Do we really need monster books?

[Desdichado]

Monster books are a nice luxury but hardly in the 'needed' column.

Right. To the same extent that I don't 'need' RPGs. For my games, I need monster books. Without 'em, I wouldn't be running fantasy.

 

[Gez]

Well, for the four Wizards monster books

Five Wizards monster books (and actually, 6). In chronological order:

1. Monster Manual
2. Monster Compendium: Monsters of Faerûn
3. Monster Manual 2
4. Fiend Folio
5. Monster Manual (revised edition)
6. Monster Manual 3

I own them all, plus both Tomes of Horrors and all three Creature Collections.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Fixed it for you.

Harumph. If additional monster books don't add anything to my campaign, then it is blatantly obvious that they don't add anything to other campaigns, either.

Just kidding, of course...

 

[Tetsubo]

I love monster books.
Like Jürgen, I could use a lot more templates.

Story first, then I look for an appropriate monster. Usually. Sometimes the monster is first.

Than check out Green Ronin's Advanced Bestiary. It has a 100 templates. Each with an illustration and example. There are some very cool ideas in this book.

 

[Tetsubo]

To answer the original question: Yes I need monster books. I find them inspiring and interesting reads in and of themselves. I own dozens of them for multiple systems. I also find campaign settings and tech books equally useful. I own books of both types for systems I don't even own and still get use from them.

 

[Desdichado]

Five Wizards monster books (and actually, 6). In chronological order:

1. Monster Manual
2. Monster Compendium: Monsters of Faerûn
3. Monster Manual 2
4. Fiend Folio
5. Monster Manual (revised edition)
6. Monster Manual 3

I own them all, plus both Tomes of Horrors and all three Creature Collections.

Well, I was folding MM and MM3.5 together. But good point; I missed the Faerun book.

EDIT: Sorry, Faerûn.