A Better Monster Manuel

[Glade Riven]

One think I like about 4e is that it has the extra playable races in an appendix. One thing that annoys me about 3.5/Pathfinder is that they don't. Templates, both advanced and simple, should get the same treatment.

Monster ecology is a good thing. Advancement templates are a good thing.

 

[Sammael]

The latest deluxe Hacklopedia is what it should look like.

 

[GM Dave]

I would very much like to see a decent-length section on traps and environmental hazards... but whether it fits in the MM or the DMG is an open question.

For 5e, I would be inclined to put together a fairly short set of 'core' monsters - the staples of intelligent humanoids, animals (normal, giant, dire, swarms, and the like), and other classics (gargoyles, dragons).

And then a big emphasis on creating unique monsters for "guest starring" in your adventures - provide a big toolkit of powers, provide the mathematical framework for putting them together. And then finish with a decent number of examples.

I don't think the game needs 500+ types of monsters in the first MM. I'm not sure it even needs that many monsters at all. But it probably needs a lot of unique (or easily customised) forms of construct, undead, individual dragons, and the like.

Because that seems to be the way it works in the fiction - in Lord of the Rings you have the staple Orcs and Trolls, and then you have Shelob, the Nazgul, the Balrog, and other unique (or close to unique) creatures. Likewise, Conan seemed to fight a lot of men (civilised and savage), animals and the like, and then in most stories he fought one unique monster - a demon or 'god' or whatever. Likewise Elric, and Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, and the like.

This is pretty much how I feel.

I generally 'home bake' most of the monsters in my adventures because the published monster rarely is 100% in level, abilities, and challenge that I want for my players.

I work with certain 'core' natures and then add or remove the items that I feel will give the right feel.

A 'lego' set of pieces or 'modular' construction tool set is more useful for me with some pre-made examples. I also own enough Momster Manuels and Bestiaries that another explanation to me of what an 'Orc' or 'Elf' is results in 90% of the time a page flip.

I do think that the DMG gets used for listing stuff that should be listed in a 're-named' Monster Manual (the name being the sticker as it forces people to challenge that anything else could be in such a 'tool kit' book but monsters). A name should not define what the function of the book is meant to provide to the GM.

If the name limits the design then a better name should be chosen like 'Encounter Design Book'.

 

[steeldragons]

The "Monster Manual" is a quintessential piece of D&D from the first edition. To have it include anything other than "Monsters" (and by that I mean anything that is not a PC and, potentially, PC races) would be an affront to many many generations of players.

Traps, puzzles, "how to build a better dungeon" are alllll the purview of the DMG. Hands down.

I believe they absoLUTEly should be in material for new gamers/DMs. AbsoLUTEly. But not in a Monster Manual.

Thank you. Good night.
--SD

 

[Tallifer]

I think a lot of your complaints/ideas (and those of others) is really a disagreement about what truly belongs in a Monster Manual. At the very base level, most people expect a Monster Manual to be a manual of monsters. Traps/hazards are not monsters. Story seeds are not monsters. Humanoids are kinda monsters, but they're also kinda boring as monsters.

Don't get me wrong, the things you're asking for are all good ideas that are critical to making a good game, I just don't think they need to me in the same book as all my beasties. Traps, hazards, and general dungeon design belong in the DMG of the Book or Challenges. Dungeon/lair design or enemy organization design belong in a published adventure, or a standalone guide. Some notes about individual monsters is fine, but I don't want the MM to be so full of encounter guides that it cuts down significantly in the number of monsters in the book.

Indeed. Keep the Monster Manual crisp, clean and concise. Monster ecology and social structure belong in Dragon magazine articles as they are now. Traps, plot hooks, advice, et cetera belong in the Dungeon Master's Guide and Dungeon magazine.

In fact the original poster should check out the Dungeon Master's Guides and Dungeon articles for the Fourth Edition. He will find everything he seeks there.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No... i strongly disagree.

The Monster Manual was my first book for 4e, because it is what you really need at the table. And Information where you find those monsters are even more crucial.

I would like to have a table which lists monsters not by level, but by enviroment.
And I need a rules system that allows for picking monsters of higher or lower levels. The most boring thing I Imagine is only encountering monsters that are about your level.

 

[Alzrius]

One think I like about 4e is that it has the extra playable races in an appendix. One thing that annoys me about 3.5/Pathfinder is that they don't.

I'll admit that an index that said which of the monsters had PC racial information would be a nice thing for the Bestiary to have, but it's not like you can't find that information fairly easily online.

 

[steeldragons]

No... i strongly disagree.

The Monster Manual was my first book for 4e, because it is what you really need at the table. And Information where you find those monsters are even more crucial.

I would like to have a table which lists monsters not by level, but by enviroment.

And I need a rules system that allows for picking monsters of higher or lower levels. The most boring thing I Imagine is only encountering monsters that are about your level.

For the environment breakdown, check out the 1e DMG, 1e monster manual (I assume 2e MM did this as well) and/or original Fiend Folio has pages and pages of environmental breakdown.

Seems to be intuitive/a no-brainer, but I guess later edition MMs failed to do this in favor of "power levels" and (if I have this term correct) "CR"s (?)

As for picking monsters of higher or lower levels, I don't really see/get how that's something a rules system can/will tell you. Use what you like. It's up to the PCs to know/say "we can do this" or "RUN AWAY!"

--SD

 

[ExploderWizard]

The "Monster Manual" is a quintessential piece of D&D from the first edition. To have it include anything other than "Monsters" (and by that I mean anything that is not a PC and, potentially, PC races) would be an affront to many many generations of players.

Traps, puzzles, "how to build a better dungeon" are alllll the purview of the DMG. Hands down.

I believe they absoLUTEly should be in material for new gamers/DMs. AbsoLUTEly. But not in a Monster Manual.

Thank you. Good night.
--SD

Hear Hear! Can't XP you right now.

The monster manual needs to focus on monsters and a good variety of them too. Not just things to carve up and claim for XP either.

That orc shaman who taught you sticks to snakes is a monster.

The yeti who took your 2nd level fighters head off with a rock snowball is a monster.

The barbarian tribesmen that traded you precious jewels for that iron pot is a monster.

The cute barmaid your thief has been flirting with for over a week is a monster.

 

[Stormonu]

One of the books that I hated the most was the Monster Manual IV from 3.5. I would rather not see something like that ever again.

When I think of a Monster Manual, I think of something like a medieval bestiary, full of illustrated creatures. If the book were to throw in stuff about traps and lairs, I wouldn't be happy. Honestly, even "leveled" creatures annoy me somewhat.

However, that doesn't mean that information doesn't have place elsewhere. The Book of Encounters, Traps and Treachery, Grimtooth's Traps and the like are fine supplemental books for this stuff.

Also, I think something akin to Rogue's Gallery would nice as well - filled with NPCs of all levels that can be allies, enemies, nemesises or even replacement PCs.