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

[jodyjohnson]

Having the encounter building stuff in the DMG makes sense to me.

Maybe they'll do the "functional" method for 6th edition or Paizo will use it for 2nd edition Pathfinder.

For 5th, I think the ship has sailed.

Bring on the next edition!!

 

[Sailor Moon]

Honestly what's the issue with Monster Creation being in the DMG rather than MM? The only person using those rules will be a DM and they'll invariably have both anyway.

The MM is supposed to be DM only as well so what's your point?

 

[Sailor Moon]

Having the encounter building stuff in the DMG makes sense to me.

Maybe they'll do the "functional" method for 6th edition or Paizo will use it for 2nd edition Pathfinder.

For 5th, I think the ship has sailed.

Bring on the next edition!!

Encounter building is something that should be in the DMG, not custom monster building.

 

[Imaro]

The MM is supposed to be DM only as well so what's your point?

Is it? wouldn't at least one class (the druid) use it for one or more of it's class abilities?

 

[Imaro]

Encounter building is something that should be in the DMG, not custom monster building.

Why?

 

[Sailor Moon]

Is it? wouldn't at least one class (the druid) use it for one or more of it's class abilities?

Most of what the druid needs is in the PHB in the back. Are you actually going to claim the MM is DM because it might contain something a class can use? The DMG is supposed to contain player options so are you going to sit there and claim it's not supposed to be DM only?

 

[Eejit]

The MM is supposed to be DM only as well so what's your point?

My point is there's no reason for people to complain about which of the two books it's in.

 

[Sailor Moon]

Why?

Why not?

The book already contains stock monsters, why should I need to start digging through another book when I could have it all tucked nice and neat in the "monster manual"?

 

[Sailor Moon]

My point is there's no reason for people to complain about which of the two books it's in.

If they were looking for DMG filler then maybe, but since the beginning Wizards has promised loads of modules and options that would allow each table to customize the game to their needs and adding something else to the already loaded mix, when it could just as easily have been put in the MM, is going to lead to disappointment.

 

[Mistwell]

Quick question.

Have you actually DMd the game yet? Thinking CR is a loosely based guideline will give your players a world of hurt,

I have DM'ed a LOT of sessions of 5e. And yes, CR is a loosely based guideline. That you think it's a very hard and fast line as opposed to a loose guideline, is a curious thing to me. I've used plenty of creatures with a CR higher than the PCs, and it hasn't resulted in party deaths - though death is a distinct possibility in some of those encounters, and not in others. I've found on the whole it's a pretty loose guideline which varies with circumstances, like most things in D&D.