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

[Parmandur]

Yeah, don't see a MM2 anytime soon. New monsters in APs, maybe setting books. One MM to cover the bases.

 

[Chest Rockwell]

Yeah, don't see a MM2 anytime soon. New monsters in APs, maybe setting books. One MM to cover the bases.

That does ring my ear.

 

[Fion]

My largest issue with 5e MM is that the monsters are pretty lack luster. They are boring. Oh this monster looks cool, what can it do? Hit with claw and bite once a round. That describes about 80% of the monsters in the book. How f'ing ridiculous is that?

Maybe 4e spoiled me, but having variants of the same monster all with their own abilities really spiced things up. Yea it got a little overboard as the years went on with 15 different goblins and what not, but it was a very cool idea. I like that 5e includes variants, but there aren't nearly enough monsters with them. I guess that leaves me, the GM with my flapping in the wind when it comes to making 'a goblin encounter' something more than 'the goblin stabs with it's short sword' every.. singe.. turn.

To create a little balance, on the upside I like that monster stats are laid out in a simple and easy to read way, and that every page has a little alphabetical market at the bottom to make finding a specific mob significantly easier. I'll just be borrowing heavily from 4e to spice up my monsters and make fights more unique. Terrain and hazards only go so far in this aspect.

 

[Sacrosanct]

My largest issue with 5e MM is that the monsters are pretty lack luster. They are boring. Oh this monster looks cool, what can it do? Hit with claw and bite once a round. That describes about 80% of the monsters in the book. How f'ing ridiculous is that?
.

Your statement? I agree, pretty darn rediculous. Monsters in the MM can do whatever you as the DM wants them to do. Look at the kobold thread from a week or so ago. The flavor text tells you a ton of things about what kobolds like to do. Monsters are in no way limited to actions only specifically detailed in that part of the stat block.

 

[Tormyr]

Again I will repeat. How thick do you think the DMG os going to be?

About 320 pages.

If they are complaining about page count with the PHB and MM, they are going ro do the same with the DMG. This would probably mean they are either going to leave out a lot of what people want, or give bits and pieces of everything to the point where you feel like there os so much missing. I remember NPC creation being in the DMG but not monsters.

They did not complain about page count for the PHB or MM. Book editing is a process of deciding what stays and what goes. They decided that the MM was stats and lore only. They decided that any customization by the DM (including creatures) would be in the DMG. They decided that there were enough iconic monsters that were going to be cut that they mitigated it by giving another 32 pages (standard signature size) for no extra cost to us.

There is enough information now to create your own custom creatures based off of other creatures in the MM. The DMG will have customization rules in general and creature customization in particular. In the meantime, "good enough" rules the day, and the players will not know the difference anyway.

 

[Chest Rockwell]

My largest issue with 5e MM is that the monsters are pretty lack luster. They are boring. Oh this monster looks cool, what can it do? Hit with claw and bite once a round. That describes about 80% of the monsters in the book. How f'ing ridiculous is that?

Maybe 4e spoiled me, but having variants of the same monster all with their own abilities really spiced things up. Yea it got a little overboard as the years went on with 15 different goblins and what not, but it was a very cool idea. I like that 5e includes variants, but there aren't nearly enough monsters with them. I guess that leaves me, the GM with my flapping in the wind when it comes to making 'a goblin encounter' something more than 'the goblin stabs with it's short sword' every.. singe.. turn.

To create a little balance, on the upside I like that monster stats are laid out in a simple and easy to read way, and that every page has a little alphabetical market at the bottom to make finding a specific mob significantly easier. I'll just be borrowing heavily from 4e to spice up my monsters and make fights more unique. Terrain and hazards only go so far in this aspect.

Apparently, many monsters having an Encounter power it could apply an easily shaken off condition and moving a piece of plastic around was not amusing for some.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

It should be noted they gave us the CR list early. It is in the DMG.

 

[Thank Dog]

Am I the only one who never used monster creation guidelines anyway? Whenever I've made monsters I've used the Monster Manual itself to reference monsters of similar nature or power and used them as my guideline.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Am I the only one who never used monster creation guidelines anyway? Whenever I've made monsters I've used the Monster Manual itself to reference monsters of similar nature or power and used them as my guideline.

you're not alone.

 

[Chest Rockwell]

Am I the only one who never used monster creation guidelines anyway? Whenever I've made monsters I've used the Monster Manual itself to reference monsters of similar nature or power and used them as my guideline.

Totally, eyeballing it is key for true DMing.