D&D 5E Am I the Only One Not 100% Impressed with the Monster Manual?

[KarinsDad]

I like quite a few things about the 5E Monster Manual.

But, there are a few minor things that I dislike:

1) Light blue colored background that has the equivalent of ink smears on it. It makes the pages look dirty. The light colored background in the PHB is similar, but the difference is black print on a contrasting color in the PHB and the "colored smears" are so feint as to hardly be noticeable. There are some pages where black on blue (or feint black smears) in the MM just make it more difficult for my old eyes to see the text. It's legible, but it's harder to see than it should be. I prefer to not have to squint a little in some places, just in order to read. I do not have this problem with the PHB.

2) No list of monsters by CR. There's a web printout, but it's annoying to have additional sheets stuck into your Monster Manual that will eventually be misplaced at just the wrong time. It's also supposed to be in the DMG, but until we get that, ... Like the spells not being segregated by level in the PHB, this just seems like a usability issue. If I go out of my house and want to set up some encounters, I now have to take two books.

3) No table of contents of the appendix creatures or of any of the specialized creatures (like a Blue Dragon). Again, a minor nit, but when the DM is going "where is the horse, where is the horse?" because it is not in alphabetical order. And the Index is partially a repeat of the Table of Contents, hence, waste of space. Sure, the exact page of a Black Dragon is listed in the Index, but it's not too hard to find a Black Dragon by looking under Dragon. The Index almost seems superfluous. So to find a Gargoyle, the DM can look in the easier to read (larger print and a single page) Table of Contents. To find a horse, the DM either has to know which appendix it is in, or go to the Index. The DM also has to know if it is a riding horse, or a warhorse. Horses do not exist. It just seems that they could have put the entire Index in the table of contents and been done with it.

4) The pages are wavy (i.e. if you close the book and view it sideways). Not a biggy, but just subpar for a brand new book. This might not be true of all MMs.

5) I'm also not a fan of the "weird aura" artwork around creatures that most of the monsters have around them. It just detracts from the picture. Sure, there was some of this in the PHB, but not a lot. Here, it's practically every picture. It makes them look like good artwork superimposed on bad watercolors. I'm sure that some people love this, but meh.

Like I said, these are minor issues (and #5 is totally subjective). I do like the content and some of the art.

 

[Thank Dog]

Given your list of minor gripes, I have a feeling that you wouldn't be "100% satisfied" regardless of how good it was.

 

[Paraxis]

It could be better I have explained how in one of the other two or three threads about the MM, but it is a good book.

A few simple things like monsters by CR listing, random encounter tables, monsters by environment list, they could have added another dozen pages of helpful reference charts and made the book so much better.

But I think you will find the attitude around here is mostly very 5e positive, any disparaging remarks are seldom and often drowned out in the voices of the people who think any criticism means you dislike the edition entirely and should go play something else.

For me atleast after almost three decades of D&D I can see that this is a very good version of the game overall, the best IMO, but everything has flaws and issues, that includes the MM.

 

[Stormonu]

Yeah, in the other MM thread, someone was talking about the art for the Warg. I found myself scanning through the book for a minute or two thinking he must have been mistaken before it hit me it was in the appendix. Splitting out "real-world" monsters worked somewhat for the 3E version, but I think it would have been better if everything had just been alphabetized without the poorly-thought out appendix section.

 

[Tormyr]

It could be better I have explained how in one of the other two or three threads about the MM, but it is a good book.

A few simple things like monsters by CR listing, random encounter tables, monsters by environment list, they could have added another dozen pages of helpful reference charts and made the book so much better.

But I think you will find the attitude around here is mostly very 5e positive, any disparaging remarks are seldom and often drowned out in the voices of the people who think any criticism means you dislike the edition entirely and should go play something else.

For me atleast after almost three decades of D&D I can see that this is a very good version of the game overall, the best IMO, but everything has flaws and issues, that includes the MM.

While some of that stuff would be really nice, it will probably mostly be in the DMG (and probably belongs there anyway). I have a feeling that several of the complaints would not have manifested if all three books had released simultaneously.

As a side note, I don't think they could have added just a dozen pages. It looks like they used a 32 page signature for binding (print on a giant 32 page sheet; fold; cut; add to book). They had already added another 32 pages at no additional cost to us. I doubt they could have reasonably added another 32 pages without adding to the price, and I would not have wanted them to cut 12 pages of monsters to make room for the extra stuff.

This is my first MM, and I am enjoying it immensely. Though I do appreciate hearing from others about how it could be better (and then seeing people filling the gaps).

 

[Hussar]

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?366261-Am-I-the-Only-One-Not-100-Impressed-with-the-Monster-Manual#ixzz3Exe0OG9s[/url]

This isn't because of WOTC. I'm going to hazard a guess that you bought your book from Amazon. This is simply due to differences in humidity - wherever your book was packaged was exceptionally dry and the pages shrink slightly. Simply leave the book out, not even open, for a few days, and the pages will flatten right down. This was a major complaint in 4e too, and if you bought 4e core books, by now the wavy pages have all flattened out.

 

[Sailor Moon]

I wasn't impressed at all because I like for game books to be functional, not overshadowed by the art. I didn't buy an art book.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I like 95% of the book. The only bit I feel is a bit of wasted space is all the good dragon entries. We're unlikely to fight those guys, we dont really need them. I would have preferred some more higher level bad guys in that space.

 

[Quickleaf]

I am noticing several story omissions and changes that seem to (IMO) reduce the awesomeness of certain monsters.

For example, I was just reading up on demons...

Nalfeshnee used to be judges of souls damned to the Abyss, but the 5e MM completely omits that.

Shadow Demons (shadow fiends in 2e) used to magic jar souls as part of a soul trade, but that is likewise omitted from the 5e MM.

 

[Mr Fixit]

This isn't because of WOTC. I'm going to hazard a guess that you bought your book from Amazon. This is simply due to differences in humidity - wherever your book was packaged was exceptionally dry and the pages shrink slightly. Simply leave the book out, not even open, for a few days, and the pages will flatten right down. This was a major complaint in 4e too, and if you bought 4e core books, by now the wavy pages have all flattened out.

I can attest to that. When I got my PHB from Amazon, the pages were somewhat wavy. Now they're completely normal. Give it a few days.