D&D 5E How will you pick a Monster Manual alternative?

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The time when WotC has the only Monster Manual-style core monster book is already over and will get less over as time goes on, post SRD going into Creative Commons.

We already have Level Up's Monstrous Menagerie. Kobold Press is crowdfunding its Monster Vault now. Presumably we'll see something similar from Cubicle 7. And they're not likely to be the end of such books. And, of course, there's the 2024 Monster Manual, which will presumably look a lot like Monsters of the Multiverse.

Some folks, with big wallets and expansive shelf space, will likely get all of them. But if you were choosing just one, how would you decide?

 

[bedir than]

Only one?!?!?

If I had to decide I would first think about what my main campaign uses the most and which monster book makes those monsters the most interesting to encounter.

 

[Professor Murder]

It's my experience that the MM tends to cover "the basics" with other materials tending to be more expansive. So if you only were buying one, you probably still buy the MM.

 

[Quickleaf]

The time when WotC has the only Monster Manual-style core monster book is already over and will get less over as time goes on, post SRD going into Creative Commons.

We already have Level Up's Monstrous Menagerie. Kobold Press is crowdfunding its Monster Vault now. Presumably we'll see something similar from Cubicle 7. And they're not likely to be the end of such books. And, of course, there's the 2024 Monster Manual, which will presumably look a lot like Monsters of the Multiverse.

Some folks, with big wallets and expansive shelf space, will likely get all of them. But if you were choosing just one, how would you decide?

Each one has a trade off. Skerples' The Monster Overhaul is more my speed these days because I find it's a great source of inspiration.

All of the examples you gave – WotC, EN Publishing, Kobold Press – I feel fall into the pigeon-holing of repeating/emulating WotC's stat block that is hyper-focused on what monsters do in combat. For me (not presuming I speak for the majority, or even a sizable minority), I think that woefully undersells the imagination of these monsters.

I'll give a super conservative example. During 4th, you'd sometimes see in monster stat blocks 2 separate lines – one for Javelin attack in melee, another for Javelin attack at range. AFAIK, when I wrote "Court of Stars: The Wild Hunt" in the last online Dragon Magazine issue 428 (October 2013), and I combined melee/ranged into a single attack, that was the first time that was done in 4e. For me it was a no brainer, but we (collectively as gamers & also the designers) tend to fixate on replicating this one way of presenting a monster.

And that's not getting into more interesting redesigns like I shared for my take on the Peryton where I divided that stat block into three parts: Exploration, Roleplay, and Combat.

I think "one size stat block fits all" is a fallacy – even the green slime in the 5e DMG rules themselves shows how that is a fallacy. Why aren't there riddles under the Sphinx entry? Am I really expected to have a tactical combat to kill a unicorn or might that word count be better reserved for something more inspiring? Do I really need a whole new stat block for an urd (it's a flying kobold!), or might a list of kobold traps be a better use of that space?

I know D&D and adjacent games tend to stat up everything to the nines, but I think a lot gets lost there, and – in my humble personal view – that's to the detriment of the game because it leads to "death by thousand cuts" of some very rich lore that makes for a more interesting story.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Each one has a trade off. Skerples' The Monster Overhaul is more my speed these days because I find it's a great source of inspiration.

All of the examples you gave – WotC, EN Publishing, Kobold Press – I feel fall into the pigeon-holing of repeating/emulating WotC's stat block that is hyper-focused on what monsters do in combat. For me (not presuming I speak for the majority, or even a sizable minority), I think that woefully undersells the imagination of these monsters.

I dunno, I think you're on to something here. I have been growing increasingly disappointed by 5e monster design and I haven't even begun to put my finger on exactly how to fix it. I always feel like the stat-block both has too much useless clutter of repeated information that doesn't matter much, and yet... most of the time boils down to AC:XX HP:YY Attack/Damage.

I'll give a super conservative example. During 4th, you'd sometimes see in monster stat blocks 2 separate lines – one for Javelin attack in melee, another for Javelin attack at range. AFAIK, when I wrote "Court of Stars: The Wild Hunt" in the last online Dragon Magazine issue 428 (October 2013), and I combined melee/ranged into a single attack, that was the first time that was done in 4e. For me it was a no brainer, but we (collectively as gamers & also the designers) tend to fixate on replicating this one way of presenting a monster.

I remember thinking that 4e monsters weren't very well designed in general, but I miss them now. At least most of them could do One Cool Thing, which I find 5e ones don't even go there.

And that's not getting into more interesting redesigns like I shared for my take on the Peryton where I divided that stat block into three parts: Exploration, Roleplay, and Combat.

Where's that? I'd like to have a look.

I think "one size stat block fits all" is a fallacy – even the green slime in the 5e DMG rules themselves shows how that is a fallacy. Why aren't there riddles under the Sphinx entry? Am I really expected to have a tactical combat to kill a unicorn or might that word count be better reserved for something more inspiring? Do I really need a whole new stat block for an urd (it's a flying kobold!), or might a list of kobold traps be a better use of that space?

I've long felt that ~3 optional variants should be with (nearly) every monster's statblock. But I think you're right: Big complicated monsters shouldn't even use the same block as simple ones. Much more of the game, IMO, should look at what things are actually used for, and design that bit appropriately for its use.

 

[Quickleaf]

I dunno, I think you're on to something here. I have been growing increasingly disappointed by 5e monster design and I haven't even begun to put my finger on exactly how to fix it. I always feel like the stat-block both has too much useless clutter of repeated information that doesn't matter much, and yet... most of the time boils down to AC:XX HP:YY Attack/Damage.

Right, if the monster is a likely "showcase combat" monster meant to be encountered by itself or small group? That makes a lot of sense to draw on 4e design.

Where's that? I'd like to have a look.

Couldn't find it on the forum, so I attached a snapshot. It's not without flaws - treat it as proof of concept, rather than finished product.

I've long felt that ~3 optional variants should be with (nearly) every monster's statblock. But I think you're right: Big complicated monsters shouldn't even use the same block as simple ones. Much more of the game, IMO, should look at what things are actually used for, and design that bit appropriately for its use.

It depends. The big picture for me is that ANY one size fits all approach to monsters is missing the boat. Because monsters are incredibly diverse in how they get used.

Do we need ~3 variants of unicorn or mimic or sphinx stats? No, I don't think so. Those types of monsters have unique purposes – quest McGuffin/ally, gotcha, and riddle/puzzle/quest-giver. So their design should focus on making it easy & fun for GM to run those things. I'm not saying nix the stats entirely, btw, just that the focus should be retuned away from hyper combat focus.

Whereas a typical "monstrous humanoid" like a goblin, ogre, kobold, troll? Yeah, definitely, variants makes a lot of sense.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

It's my experience that the MM tends to cover "the basics" with other materials tending to be more expansive. So if you only were buying one, you probably still buy the MM.

These books are specifically trying to fill the same niche, minus a handful of WotC-only critters, like displacer beasts, that they're replacing with their own spins on the concept.

One could, in theory, use Monster Vault or Monstrous Menagerie and never need the Monster Manual unless one was all-in on a carrion crawler-centric campaign. (It could happen!)

 

[cbwjm]

I'd probably still go with the MM, but I do like what I've seen in Flee Mortals! So I might get that instead if I had to pick just one.

 

[mamba]

C7 is not creating a Monster Manual as far as I know, only a PHB and DMG. I guess they know that there are many competing MMs already.

I have no idea if I will even have a default MM. If anything it is probably WotC's, because most of the 3pp material is built around it, from Monster Manual Expanded to Bloodied & Bruised or Recharged, giving me a variety of options.

I assume I will mix and match from different books however, I backed Flee Mortals and ToV, have the Monstrous Menagerie and intend to get the second part once that becomes available. I am partial to monster books, what can I say

The problem with picking one is that you either pick 'randomly' based on a piece of info you heard and like, while missing a lot of other information, or you have to do an in depth comparison to determine which one you may like best, and I am not sure how feasible that is in practice if you do not own the books yet (or have equivalent access).

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The problem with picking one is that you either pick 'randomly' based on a piece of info you heard and like, while missing a lot of other information, or you have to do an in depth comparison to determine which one you may like best, and I am not sure how feasible that is in practice if you do not own the books yet (or have equivalent access).

I am counting on people like you doing in-depth head to head comparisons of these books in 2024.