed monsters; lair maps wasting space.
V: large section on mind flayers (yay!); fixes points of criticism in MMIV; glimpses of 4e monster design
Overall, I felt that the monsters in MM4 were quite dull. I didn't really care much for the dragonspawn, the classed npcs were uninspiring (do I really need you to tell me how to stat up an orb barb?) The rest of the monsters didn't have any interesting abilities.
I thought MM5 summed it up best. Just design monsters to make for a climatic 5-round encounter, and don't care what happens outside of these 5 rounds.
I thought MM5 summed it up best. Just design monsters to make for a climatic 5-round encounter, and don't care what happens outside of these 5 rounds.
Shin Okada
Explorer
Well, it seems that I am a minority here
I DO like dragonspawns. I like Tiamat. I like Red Hand of Doom Campaign. And I like drragonspawn minis in DDM line. They are dragon-themed monsters which is much easier to use and have unique abilities, comparing to simple half-dragons. I used all the dragonspawn minis I have on our gaming table.
Regarding other monsters, I admit that I have only used few of them, mainly the ones I have corresponding miniatures (DDM or metal mini which look like them). Bloodhulk, Justice Archon, Wrackspawn, Greathorn Minotaur and such. But same can be said for MM II, III, V and other monster books.
I do not like those templated/class-level-added version of the existing monsters, though.
I DO like dragonspawns. I like Tiamat. I like Red Hand of Doom Campaign. And I like drragonspawn minis in DDM line. They are dragon-themed monsters which is much easier to use and have unique abilities, comparing to simple half-dragons. I used all the dragonspawn minis I have on our gaming table.
Regarding other monsters, I admit that I have only used few of them, mainly the ones I have corresponding miniatures (DDM or metal mini which look like them). Bloodhulk, Justice Archon, Wrackspawn, Greathorn Minotaur and such. But same can be said for MM II, III, V and other monster books.
I do not like those templated/class-level-added version of the existing monsters, though.
pawsplay
Hero
Well, it seems that I am a minority here
I DO like dragonspawns. I like Tiamat. I like Red Hand of Doom Campaign. And I like drragonspawn minis in DDM line. They are dragon-themed monsters which is much easier to use and have unique abilities, comparing to simple half-dragons. I used all the dragonspawn minis I have on our gaming table.
You're welcome to like them, I just wonder if they couldn't have been in a more Tiamat or dragon-themed book.
Similar Threads
