July 07: Monster Manual V, Maps of Adventure

[Pants]

Can you give examples of bad concepts and bad design? I'll agree with some of the art, though.

90% of the undead.
99% of the creatures with CRs > 20.

Bad concepts, well, can't really quantify that now. I like creatures that are probably pretty damn stupid and I also have a really visceral dislike of some other, equally stupid creatures.

As far as overall quality, MMII ranks lowest on my scale, but, fortunately, the few good monsters it has, I keep using. Which, I guess is more important, or something.

 

[Gundark]

If I missed the book with Mr. T, I'm gonna be pissed.

I pity the fool!!!

 

[BOZ]

IMHO...

MM1 > MM2 > MM3 > MM4...

i just hope the trend doesn't continue. :\

 

[JustKim]

IMHO...

MM1 > MM2 > MM3 > MM4...

i just hope the trend doesn't continue. :\

Well that is harsh and not a widely shared opinion. You must be just about the only person who considers MM2 to be better than MM3, and you're not even counting the other monster books, let alone the supplements with perfectly good monsters. If this trend as you see it is a steady decline in monster quality since the beginning of 3E, you and I must have very different ideas about what makes a good monster.

 

[glass]

90% of the undead.
99% of the creatures with CRs > 20.

Those are hardly 'examples'. Which undead? Which creatures with CR > 20? What was wrong with them?

My problem with MMII (apart from the crappy art) was the Death Knight. I don't see how they could call it that when it lacked the death knight's iconic PWK ability. I had to wait for DLcs for the proper version.


glass.

 

[BOZ]

Well that is harsh and not a widely shared opinion. You must be just about the only person who considers MM2 to be better than MM3, and you're not even counting the other monster books, let alone the supplements with perfectly good monsters. If this trend as you see it is a steady decline in monster quality since the beginning of 3E, you and I must have very different ideas about what makes a good monster.

i doubt that i'm the only one who considers MM2 better than MM3, and i don't get why some people seem to dislike MM2 so much. guess it's a matter of preference.

not sure which other monster supplements there are to consider, but i would put the FF above MM2.

 

[Imruphel]

Can you give examples of bad concepts and bad design? I'll agree with some of the art, though.

Sure- all IMO, of course.

Bad concepts:

Blood ape, cloaked ape and gambol: three different types of magical apes in the same book. It's not that compelling a concept that it needs repeating (OK, so that's 110& IMO).

Bronze Serpent: should have been a template. One of the Books of Eldritch Might did this: simply had a template to convert any other creature into a construct.

Bone Naga: should have been a template (and indeed this subsequently happened with the publication of Serpent Kingdoms).

Chaos Roc: "OK team, I've got a great idea for a new monster. We'll advance a roc and then give it a prismatic spray spell-like ability!" Now, how did that get past the development team?

Mudmaw: "OK team, after my great idea for the Chaos Roc I now propose a crocodile... with two tongues!" Hmmm....

Bad design:

Practically all of the undead take a decent concept and then have had their hit dice arbitrarily increased so as to fit a particular CR category. Check out:

Banshee: Medium with 26 HD... why? And what not make this a template? Actually, it's not even a template" just take a ghost and let it wail.

Deathbringer: 30 HD... why? And what's the source creature?

Effigy: Medium with 27 HD... why?

Famine Spirit: Medium with 32 HD... why?

Grave Crawler: Small with 25 HD... why?

Jahi: Tiny with 25 HD... why?

Bad art:

The worst piece of art in the whole book? The flesh jelly. Nobody should use a multi-testicled scrotum as an art model.

Why is the shadow spider that is described as a "shadowy arachnid" a rather fetching shade of bright green? Was it St Patrick's Day?

The bogun, bone ooze, galeb duhr, hook horror and nethersight mastiff (heck, what is that?) are not good pieces and hopefully will appear in key roles in a future Dungeon adventure so we can get some good art. And, OK, I think most people agree that Dennis Cramer/McClain/Crabapple is not WotC's best artist (and thankfully is no longer doing art for them) but the pictures of the red sundew and vaporighu are horrid. The jermlaine is also pretty unattractive.

None of these pictures, IMO, can be used in play to show the party what they're facing. They're just horrid.

Interestingly, now that I've taken a fresh look at MMII I've seen a few things I really like and hope to use. Maybe it wasn't as bad as my memory had me believing....

 

[BOZ]

Nobody should use a multi-testicled scrotum as an art model.

i'd ask what one should use it for, but i think the answer would give eric's grandma an anuerysm.

now, where did i put that century worm...

 

[RodneyThompson]

Fully acknowledging that I am probably biased, as a writer who may have worked on a particular book in a series of manuals about monsters coming out in 2007 (*clears throat*), I think doing new monsters instead of conversions for the Monster Manuals is a good thing.

When WotC doles out assignments for these monster books, they encourage people to create monsters that create interesting and exciting encounters. As a result, many, if not most, of the new monsters also include unique special qualities that allow them to do things that players haven't seen before. As an unashamed lover of Monster Manual IV, there are a lot of great encounters in that book. While I might disagree with some of the flavor (I mean, really? 30 pages of Spawn of Tiamat?) in my book there is no denying that the MMIV contains some of the most mechanically interesting monsters to ever exist in D&D. Nearly every monster in that book is an exciting encounter in a box, and I think that's a philosophy that carried over to, er, the theoretical book I might have worked on. WotC encourages its designers not to create monsters in a vacuum, but rather to think of them as the anchor of a cool encounter. During actual play, monsters that do new and unique things > monsters that my players have seen before, or so I've found. Some of the most interesting and exciting mechanics in D&D can be found in the special qualities of a lot of monsters, so why wouldn't you want to do more?

Contrary to the way the book reads, the book is designed to create mechanically interesting encounters first, with flavor as a parallel consideration. At least, that's been my experience. Ask some of the other designers, their mileage may vary.

I think (pure speculation here) that one reason WotC is reluctant to do a lot of conversions is that a conversion brings with it some mechanical baggage that might not translate well into 3.5. That, or the monster may be high on flavor, low on interesting mechanics, and as a result doing a faithful translation of the monster would likely result in ho-hum encounters. Also, creating a new monster allows the designer to flex their mechanics muscles and really think outside the box, which I think produces more exciting encounters. I know that if I were given my choice between, "Convert monster X" and "Create a new monster that does X" I'm going to choose the latter each time, because it lets me hand-craft the monster to meet a specific need.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have old monster conversions; far from it. In fact, I think a Big Book O' Monster Conversions (title pending) would be a great idea. However, I would only really be interested in such a book if they could do the same thing as the Monster Manuals of late and use those monsters to create exciting encounters. I think that's doable though. I can understand, though, that when faced with the decision between creating new monsters tailored to 3.5 mechanics and converting old monsters, most designers want to create something new.

As a fan and a DM (putting all writing aspects aside), I found MMIV to be far superior to MMII and even MMIII in some ways, just because I immediately wanted to plunder it for encounters (and I have). I've never understood the disdain for that book, but hey, if we didn't have different opinions then it would be a boring, boring game.

So, I hope that gives you some insight into WotC's logic, at least as I see it.

 

[Shade]

Well that is harsh and not a widely shared opinion. You must be just about the only person who considers MM2 to be better than MM3, and you're not even counting the other monster books, let alone the supplements with perfectly good monsters. If this trend as you see it is a steady decline in monster quality since the beginning of 3E, you and I must have very different ideas about what makes a good monster.

Umm...no. You'll see a wide mix of support for all the monster books here on these boards. MMIII is reviled by a large contingent (myself included) for its poor editing and some of the design decisions.

For me, taking just the full-blown monster books into consideration: FF > MM > MM2 > Monsters of Faerun > MM3 > MM4.