L&L 4/16 - A Walk Down Monster Lane

[Mercule]

One question: Since they said iconic monsters should be assumed to be included, why was blink dog even in the poll? Surely, those are iconic.

Otherwise, gimme demons, devils, yugoloths, modrons, dragons. Include the arch-X for the above, too. Maybe throw in the animal lords for fun, but those could wait for MM2.

 

[Stormonu]

While I figure dragons are iconic,with them putting Catastrophic dragon (!?!) on the list, I'm a bit suprised the didn't list "dragon, chromatic", "dragon, metallic" (and most of all) "dragon, gemstone" to at least figure out which dragons to put in there.

I gotta say though, there hasn't been a monster book for D&D that I'd turned down the chance to get. Monsters are the most interesting thing in the game to me - I couldn't imagine playing D&D with only human enemies.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Look to the awesome Hacklopedia of Beasts to see all the cool information that can be in a monster manual. Itn is simply beautiful.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I despise, hate, loathe, disdain, dislike, and abhor the binder format from the 2E Monstrous Compendium. There's not likely much that would keep me from getting all the D&D Next core books, but that'd come awfully close.

 

[WarlockLord]

Hooray for contentless articles, which are not wastes of time!

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I despise, hate, loathe, disdain, dislike, and abhor the binder format from the 2E Monstrous Compendium. There's not likely much that would keep me from getting all the D&D Next core books, but that'd come awfully close.

I'd still get it, but buy only one monster manual, grudingly, and then make up all my own monsters from then on, until they recanted.

 

[Hussar]

Dunno, Mercule. Are blink dogs really iconic? Sure, they've appeared in all the editions, but, do they actually get used?

There's a bunch of legacy monsters that keep getting reprinted, but, are rarely seen in any official publications. I could see blink dogs being in the same category as pixies.

The only thing that I'm really, really concerned about is that the monster manual includes monsters that are meant to fill out an adventure. I don't mind "good" monsters that are there to be more or less allies to the PC's - Dryad comes to mind - but, no trap or aha-gotcha one hit wonder monsters please. They listed Piercer as I recall. The darkmantle is a much, MUCH better monster. Do that with the trap monsters and I'm happy.

And people keep talking about these yugoloth things. What are they? Some kind of Eastern European cheap car?

[sblock]I kid, I kid. No, put that down. OW OW OW OW. Stop Hitting me... Oh the ... ARRRGHHG!![/sblock]

 

[Lanefan]

Of the various monsters listed, I ticked about half of 'em and probably wouldn't mind too much if they threw in the other half as well; as this is one case where more is almost always better. I'm surprised that things like Pixie, Merfolk, Brownie, Sylph etc. are not considered iconic, however.

As for format, I prefer the 1e format: keep it compact but use whatever space is required for a useful description. Don't waste space trying to make each entry a specific length/size, because every bit of wasted space means another monster ain't gonna fit.

And dammit, I didn't think of Flumph when I got to "other". Sorry about that, Flumph fans!

Lan-"more monsters in the book means more monsters for me to kill"-efan

 

[Incenjucar]

Sadly, 4E was really low on faerie tail and mythological creatures, not to mention aquatic creatures and non-dragon beasts - the folks at WotC seem to be focusing on creatures they can trademark.

 

[stevelabny]

Here's my 200 words at the end abusing bad english and hyphens as necessary.

devils/demons ok. maybe some demon/devil lords. The Tarrasque. Maybe 1-2 other campaign-enders. but deities and such=NO.

Needs 400+ pages for necessary variety.

How about NEW iconic monsters? Every edition spends 2-3 books reprinting old monsters and then puts in some lame new monsters that I can't imagine anyon thinks are cool. FOCUS on making new things we'll love.

How is centaur even a maybe? Centaurs are MUST. And if the rust monster isn't in it, I'm not buying it. I check all the monsters I think are MUSTHAVES, although most on that list are probably should haves.

Lore for player-use is GREAT but MM is DMbook. Will sacrifice some new art for iconic art and morepages/cheaperprice.

Entries should be 1-2 pages. No half pages. No blank space. Stats, picture, detailed description, lore/ecology - broken down into how common the knowledge is, common tactics, common variants.

Book should have monsters + 10-20 pages on how to build monsters and how to tweak monsters for level. Absolutely DO NOT WANT multiple versions of each monster fully statted in the book. That's what your online component should be for. Your online MM can include professional AND fan-made variants for all levels / adventure types.