Favorite/Least Favorite Monster Books

[smetzger]

Worst monster book:
3e MM - bad layout, art doesn't match monster description, and very close to false advertiseing on the number of monsters, I also greatly dislike some of the pictures.
Also, didn't include pretemplate applied creatures for summoning spells.

Best book:
1e FF: layout is good, lots of cool monsters. Sure you've got the much maligned flumph but there are so many other great ones. Plus, it definantly has the best cover of any monster book.

 

[teitan]

I got to get in on this for a few points here...

WOrst Monster Book? MOnsters of Faerun. This book should be about 8 dollars cheaper. I run the Realms right now and refuse to buy this book for that cost and people on Ebay expect you to pay retail plus shipping. NO WAY. The monsters are interesting but the cost is too much. I understand the focus on color books for the Realms especially with the new artworks reliance on exquisite color but still it is way too much for this book.

Now onto the Marvel way stuff. I wasn't much for the art in the monster book to represent the monsters of DND and the new book is much better than the Monstrous Manual (why the title change in 2E eh?) but I don't think bashing the Marvel way like art is justifiable. Butler is not currently th best artist in the worldl but Marvel way is a great book to learn from when it comes to the basics. Butler's art is extremely sound but was outdated in a time when Todd Mcfarlane, Liefeld and Lee dominated our vision of what good artwork should be. I agree that these men are superior to Butler, but none of them holds a candle to John Buscema or the originator of the Marvel way of art, Jack Kirby.

 

[Eridanis]

For my own part, I have no problem with Butler's art per se. It was just inappropriate for a book of fantasy monsters, especially when compared to DiTerlizzi's work in the book (it was the first time I'd seen Tony's work, and it blew me away, even in small 2 inch by 2 inch portions).

 

[Squire James]

My favorite monster book was the MM2 back in 1e AD&D days... really rounded out that demon prince and archdevil collection (ie: needed targets for PC's who weren't ready to smash Thor yet...). Not terribly useful today, but whatever.

I have two books vying for the "least favorite" are Monsters of Faerun and CC1. Both struck me as rush jobs that were released simply to vacuum in a few bucks before the "real thing" arrived. I managed to use some contents of the MoF (the dreaded Terrier of Bane, a small dog with the "Beast of Xvim" template). I admit CC1 has some very creative monsters that I will probably never use. So I have to pull a Bud Selig and call it a tie...

 

[Arcane Runes Press]

Although in many ways I like it, the Creatures of Rokugan book is flawed in that you seem to need the Rokugan campaign setting book to use it fully. I bought the thing hoping it would be more "plug and play." Some of the illustrations aren't as good as I would have liked either, but others are nice.

I'm curious to know why you think this is a "flaw". The monsters in the book are specifically designed for use in Rokugan, so the designers tied them in with the special rules of the Rokugan sourcebook. That isn't a flaw, it's system linkage.

OTOH, I agree with you about some of the art. The inking is too heavy for my taste.

My choices:

Favorite: Oriental Adventures. I know it's not a "monster book" entirely, but a very considerable section of the book is dedicated to monster entries. The art is outstanding, the monsters are unique and the design is impeccable.

Least Favorite (that I own): CC2. There are some cool monsters and the art and design are better than CC1, but the monsters just aren't as good. The names are especially grating, particularly the 12 monsters with "Blood" in their name.

Patrick Y.

 

[Zog]

I have to give a vote of Support to Monsters of Faerun. I thought the detail and actual ecology info for the monsters was a 100% improvement over the Monster Manual. There wasn't much, but compared to the nothing in the MM, it was good stuff. The Siv, the Fog Giants, the Draconians, the Bane monsters - and others. All of the monsters have that extra bit of detail, ecology, where they livem, what they DO, that makes them interesting and makes encounter ideas begin to simmer and brew in the mind. The MM had stat blocks. MOF and CC1 (despite the art) had Interesting Tidbits of detail. The detail makes them interesting to read and think about - even if you don't end up using all of the monsters.

So, of the three monster books I've seen for 3e - The monster manual is my least favorite. MoF is the best, and the CC is in the middle.

The old fiend folio was never much of a favorite - I preferred MM2 by far. The interior art of the FF didn't do much for me.

 

[Nightfall]

Well Josh, I hope you realize this. I love the book for the CREATURES, not the artwork. I felt THAT was in places subpar. I prefer the artists they are using now for things like the SLCS and even in places, Wilderness and Wastelands.

 

[Desdichado]

I'm talking about the general feeling of hatred I get from CC1. IMO, it's simply unwarranted. The book has quite a few strong points, even if it does some some prominent weaknesses as well.

As to whether or not the system linkage of Creatures of Rokugan is a flaw or a feature, I suppose that's debatable. In my opinion, referring to another book that the buyer may or may not have, depending on what he wants to do with the book, considerably diminishes it's value and is a flaw.

 

[hong]

As to whether or not the system linkage of Creatures of Rokugan is a flaw or a feature, I suppose that's debatable. In my opinion, referring to another book that the buyer may or may not have, depending on what he wants to do with the book, considerably diminishes it's value and is a flaw.

I'm not sure that the amount of system linkage in CoR is really that great. When you get down to it, a horrible demon from the nether planes is a horrible demon from the nether planes, no matter what it's called.

The only Rokugan-specific mechanic that's hard to yank out is Taint (and maybe Void points). Other than that, most of the monsters should be easy to use in any setting. You have a bunch of Rokugan-specific creature subtypes (Shadowlands, Lying Darkness, blah blah), but they don't play a major role, mechanics-wise.

 

[Desdichado]

If I recall, there were a few feats that I didn't recognize as well in some of the tougher monster descriptions.

Still, I'd agree, it doesn't kill the book, it just leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I'd have preferred they either not do it at all, or provide a page or two at the beginning describing the rules they were going to incorporate in the book that weren't "core."