Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Am I the Only One Not 100% Impressed with the Monster Manual?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SilverfireSage" data-source="post: 6397399" data-attributes="member: 6778313"><p>Huh, not entirely sure what you're referring to here. Are you talking about when they have a table and highlight every other entry with blue? Or when they have a variant with a light colored background? I don't have the greatest eyesight by any means, but I haven't heard of anyone having much trouble reading the book.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree that this probably should have been included. It would have added only one or two additional pages if they spaced it right, and would have made a lot of people happier. However, I would argue that with bounded accuracy, getting the CR exactly right is far less of an issue, and making encounters should be based on the environment and what just seems fun to fight in general. I'm throwing four Mummy's at my level 10 party, and it's supposedly a hard encounter. But I can also see where they're going with putting it in the DM's guide, for exactly the reason you're complaining: if you are out and about and want to make an adventure, bring the DM's guide exclusively, and the Monster Manual wont matter until you're actually running the monsters.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yeah I agree with this somewhat as well, especially in the case of things like winter wolves and wargs. These are monsters through and through, yet they're lumped in the "miscellaneous" category with the animals. The table of contents is supposed to be more of a summary than the index, but they do seem to have weird overlap that makes one superfluous. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>As others have said, this isn't a WotC problem, but a shipment problem. No way around it unfortunately.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I hadn't noticed until you pointed it out, but it does seem a little bit weird. I think what they were trying to do is make a pseudo background for those creatures that lack one. As you say, not a big issue, and a minor stylistic point.</p><p></p><p>So yeah, a few of these are pretty odd, but the biggest one to me is that they should have replaced the index of stat blocks with a list of monsters by type, specifically for when player characters try to summon something. It took me far too long to figure out that when a player wants to conjure an elemental they aren't limited to only elementals and can use anything of that type like mephits. Having to search through essentially the entire book to figure out which ones were which is something that could have been easily mitigated by a different type of index. Overall though? Probably my favorite monster manual of all time, minor issues aside. No book will be perfect, and I'm gladdened by the amount of work Wizards decided to put into this.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SilverfireSage, post: 6397399, member: 6778313"] Huh, not entirely sure what you're referring to here. Are you talking about when they have a table and highlight every other entry with blue? Or when they have a variant with a light colored background? I don't have the greatest eyesight by any means, but I haven't heard of anyone having much trouble reading the book. I agree that this probably should have been included. It would have added only one or two additional pages if they spaced it right, and would have made a lot of people happier. However, I would argue that with bounded accuracy, getting the CR exactly right is far less of an issue, and making encounters should be based on the environment and what just seems fun to fight in general. I'm throwing four Mummy's at my level 10 party, and it's supposedly a hard encounter. But I can also see where they're going with putting it in the DM's guide, for exactly the reason you're complaining: if you are out and about and want to make an adventure, bring the DM's guide exclusively, and the Monster Manual wont matter until you're actually running the monsters. Yeah I agree with this somewhat as well, especially in the case of things like winter wolves and wargs. These are monsters through and through, yet they're lumped in the "miscellaneous" category with the animals. The table of contents is supposed to be more of a summary than the index, but they do seem to have weird overlap that makes one superfluous. As others have said, this isn't a WotC problem, but a shipment problem. No way around it unfortunately. I hadn't noticed until you pointed it out, but it does seem a little bit weird. I think what they were trying to do is make a pseudo background for those creatures that lack one. As you say, not a big issue, and a minor stylistic point. So yeah, a few of these are pretty odd, but the biggest one to me is that they should have replaced the index of stat blocks with a list of monsters by type, specifically for when player characters try to summon something. It took me far too long to figure out that when a player wants to conjure an elemental they aren't limited to only elementals and can use anything of that type like mephits. Having to search through essentially the entire book to figure out which ones were which is something that could have been easily mitigated by a different type of index. Overall though? Probably my favorite monster manual of all time, minor issues aside. No book will be perfect, and I'm gladdened by the amount of work Wizards decided to put into this. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Am I the Only One Not 100% Impressed with the Monster Manual?
Top