Do you want updated core books?

[Argyle King]

But if you are going to revise EVERY SINGLE monster in MM1 then why bother? Just make a whole new book with new versions of monsters. Maybe call it MM3 or Monster Vault. Really what would be needed would be improved versions of old standbys like dragons. They can simply be named something slightly different, like Red Dragon Deluxe or whatever.


Contrary to what some other posters have said its just not a problem to print out the errata for specific books, slap it in an binder and check it if you really need to. Any DM that doesn't have the core rules pretty much to heart in any case seems pretty odd to me. I haven't looked up a general rule in a good long while. Changes to powers and such are trivial, they show up in CB and get incorporated on the player's sheet, so big deal. Who cares about errata to monsters? I use the stat blocks I like and customize them anyway, what's in the MMs is just grist for the mill. If I happen to use it and I happen to not notice it got errata and it worked fine for that encounter then what do I care?

I don't use CB, so it doesn't help me at all that it prints that information out.

For me, I would want a reworked MM1 instead of a new book for most of the same reasons why I would have loved a revision 3rd Edition Monster Manual 2 instead of a new monster manual. One of those reasons is that the new version of the game is different enough from the old version that I would like to be able to use things from the old MM and have them perform in the way they are supposed to when introduced into the new version of the game.

It was still completely possible to use monsters from 3rd Edition's MM2, but the CRs were normally not very accurate, and things which originally seemed like small changes that shouldn't matter did indeed have an impact on how a fight went. Likewise, I see very different results when I put things from 4th Edition's MM1 against PCs now than I did when I first used some of those creatures against PCs who were built using 4th Edition rules in their original form.

I actually think it's more important for the GM (and by extension, the monsters) to have rules which work properly than it is for a PC to be unaware of a power's errata. D&D Monsters are meant to be defeated; so, if a PC goes through a few encounters without noticing he was doing something wrong, that's not that big of a deal, and it only impacts a few encounters and defeats monsters which were there to be defeated anyway. However, if a monster or set of monsters doesn't work as intended, that impacts all of the players by either the accidental killing of PCs or causing grind which bores the players. Neither of those is good.

While I am perfectly capable of tweaking monsters on my own; at the time being, I honestly don't fully grasp the ideals behind the new direction the game is taking, so I am not always sure of what changes I should make. Also, when I consider that I don't spend nearly as much time with D&D as I used to (due to starting to play a different system as my primary gaming system), it's a better use of my time -in my opinion- to be able to look something up and know it's right. The appeal of D&D is quick set up; if I'm taking extra time to make tweaks and such to the system, I might as well just stick with the other games I play which are built in a way to better reward working with the nuts and bolts of the game. I'm sure that not everyone would like a revamped MM1; personally, I would; the question was if I would buy it, and it is possible that I might. Though, to be honest, I'd have to be convinced that I want to invest more into D&D first.