Monster Encyclopaedia II - The Dark Bestiary

[John Cooper]

Since their inception as an element of fantasy gaming, monsters have become little more than an obstacle for heroes to overcome. Even those well-thought out monsters with a complex background, story and motivation are, when all is said and done, put there to be defeated, so the player characters get their experience and return home a few levels richer. Maybe not now; maybe the monster is the whole saga’s final villain and everyone will get to fight it in an epic battle at the end of the campaign. Yet it will be fought, there is no doubt about that; if it will be fought, it is because the player characters are expecting to beat it someday. Let us face this awful truth – villains are put there so the hero can defeat them in the end, period. This is of course quite reasonable considering that adventures are about heroes (even if they stop a few alignments short of the literal term), and the creatures they destroy in the way should be there for them to reassert themselves as heroes and nothing more. After all, what is a hero if he cannot overcome a few dangers, right?

The problem lies precisely there – roleplaying games see so many of these heroes and monsters that they become routine, causing players and Games Masters alike to forget that the measure of a hero is the quality of the obstacles it must overcome. Roleplaying games feature so many of these obstacles, so frequently, that it becomes easy to lose sight of what made a monster worthy of being slain by a hero in the first place. The vision of monsters as a collection of traits, special abilities and combat tactics has only worsened the situation, causing bad guys everywhere, from tavern brawlers to ancient undead dragons, to get much less respect than they deserve.

In the beginning, way before they were made into a gaming gimmick, monsters represented terror. They were an embodiment of everything humanity did not understand or acknowledge. They were the creeping feeling under people’s thoughts, which everyone tried to deny and push down – the thought that there existed something more out there, something dangerous and horrible that does not belong to our civilised, organised and controlled world. Heroes were precisely those who dared face these monsters instead of simply pretending they did not exist.

 

[John Cooper]

Monster Encyclopaedia II - Dark Bestiary

MONSTER ENCYCLOPAEDIA II - DARK BESTIARY
By J. C. Alvarez
Mongoose product number MGP 1051
256 pages, $39.95

I've really enjoyed quite a few Mongoose products over the years. In fact, I can say quite honestly that if it hadn't been for Mongoose (and company head Matthew Sprange in particular), I wouldn't be a reviewer. Matthew first asked me if I'd be willing to review Mongoose products, and as I had enjoyed quite a few of them (particularly those in the Slayer's Guide and Encyclopaedia Arcane lines), I agreed. My Mongoose reviews eventually led to me being asked to be a E.N. World staff reviewer, and now here I am.

However, Mongoose has had a few rough spots over the years, and their proofreading and editing jobs had been all over the road - sometimes they were very good, and sometimes it really didn't look like they put any effort into the books at all. Realizing that quite a lot of people were associating Mongoose Publishing with a low level of quality (after a rash of particularly poorly-done books), Mongoose overhauled their proofreading/editing system, setting new elements into place to ensure that the quality of their books remained high. Things like having a second person doing the proofreading and hiring a person whose sole job was to go over creature stats to ensure there were no errors were to have increased their quality several times over.

So, why am I starting out my review of Monster Encyclopaedia II - Dark Bestiary with a brief history of Mongoose Publishing, you ask? Simply because I want to ensure that my comments on the book are taken into context of the recent problems Mongoose has had with some of their books.

Put quite simply: this new system isn't working as good as it could be.

Monster Encyclopaedia II - Dark Bestiary is the second in a series of new monster books. I was asked to review the books (volumes I and II came out within a month of each other) by several people on the E.N. World messageboards, having made somewhat of a name for myself as the "stat-picky reviewer." Since Mongoose has had problems with monster books in the past (particularly with Ultimate Monsters Volume 1, which was giving Mongoose such a black eye they wisely opted to pulp all remaining copies), some people wished to read my review before committing to the purchase themselves. While I still haven't seen Monster Encyclopaedia I (apparently it was mailed to me, but I have yet to receive it - I guess only the Post Office can say what ever happened to it at this point) and thus cannot comment on it, I was very disappointed with Monster Encyclopaedia II, especially since all of these quality-enhancement efforts were supposed to have been put into place.

On the plus side, I did note that there were two proofreaders listed on the Table of Contents page - Ron Bedison and Mark Quennel - and that while a number of proofreading errors slipped past the two of them, the proofreading job taken as a whole was much better than in many Mongoose books I've seen in the past. So, definite kudos for that. However, of the 209 monsters in this book, 76 still have problems with their stat blocks. That's a full 36% of the monsters. While I've seen higher percentages of monster stat blocks with problems, this is still not very good - especially after having put methods in place to ensure this sort of thing wasn't going to be happening again. I'll get to the specific problems at the end of the review.

I think one of the main problems with Monster Encyclopaedia II - Dark Bestiary may be the fact that it was written by one person. Besides the Monster Manual (written by Skip Williams), you don't really see many 256-page monster books written by one guy - 209 monsters is an awful lot to expect from one person, and it really shows in this book. Many of the monsters in this book are variations of monsters from the Monster Manual - either evil versions of good creatures (the dark couatl, the fell archon, the nymphag), or racial variants (2 centaurs, 5 hags, 6 trolls). Others are just plain silly, like the foulfowl (do we really need a Tiny, evil chicken that can swallow Medium creatures whole?), gor'rog (best described as a Huge, floating carrot with a ring of eyes along its top), or the facada (evil jesters from the lower planes), or else just have silly names, like the bork (a boar/orc centaur), tworc (twin orcs that can merge together to form a large, more bestial orc), or c'coa (it doesn't matter what this monster is really like, it just makes me automatically think of hot chocolate). I think having a second (and perhaps even a third) author coming up with ideas might have resulted in a better "pool" of monsters; as it is, some of these seem to have "well, it will eat up another page and get us closer to our goal of 256 pages" as their most significant feature.

This leads me to another thing I wanted to point out: the subtitle "Dark Bestiary" means just that - each of the 209 monsters in this book are evil. There are 9 different alignments in D&D; by focusing on just 3 of the possible alignments, the author is constraining himself and reigning in his imagination. I'd be willing to bet that J. C. Alvarez could have come up with some really cool good/neutral creatures that he could have swapped out with some of the "clunkers" that made it into the book. Also, since animals, constructs, oozes, plants, and vermin are usually neutral, he pretty much cut out five possible creature types that he could use (although he did manage to work in 8 evil constructs, 2 plants and 1 ooze, and oddly enough some of those evil constructs were some of my favorite monsters in the book). It just seems like the book's "dark" focus ended up stifling some creativity. Had the book been much smaller, this may not have been a problem, but it really seemed like the author was really reaching into the last dregs of his barrel of creativity to fill up a 256-page book.

The cover of Monster Encyclopaedia II - Dark Bestiary is a collaboration between Vitor Ishimura and Celso Matthias, made to look like a magical tome (complete with hasps, reptilian scales for the tome's "cover" and so on) yet still incorporate a painting of an evil dragon attacking a wizard and a small army of warriors. I like the cover; the dark, muted colors are quite appropriate for a "dark bestiary," and the dragon's fiery breath and light-colored wings are highlighted nicely in contrast.

The 207 black-and-white interior illustrations were done by 9 different artists, and as usual represent a wide range of talent. Many of the illustrations were exceptionally well done (the excellent shading of the gaean giant on page 137; the intricate detail of the typhoeon on page 237), while others were amateurish at best (best exemplified by the solid black on white shapes that are supposed to represent the wispwraith on page 248). For the most part, though, the artwork accurately depicted the creatures as written, which to me is a big plus. Also, the varying styles of black-and-white illustrations is somewhat reminiscent of the original AD&D Monster Manual, which can't help but be a good thing for those of us whose gaming experience reaches that far back.

However, when it comes down to the actual creature stats, that's where Monster Encyclopaedia II - Dark Bestiary fails the worst. With my standard proviso that I in no way guarantee that there aren't more errors to be found than the ones I documented while reading through the book a single time, I recommend making the following changes:

• p. 8, Abominion: HD should be 26d8+130, not 26d8+65 (+5 Con). (Oddly enough, though, average hit points are correct at 247.) Flat-footed AC should be 24, not 25 (-1 size, +15 natural). Also, the illustration should be covered in lumps and warts, and it should have 8 eyes (4 pairs), not just 4 as depicted.
• p. 10, Adh-sidhe: Initiative should be +7, not +3 (+3 Dex, +4 Improved Initiative).
• pp. 11-12, Agharrma: Horn attacks should be at +18 melee, not +11 (+11 BAB, -1 size, +8 Str) - or else at +16 melee if you assume that they're always considered a secondary weapon (+11 BAB, -1 size, +8 Str, -2 for secondary attack with Multiattack).
• pp. 14-15, Alebrije: The Skills section says its stunted wings don't allow flight, yet it has a fly speed of 10 (poor).
• p. 23, Axehawk: If this is an animal (as listed in the stats), then HD should be 3d8+3, not 3d10 (animals have d8s for HD); average hit points should be 16 hp, not 19; BAB should be +2, not +3; Grapple should be -1, not +0 (+2 BAB, -4 size, +1 Str); wing and talons attacks (and bite attacks under Attack) should be at +6 melee, not +7 (+2 BAB, +1 size, +3 Dex with Weapon Finesse); bite attacks under Full Attack should be at +1 melee, not +2 (+2 BAB, +1 size, +3 Dex with Weapon Finesse, -5 for a secondary attack); and Alignment should be "Always neutral," not "Always neutral evil." If, however, the creature is a magical beast (which seems much more likely), the only change (besides calling it a "magical beast" not only here in the stat block but also on the "Monsters by Type (and Subtype)" list on page 3) is that HD should be 3d10+3, not 3d10 (it has a +1 Con bonus).
• p. 31, Bronzefolk: Bronzefolk traits should be "+2 Strength, +4 Constitution, -4 Wisdom, -4 Charisma," not "+4 Constitution, -2 Wisdom, -2 Charisma" - unless the bronzefolk 1st-level Warrior was built with a specific ability score array (which isn't mentioned anywhere in the text). Also, low-light vision should either be listed under Special Qualities or removed from the list of bronzefolk traits.
• p. 32, Bugbear, Orl: 30 ft. does not equal 8 squares! Considering normal bugbears move at a speed of 30 feet, I'd bet that was supposed to read "30 ft. (6 squares)." Also, since they're a bugbear variant race, shouldn't they have the "Goblinoid" subtype like normal bugbears (and the other bugbear variant in this book) do?
• p. 35, Camatzotz: Bite attacks should be at +25 melee, not +26 (+18 BAB, -4 size, +11 Str).
• pp. 38-39, Chaos Dragon: Chaosfire Reflex save should be DC 29, not DC 27 (they forgot the +2 from the Ability Focus feat).
• p. 41, Chimae, Ram: Speed should include "climb 20 ft."
• p. 48, Furball Dervish: AC should be 18, not 17 (+1 size, +4 Dex, +3 natural). Touch AC should be 15, not 14 (+1 size, +4 Dex). Bite damage should be 1d3-1, not 1d3 (it has a -1 Str modifier).
• p. 51, Boatman Demon: Since the creature has 7 HD, Advancement should start at 8 HD, not 9 HD.
• p. 55, Meriginus: Full Attack line should read 2 claws and bite, not 2 claws or bite.
• p. 59, Shikome: With Con 16 (+3 bonus), HD should be 3d8+9, not 3d8+6. (However, average hit points are correct at 22 hp.) Since splint mail has a maximum Dex bonus of +0, AC should be 20, not 21 (+4 natural, +6 splint mail). Touch AC should be 10, not 11.
• p. 60, Yahlog: Touch AC should be 11, not 9 (-1 size, +2 deflection from cloak).
• p. 69, Recruiter Devil (Mezzemuth): Since slam is its only attack, it gets 1.5 times its Str bonus (+7 Str); thus, slam damage should be 1d6+10, not 1d6+7.
• p. 72, Dracolamia: Under the Attack and Full Attack lines, the touch attacks are missing their attack rolls; should be +10 melee touch.
• p. 77, Garrulun (Ancient Arid Dragon): Initiative should be +4, not +0 (Improved Initiative).
• p. 80, Deerkerrush Deathcinder (Great Wyrm Ashen Dragon): With 39 HD, he should have 14 feats, not just 12.
• p. 86, Young Sword Dragon: Will should be +8, not +9 (+7 as an 11-HD dragon, +1 Wis).
• p. 87, Master Tasha'khaxi (Ancient Sword Dragon): CR should be 21, not 20 (according to the sword dragon stats as listed).
• pp. 89-90, Wyrmling Titanium Dragon: AC/flat-footed AC should be 22, not 23 (-1 Dex, +1 size, +12 natural). Touch AC should be 10, not 11.
• pp. 89-90, Very Young Titanium Dragon: AC should be 24, not 25 (-1 Dex, +15 natural). Touch AC should be 9, not 10.
• pp. 89-90, Young Titanium Dragon: AC/flat-footed AC should be 26, not 27 (-1 Dex, -1 size, +18 natural). Touch AC should be 8, not 9.
• pp. 89-90, Juvenile Titanium Dragon: AC/flat-footed AC should be 29, not 30 (-1 Dex, -1 size, +21 natural). Touch AC should be 8, not 9.
• pp. 89-90, Young Adult Titanium Dragon: AC/flat-footed AC should be 32, not 33 (-1 Dex, -1 size, +24 natural). Touch AC should be 8, not 9.
• pp. 89-90, Adult Titanium Dragon: AC/flat-footed AC should be 34, not 35 (-1 Dex, -2 size, +27 natural). Touch AC should be 7, not 8.
• pp. 89-90, Mature Adult Titanium Dragon: AC/flat-footed AC should be 37, not 38 (-1 Dex, -2 size, +30 natural). Touch AC should be 7, not 8.
• pp. 89-90, Old Titanium Dragon: AC/flat-footed AC should be 40, not 41 (-1 Dex, -2 size, +33 natural). Touch AC should be 7, not 8.
• pp. 89-90, Very Old Titanium Dragon: AC/flat-footed AC should be 41, not 42 (-1 Dex, -4 size, +36 natural). Touch AC should be 5, not 6.
• pp. 89-90, Ancient Titanium Dragon: AC/flat-footed AC should be 44, not 45 (-1 Dex, -4 size, +39 natural). Touch AC should be 5, not 6.
• pp. 89-90, Wyrm Titanium Dragon: With HD 39d12+507, average hit points should be 760, not 860. AC/flat-footed AC should be 47, not 48 (-1 Dex, -4 size, +42 natural). Touch AC should be 5, not 6.
• pp. 89-90, Great Wyrm Titanium Dragon: AC/flat-footed AC should be 46, not 47 (-1 Dex, -8 size, +45 natural). Touch AC should be 1, not 2.
• p. 90, (unnamed), (Mature Adult Titanium Dragon): CR should be 17, not 16 (according to the titanium dragon stats as listed). AC/flat-footed AC should be 37, not 38 (-1 Dex, -2 size, +30 natural). Touch AC should be 7, not 8. Under the Full Attack line, bite attacks should be at +37 melee, not +36 (+27 BAB, -2 size, +11 Str, +1 Weapon Focus), and claw attacks should be at +32 melee, not +31 (+27 BAB, -2 size, +11 Str, +1 Weapon Focus, -5 for a secondary attack).
• p. 94, Very Old Hecaton Black Dragon: HD should be 36d12+396, not 28d12+308 (according to the template, each head adds 1 HD). Average hit points should be 630, not 490. AC and flat-footed AC should be 36, not 35 (it has the Improved Natural Armor feat, so it has +28 natural armor instead of +27, as well as the -2 size penalty). BAB should be +36, not +28. Grapple should be +54, not +46 (+36 BAB, +8 size, +10 Str). Bite attacks should be at +45 melee, not +37 (+36 BAB, -2 size, +10 Str, +1 Weapon Focus). Claw, wing, and tail slap attacks should be at +42 melee, not +34 (+36 BAB, -2 size, +10 Str, -2 for secondary attacks with Multiattack). Fort should be +31, not +27 (+20 as a 36-HD dragon, +11 Con). Ref should be +20, not +16 (+20 as a 36-HD dragon, +0 Dex). Will should be +23, not +19 (+20 as a 36-HD dragon, +3 Wis). With 36 HD, should have 13 feats (besides the bonus feats it gets from the template), not 10. The asterisk after the Wingover feat is not explained. CR is correct at 22 (CR 18 base + 4 for having 9 heads), but it shouldn't say "(+1 per head)" because that's not how it works. Advancement should start at 37 HD, not 29 HD. Frightful Presence should affect those with 35 HD or less, not 27 HD or less. Finally, the "Water Breathing" description was apparently copied and pasted directly from the breeze dragon description, because it refers to a breeze dragon instead of a hecaton dragon.
• p. 96, Dragon Dog: Stats have two different Level Adjustment lines given; I assume we're to ignore the second one (which is incorrect).
• p. 96, Dragon Whale: Under the Full Attack line, claw attacks should be at +49 melee, not +46 (+42 BAB, -8 size, +17 Str, -2 for secondary attack with Multiattack), and tail slap attacks should be at +50 melee, not +47 (+42 BAB, -8 size, +17 Str, +1 Weapon Focus, -2 for secondary attack with Multiattack feat). Frightful Presence Will save should be DC 36, not DC 34 (10 + 1/2 HD + Cha mod = 10 + 21 + 3 + 2 (ability focus) = 36).
• pp. 101-102, Dwerg 1st-level Warrior: It looks like the dwerg's original ability scores were Str 8, Cha 9, not the other way around. Otherwise, the math doesn't add up correctly.
• pp. 103-104, Inferno Elemental: Blaze form Fortitude save should be DC 36, not DC 34 (10 + 1/2 HD + Con modifier = 10 + 16 + 8 + 2 (ability focus) = 36). The blaze form Reflex save should also be DC 36 if it's Constitution-based, not DC 26.
• p. 106, Darkness Elemental: HD should be 16d8+112, not 16d8+91 (+7 Con bonus). (However, average hit points are correct at 184 hp.)
• pp. 109-110, Dopkalfar: Rapier damage should be 1d6+1/18-20, not 1d6-1/18-20 (+1 Str).
• p. 112, Ethra: Advancement reads "12-15 HD (Large), 23-33 HD (Huge)." What happened to 16-22 HD?
• p. 114, Club Facada: Under the Attack line, club of ill-fortune should specify "plus ill-fortune" as part of its damage (as it does under Full Attack).
• p. 120, Dread Raven Familiar: HD should be 7d12, not 1/4d12 (it had a 7th-level wizard as a master). BAB should be +3, not +0. Grapple should be -10, not -13 (+3 BAB, -8 size, -5 Str). Claw attacks should be at +7 melee, not +4 (+3 BAB, +2 size, +2 Dex with Weapon Finesse). With 7 HD, it should have 3 feats, not just 1. The Dominate Person description is actually for Dominate Monster, which the dread familiar only gets if its master is 13th-level or higher. Dominate Person is gained with a 7th-level or higher master, but the save DC should be 15 + dread familiar's Cha modifier.
• p. 127, Fury: HD should be 13d8+78, not 13d8+84 (+6 Con). (Yet average hit points are correct at 136 hp.) Since the creature apparently only has one hunting spear, ranged attacks with it (under Full Attack) should be at +19 ranged, not +19/+14/+9.
• pp. 132-133, Bronze Giant: HD should be 11d8+44, not 11d8+33 (+4 Con). (Average hit points are correct at 93 hp.)
• pp. 133-134, Dread Giant: Will should be +14, not +12 (+10 as a 30-HD giant, +2 Wis, +2 Iron Will).
• pp. 134-135, Night Giant: 40 feet does not equal 6 squares! Since the Large giants in the Monster Manual have a base land speed of 40 feet, I'd assume that should read "40 ft. (8 squares)."
• pp. 135-136, Subterranean Giant: Initiative should be +3, not -1 (-1 Dex, +4 Improved Initiative).
• p. 137, Gaean Giant: Advancement is 17-32 HD (Large), 33-48 HD (Gargantuan). So, it just skips over the Huge size entirely?
• p. 145, Blue Gogg: Quarterstaff attacks should be at +3 melee, not +2 (or +1/+1 under Full Attack, not +0/+0), and sling attacks should be at +5 ranged, not +4 (in both cases, they forgot to add the +1 masterwork bonus).
• p. 147, Red Gogg: Should have the Fire subtype, not the Air subtype. Gnome hooked hammer attacks should be at +4 melee, not +3 (or +2/+2 for Full Attack, not +1/+1), and throwing axe attacks should be at +3 ranged, not +2 (again, they forgot the +1 masterwork bonus).
• p. 148, Dark Fetish: No Environment listed; presumably "Any."
• p. 149, Megalith: At has 11 HD, yet Advancement begins at 11-22 HD (Huge). Damage from crush attacks should include "plus symbol of weakness."
• p. 150, Squiggler: It has 3 HD, yet Advancement starts at 6-9 HD (Medium). What about 4-5 HD?
• pp. 152-153, Gor'rog: HD should be 13d8+42, not 13d8+30 (+3 Con, Toughness feat). (However, average hit points are correct at 100 hp.) With 13 HD, it should have 5 feats, not just 4.
• p. 157, Gross Grunter: 30 ft. does not equal 4 squares! I assume that should read "30 ft. (6 squares)."
• p. 163, Vampiric Hag: Bite attacks should be at +14 melee, not +13 (+8 BAB, +5 Str, +1 Weapon Focus).
• p. 164, Haggard One, 1st-level human Warrior: Speed should be 40 ft, not 30 ft. (per the template). Under Full Attack, bite damage should be 1d3+2, not 1d3+4 (secondary attacks only get 1/2 the normal Str bonus). Under Special Attacks, "Fear aura" should be "Frightful presence." Fort should be +5, not +4 (+0 as a 2-HD monstrous humanoid, +2 as a War1, +3 Con).
• p. 175, Kanaima: Touch AC should be 15, not 12 (+2 Dex, +3 deflection).
• p. 178, Kigatilik: Advancement is listed as 11-20 HD (Huge), 12-30 HD (Gargantuan) - that should be "21-30 HD" there at the end.
• p. 179, Koshi Serpent: AC should be 21, not 20 (-2 size, +3 Dex, +10 natural). Touch AC should be 11, not 10.
• pp. 179-180, Kurke Weevil: AC should be 18, not 17 (+4 size, +3 Dex, +1 natural). Touch AC should be 17, not 16 (+4 size, +3 Dex). BAB should be +0, not +1 (as a 1/4-HD outsider, you'd have to round down). Grapple should be -17, not -16 (+0 BAB, -12 size, -5 Str).
• p. 180, Leviathan, Galasian: HD should be 48d10+438, not 48d10+441 (+9 Con, 2 Toughness feats). (And yet, average hit points are correct at 702.) The fact that the creature is referred to once in its description as a galasian "dragon" makes me wonder if this creature wasn't reworked at least once.
• pp. 182-183, Ling: Take your pick: either Charisma should be 4, not 6, or the ling traits should be -2 Charisma, not -4 Charisma. I have no way of telling which is correct.
• p. 184, Manicora: AC should be 20, not 22 (-1 size, +3 Dex, +8 natural). Touch AC should be 12, not 14 (-1 size, +3 Dex). Flat-footed AC should be 17, not 19 (-1 size, +8 natural). As a personal aside, I fail to see the need for a "female counterpart" to the manticore race in the first place - since when are all manticores male?
• p. 188, Monster Mother: With 18 HD, she should have 7 feats, not 8. One should either be dropped or annotated as a bonus feat.
• p. 190, Moondala: It has 8 HD, yet Advancement starts with 7-12 HD.
• p. 191, Maggot Myrg: Light pick attacks should be at +6 melee, not +5 (+3 BAB, +1 size, +2 Dex due to Weapon Finesse).
• pp. 193-194, Nahrash: Stats say it has speed 40 ft., racial traits say it's 30 ft. Which is correct?
• pp. 196-197, Old Man Winter: The Fortitude save for the grim greataxe numbing effect should be DC 21, not DC 16 (10 + 1/2 HD + Cha modifier = 10 + 6 + 5).
• p. 198, Orbeiron: AC and flat-footed AC should both be 47, not 52 (-5 Dex, -8 size, +50 natural). Touch AC should be -3 (effectively 0? - can you even have a negative AC?), not 2 (-5 Dex, -8 size). How can it grapple without a Strength score? (The concept of a small planet actually grappling an opponent rather staggers the imagination, in any case.) Fort should be +70, not +84 (+33 as a 100-HD aberration, +37 Con).
• p. 203, Quazo'orr: Fort should be +10, not +8 (+5 as a 7-HD outsider, +3 Con, +2 Great Fortitude).
• p. 211, Shrub Slayer: No Organization listed; presumably solitary.
• p. 212, Storm Slayer: No Organization listed; presumably solitary.
• p. 213, Sunset Slayer: No Organization listed; presumably solitary.
• p. 216, Spirit-Cursed, 1st-level human Commoner: BAB should be +1, not +0 (as a monstrous humanoid; the template specifically states that you should recalculate the BAB as a monstrous humanoid, so the fact that the creature started out as a 1st-level Commoner is irrelevant). Grapple should be +4, not +3 (+1 BAB, +3 Str). Kick attacks should be at +5 melee, not +4 (+1 BAB, +3 Str, +1 Weapon Focus). Dagger attacks should be at +4 melee, not +3 (+1 BAB, +3 Str). (Under Full Attack, dagger attacks should be at -1 melee, not -2: +1 BAB, +3 Str, -5 for a secondary attack.) Ref should be +5, not +3 (+2 as a 1-HD monstrous humanoid - the template specifically states to recalculate saves as a monstrous humanoid - and +3 Dex). Will should be +4, not +2 (+2 as a 1-HD monstrous humanoid, +2 Wis). Template gives no explanation as to why it should have Weapon Focus (kick) as a bonus feat.
• pp. 217-218, Spirit Elk: HD should be 5d6+10, not 5d6+5 (+2 Con). (Once again, average hit points are correct at 27 hp. Is there one guy figuring out the average hit points and another guy figuring out the HD? I'm not following why the average hit points are correct even when the HD formula to get there are so often messed up.)
• p. 222, Tendrillass: HD should be 16d8+137, not 16d8+121 (+8 Con, 3 Toughness feats). (Unsurprisingly at this point, average hit points are correct at 209 hp.)
• p. 224, Chthonian Titan: With HD 36d8+726, average hit points should be 888 hp, not 882 hp.
• p. 226, Wild Titan: Slam attacks should be +41 melee, not +40 (+28 BAB, -4 size, +17 Str).
• pp. 233-234, Tar Troll: No regeneration description given - are we to assume it's the same as a standard troll?
• pp. 234-235, Web Troll: No regeneration description given - are we to assume it's the same as a standard troll?
• p. 235, Tworc: Javelin damage should be 1d8+7, not 1d8+3 (+7 Str).
• pp. 239-240, Vetala: Initiative should be +5, not +3 (+5 Dex). Bite damage should be 1d4+1, not 1d4+3 (+3 Str, but you only get half your Str modifier for a secondary attack).
• p. 244, Whispering Presence: This creature is Diminutive with 2 HD, yet Advancement is 3-6 HD (Small). What about Tiny?
• pp. 245-246, Wickedwing: Claw damage should be 1d3+6, not 1d3+4 (+4 Str, 1.5 times Str mod for sole attack).

Okay, so this is certainly no Ultimate Monsters Volume 1 fiasco, but it's certainly a bit of a disappointment for those of us who expect accurate monster stats. (By the way, for those of you who are counting the bullets on my list above and wondering why you don't get 76, it's because I lumped all of the titanium dragon size categories together and considered that to be "one monster" - it seemed only fair, after all.)

Of course, there are still some problems with some of the monsters that don't involve stat errors. Why, for instance, is a creature called an "onyx" carved from jade or greenstone? Wouldn't you expect it to be carved from, say, onyx? Reference is made to an abaasy's "eyes," even though the description (and illustration) clearly show that the abaasy only has one eye. Grotesque grunters are first described as having "dark blue skin," then later as having "purple skin." The gold hag's "gold gaze" special ability is called "greed gaze" once; I assume it was renamed at some point and they didn't capture all of the old terms. Likewise, it's apparent that skullwearers were originally called "skull spirits," judging from the occasions when the author uses the old name. Finally, I assume that feet and yards in England have the same ratios as they do here in the U.S., so I'm not sure how to account for the fact that a wraith wolf's howl affects those "within 500 feet (150 yards)." In any case, none of these instances make for a very strong argument that Mongoose has added extra layers of stat-checking and general proofreading to their books.

There's also the layout issue, in that many creatures have their stat blocks broken up between different pages, and it's never handier as a DM to have to flip back and forth between two pages when you want to run a given monster in a game. This is by no means a Mongoose-only problem, but many of the other publishers have made recent efforts to ensure that their monsters (or at least their entire stat blocks) are all on one page. That's certainly something Mongoose might want to keep in mind for future books.

To end this review on a somewhat positive note, I'll list some of the good things about Monster Encyclopaedia II - Dark Bestiary. I was surprised to see several "epic level" monsters in the book, and while I personally don't enjoy the way "epic level" play works in D&D, I'm sure there are many who appreciate having a few new monsters to work with in those high levels. I count 11 monsters with CRs above 20; not a bad grouping. I was also glad to see several monsters taken from various mythologies, like the "gaean giant," obviously based on Anataeus from Greek mythology, the cailleach hag, which if I'm not mistaken comes from Celtic lore, and even the treesnake, apparently a D&D version of Satan in snake form from the Garden of Eden. I was also pleased to see so many fey creatures; in a "dark bestiary" of evil creatures, you'd expect to see a lot of fiends and undead (which you do - they make up a good chunk of the book), but seeing so many evil fey brought a smile to my face. (They tend to be underused, in my experience.)

However, I'm afraid that Monster Encyclopaedia II - Dark Bestiary does not live up to the expectations of massive improvement on Mongoose's part, and while it has some interesting and unique monsters, their number pales against the larger number of silly ones and slight racial variants of monsters we already know from the Monster Manual. At $39.95 - I noticed Mongoose raised their price for a 256-page book since the last Mongoose Classic Play book I've seen - this is hardly a bargain. Overall, I have to put Monster Encyclopaedia II - Dark Bestiary at a reasonably high "2 (Poor)" - it's not quite up to a "3 (Average)" rating, in my view. However, I'd just like to reiterate that I still haven't seen Monster Encyclopaedia I yet, and for all I know its quality is much higher than its sequel, so don't count that one out just yet. This book hasn't soured me on Mongoose's improvement efforts, just led me to believe that their improvement efforts are likely to vary significantly from book to book.