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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Does Anybody Else Seriously Love the Monster Manual? My Thoughts on the MM.
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="Kinneus" data-source="post: 6499341" data-attributes="member: 48215"><p>No, I saw them. I just think it's a tad ridiculous that I have to edit a monster to get a basic elven scout, or a dwarven warrior or something like that.</p><p></p><p>For example: I was personally disappointed that atropals weren't in the MM, because they're a personal favorite monster of mine. But you'll notice I didn't include that in my list of gripes earlier, because I don't think it's a legitimate complaint. Sure atropals are cool to me personally, but they also are kind of a niche monster, and the MM was pretty packed as it was, so I can understand why they wouldn't be included.</p><p></p><p>It would be an unusual campaign, though, where the party didn't encounter elves, dwarves, skeletons or zombies even once. So the fact that they don't get any (or, in the case of basic undead, more) attention seems unusual to me. Not quite a mistake, not quite an oversight, but a design/editing decision I don't personally agree with at all. So a gripe, I guess. I hear a lot of people say, "Oh, there's no difference between an orc skeleton or a human skeleton." Agreed! There is, however, a very large difference between a human skeleton and an owlbear skeleton. Or an orc zombie and chimera zombie. This is why a template would've been useful, and it's baffling to me that's lacking in a book that managed to find space for flumphs, xorn, and like six dang pages for modrons. Did the designers really think, "Oh, we don't need to include stats for a dwarven warrior. When do PCs ever run into those? But let's make sure to include the merrow, everybody knows mutated evil mermaids are a mandatory part of any campaign."</p><p></p><p>So not only did it fail to cover the basics (in my eyes; yes I can modify the NPCs but it strikes me as odd that I have to modify anything to make a bog-standard elf), what is there is overly-focused on "evil humanoids what hit you with clubs." Seriously. Like a dozen monsters fall into that category. Goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, gnolls, orcs, ogres, trolls, ettins, hill giants, grimlocks, troglodytes, kobolds... and I'm probably missing a few. We have pages and pages of those. And even where there were opportunities to differentiate some creatures mechanically (like salamanders), nope. We got more of the same; evil humanoid with oh yeah sure fire resistance.</p><p></p><p>Again, I love the 5e MM. I'm just saying it wasn't perfect.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Kinneus, post: 6499341, member: 48215"] No, I saw them. I just think it's a tad ridiculous that I have to edit a monster to get a basic elven scout, or a dwarven warrior or something like that. For example: I was personally disappointed that atropals weren't in the MM, because they're a personal favorite monster of mine. But you'll notice I didn't include that in my list of gripes earlier, because I don't think it's a legitimate complaint. Sure atropals are cool to me personally, but they also are kind of a niche monster, and the MM was pretty packed as it was, so I can understand why they wouldn't be included. It would be an unusual campaign, though, where the party didn't encounter elves, dwarves, skeletons or zombies even once. So the fact that they don't get any (or, in the case of basic undead, more) attention seems unusual to me. Not quite a mistake, not quite an oversight, but a design/editing decision I don't personally agree with at all. So a gripe, I guess. I hear a lot of people say, "Oh, there's no difference between an orc skeleton or a human skeleton." Agreed! There is, however, a very large difference between a human skeleton and an owlbear skeleton. Or an orc zombie and chimera zombie. This is why a template would've been useful, and it's baffling to me that's lacking in a book that managed to find space for flumphs, xorn, and like six dang pages for modrons. Did the designers really think, "Oh, we don't need to include stats for a dwarven warrior. When do PCs ever run into those? But let's make sure to include the merrow, everybody knows mutated evil mermaids are a mandatory part of any campaign." So not only did it fail to cover the basics (in my eyes; yes I can modify the NPCs but it strikes me as odd that I have to modify anything to make a bog-standard elf), what is there is overly-focused on "evil humanoids what hit you with clubs." Seriously. Like a dozen monsters fall into that category. Goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, gnolls, orcs, ogres, trolls, ettins, hill giants, grimlocks, troglodytes, kobolds... and I'm probably missing a few. We have pages and pages of those. And even where there were opportunities to differentiate some creatures mechanically (like salamanders), nope. We got more of the same; evil humanoid with oh yeah sure fire resistance. Again, I love the 5e MM. I'm just saying it wasn't perfect. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Does Anybody Else Seriously Love the Monster Manual? My Thoughts on the MM.
Top