A Better Monster Manuel

[Tallifer]

But do you want a bunch of monsters or a bunch of stats? Is for you monster = stats?

I certainly don't want the MM to waste space with fluff about what do monsters eat as part of their regular diet, but I want to know it these monsters try to eat anything that passes by, because that can make for some difference in an encounter (e.g. it is probably going to target one PC and try to swallow it or take it away with it).

Or, I don't want to know the details of their system of social castes, but if I know that creatures XYZ at least have castes, then I already know that when dropping them in an adventure, I should use this info to characterize the social interactions of the PCs with them. Can they even parlay with these creatures?

All that really matters, it what is applicable in an encounter with the PCs, but as I wrote in my previous post, combats are not the only type of encounter! If the MM provides nothing besides combat stats, then it doesn't cater to all those gaming groups which enjoy the other 2/3 of the encounters spectrum

I can invent monsters and stories in my sleep (in fact most of us do when we dream: I wish I could remember all of mine when I wake up).

But figuring out the strengths and abilities and magical powers and how their clever tricks work: that is hard work, and tedious. A book of statistics is VERY handy and useful at the table.

Dragon articles on ecology and social organization are terrific for bedtime reading. They are a pain to wade through for running a monster. Plus long articles like that mean fewer monsters in my Monster Manual.

And as far as bare bones necessary facts about monsters' habits, even the Fourth Edition books DO contain those things. Look at the first entry:

ABOLETHS are hulking amphibious creatures that hail
from the Far Realm, a distant and unfathomable plane. They
live in the Underdark, swimming through drowned crannies
or creeping through lightless tunnels and leaving trails of
slimy mucus in their wake. Malevolent and vile, aboleths bend
humanoid creatures to their will, and more powerful aboleths
can transform their minions into slimy horrors.
Aboleth Lore
A character knows the following information with a successful
Dungeoneering check.
DC 20: Aboleths lair in the deepest reaches of the Underdark,
having slipped into the world from the Far Realm.
However, lone aboleths can be found closer to the world’s surface,
haunting ruins, deep lakes, and old temples without hope
or want of companionship. In many of these places, kuo-toas
serve them.
DC 25: Aboleths communicate via telepathy. They can
speak and understand Deep Speech.
DC 30: Sometimes aboleths live together as a brood or
even in a collection of broods. Aboleth overseers also populate
their lairs with humanoids that they’ve enslaved and transformed
into slimy minions.

 

[Jon_Dahl]

5E Monster Manual should have clear instruction how to advance AND tone down monsters.

3.x had a decent attempt with advanced monsters, but the system requires lot of preparation from the DM. It would be better to have the ability to advance or tone down any monster within one minute or so.... Some guidelines would be nice: "If you advance this monster, please proceed with these steps 1, 2, 3 and 4".

And I'm not talking about advancing via class levels here. Just HD...

 

[Li Shenron]

I can invent monsters and stories in my sleep (in fact most of us do when we dream: I wish I could remember all of mine when I wake up).

But figuring out the strengths and abilities and magical powers and how their clever tricks work: that is hard work, and tedious. A book of statistics is VERY handy and useful at the table.

I believe that you and I can invent lame monsters mostly Just kidding...

The fact is, I don't want lame monsters, which means I don't want novelty monsters without a history, created by designers in a way similar to what you and I would create for our homebrew. I agree that we can do that ourselves.

I would like instead that the first MM contains traditional, solid monsters: creatures from real-life mythologies (greek, egyptian, medieval...), from more recent or contemporary folklore (lycanthropes, vampires, zombies...), and famous traditional D&D monsters (liches, beholders, illithids...), all of which have a rich history of sources from literature and why not even movies. These do require hard and tedious work, to collect information from all sources, trying to converge into one form that is suitable for D&D average settings, and then match the fluff with the crunch. Why then not sharing with the MM readers some more information that can be useful for encounters?

 

[avin]

The latest deluxe Hacklopedia is what it should look like.

This is AWESOME.

 

[avin]

And as far as bare bones necessary facts about monsters' habits, even the Fourth Edition books DO contain those things.

Me and a lot of other 4E DMs think Wotc's first 4E MM was the worst 4E product ever made. Ever.

It looks like a color TV manual, not a Monster Manual. Entries are poor written and uninspiring.

I flip trough 2E, 3E, Deadlands and GURPS bestiares all the time. I can't spend a minute on 4E MM. After MB I never open 4E MM again. Ever.

I can create my own monsters well, but I want ecologies.

You said ecologies may be on other products, so I can tell you the stats you want may be found on Monster Builder

That's how I like: ecologies on books, sheets on Monster Builders.

 

[the Jester]

But do you want a bunch of monsters or a bunch of stats? Is for you monster = stats?

The kind of balance I'd like to see falls around where the Monster Vault lies.

The "one monster per page" paradigm of 2e includes a bunch of wasted space and information that, frankly, I often didn't care about and sometimes didn't read. OTOH the 4e Monster Manual is terribly dry and no fun to read.

As far as density and usefulness of content, I'd like to see it match the 3.5 MM (the best Monster Manual we've ever seen IMHO).

 

[Zireael]

I think that something like a cross between 2e and 3e MM is the thing to aim for.

Traps, hazards, adventure hooks and other encounters (non-monsters) belong in a separate module.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey GM Dave!

I would much rather see information included in the new version;

1> Trap information for traps of different shapes and levels
2> Hazard information for hazards of different shapes and levels
3> Organization information for how the different monsters might fit together in a larger group. I'd also like to find suggestions on Villianous Religious groups or Magical Cabals and how they work and operate
4> Lair information for how the monsters might manipulate their environment and use it as 'part of the encounter' instead repeatedly finding the monster sitting in a 'bare' room.
5> Several linked series of story seeds and general story seeds.
6> Sketched out details of plug and play encounters for the GM that has to assemble pieces in a hurry for players that went somewhere they did not plan or need to prepare an adventure in a hurry.
7> Guide lines for monster construction or adapting the provided monsters to new situations and encounters.

If I can get away with a shameless plug for a moment, this is exactly how I have designed my Vampire Bestiary book (due out in about 1-2 weeks).

You can see something of this in the following preview:

Final Preview: Vampire Bestiary Eternity Publishing

However, I think before seeing the 5E rules, we cannot really know the best format for their eventual Monster Manual(s).

4E built in the framework of multiple monsters of different roles operating in tandem. That in itself was a new idea for D&D. Its also one of the reasons why the 4E Monster Manuals are not great books, because they are designed in the format mainly apeing the style of previous editions. A lot of the monsters are designed in isolation, when 4E is patently designed to work with groups of monsters. Now you can say, well, goblins, orcs and other 'social' creatures are often designed in ready made groups for 4E. But these only represent a small fraction of the Monster Manual.

As for traps and hazards, does it really infuriate the masses that a Monster Manual detailing goblins might have an example of a trap goblins like to use? Or a hazard that occurs whenever a Bulette is encountered in underground caverns? Personally I think these things spice up monster entries rather than diluting them.

The 4E mantra was to have as much of the DMs work done for it already. So that you didn't have to prebuild the dragons, you didn't need to add class levels to humanoids, etc. Surely this additional material (a trap here, a hazard there, random encounter tables etc.) is simply an extension of the idea that the DM shouldn't require multiple books to run encounters.

 

[avin]

OTOH the 4e Monster Manual is terribly dry and no fun to read.

And we all will disagree here, some think 4E MM is perfect, some love 3.5, some love 2E...

Monster Builder (RIP) or DDI are just perfect for monster sheets and versions of the same monster, while Monster Manuals should, IMO, give us ecologies.

Who's still using 4E MM books after DDI?

 

[Lord Zack]

If the 5th edition Monster Manual ends up being like the 4th edition one than I probably won't even buy it, especially if the info about creating monsters is in the DMG. Monsters are more than just a statblock.