What's The Best Monster Book?

[GreyICE]

4E takes the mythic approach to lore. The descriptions are written as if an explorer or adventurer was taking notes, or occasionally as if a historian was writing after the fact.

Therefore, a lot of details are indeed left vague. They're generally left as descriptive, rather than prescriptive. Let me use an example.


Weapons of Primordial Power: Some scholars believe that elementals,
belying their chaotic nature, act under the guidance of higher powers. These
sages assert that the primordials, the undisputed masters of elemental power,
use elementals as tools in the world because they are unable to act from their
prisons. An elemental attack on a distant outpost might seem like an isolated
occurrence until someone realizes that each outpost along the border has suffered
a similar attack. Perhaps the realm contains an ancient secret to help
free one of the primordials, or perhaps it is a beacon of light and order in an
otherwise dark and chaotic world. Alternatively, a spellcaster might find the
summoning and binding of many powerful elementals to be a simple task,
only to later discover that the elementals allowed themselves to be bound in
order to later escape and sabotage a planar ritual, throwing open a portal to the
Elemental Chaos. Regardless of whether the speculation of scholars holds true,
elementals seem built to be weapons and tools. They lack intelligence and ambition,
making them the perfect servants of those who want to act in secrecy and
without fear of betrayal.

Were 2E or 3E to attempt to write this, they'd, well... they'd flub it. 2E and 3E monster manuals had no mystery. They had no adventure. Each was prescriptive, describing how things worked. It was left entirely up to the DM to write the hooks. "It takes a wizard of at least 13th level and 1d4 weeks to open a portal to the elemental chaos. The wizard must chant for at least 8 hours per day. Five Diamonds each worth at least 6,000 GP must be destroyed during the ritual." etc.

Maybe I just don't like D&D (I certainly never did before 4E) because I hate that approach. But I've literally never understood the advantages of it.

What's wrong with mythic history? Mythic history is MYTH. Does the existence of King Arthur myths imply that he existed? Gilgamesh? The Trojan Horse? Hercules?

A fantasy world will have MORE myths than ours, not less. Most of them are wrong, or distortions, or just misunderstandings. In some, there's a grain of truth. That's myth.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The 3.5 version is the one that comes the closest to achieving the titular goal of a Monster Manual: a book that gives you instructions on how to make monsters, whereas the 2e and 4e approaches feel more like lists of completed statblocks to me. Each 3.5 monster feels almost like a class, with a variety of permutations. Would that the core races were developed as well! There's still plenty of room for improvement, and several other books released under that format are excellent, but at the moment, the 3.5 MM is king.

And your tastes are extremely ... eclectic. Most people want to be able to pull monsters straight out of the Monster Manual and use them as is rather than have classes and need to customise the monsters to make them useable. Your praise has just described why the 3.5 MM is IMO the least satisfactory monster manual. You get crap like "Casts as an nth level caster" far more in 3.5 than anywhere else - if that's king, I'm a proud republican with my 4e "Can use straight out of the book to create a compelling environment both mechanically and fluff wise". The last thing I want to be doing is messing around with a variety of non-preset permutations at the table.

 

[Ahnehnois]

And your tastes are extremely ... eclectic. Most people want to be able to pull monsters straight out of the Monster Manual and use them as is rather than have classes and need to customise the monsters to make them useable.

Ah, I see. Who am I to argue with "most people"?

It's not that I reject the notion of usable monster stat blocks. For people who want to buy published adventures or even just books of stat blocks, that's fine. But the monster manual is a core rulebook; its purpose is to show you how to play, not provide material for you. PHBs don't have finished stats. DMGs don't have finished worlds. Monster manuals have been an aberration in this regard, one which the 3.5 version came the closest to rectifying.

 

[Shemeska]

4E takes the mythic approach to lore. The descriptions are written as if an explorer or adventurer was taking notes, or occasionally as if a historian was writing after the fact.

Therefore, a lot of details are indeed left vague. They're generally left as descriptive, rather than prescriptive. Let me use an example.


Weapons of Primordial Power: Some scholars believe that elementals,
belying their chaotic nature, act under the guidance of higher powers. These
sages assert that the primordials, the undisputed masters of elemental power,
use elementals as tools in the world because they are unable to act from their
prisons. An elemental attack on a distant outpost might seem like an isolated
occurrence until someone realizes that each outpost along the border has suffered
a similar attack. Perhaps the realm contains an ancient secret to help
free one of the primordials, or perhaps it is a beacon of light and order in an
otherwise dark and chaotic world. Alternatively, a spellcaster might find the
summoning and binding of many powerful elementals to be a simple task,
only to later discover that the elementals allowed themselves to be bound in
order to later escape and sabotage a planar ritual, throwing open a portal to the
Elemental Chaos. Regardless of whether the speculation of scholars holds true,
elementals seem built to be weapons and tools. They lack intelligence and ambition,
making them the perfect servants of those who want to act in secrecy and
without fear of betrayal.

Were 2E or 3E to attempt to write this, they'd, well... they'd flub it. 2E and 3E monster manuals had no mystery. They had no adventure. Each was prescriptive, describing how things worked. It was left entirely up to the DM to write the hooks. "It takes a wizard of at least 13th level and 1d4 weeks to open a portal to the elemental chaos. The wizard must chant for at least 8 hours per day. Five Diamonds each worth at least 6,000 GP must be destroyed during the ritual." etc.

Maybe I just don't like D&D (I certainly never did before 4E) because I hate that approach. But I've literally never understood the advantages of it.

What's wrong with mythic history? Mythic history is MYTH. Does the existence of King Arthur myths imply that he existed? Gilgamesh? The Trojan Horse? Hercules?

A fantasy world will have MORE myths than ours, not less. Most of them are wrong, or distortions, or just misunderstandings. In some, there's a grain of truth. That's myth.

Then I suggest you go read a whole heck of a lot of 2e material, because unreliable narration, myth, and ambiguity has a gigantic presence (I'm thinking a lot of Planescape material here, but other campaign settings as well, with the Volo series of guides for FR coming to mind).

I've seen this truly bizarre thing pop up in various places lately that 4e was "mythic" and no D&D edition ever prior to 4e had or used any real world mythology or mythological archetypes. I'm not sure if it's people who never played earlier editions, or edition warring, or just bitter grapes with 5e on the way, but it's neither a new thing or anything particularly major in 4e compared to other editions IMO.

 

[Neonchameleon]

1st Ed Monster Manual, still the best (the cornerstone of AD&D).

It transcends numbers into core lore of D&D (and the art and vibe, it just drips).

Also, no silly number bloat: AC 43 and 6d12 + 21 damage and all that malarkey.

OK. Let's reality check here. I just opened my 1e DMG to a random page.

Seven monsters between pages 94 and 95. Thought Eaters, Ticks (Giant), Tigers, Titans, Titanothere, Toad (Giant), and Trappers (which go over onto the next page). Start with the most mythological. Titans. Epic monsters out of Greek mythology that both birthed the Gods and that the Gods went to war against.

Titans normally dwell on a plane somwehere above the material, but occasionally they will visit the lattter plane for various periods of time. Those dwelling on the Prime Material Plane for an extended period will acquire treasure as indicated above.

To determine the armour class and hit dice or any given titan simply roll a 6-sided die [Snip three lines of mechanics on hit dice and AC]

Titans can become invisible at will. They can also levitate and/or become etherial twice per day. All titans are able to employ both magic-user and clerical spells of 4th, 5th, 6th, or even 7th level. To determine how many levels of spell use [Snip eight more lines of mechanics just telling you how many spells Titans get]

All titans posess 8 or more pisionic abilities of the type possible for clerics. [Snip four and a half lines of mechanics on exact psionic powers]

In addition to their own language, titans are able to speak the six dialects of the races of the giants. All titans are also conversant in the common tongue as well as that of chaotic good.

Because of their particular predisposition, titans deal with storm giants on highly amicable terms. It is 20% probable that a storm giant will be with any single titan encountered.

Description:Titans appear very much as humans do, but they are all very muscular, handsome, and wear no facial hair. Their dress and armour appears Grecian.
​

Now I don't know about you, but I've read books on computer programming and maths text books that were more interesting than that. It certainly drips something - but the vibe it drips to me is "Mechanics are all that matters and we don't need no stinking lore or flavour." And I think even most detractors of the 4e Monster Manual 1 would say that it's better than that; after reading that I can't think of a single reason to use a Titan - and "appear very much as humans do" is not a workable description."

Think that was unfair? Let's try another. A Titanothere. From the numerical block we can tell they are "Size: L (8')". Which is, admittedly, better than 4e does. But we don't have a clue what colour it is - and the picture appears to be a coross between a rhino and some sort of wooly cow.

These huge and fearless plant-eaters roam the temperate plains of the Pleistocene era in herds. If more than 6 total are encountered 1-4 of those numbering over one-half the possible total [What does this even mean?] will be young, from 10% to 80% grown.

If any creature threatens the herd, the largest animals (males) will charge. If the charge strikes home, damage inflicted is double the amount shown on the dice (4-32). Titanotheres will trample (2-12 per foot) any opponent low enough for them to step on. [Pity they are only 8' long and not very tall]
​

And that is it. That is the sum total of text presented for the Titanothere if we don't count things like the % in lair (nil).

This is your shining example of the best monster manual ever? Seriously?

Not me, I want a written description of each creature.

And here I thought you were praising the 1e Monster Manual.

And some peoples eyes aren't so good.

Once more the 1e Monster Manual is the worst of all.

The 4th Ed MMs are dry (though some great mechanical goodies), there's really no comparison.

The 4e Monster Manual 1 is a hell of a lot less dry than the passages I've quoted from the 1e monster manual. And as for Monster Vault, there really is no comparison; I believe that @pmerton thinks there's obnoxiously much fluff there.

And to round things out, I'm going to quote the entire fluff text for Zombies from the 1e Monster Manual as @Pmerton has already linked the 2e zombie and @Cadence has already linked the 4e Monster Manual Zombie

Zombies are magically animated corpse, undead creatures under the command of the evil magic users or clerics who animated them. These creatures follow commands - as spoken on the spot or as given previously - of limited length and complication (a dozen words or so). Zombies are typically found ear graveyards, in dugeons, and in similar charnel places.

Zombies are slow, always striking last, but always doing 1-8 hit points of damage when they hit. They always fight until destroyed and nothing short of a cleric can turn them back.

Sleep, charm, hold, and cold-based spells do not affect zombies. Holy water vials socre 2-8 hit points fo damage for each one that strikes.
​

I think as normal the 1e Monster Manual gets left in the dust.

And for something genuinely evocative and that gives a lot of information we have Monster Vault. I'm just going to quote the introductory blurb and the first three sentences of each section because I can't be bothered to type too much more.

Zombie
These mindless, shambling corpses murder anyone not swift enough to get away.

From somewhere in the darkness comes a thump and a scuffle. As the noise comes again, drawing closer, a gurgling moan can be heard - the rattling wheeze of rotten lungs pressing air out. A form lurches into view, dragging one foot as it raises bloated arms and broken hands like a child seeking an embrace. This creature is a zombie and it blindly seeks to crush life.

Many Hideous Forms: Fuelled by dark magic, malevolent forces, dire curses, or angry spirits, zombies are animate corpses. Any corpse with flesh suffices to make a zombie. [Paragraph and a half of ideas for zombie appearance snipped]

Shadows of Life: Zombies posess a semblance of life. Sludgelike blood trickles through their veins, and cold, rank breath gusts from their lungs. And yet death has rendered zombies immune to pain, disease, and poison. [Paragraph and a half on zombie metabolism and feeding habits snipped]

Soulless, Fearless, and Stupid: For a zombie to be animated, a body's spark must have departed. What remains in the corpse is an animus, a vital spark that drives the body without thought or consicence. Without a soul or memories, a zombie has no more intelligence than a simple animal. As a result it also lacks a sense of sel-preservation. Unless a zombie is properly commanded, a zombie might beat at the door of a home while ite residents escape out of a nearby window. [OK, so I overran that one. The second half of this section is about zombies resilience - and how that combines with their stupidity.]

A Terrifying Plague: In most cases, a zombie serves its creator or rises in response to the defilement of a sacred location. At rare times zombies arise in the hundreds. These zombie plagues are proved by cosmic, magical, or divine events. [Snip description of a Zombie Apocalypse plot]
​

Game, set, and match, I think. I believe that matches all your criteria @Cadence ? Except how the zombies attack, which is in their various stat blocks as a Hulking Zombie (large, slow, smashes opponents) attacks very differently from a Romero-style Flesh-Crazed Zombie or the grabby Grasping Zombie. And then there are the legions of Zombie Shamblers.

 

[Cadence]

And for something genuinely evocative and that gives a lot of information we have Monster Vault. I'm just going to quote the introductory blurb and the first three sentences of each section because I can't be bothered to type too much more.

Zombie
These mindless, shambling corpses murder anyone not swift enough to get away.

<snip>
​

Game, set, and match, I think. I believe that matches all your criteria @Cadence ?

On first blush that certainly seems pretty good! Thanks for the excerpt, I'll check it out next time I'm at a store that has one... I hadn't had a reason to flip through it before. How's the art? Still have to take a point off for not putting the size in feet (or whatnot) next to the size descriptor though. (Seriously, how hard is that to do!)

I think as normal the 1e Monster Manual gets left in the dust.

When I think of monsters, there are always a few pictures of the ones from 1e MM and DMG and Basic that I always remember, followed by one of the artists in 2e, and then we get to 3e and 4e and none jump up in my mind. Its probably because of what I used first and for so long... and I'm surprised looking back how little of the art is that good. It would be interesting to see what people thought were, say, the five best monster pictures in each edition's core books (including PF), and then see how they compared to the same monster in the other versions. (Does 2e MM have a better succubus than 4e? )

 

[Neonchameleon]

On first blush that certainly seems pretty good! Thanks for the excerpt, I'll check it out next time I'm at a store that has one... I hadn't had a reason to flip through it before. How's the art? Still have to take a point off for not putting the size in feet (or whatnot) next to the size descriptor though.

I'd say pretty good (it's thumbnails only if you're not a subscriber) - most of the shots show the personality of the monster and the whole thing comes with a collection of pogs for if you don't have a painted mini handy.

When I think of monster books, there are always a few of the ones from 1e MM and Basic that I always remember, followed by one of the artists in 2e, and then we get to 3e and 4e and none jump up in my mind. Its probably because of what I used first and for so long, but it would be interesting to see what people thought were, say, the five or ten best pictures in each edition's core monster books (including PF), and then see how they compared to the same monster in the other versions. (Does 2e have a better succubus than 4e? )

I can't actually find the 2e Succubus... I think they were on a no-occultism kick at the time. As for comparing the art, it's in a different league. I can't think of any outstanding 4e artwork - mostly because the baseline is high. In the Monstrous Manual the Aquatic Elf just looks silly, and the Goblin is ... interesting. But the 4e art is almost all in the same style and looks professional - the Art in Monster Vault is better than the art in the Monster Manual 1 but that's mostly because they kept the best of the art in the MM1 unchanged and recommissioned the worst pieces; the style is exactly the same and consistent (I don't know if it's your thing or not).

 

[Cadence]

I can't actually find the 2e Succubus... I think they were on a no-occultism kick at the time. As for comparing the art, it's in a different league. I can't think of any outstanding 4e artwork - mostly because the baseline is high. In the Monstrous Manual the Aquatic Elf just looks silly, and the Goblin is ... interesting.

Succubus isn't in 2e's at all, but the 4e one seems like a throw away the book would be better without. I agree with your opinion on most of 2e though and I only really like one of the artists (the one who did the bugbear and a bunch of the fae). Not that they're masterpieces, but they stick in my memory. Glancing over 4e it does have a high percent of what I think are good pictures... and maybe that just makes some of the medicore stuff seem more even worse (elementals, goblins, minotaur).

the Art in Monster Vault is better than the art in the Monster Manual 1 but that's mostly because they kept the best of the art in the MM1 unchanged and recommissioned the worst pieces; the style is exactly the same and consistent (I don't know if it's your thing or not).

The PF bestiary strikes me as having quite a few that would fit with the the 4e style, and I think its page layout shows them off a bit better. (Not a fan of the PF dragons though). I'd like to see a monster book where they had the high quality art on everything combined with the clean page layout.

 

[pemerton]

But the monster manual is a core rulebook; its purpose is to show you how to play, not provide material for you.

Says who? In 4e, at least, the monster building rules are in the DMG. Since the MM was the first book published for AD&D, it's function has been to provide story elements - monsters - just like the DMG (and, in 4e, the PHB) has magic item lists and the PHB has spell and ability lists.

D&D has always assumed that the GM's primary function is not to build monsters, but to take monsters built by the game designers and use them to build encounters. Just as players aren't expected to build their own class elements, spells, items etc.

PHBs don't have finished stats.

Yes they do - for both equipment and spells.

 

[Shemeska]

Succubus isn't in 2e's at all

It wasn't in the initial 2e Monster book, but it appears in both the Monstrous Manual: Outer Planes Appendix, and the Planescape Monstrous Compendium (under Tanar'ri - lesser, succubus).

I rather like the artwork that DiTerlizzi did for the succubus there.