MONSTER MANUAL 4: More Monsters/Less Fluff or Vice Versa?

[Rykion]

It seems like a good way to flesh out monsters and reduce the DM's prep time to me. Even better, it helps to give new DMs and players a feel for how to roleplay as and against these creatures. The tactics help guarantee that a monster is played in a way to account for its CR. I really think the extra fluff is the best thing that WotC has done in a long time.

 

[Garnfellow]

I'm firmly in the give me good fluff camp for my monsters. Monsternomicon was the first monster book for 3.5 that really made the monsters feel like something more than a collection of stats. I like the treasure outlines, especially if it lists items that can be harvested from the creatures, it really fleshes out the monster and make treasure more interesting than the simple 1d4 gold and 2 1,000 gp gems on monsters that it doesn't make any sense for them to be carrying such things. Give me interesting, original, well-written monsters, with good fluff and I'm happy.

I really don't mind good fluff in a world-specific or theme specific monster book. I have no problem with the level of detail in the Demonomicon articles, and in fact, I would have liked to have seen the MMIV level treatment given on Monsters of Faerun, for example.

But I think in a generic monster book (like MMIV) this level is a bit too much, and because the authors must be both "generic" and rather "specific" at the same time, we end up with fluff that tastes to me like pretty weak sauce.

 

[DreadPirateMurphy]

Wow, this thread is a little nastier than I'm used to on these boards, albeit subtley so. Some of it isn't from the usual suspects, either...

 

[Snotlord]

I apologize, and have changed my post. I strongly disagree with Razz, but my sarcasm was uncalled for.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20060601b&page=2

The typical treasure is annoying. If they wanted to display a wizened elder with treasure, they should have used an example wizened elder [insert class here] instead ... IMO.

I think the fluff is great. Good fluff means a monster that might have looked kind of goofy becomes interesting to use in combat, as part of an adventure, etc. It's the difference between silly PH gnomes and much cooler Eberron gnomes, as an example. Eberron gnomes are statistically identical but have much cooler fluff written in Dragonshards.

Knowledge checks means less work for DMs ... cool. Not all of us are perfect with fantastic intelligence and creativity and social skills and time, too. There are lots of groups where hardly no one really has the time to DM, but some poor soul decided to make do with the little time they have.

Which leads to the course WotC has been taking with its books lately: They're writing more and more material for lazy people. Adventures

There's a problem with WotC putting out adventures? Fans have been asking for adventures. Why is it wrong for WotC to listen to the fans? Failure to listen to the fans would put it out of business.

Sample NPCs

No problems here, either. This goes double for PrCs.

But let's not go off topic. I'm curious as to how others think of the new monster format. Obviously, we're going to have 3-4 pages per monster

Does anyone care to test this? Print off the printer-friendly version of the excerpt. I'd do it myself, but my printer is low on ink, and doesn't actually tell me how much ink I have left. (I really need to buy a laser printer.)

which leaves us with, what, 50 new monsters?

There'll be more.

 

[fusangite]

It seems like a good way to flesh out monsters and reduce the DM's prep time to me. Even better, it helps to give new DMs and players a feel for how to roleplay as and against these creatures. The tactics help guarantee that a monster is played in a way to account for its CR. I really think the extra fluff is the best thing that WotC has done in a long time.

Rykion, I'm not really responding to anything in your post except to commend you on your excellent avatar. Where does one get good dalek photos these days?

I really hope that instead of making up new 200+ hp constructs and undead, WOTC can ground itself a little and translate more monsters from terrestrial myth and legend into the game. People seem to assume that these creatures all got covered in the MMI when there remain lots of great opportunities.

 

[pogre]

I'm the lazy person who appreciates these kind of extras.

 

[blargney the second]

The one bit of info I really appreciate is the Knowledge DCs.

 

[Gansk]

The Strategies and Tactics for the wizened elder is pointless. They entangle things, they try to flank the enemy, taking out the ones who pose the most threat first, and they run away if they think they're going to die. That's a total waste of space. It's a lot of useless text that is basic tactics most creatures would use (flanking and running if they're going to die) and tells the DM to remember to use the special ability, the one in that nice bolded: Special Actions line.

One thing that I noticed immediately by reading the tactics is that they are immune to their own entangle ability, something that was not obvious (to me, at least). I guess I would have figured it out if I studied their statblock more closely, but it is more fun to read the tactics section first.

Ganging up on one opponent is an obvious tactical maneuver if you like to DM that way, trying as hard as you can to make sure one party member dies at the risk of turning your back on the rest of the party. But having it spelled out in a monster's tactics gives it a certain credibility that keeps the behavior from looking too punitive to the player that might die. Nor do I expect that all DMs run all of their monsters this way, even when the players adopt the ganging-up-on-one-creature-until-it-dies tactic as their favorite tactic.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

I'm the lazy person who appreciates these kind of extras.

You and me both, brother!1

I am ecstatic at the return of fluff, the typical treasures, the tactics, the knowledge DC stuff... etc. I do wish they weren't making me become familiar with a new stat-block format, but I guess you can't have everything.

Later
silver

1. this is not a claim of relation or affiliation.