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

[Sailor Moon]

As I've hinted in my other thread, I am about functionality first amd foremost. While most of the art in the new MM is good, the functionality of the book leaves much to be desired.

There is no index by CR so I am left skimming through the book having to look at each monster to see their CR and now what I have to work with a certain levels. I find this really annoying.

I am a fan of custom monsters and the book really falls short in this deparment. It does have a section on it but it's sparse. I really like building my own monsters because my group has a habit of buying MM's and memorizing their stats so I like to keep em guessing.

I'm finding the actual stat blocks to be a bit lacking and they are really overusing giving monsters spellcasting. I don't always want to give everything spellcasting, sometimes I want to give them some unique ability or abilities and this book just doesn't provide that.

If I come across anything else I will post it. While I am happy with the overall art, I am not happy with the overall reason I bought the book which is functionality.

 

[Dog Moon]

I'm finding the actual stat blocks to be a bit lacking and they are really overusing giving monsters spellcasting. I don't always want to give everything spellcasting, sometimes I want to give them some unique ability or abilities and this book just doesn't provide that.

I've only glanced through part of the book and that fairly briefly, but one of the things I thought to myself was how the number of spells the monsters received was actually limited. I know 4e was totally different, but in 3e and Pathfinder, monsters had way too many spells, IMO. I actually thought about making variant monsters, subtracting ALL Spell-Like Abilities and Spells and giving them one or two cool abilities instead.

Now, 5e doesn't remove all of the spells, but the Solar, for instance, doesn't have a bunch of SLAs AND the like 20th level casting of Cleric spells for a massive total number of spells it could use at any given point in time. Instead, it has a couple of spells and that's it.

I guess they couldn't remove spells from monsters, but it does seem like they at least limited it.

 

[fanboy2000]

Monsters by CR can be found on Wizard's Website.

Making monsters will be in the DMG. The MM is mostly a catalog.

I actually find this the most useful Monster Manual since the 3.5 MM, and in some ways, it's a great deal better.

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

 

[Sailor Moon]

Monsters by CR can be found on Wizard's Website.

Making monsters will be in the DMG. The MM is mostly a catalog.

I actually find this the most useful Monster Manual since the 3.5 MM, and in some ways, it's a great deal better.



View attachment 64168

So now I have to go to thr website and download something they should have put in the book to start with. I think by the end of it the DMG is going to be about 5000 pages from every module and optional rule that everyone wants or speculates will be there. Putting monster creation in the DMG is just a waste of space. What is with Wizard's ADD approach to this whole thing? I mean they want you flipping through so many different books and sections, it's getting irritating. If the MM is just a catalog then it should have been named that instead of 'manual'.

 

[Sailor Moon]

I've only glanced through part of the book and that fairly briefly, but one of the things I thought to myself was how the number of spells the monsters received was actually limited. I know 4e was totally different, but in 3e and Pathfinder, monsters had way too many spells, IMO. I actually thought about making variant monsters, subtracting ALL Spell-Like Abilities and Spells and giving them one or two cool abilities instead.

Now, 5e doesn't remove all of the spells, but the Solar, for instance, doesn't have a bunch of SLAs AND the like 20th level casting of Cleric spells for a massive total number of spells it could use at any given point in time. Instead, it has a couple of spells and that's it.

I guess they couldn't remove spells from monsters, but it does seem like they at least limited it.

I have this feeling the spell list in the PHB is going to double up as your unique monster mechanics that you can add.

 

[fanboy2000]

So now I have to go to thr website and download something they should have put in the book to start with. I think by the end of it the DMG is going to be about 5000 pages from every module and optional rule that everyone wants or speculates will be there. Putting monster creation in the DMG is just a waste of space. What is with Wizard's ADD approach to this whole thing? I mean they want you flipping through so many different books and sections, it's getting irritating. If the MM is just a catalog then it should have been named that instead of 'manual'.

There's like two books out and you're complaining that you have to flip through them?

Like how?

The PHB is pretty much a complete game. Heck, it has it's own monster section for mounts, familiars, and shape changing druids.

Also, monster creation most definitely belongs in the DMG.

 

[fanboy2000]

It's interesting to me that innate spellcasting is a variant for dragons.

 

[Blackwarder]

I disagree with the OP on almost everything, I think that the MM is a great book, very functional at what it does which is as a creature catalogue, basically, if you are fine with using stock monsters (like most of the DMs are, and I'm not talking about us nutjobs in the forums) than you don't need anything else but the MM.

If you are the kind of DMG who likes to tinker and build your own monsters than the DMG a is the book for you, otherwise you can just buy the PHB and DMG and be done with that.

I kinda agree about the monsters by CR list but I got a strong suspicion that one of the reasons for omitting this is because the monster list will grow in the future and WotC felt that it will be more helpful to have a central list for those, couple that with the fact that you don't realy need to adhere closely to the CR rating like in older editions and for me it's not such a great concern.

Warder

 

[Sailor Moon]

There's like two books out and you're complaining that you have to flip through them?

Like how?

The PHB is pretty much a complete game. Heck, it has it's own monster section for mounts, familiars, and shape changing druids.

Also, monster creation most definitely belongs in the DMG.

What are you talking about separate game? That makes no sense because there isn't another set of rules built in. The monster section in the PHB is mainly for PC's to use and while you can use it to supply the PC's with monsters to fight, the MM was designed more for that purpose. Flipping back and forth in a single book is irritating when some simple organization skills could have come into play. For a group that had years to get this stuff together, they sure as hell didn't ise that time as wisely as they could have.

 

[Blackwarder]

It's interesting to me that innate spellcasting is a variant for dragons.

I think it's brilliant, it's an easy thing to use if you want to.
Personaly I can't wait for the DMG for rules of adding character levels for monsters, I got an old criteria in one of my old campaign that is a black dragones sorcerer, can't wait to reintroduce it in my game.

Warder