D&D 5E (2014) Monster Manual 2 or Player's Handbook 2?

[manuzed78]

Designers would not be able to fill a whole MM2 without making up stupid monsters.

It would be easy to take monsters from previous editions without spoiling futur backgroud book.
There are plenty of them and I want them in 5e !

 

[Ezequielramone]

Wow, this is my first question with this amount of answers. Thanks you all. I'm happy to read all your opinions.
We are very few gamers in this place in the planet, so it's not a common thing read/heard this amount of opinions.

 

[Mercurius]

Either one in time, although the MM first. But there are a lot of things I'd like to see before hand - settings and adventures, specifically, as well as Manual of the Planes. I could see a MM every 2-3 years and a PHB every 3-4. Both books could act as both compilations of all of the stray ends that came out in prior years, plus hopefully a good dose of new material.

 

[steeldragons]

Gosh, 4e sure did introduce that concept, what with the first "PHB2" being the 3.5 one in 2006.

Luckily, before the PHB2, everything you needed was all in one place. That's why there were never splatbooks in 2.x, certainly not a Complete Priest's Handbook and Complete Thief's Handbook, not to mention the various Player's Option books.

And 1e? Perfect simplicity. All I needed to do character creation was the Player's Handbook, Unearthed Arcana, Oriental Adventures, the Dungeoneer's and Wilderness survival guides (which provided the mostly-usable version of the non-weapon proficiency rules), and of course that one Greyhawk hardcover that provided the rules for building characters from scratch to first level. Those six hardcovers covered basically everything.

This is the real reason edition warring is frowned upon: It's completely pointless.

Well then I stand corrected. I didn't know there was a PHB2 for 3x. So purely a WotC money grab then? Make books sound important because you're going to call it a heretofore "core" book title.

And there wasn't any "edition warring" going on. It was a statement of the facts as I understood them. Now I know...and knowing is half the battle. The fact it was begun with 3x has no baring on the need of the concept [having multiple PHBs is ok] to die.

The rest of your examples are precisely what I am talking about/sharing my point. Make supplements.

Make an Unearthed Arcana. Make a Complete Priest (given the structure of Domains and the whole "here's examples of a bunch of gods from all different D&D worlds", I would expect this to be entitled "Deities & Demigods" and contain all kinds of cleric PC & NPC specifc/related shtuff moreso than a MM of divine beings]. That's all great.

But for an edition, only 1 PHB is necessary. And, no, in 1 and 2e, [neither 3 nor 4 I would think] none of that stuff was NEEDED to make characters. They just put it out for folks to use. Some folks took that as, they put this in a book so "it's mine"/has to be used and some took it, as intended, that these were extra add-ons to be used if you wanted.

Putting together another book and calling it a "PHB" gives the material an understood and inherent importance that it, obviously, does not warrant.

I would LOVE to see a player options [more subclasses, backgrounds, spells & magic items...races -eh. I could do without, but you know folks want 'em, so...] in a 1e-style Unearthed Arcana. I would love to see setting-specific PC options in setting books: be that an "Oriental Adventures" or "Al'Quadim" or [I personally would] make a series out of them "Eberron Arcana", "Dark Sun Arcana", etc etc.

Splats and bloat are a problem when you are/have stretched things so thin that these books are creating are full of stuff that is sooooo corner case and/or setting specific and/or out of balance with the rest of the races/classes in the game, they have no business in an "official" book at all. Let the fan-creation websites/Dragon & Kobold magazines of the world handle those kinds of things.

Frankly, if you want to talk avoiding splats & bloat [which it sounds like you want to do, given your snide comments pre-3e, but I'm sure it's not meant as edition-warring], there's NO need for a PHB2 at all, given the # of race and class options we already have. Of course, lots of folks have 'their versions/ideas" of what some class should look like and/or some race they simply MUST play that, we all know, means more player options will be getting published in something somehow. But giving a "status" as a PHB is not a good idea.

 

[seebs]

My point is, I don't think 1e or 2e were in any meaningful way better than 3e and 4e in that regard. I actually preferred getting a PHB2 to the various mix-and-match hardcovers and splatbooks and so on.

I think the point at which we disagree comes specifically from the phrase "that it, obviously, does not warrant". What's obvious about it? It doesn't seem obvious to me. In 1e, 3.5e, and 4e, the MM2 had monsters that were probably going to get used less than the MM monsters, but were still pretty useful. Same with Pathfinder's Bestiary 2 and Bestiary 3. And that was about how I felt about the DMG2 (3e had this also) and PHB2.

I have actually been pretty happy with the way Paizo did additional core books which were indeed considered to be "core", and I think it was a good idea. I don't think it's some "WotC cash grab"; it's been there as part of the D&D business model since roughly the dawn of time, and the exact choice of names isn't relevant.

 

[steeldragons]

Designers would not be able to fill a whole MM2 without making up stupid monsters.

It would be easy to take monsters from previous editions without spoiling futur backgroud book.
There are plenty of them and I want them in 5e !

I'm afraid I must agree with @manuzed78, @Minigiant , and I am often in agreement with you. But even jsut between what I've seen of "traditional 1st MM mosnters" that asre missing, then whatever else from the 1e MM2 and 1eFF, you have plenty to fill a book.

And that's not even getting into further editions or supplemental stuff like Draco-/Demo-nomicons, setting-specific creatures [which should be in setting-specific books] and/or [some might be thankful] having to "make stuff up" new/from scratch.

I do like your idea of an "Advanced Guide" of player & DM options, but I really think monsters can fill/warrant a separate book.

 

[Minigiant]

I dunno.

There are a lot of missing iconic setting-neutral monsters. But I don't think you'll fill 300 pages of them without scooping the bottom of the barrel.

Yes there are many iconic monsters in 1e, 2e, 3e and 4e. But after you take out the trap monsters, HP sacks, and silly monsters, you won't even get to 200 pages. Then the temptation to put in 10 version of dryad and animated everything and (insert material here) golems.

A MM2 would only be good in my eyes if:

1. They go back and add more entries of classic humanoids which showcase their race.
2. OR add the official heroic race info for iconic monsters
3. Add in monsters from other cultures (African, Pacific, Native American, Indian, etc).

Otherwise a MM2 would not sell like hotcakes.

Mmmm. Hotcakes.

 

[Jester David]

MM2. Because you always need more monsters. And, after 40 years, there's too many must-haves for a sanely sized book. (Although, I think I'd prefer it with the name "Fiend Folio".)

PHB2 is a poor name for a product, as it doesn't tell what the contents are. If I'm looking for, say, a primordial pact warlock and my choices of book were PHB 2 or PHB 3 OR Elemental Adventurer's Handbook or Underdark Adventurer's Handbook it's much easier to know where to look in the later case.
PHB2 makes the book sound more needed as a core product, but too often it's just been a splatbook. That's confusing for casual & new players, making it seem more essential.
I'd rather see the contents of a PHB2 split into two or even three smaller but much more focused splatbooks.

 

[Dausuul]

MM2. Even as a player, I want MM2 first. I want more options for summoning spells.

Though as I understand it, that isn't the model 5E is operating under. We won't be getting "2" versions of the core books; instead we'll be getting expansions targeted at particular settings/adventure lines, including both monsters and PC options.

 

[steeldragons]

I think the point at which we disagree comes specifically from the phrase "that it, obviously, does not warrant". What's obvious about it? It doesn't seem obvious to me. In 1e, 3.5e, and 4e, the MM2 had monsters that were probably going to get used less than the MM monsters, but were still pretty useful. Same with Pathfinder's Bestiary 2 and Bestiary 3. And that was about how I felt about the DMG2 (3e had this also) and PHB2.

It is "obvious" because if material was important/critical/popular enough to warrant being in a PHB, it would have gone in, as I said, the PHB.

Whatever these additional player options are/turn out to be, they did not "make the cut", as it were. The fact a particular race/class/subclass/player option x/player option y/etc... is not in the PHB we have makes it, by definition, "extra/add-on/optional." Thus, "it obviously [did] not warrant" a place in a PHB.

So making another PHB, and [possibly worse] calling it "PHB2", is an unecessary [and I would say "bad"] call/move for the reason I and others have already said.

You like/want a PHB2. Fine. I don't.

One of us will "get our way" and one of us, [also] obviously, won't. [or NEITHER of us will get our way and there will be NO MM2 or PHB2. But I think that unlikely.]

So don't mind me if I hope my preferences are met.
Good luck to you.