MM4 Table of Contents up

[EricNoah]

That's actually the stuff I'm most interested in. I like having a variety of "types" to choose from of the "workhorse" types of monsters, the ones that get the most use in a campaign. I like mixing 'n' matching 'em to come up with interesting raiding parties, garrisons, villages, etc.

Agreed -- Yes, when I have time I certainly like to stat up my own drow and other bad guys, but this looks like a useful move to have more ready-made stats at the DM's fingertips. Heck, I wouldn't mind a whole book like that just based on the first four/five MMs.

 

[Evil Monkey]

I am not liking what I am seeing. Gnolls, drow, orcs, githyanki, yuan-ti and ogres take up too much space for existing creatures

Not too long ago, I would have agreed with you. Nowadays, I actually like a lot of this, because I don't have a whole lot of time for game preparation anymore. I love having stats for creatures with templates and class levels and stuff like that added on. I wouldn't even mind an entire book of monsters from the MM with class levels/templates (from various sources) added on for me already. I realize that wouldn't be for everybody, but I would snatch it up in an instant.

As for the rest, I've always been a sucker for new monsters. The clockroach made me chuckle and I'm glad they're giving stats for creatures previously only in DDM. The lairs, feats, and whatnot may be nice, or they could be boring; that wouldn't stop me from buying the book, though.

 

[EricNoah]

I wouldn't even mind an entire book of monsters from the MM with class levels/templates (from various sources) added on for me already.

Me too! (always a useful reply! )

 

[Shade]

Also, nary a single updated creature from previous editions. I'm beginning to fear the only official place we'll ever see the dergholoth, gacholoth, and hydroloth is in the pages of Dragon. Same goes for the quickling, the remaining celestials and rilmani...

 

[Knight Otu]

That's actually the stuff I'm most interested in. I like having a variety of "types" to choose from of the "workhorse" types of monsters, the ones that get the most use in a campaign. I like mixing 'n' matching 'em to come up with interesting raiding parties, garrisons, villages, etc.

Sure, those sample characters can be useful, but in my opinion, unless the base creature is introduced in that book, classed variants don't belong into monster manuals. And programs such as NPCDesigner, creating such characters is quite easy as well.

 

[EricNoah]

I am looking forward to seeing the stuff that's added beyond just a catalog of monsters -- the sample lair, the maps, etc. I think that helps make it a more complete product, and I prefer that to a few extra monsters. But we'll see how it actually turns out. The "for players" stuff also sounds handy.

 

[Kafkonia]

I'd have liked to see more Oozes and Constructs and fewer variant humanoids, but for all I know some of the inobviously-named creatures fit the bill.

It'll be a browser. And then I'll probably buy it. I seem incapable of not buying things these days. :/

 

[Shade]

Two Monster Manuals in a row with no true dragons. Apparently Year of Dragons only applies to spawn.

It looks more at home in last year's Year of Drow, eh?

 

[Ripzerai]

While I smile at the inclusion of the 'loths, there are still 2e 'loths that have yet to be converted over to 3.x. I'd have appreciated their inclusion more than new ones, because the former have an established place in the 'loth heirarchy, while the new ones... we won't know till the book is out. I'll remain warily optimistic.

You can get a voor with Summon Monster IV, which puts them about even with lantern archons. Corruptors of fate are at about the same level as bralani, jann, and kytons.

You can't get a dreadful lasher with Summon Monster, which suggests it's a new greater 'loth, unless it's just an ultroloth with class levels.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Heck, I wouldn't mind a whole book like that just based on the first four/five MMs.

Me, too. I'd love such a product. It's a utility product that just doesn't seem "sexy" enough for someone to do.

Sure, those sample characters can be useful, but in my opinion, unless the base creature is introduced in that book, classed variants don't belong into monster manuals. And programs such as NPCDesigner, creating such characters is quite easy as well.

Yeah, but we're talking about campaign mainstays that virtually anyone who plays D&D would be familiar with. In addition, I'd guess only a small minority of people playing D&D use character generation software. I can understand why some might not find such characters/monsters worthwhile in a Monster Manual, but I find them to be of great value to me.