D&D 4E 4e MMs? Which should I get?

[josha]

MM3, definitely MM3.
It has lots of unique and creative monsters, great flavor text, and some interesting variants on existing ones.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

MM3 is certainly at the height of 4e monster design overall. It does have some VERY evocative and original monsters. OTOH it also has a good number of variations on existing classic monsters, which you may not need so much. Its hard to say what the most useful monsters are going to be for a project like this. I'd say there is a pretty decent chunk of difference between 3.x type monsters and 4e type monsters. PCs in 4e have a fairly different range of expected capabilities for instance. A good upper level 3.x monster had better have high DR/MR, be able to avoid things like tripping and really isn't likely to threaten PCs without some sort of primary non-HP (SoS/SoD/Drain/Poison) type mechanic it can employ. Those kinds of considerations largely don't exist in 4e monsters and the primary 'goodness' comes from interesting power interactions, ability to synergize with other monsters, etc. So you may find it necessary to do a lot of reworking even on the best 4e beasties.

 

[nnms]

After seeing the red box, it looks like Monster Vault will carry on with MM3 style designs and would make an excellent choice.

 

[Sylrae]

for my 3.x creature books: I have

PF Bestiary
Fiend Folio/Fiend Codex 1 & 2
Manual of Planes/Planar Handbook
MM3.5/MM3.0
Monsters of Faerun

If the monsters are not in those books then I'll have uses for them.

Mechanical innovations don't interest me as much as unique encounters I can't already throw at the players, particularly if the monster has some really memorable qualities.

So guys. 4eMM3 is the one with the smoothest running numbers from what I understand.

How does it hold up for unique/unusual encounters, (cause that's what I'm really looking for.)

 

[nnms]

How does it hold up for unique/unusual encounters, (cause that's what I'm really looking for.)

In 4E, encounters are often made interesting by the implications of the monsters abilities. MM1 monsters were very much "here's my attack, take some damage" with some status effects tacked on. MM3 has tons of special traits, reactions and other things that make fighting that monster unique. All of these have implications when fighting them.

Example time:

Xivort. Xivorts are fallen and twisted gnomes. Their link to the feydark (if you think the underdark is bad...) means they bend reality a bit and teleport a lot. They're very low level monsters- level 1 and 2 for their leaders.

Their teleports are all triggers. The missile weapon Xivorts get to teleport away 10 feet when an ally attacks an adjacent enemy. Other Xivort get to teleport when the enemy near them hits them-- to a square adjacent to that same enemy. The implications of all this is that an encounter with Xivort is going to be like trying to grab slippery eels. I don't think facing them will be like any other encounter.

That's the design approach that makes MM3 awesome. Even the level 1 monsters are way more than just "I do damage to you each turn."

 

[Sylrae]

Ooooooo.

I'm intrigued.

Are the Demonomicon and DSCC done the same way? or do they also have alot of *smack: take damage. your turn.*?

 

[nnms]

Ooooooo.

I'm intrigued.

Are the Demonomicon and DSCC done the same way? or do they also have alot of *smack: take damage. your turn.*?

Every monster manual or book with monsters has *some* monsters that basically act in their own turns, hit you and do damage. Often they'll be those of the "brute" monster role.

One of the reasons the DMG advises mixing monster roles is to ensure a more interesting fight. You add a controller to mess with the PCs, a leader to heal the monsters, skirmishers to out maneuver and flank the PCs, soldiers to mark the PCs and hold them back as needed and lurkers for some nasty hit and run type tactics. Not every fight is going to have every type, but generally you'll want to mix it up.

And that was written with just the MM1 monsters in mind. Everything written from the MM3 and on has really amped that up by giving monsters more reactive abilities, properties, etc.,.

I've only paged through the DSCC but the monsters in there looked like they were made with the MM3 approach. The Demonomicon is not a monster book per se, but it does have some monsters in it. It certainly doesn't have the monsters per page ratio of a Monster Manual. It has monsters, but also a ton of fictional information about where they come from, what they're like, etc.,.