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

[Nebulous]

I like the critters and mechanics in general, but man there's a lot of art-as-filler going on. I realize that BA means that they don't need variants across multiple levels, but I would have gladly traded some art for more "sideways" variation (especially for humanoids!)

In any case, I don't feel ripped off.

I feel pretty confident that over the "life" of 5e it will continue to evolve into just the kind of game I want.

 

[Mistwell]

Regardless of how much we like it, art is pretty much filler.

I disagree. I personally think it's highly utilitarian to provide good art to demonstrate what a creature looks like. It's much more helpful to me than a text description, and some sort of description (art, text, or both) I consider as a critical element of any monster entry. I find the description more helpful than much of the statistical data.

 

[Tormyr]

I disagree. I personally think it's highly utilitarian to provide good art to demonstrate what a creature looks like. It's much more helpful to me than a text description, and some sort of description (art, text, or both) I consider as a critical element of any monster entry. I find the description more helpful than much of the statistical data.

Yeah, I did not do as well with that sentence as I did with the rest of the post that you quoted. The complaint that I was responding to (at least in my head) was that the huge art was stealing from more more words. My response was that the words were set first before the art hit the book. Where I was going with that was that the pictures were going to be there (there pretty much always is a picture for an entry), but that the size of the art changed to fill the space. So yeah, I definitely could have started that post with a better sentence.

 

[Selkirk]

i think the book would have been best if they had presented some sample ecologies/ecosystems. maybe an example of a swamp or forest and what kinds of creatures would naturally dwell there, how parties would encounter them..how the creatures would interact with the party and other creatures living there.

 

[Tormyr]

i think the book would have been best if they had presented some sample ecologies/ecosystems. maybe an example of a swamp or forest and what kinds of creatures would naturally dwell there, how parties would encounter them..how the creatures would interact with the party and other creatures living there.

I think world building fits more in the DMG. Whether this particular element of world building is in the DMG, we will see.

 

[Nivenus]

I like it quite a lot but wish it had a few more good races alongside the classic evil ones. Similarly, I'd like to have seen more PC races represented (beyond obvious exotic variants like drow and duergar).

That being said, I'm largely satisfied with the product. The art is beautiful, the lore is fun to read, and the mechanics (like a lot of 5e) seem straightforward. I've only just begun delving into it but so far I'm pleased.

 

[Li Shenron]

Finally I got to make a quick trip to the FLGS to check the PHB and MM out... I couldn't really browse all of the MM but I checked out some of my favourite sections: Dragons, Giants, Angels & Demons & Devils, Orcs, Trolls, Ogres, Genies...

Overall I think it's a really good book, better than the 3e MM. My first (non in-depth) opinion in a nutshell:

PROS
- much more readable than 3e-era monster manuals, thanks to generally shorter information and better layout
- fluff information seemed very inspiring to me, although it could have been much more
- artwork quality significantly better than 3e, although not a 100% score, there are still several ugly pictures (for example the oozes)
- artwork concepts (or changes to previous editions) match my taste in most cases I've checked (for example, I liked the new take on orcs and trolls, not so much the overly muscular angels)
- every monster has a picture
- there are a very few omissions of classic monsters, and many additions I like, for example more dragons, demons and genies than in 3e

CONS
- really not much information on each monster:
(1) crunch is much less than 3e, but while this in general is a GOOD feature (that 5e doesn't need the same amount of data), there seemed to be a lot monsters which look just like a small bag of hp with no special abilities
(2) fluff is of good quality, but could have been more at least for some monsters, while it seems they standardized every monster to exactly 3 paragraphs of fluff, 3-4 lines each
- some artwork is indeed unnecessarily too large, as if they preferred padding the space by enlarging the pictures to avoid putting more information
- almost total lack of templates

As for the art, it does take up a lot of space, but it also saves space because they don't have to devote a paragraph to describing what the creature looks like.

This is true. I don't miss the written physical descriptions when every monster has a picture.

 

[Nebulous]

CONS
- really not much information on each monster:
(1) crunch is much less than 3e, but while this in general is a GOOD feature (that 5e doesn't need the same amount of data), there seemed to be a lot monsters which look just like a small bag of hp with no special abilities
(2) fluff is of good quality, but could have been more at least for some monsters, while it seems they standardized every monster to exactly 3 paragraphs of fluff, 3-4 lines each
- some artwork is indeed unnecessarily too large, as if they preferred padding the space by enlarging the pictures to avoid putting more information
- almost total lack of templates

I've had more time to read through the MM.

1) There's info there, but compared to what it could have been (say in the PF bestiary) it is lacking.
2) Monsters a bag of hit points and no special abilities. Sadly, this happens many, many, many times. The Sahaugin Baron has a higher AC, more hp and an extra attack over its lesser brethren. It is utterly boring and will require DM work to make it more interesting. Furthermore the stat blocks for all three variations (normal, priest, baron) reiterate much of the same boring information, such as they can breathe air AND water.
3) The artwork for me is really hit or miss. Some is great, some is just not great, but passable. I honestly don't think it's better than the 3e era. Again, i find the PF Bestiary superior artwise, and i don't even play PF. Well, i actually find the PFB superior with more crunch as well. It has TOO much crunch though.

4) Templates. Yes, these are desperately needed at this point. I would be fine if they were in the DMG, but i don't know if there's going to be a whole section devoted to "making baseline monsters more tactically interesting".