Monster Manual II and III: Both worth getting?

[Shade]

We are not talking about game-breaking errors, here. We're talking about a couple of AC or Attack points or a couple of skill points.

Not game-breaking errors? That depends on your perspective. An incorrect AC can definitely be game-breaking. A number of monsters also have incorrect initiative modifiers, which I'd also find game-breaking. Save DCs are wrong in places. Outsiders don't have either the Extraplanar or Native subtypes. leaving DMs guessing as to what spells can affect them. The nycaloth is missing its caster level for spell-like abilities...I'd call that game-breaking.

It's true that an astute DM may catch most of these errors and know how to fix them, but I'd imagine alot of folks would rather not have to do so. If numerous stat errors aren't detrimental, than why bother having the stats in the first place?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Not game-breaking errors? That depends on your perspective. An incorrect AC can definitely be game-breaking.

A 10 point error on AC is game breaking.

A 1 point error on AC is not game breaking.

 

[Shade]

A 10 point error on AC is game breaking.

A 1 point error on AC is not game breaking.

We'll have to agree to disagree. In my experience, most attacks miss by 1 or 2, not 10.

And I reiterate...If numerous stat errors aren't detrimental, than why bother having the stats in the first place?

 

[Psion]

We'll have to agree to disagree. In my experience, most attacks miss by 1 or 2, not 10.

But which one is "more right"? A 1 or 2 point shift in AC is seldom enough by itself to change a creature's CR. If two otherwise identical creatures would have the same CR, was the author not well within his rights to assign it either AC?

In some encounters, AC is totally irrelevant. The noise of variation of character design, encounter conditions, party composition, being able to target weaknesses often has a much larger impact than such a small shift in AC. When such variations fall below the noise fence of normal gaming, such complaints border on academic.

I mean, if you don't have silvered weapons, is a lycanthrope "game breaking"? That's probably going to be a much bigger impact than a measly 1 point AC shift, but it could spell the difference between PC life and death.

In cases where it can be said to be authentically "wrong" is because you know all the factors from the book and one of them was neglected. Not because it's "too difficult" (or for that matter, too easy.) Sure, if the creature has no natural or other creature specific AC modifiers and only has equipment with known effects, that's one thing. But if a creature with natural armor or other non-tabulated factors has the wrong AC, is the AC total wrong, or did the author intend for the creature to have that AC and the natural armor is wrong?

 

[Henry]

You'll like the MM2 if:

• you are running a high-level campaign
• you were a 1E D&D player and recognize most of the monsters
• you really groove on templates
• you play in the Realms, Greyhawk, or Spelljammer

You'll like the MM3 if:

• you are running a low- to mid-level campaign
• you are new to D&D in 3E
• you play in Eberron
• you prefer your monsters "native"
• you don't mind if your monsters aren't statistically accurate

You'll like the FF if:

• you are running an extraplanar campaign
• you like outsiders
• you are a fan of Planescape
• you really like to tinker with monsters, adding templates, grafts, symbionts, and prestige classes
• you are a stickler for the monsters to be statistically accurate

Ironically, I don't mind if my monsters are occasionally one or two points off, my last campaign I ran was in Eberron and was a mid-level campaign. Other than that, I'm not new to any version of D&D, and a large percentage of the monsters in MM3 are outsiders or native to other planes.

The thing that didn't gel with me about FF and MM2 (borrowed them both from a friend, gave them back) was that the monsters I remember in there were too off-the-wall for me. Basically, what I was looking for in a monster book was "more of the same" from the first Monster Manual, and MM3 delivered this to me more than MM2 or FF.

The statistical errors? There were FAR too many in MM3, I'll agree. WotC needs to get on the ball if that was an exemplar of more recent work; however, it didn't detract from the monsters for me. What I didn't like about the other two books were creatures like the Effigy, the Needlefolk, Psurlon, etc. - they just sat there and I couldn't find easy ways to insert them in a game. I loved Mountain Giants, and Grell, of course, but a lot of them, maybe it was illustrations, maybe just the flat presentation, just didn't get me.

 

[Shade]

Point taken. I'll concede that the author may have intended the different AC, and the breakdown of its components are simply wrong. Still, I still maintain that the book is error-riddled, and those of us who do care about statistics shouldn't have to go through each entry with a fine-toothed comb.

The thread began as an inquiry on opinions on whether to buy the MM2 or MM3. I wanted to express to Ninja-to that this book is alot of work if you care about it being "right".

 

[Henry]

Still, I still maintain that the book is error-riddled, and those of us who do care about statistics shouldn't have to go through each entry with a fine-toothed comb.

I'll join that chorus.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Still, I still maintain that the book is error-riddled, and those of us who do care about statistics shouldn't have to go through each entry with a fine-toothed comb.

I agree. However ...

The thread began as an inquiry on opinions on whether to buy the MM2 or MM3. I wanted to express to Ninja-to that this book is alot of work if you care about it being "right".

Most of that work's already been done.

 

[Shade]

The thing that didn't gel with me about FF and MM2 (borrowed them both from a friend, gave them back) was that the monsters I remember in there were too off-the-wall for me. Basically, what I was looking for in a monster book was "more of the same" from the first Monster Manual, and MM3 delivered this to me more than MM2 or FF.

The statistical errors? There were FAR too many in MM3, I'll agree. WotC needs to get on the ball if that was an exemplar of more recent work; however, it didn't detract from the monsters for me. What I didn't like about the other two books were creatures like the Effigy, the Needlefolk, Psurlon, etc. - they just sat there and I couldn't find easy ways to insert them in a game. I loved Mountain Giants, and Grell, of course, but a lot of them, maybe it was illustrations, maybe just the flat presentation, just didn't get me.

Interesting. I'm always looking for monsters that are "off-the-wall", rather than "more of the same". I could do without ever seeing another goblin, lizardfolk, or ogre variant, yet I've already found use for the effigy, psurlons, and grell in my campaign. I wonder if it has to do with growing up with many of those critters. The MM2 has many conversions from past editions, as does the FF, but the MM3 only has a few (trilloch, sussurus, revised yugoloths, and a few more). Maybe the 3E incarnations don't explain the creatures well enough to provide inspiration.

 

[RichGreen]

Hi,

I like both MM II and MM III, but I think the Fiend Folio is better than both of them. Then again, I have a preference for cool fiends and there are some very good ones in there. From MM II I have used cloaked ape, corollax, kelvezu and jaralith demons, desmodu, forest sloth, greenvise, ixitxachitl and a few others. Some cool 1e and 2e monsters return in this book -- catoblepas, firbolg, grell, meenlock, neogi, yak folk. MM III has a lot of unusual creatures including some plot monsters. I've only used the redcaps and petals so far but both made for fun encounters.

Hope this helps!

Cheers


Richard