Little Monster Book/Big Price

[d20master]

What the h*ll is up with the Monster Manual? The one book that should've been the thickest is (especially for $30) the thinest! Wizards should have stuck at least most of the critters form Monsters of Faerun in the Monster Manual, and the rest should've gone to the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting!
That's my opinion, I welcome yours.

 

[gamecat]

Let me be the first to point out that this belongs to the general rpg forum...

Personally, the core 3 were printed with a $10 discount (the back reads $19.99) built into them, as Mages of the Beach wanted a $60 buy-in, not $90. Given the production breakdown, availiable at www.seankreynolds.com, You're getting a deal.

As to Monsters of Faerun, thats a ripoff...

 

[d20master]

Sorry about the thread location, sometimes it's so hard for me to tell the difference.
Anyway, my only point was that with all three books costing the same, the one that had potential for the most information had (comparatively) the least. That, and I just like to b*tch too.

 

[Zappo]

Well, to me the monsters book is the least important. For starting players, that is. Starting players don't need hundreds of monsters, because everything is new. A good PHB and DMG are more important. And since the core books need to be aimed at newbies first, I think WotC did the right thing. Except for the horrible layout, that is.

 

[Celebrim]

I've always been of the opinion that any DM worth his salt doesn't need a monster manual or a list of magic items available in his campaign. Cutting and pasting is fine, but its not that much harder to make up everything on your own. Half to two-thirds of the published monsters I end up modifying in some fashion anyway, and I'd be embarassed to write an adventure that didn't have at least one unique magic item.

 

[Alaric_Prympax]

I agree that the MM should have been bigger. Then I did get a little upset that a lot of the creatures in Monsters of Faerun were part of the game long before FR was a published campaign... but that's another ran... I mean thread.

I'm looking forward to Necromancer's Tome of Horrors, a book that's been long over due IMO, also BoVD for the cool creatures that will be in there; much more than MM II. But lucky for me I can get all them from work and enjoy an employee discount. Whoo! Hoo!

 

[rounser]

Zappo, Celebrim:

Players new to the game get excited about the sheer range of cool monsters, spells and magic items available. If you didn't when first exposed to the game, check thy pulse.

My big complaint about the 3E monster manual is that it doesn't have enough cool monsters that I'd like to include in my game. Too many are there for gamist reasons alone, which is why the MM is, IMO, the biggest disappointment of the 3E core books.

Monsters are a large part of the appeal of D&D which, of late, seems to be in vogue to underestimate ("Humans are the best monster, you don't need anything else!"), and I agree with d20master that it should have been the thickest of the books for game reasons (as opposed to the commercial reasoning which determined it's page count).

The appeal of D&D to new players has, I think, taken a hit with the bland coat of paint that the core MM gives the game. Luckily, MM2 and ToH should help rectify that.

 

[Krug]

Well it's available at Amazon for around $21 (Used copies from $13). Throw in an amazon coupon such as MAPMCEXCLUS2 ($5 off $35), some other items to boost the price to $49 so you get free shipping, and the price isn't so monstrous anymore.

Skill: Shopper +4

 

[Celebrim]

rounser:

"My big complaint about the 3E monster manual is that it doesn't have enough cool monsters that I'd like to include in my game."

That's basically just what I said. But, I think it is more a product of each DM having different feelings about what makes a 'good' monster. One DM's cool monster is another DM's cheese and another DM's vanilla. That I feel the need to modify most of the monsters only proves that I didn't write the book, but if I did, I'm sure Monte, Skip, Sean, Bruce, and the gang wouldn't be completely satisfied with it either. If we tend, as DM's, to find each other's monsters 'stupid', then it only shows that we are imaginitive and original people with definite opinions about the feel and atmosphere of our campaign. It doesn't prove that the people who wrote the book weren't. Some of the new monsters are pretty nice. I've already used Allips.

The number of monsters from 1st and 2nd edition that were left out of MM1 and which I would probably use in a single campaign is probably rather small. And those that are most likely to be use are probably things you'd call vanilla or cheese or which have always been ignored by it seems everyone but me. In fact the number is so small, they I'd just as soon convert them as needed myself than spend 30 bucks on a book.

But, your point about newbies is well taken. On the other hand, I don't think it is the newbies that are disappointed with MM1.

 

[rounser]

Well, 2E, 1E, and oD&D had their fair share of lame-tastic or appeal-deficient monsters (the bhaergala and tirapheg leap to mind), and your point that we'll never all agree is well taken. For example, I think that, aesthetically speaking, assymmetrical bodies and sonic based attacks are lame, but someone on the 3E design team likes 'em because that's what's in there.

I still think that the MM creature selection was done to serve gamist design principles at the expense of D&D atmosphere, storytelling and aesthetics, and the result of that is perhaps why I think that it's something of a disappointing book in those respects.

It is admirable that the designers were attempting to support levels beyond 1-10 with the monster selection, and make bards feel useful occasionally to boot, but I think that this was done at the expense of other considerations which make a monsters appealing - and, more importantly, D&D as a game appealing.

I hope they seriously consider an approach such as going through old Dungeon magazines and modules and counting which creatures end up in the most adventures when determining what should appear in the 4E MM. To state my assumptions, those monsters which appear the most in published adventures are probably the most useful for constructing adventures (which are the heart of D&D) or appealed to the module authors enough that they were included, and therefore have the most right to make it into the core book.

Who knows - maybe the 3E designers did that, but it sure doesn't look like it to me...