D&D 5E Is the 5e Monster Manual the best MM ever?

[Jools]

The Monster Vault was the masterpiece of 4e. Just perfect. It's hard for me to imagine a greater monster manual.

 

[Ellington]

I think it is the best one to come out so far, for sure.

It's packed with content while you rarely ever feel as if anything is filler. All the classic creatures I usually associate with D&D are in there and the rules for running them are simple and easy to use. There's also a lot of fluff which I've missed out on from recent editions (3.5/PF/4E).

I could probably find some later iterations in earlier editions that had a lot of neat creatures I iked, but as far as creating a solid core of monsters for an edition 5E has done it best.

 

[Paraxis]

The ways the MM could be better IMO.

• Fewer monsters that are monsters we don't need flumphs.
• Less fluff and giant pieces of art.
• Tactics commonly used by the monsters as suggestions for DM's would be nice.
• Fewer boring monsters that are just sacks of h.p and basic attacks.
• Size comparison chart.
• More variety of humaniods given, like 5 different types of goblins, kobolds, orcs, etc.
• Detailed monster building information, and how changing monsters adjusts CR and XP
• Templates to give monsters variety

Thats just a few ways this MM could be better and why it is not the best.

 

[Hand of Evil]

The ways the MM could be better IMO.

• Fewer monsters that are monsters we don't need flumphs.
• Less fluff and giant pieces of art.
• Tactics commonly used by the monsters as suggestions for DM's would be nice.
• Fewer boring monsters that are just sacks of h.p and basic attacks.
• Size comparison chart.
• More variety of humaniods given, like 5 different types of goblins, kobolds, orcs, etc.
• Detailed monster building information, and how changing monsters adjusts CR and XP
• Templates to give monsters variety

Thats just a few ways this MM could be better and why it is not the best.

we don't need flumphs --- yes, yes we do, just not in this Monster Manual, may be in a later one.
Tactics commonly used by the monsters as suggestions for DM's would be nice - yes, just a couple of words; ambusher, active hunter, territorial, pack hunter, night hunter, scavenger, etc.

 

[Nebulous]

I completely agree, the size comparison should be an integral part of every "monster manual".

Best MM IMO too.

I have to agree that the Monsternomicon is probably (slightly) better. I guess that no single monster manual is perfect, that just doesn't exist, but if i could take the best parts of 5 different ones...

 

[Nebulous]

The ways the MM could be better IMO.

• Fewer monsters that are monsters we don't need flumphs.
• Less fluff and giant pieces of art.
• Tactics commonly used by the monsters as suggestions for DM's would be nice.
• Fewer boring monsters that are just sacks of h.p and basic attacks.
• Size comparison chart.
• More variety of humaniods given, like 5 different types of goblins, kobolds, orcs, etc.
• Detailed monster building information, and how changing monsters adjusts CR and XP
• Templates to give monsters variety

Thats just a few ways this MM could be better and why it is not the best.

Yeah, a lot of those things keep the 5e MM from being pure awesome. My main thing out of all those would be interesting monster tactics. Any entry that just boils down to hit points, attack, damage is a wasted opportunity.

 

[Agamon]

I was tired and just came back from a night of gaming so wasn't thinking clearly. I had meant to imply that only D&D Monster Manuals from WotC/TSR counted for this poll, not all monster books from every system ever.

In your defence, MM = Monster Manual. Only D&D has had books called Monster Manuals.

 

[DM Howard]

It can't be the best ever, it didn't come in a three-ring binder.



If you hate money that much, I'm taking donations.

I know you're just teasing me, but you are referring to the most recent Hacklopedia of Beasts? I bought it purely for all the great ideas via the background given on the monsters, and the fact that it is written "in-universe" so to speak is a plus in my book. I really enjoy it and I hardly ever play Hackmaster these days.

 

[Grazzt]

I know you're just teasing me, but you are referring to the most recent Hacklopedia of Beasts? I bought it purely for all the great ideas via the background given on the monsters, and the fact that it is written "in-universe" so to speak is a plus in my book. I really enjoy it and I hardly ever play Hackmaster these days.

I think he's referring to the original 2e Monstrous Compendiums. They released as a three-ring binder. Subsequent "monster books" were loose inserts to be added.

 

[DMZ2112]

I know you're just teasing me, but you are referring to the most recent Hacklopedia of Beasts? I bought it purely for all the great ideas via the background given on the monsters, and the fact that it is written "in-universe" so to speak is a plus in my book. I really enjoy it and I hardly ever play Hackmaster these days.

Oh dear gods WHY AM I SO OLD?

I'm actually referring to the /original/ Hacklopedia, which consisted of ten $15 paperback black and white volumes. At the time I was incensed because I was really excited about Hackmaster and the release of a $150 monster sourcebook in the era of $30 hardbacks was unforgivable. It really seemed like Kenzer was drinking their own Kool-Aid and using Hard 8 marketing practices as well as writing style.

BUT THAT WAS 13 YEARS AGO, and (judging by your profile) you may not even be old enough to remember it!

*weeps quietly*