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

[Quickleaf]

It is a good to great book, but some simple things would add to it, imo.

1. More interesting abilities, for monsters.

2. A size comparison pencil drawing on each page.

3. I miss tactics in the fluff.

4. More on where they live.

Agreed on all points, especially #1. Also I'd expand #4 into more on the monster's ecology.

Also, I have noticed several Story changes to monsters that inexplicably seem to reduce their adventure hooks. While I have zero problem adding these back in, that does require a bit of extra effort on my part...and for newer gamers deprives them of those cool monster hooks altogether. Very strange decisions. It makes me wonder if we'll get an article at some point about the Big Picture for 5e monster design.

 

[Uder]

1. More interesting abilities, for monsters.

There are quite a few monsters where I'm going to want to write up some alternate sets of abilities. After the third or fourth lich the legendary/lair actions are going to get a bit stale.

 

[billd91]

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.

As far as I'm concerned, the art of a monster manual is an important element for its function. Big and splashy is fine with me.

 

[Sailor Moon]

As far as I'm concerned, the art of a monster manual is an important element for its function. Big and splashy is fine with me.

That's fine but how big does it really need to be unless you have vision troubles?

 

[SilverfireSage]

As big as the empty space left by the text?

 

[prosfilaes]

That's fine but how big does it really need to be unless you have vision troubles?

Can they get me each monster on its own poster? Then that should be fine. I guess seriously asking for anything beyond 8.5 x 11 is too much, but yeah, I might buy a supplement that just had monster names and full-page pictures.

Gaming tables are large, some players are getting old and do have vision troubles, and larger pictures are more impressive. There's trade-offs with making bigger pictures but withstanding those, bigger really is better.

 

[Nebulous]

It is a good to great book, but some simple things would add to it, imo.

1. More interesting abilities, for monsters.

2. A size comparison pencil drawing on each page.

3. I miss tactics in the fluff.

4. More on where they live.

Exactly how i feel. Especially #1...more varied abilities for monsters. I'm not sure the best way to remedy that either, but i feel like it was left too intentionally rules-light. One solution i would love to see is the categorization of monsters by TYPE and CHALLENGE, and then within those categories have lists and lists and lists of attacks and powers and abilities in sub-categories. A DM can just browse for, example, a monstrosity with a melee attack and choose from a) a grappling slam, b) a tentacle squeeze , c) and acidic swallow , d) 4 armed melee , e) Toss and throw, etc. Each little blurb is just an interesting attack and mechanic unto itself that can swapped onto a different creature.

And such a module can be completely ignored if you don't want it.

 

[Tzarevitch]

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.

Where did you get the idea you were the only one "not 100% impressed?" Quite a few people have expressed dissatisfaction of varying levels. Ignoring how they statted some creatures, mine are:

1. Incomplete indexing - The table of contents at the front and the index at the back are basically the same thing. Yet there is no listing by CR, which would be the most helpful thing for the DM.
2. Illogical layout- the book actually has THREE MMs inside of its covers, each with its own internal sub-listing. There is the main one, Appendix A and Appendix B. Appendix B of NPCs makes sense because it is a different type of listing. There is no good reason for Appendix A. I thought it was the table of normal animals at first; but it isn't. It has a random assortment of animals, vermin, plants and monsters, most of which should have been in the main MM listing. Why is an axe beak in the Appendix but a pteradon isn't? You basically have to know which index the creature is in.
3. Artwork quality but in some case it is clearly there to waste space - Page 164-165 for example. 164 has a nice picture of a deep gnome. 165 under "Goblin" however wastes half the page with a poor watercolor of a village in a swamp or something. The bottom quarter of p150 has pictures of ... giants' rocks. Half of page 221 where the Illithid entry is, is filled with a picture of a cave.

As you can see, I am not 100% impressed by any means. The issues I have with it are ones that could've been avoided with better layout and editing, but I rate it as good to very good. I've never seen a MM that I was 100% impressed with. The closest by far is Pathfinder (and I say this as someone who does not play Pathfinder and does not like the 3.5 system.)

 

[SilverfireSage]

I've seen this said before, but what makes people more impressed with the pathfinder bestiary?

 

[Tzarevitch]

I've seen this said before, but what makes people more impressed with the pathfinder bestiary?

It's better looking, better organized and makes better use of its space.