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

[Sailor Moon]

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

Well your paper book doesn't auto update and I doubt they will be changing the CR of stock monsters so leaving out a CR listing still makes no sense.

When did they ever say it would be a creature catalogue and not a manual?

 

[Blackwarder]

Well your paper book doesn't auto update and I doubt they will be changing the CR of stock monsters so leaving out a CR listing still makes no sense.

When did they ever say it would be a creature catalogue and not a manual?

They didnt, I'm saying that it reads to me like a creature catalogue, building monsters should be in the DMG, it's the DM purview.

Warder

 

[fanboy2000]

What are you talking about separate game? That makes no sense because there isn't another set of rules built in.

If you're a player, you likely only need the PHB to play. You don't need the MM for the vast majority of animals you might need stats for. That's how it's a complete game. Of course, I don't know how you achieve that without flipping around. Like, if you need to look-up a spell and then a creature, then flipping is inevitable.

The monster section in the PHB is mainly for PC's to use

Which is what I said. Glad we're in agreement.

and while you can use it to supply the PC's with monsters to fight, the MM was designed more for that purpose.

If you make your own monsters, why do you need an MM? You're on these boards, you had to know the DMG was where the monster creation rules were. The TOC was posted here weeks ago, it didn't show a section on how to make monsters.

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.

Oh noes! The dreaded flipping!

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

There are similar problems in other areas of PHB/MM/DMG, that they could be put in one book or the other. For example, some people consider magic items to belong to the PHB because they see them as characters material, while others want them in the DMG. Traps and hazards are another example of something that could be both in a MM or a DMG.

So at the end it's really up to the publishers, and it's not only a matter of thinking where does a certain topic really belong, but also about managing the aggregate space of the 3 books. Mearls mentioned clearly that the original plan of the 5e MM was 320 pages, and they couldn't put everything in if they wanted large artwork, so they extended it to 350 pages. It's possible that they had thought at some point to put monster creation rules in the MM but then had to make room for more monsters.

I really don't have a strong opinion on where they belong better... but certainly since they decided to have them in the DMG, then the current (limited) info about monsters HD and proficiency bonuses in the MM is out of place, it should have been moved to the DMG as well.

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.

Personally I think the artwork could have been smaller (even tho artwork is one of my main reasons to buy a MM) in order to add more "crunch" to monsters, and the best would have been to add optional crunch (like optional additional abilities, with an indication about CR and XP change) like many monsters had during playtest.

It's OK that they decided that the starting/basic version of each monster is simpler than 3e/4e, but then customizing them must become an integral (optional, of course) part of 5e, just like the same thing happens for player characters. While the DMG might have the rule system for customizing and creating from scratch, the MM could have at least offer some immediate ready-made options. Really, we had lots of examples of "monsters variants" during playtest... what happened to those? Aren't they still there in the MM or have they been removed?

 

[Mouseferatu]

In five editions, there has been exactly one where monster creation rules were in the MM, and that was 3e. (2e has some vague guidelines on creation, but no mechanical stuff). In all the others, if monster creation rules existed at all, they were in a DM's supplement somewhere.

Now, if you want to argue that it would've made more sense to you for 5e to put them there, that's a viable discussion. I disagree, but that's personal preference.

But to argue that it was somehow misleading to call the book a "manual" without those rules is disingenuous. For the bulk of the game's history, this is exactly what has been expected of a book by that name.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

But to argue that it was somehow misleading to call the book a "manual" without those rules is disingenuous. For the bulk of the game's history, this is exactly what has been expected of a book by that name.

But for someone who's not familiar with the game's history, it wouldn't be preposterous to believe that something called a "Monster Manual" is a manual presenting everything that someone has to know about monsters.

 

[Sailor Moon]

In five editions, there has been exactly one where monster creation rules were in the MM, and that was 3e. (2e has some vague guidelines on creation, but no mechanical stuff). In all the others, if monster creation rules existed at all, they were in a DM's supplement somewhere.

Now, if you want to argue that it would've made more sense to you for 5e to put them there, that's a viable discussion. I disagree, but that's personal preference.

But to argue that it was somehow misleading to call the book a "manual" without those rules is disingenuous. For the bulk of the game's history, this is exactly what has been expected of a book by that name.

And 3rd edition got that right or is this another one of those when I tripped I meant to do that throwback to the old editions?

I think some of you are forgetting that the DMG is supposed to be carrying tons of modules that allow for varied play, magic items, more DM optional player options, a section on how to actually DM, probably more info on the planes, poisons and traps, and now monster creation. How thick do you think the DMG is going to be? Li Shen is right about the size of the art, it could have been scaled down more to enable things that are just as important. Amazing how the Pathfinder beastiary series can produce everything needed and have no problems. I didn't purchase the MM just to look at the pretty pictures.

 

[The_Gneech]

This thread just made remember when Dragon magazine (the paper one) ran a big article on calculating the XP value of DM-created monsters, and it was a huge deal. Expectations have certainly changed over the years!

-The Gneech

 

[wedgeski]

But for someone who's not familiar with the game's history, it wouldn't be preposterous to believe that something called a "Monster Manual" is a manual presenting everything that someone has to know about monsters.

You might as well argue that potential buyers who want to run a game of D&D might not think the "Player's Handbook" is for them!

 

[McTreble]

It's called the Monster Manual because it's always been called the Monster Manual. The Player's Handbook this time around isn't called the Player's Guide and the DMG isn't called the Dungeon Master's Sourcebook. In an edition that is catering to prior editions, renaming the MM, no matter what you think it should be called, would be dumb.

No CR Index? Probably could (should) have been included, but they have it online. Problem fixed. I know this problem is fixed because we are all online, and therefore can access this list. Let me dry your tears with my brand of tissues called GetOverYourButtHurt.

No Monster Building tools? DMG. I'd rather have more monsters here. You have the book, and the DMG is set to be released on Dec. 8th. You're telling me that you'll run out of surprises before then and that you MUST tweak the entries right out of the gate? Gimme a break.

Lastly, without fully digital versions of the books, flipping is inevitable. Your nitpicking is moot.