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

[Umbran]

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?

At this point, I expect my players are only going to opt in for D&D if it is for a particular adventure or adventure/setting that is attractive. I'm running Wilds Beyond the Witchlight for them right now. Maybe in the future they'll want me to run some Spelljammer.

For such particular use, I'll buy books I need for that use. That probably means I won't ever buy a full 3rd party tome of monsters.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'll continue to rely on Old Faithful: the AD&D 2nd ed Monstrous Manual.

Still my favorite, and my go to for lore. Level Up's Monstrous Menagerie is my primary for 5e, however.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Good luck using alternate statblocks on a VTT...... People are very adverse to change to standard stuff like statblocks, as the game is complicated enough as it is

If you're using a VTT at all, that is a potential issue. Lots of people still play other ways though.

 

[Zaukrie]

If you're using a VTT at all, that is a potential issue. Lots of people still play other ways though.

Agreed. Unfortunately, my friends are scattered.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

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.

Exactly this.

What I want of a Monster Manuel is a Challenge Manual. Give me monsters to fight, sure, but also all the other things that can drain the resources of a party.

• The evolutive traps of XGtE
• The magical environments and weather from TCoE
• Mob rules from the DMG
• Reaction rolls from the DMG

etc

By trimming the fat, you can make enough space to put all of this in the same book. I dont think we need 20 pages of dragons when a simple table based on age and color would do the trick. Same with the niche monsters: when was the last time you fought a galeb dhur?

 

[dave2008]

Art and dragons, or perhaps dragon art. I've loved the dragon art they have previewed (which I assume is for the 2024 MM). That alone is a reason for me to buy the 2024 MM.

I am less interested in monster design these days as no one seems to make monsters I like more than my own. I do like to get books for design inspiration though. I also do really buy the books for lore anymore. So it basically comes down to the art.

 

[jgsugden]

This is what I see happening: As the new games release, GM/DM will select a system to run and will use the books of that system - introducing house rules as they go. They'll ask people to join, and some of their usual players will grumble because they want to use a different system. In some instances, players will decline to join a game because of the system used and we'll see some increased turnover in gaming groups, perhaps resulting in some people getting caught on the outs in the game of musical chairs and seeing them tend towards other hobbies.

In other situations, they'll play, but feel less invested (think about how you feel when you're asked to try a new system that you don't think will be used enough for you to really invest in it). When they do play, many of them will have that tendency to point out why their choice of a game system does things better - which will be subjective and cause frustration, if not arguments (see: Edition Wars of 3.5/4E and 4E/5E).

As players get used to seeing multiple systems, they'll get confused on which features are in which system. They'll use "common" houserules that steal from one system that did something differently, and they'll bring house rules from one table to other tables in increasing numbers. It is much harder to master 3 or 4 systems than it is to master 1, so there will be a lot more rule questions - which some tables will handle with a, "we'll just make a call" attitude, but others will struggle under, "No, this matters, and I want to play it right, so let me look it up, AHA! You were wrong DM! Right here on page 139 it says ... WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU'RE OVERRULING THE BOOK! THAT TOTALLY SCREWS MY CHARACTER!" (Yes - I know those players are not our first preference for players at our tables ... but that doesn't mean those types of players are not amongst our good friends, and that we don't either end up playing with them or damaging friendships that mean something outside the game).

All in all: If the industry does not have a single dominant game, the industry will suffer. And, unfortunately, WotC/Hasbro screwed up and too many people have invested in too many competing systems for us to have the benefits of a psuedo monoipoly that we had in the AD&D, 2E, 3E and 5E eras. We'll be stuck with an even more devisive version of the 4E/Pathfinder schism with 4 or 5 games splitting the market for a while until some start to fail ... but by then the damage will be done.

 

[RoughCoronet0]

I really couldn’t just chose one monster book to settle on. I’ve currently got about…28 or so 3rd party monster manual type pdfs at this point, not to mention several books that enhance or add to monsters, or the official monster books like the MM or Fizban’s.

Honestly though, I don’t often use the base stat block of any given monster, but instead will scan through my large list of creatures to pluck various attacks, abilities, legendary actions, lair actions, and other actions to create my own creatures. I’m currently doing it now creating three unique constructs each with their own theme, one with the power to warp time, one able to affect gravity, and one with anti-magic properties. It’s one of my favorite things to do now as a DM.

 

[mamba]

All in all: If the industry does not have a single dominant game, the industry will suffer. And, unfortunately, WotC/Hasbro screwed up and too many people have invested in too many competing systems for us to have the benefits of a psuedo monoipoly that we had in the AD&D, 2E, 3E and 5E eras. We'll be stuck with an even more devisive version of the 4E/Pathfinder schism with 4 or 5 games splitting the market for a while until some start to fail ... but by then the damage will be done.

I am not sure I agree with the premise that a dominant game is a good thing to have. At a minimum I see a limit to how much dominance is good.

I also do not think that WotC is less dominant now than it was in a long time (basically since PF split the player base), those stumbles amount to nothing in the long run. We will all know more in two years.

 

[Parmandur]

And, unfortunately, WotC/Hasbro screwed up and too many people have invested in too many competing systems for us to have the benefits of a psuedo monoipoly that we had in the AD&D, 2E, 3E and 5E eras.

I mean, not really. I don't know that a Monopoly is socially desirable, but WotC dominance of the field seems to be continuing space irregardless of some controversies.