Monsters, Monsters, Monsters! Podcast

[Knight Otu]

Granted, many cool monsters were left out of the 3.x MM; but none of the monsters on that list (barring perhaps the Phoenix) are on the "Iconic" scale of the Frost Giant. (IMHO, at least.)

From my own list, I would add the two genies (that always irked me), but its true, iconic is subjective. I didn't like it back then, and I don't like it now, but it is and will remain a reality for the coming editions. I do believe that these monsters were more often left out for space concerns rather that quality concerns, since most of them resurfaced later, while new monsters were created, for various reasons. And I wouldn't be surprised if "keeping them as a sales point for later" was a concern back then as well and they simply did not state it openly.

 

[ShadowDenizen]

[qote]And I wouldn't be surprised if "keeping them as a sales point for later" was a concern back then as well and they simply did not state it openly.[/quote]

Probably true.
But I can't think of too many "true" iconics that were missed in the 3.x MM. (And yes, I agree "Iconic" is subjective.)

 

[Mercule]

I am not happy about them holding monsters to drive later sales. I'll still check out 4E, but that's the only thing I've heard so far that might make me protest-avoid 4E.

When TSR cracked down on use of terms like "hit points" and "armor class" on the Internet during the early 1990s, it drove me away from the game. This is pretty similar, IMO, depending on which monsters are delayed and how heavy-handed it ends up feeling.

 

[JeffB]

The first set of AD&D modules ever released by TSR were based upon a huge plot involving Giants of various stripes. Along with TOH, G1-3 are prolly the most universally played "high level" adventures in D&D history.

Most certainly giants, including the Frost variety, garner Iconic status IMO. They are as integral to D&D in my mind as much as Mind Flayers, Orcs, Beholders, Dragons, etc.

The only reasoning I can see is perhaps the 4E MMx's are going to follow a "challenge level" theme. I.e. MM1 will be a certain amount of low to medium challenge monsters, and subsequent MMs will be geared towards tougher opponents..which is not a terribly bad idea, if the books were going to come out on a more frequent basis than the plan so far.

 

[Malhost Zormaeril]

I was a bit miffed when they removed Gargantuas from the 3e MM, too.

 

[hazel monday]

WotC, Give Me the Monsters You Expect Me to Use.

Personally, I'd rather have a Monster Manual that has monsters I'D expect to use, instead of monsters someone else expected me to use. I'd also appreciate it if Hasbro sold me a complete game in 3 books, rather than intentionally splitting the content that they know I expect into 9 or more books.
This seems like a crass attempt to bilk the customer out of their dough to me. TSR & WOTC tried to make their nut by designing the best possible game. It seems like Hasbro is trying to make their nut by designing the best possible long term scam. I may be wrong, but that's what it looks like to me.

 

[KrazyHades]

I don't think WotC should be too surprised if this marketing scheme backfires on them and some people use illegal PDFs of the books out of protest.

 

[Rechan]

I don't think WotC should be too surprised if this marketing scheme backfires on them and some people use illegal PDFs of the books out of protest.

Hey, there are many people who don't need to "protest" to collect illegal PDFs.

 

[dren]

I do not care what what "core" monsters are in the new MM. As long as there is enough variety, good examples (types, elements, roles, etc) and clear rules to create them; I can convert my homebrew beasties right away, probably in a whole lot less time than it took me to convert from 2nd to 3rd.