Monster Manual IV - an ongoing review

[Shade]

Ignoring lame abilities, they are chaotic, they shouldn't be so quick to fit into the standard subtypes, they shouldn't be so easy to 'fit in.' With 666 layers of the Abyss (more probably) a few more untyped demons makes a certain amount of sense. Even accounting for the untyped demons in MMIV there really aren't that many out there in 'official' publications.

That's perfectly reasonable, and it's really the least of my issues with it, but of the monsters presented, only the deathdrinker really feels "demonic" (unlike say the shadow demon or the cataboligne). Plus, we know that several obyriths were cut from FC1, so I'd much rather have seen them here.

The Avatars of Elemental Evil (on the writeup on the religion) more than make up for the overall dissapointing fiends IMO.

They are great. The avatars, along with the balhannoth, concordant killer, and vitreous drinker are the only "must have" critters in the book, IMHO. I wish we'd known of the avatars before BOZ and I turned in our Elemental Princes article...I'd have loved to link them in and incorporated a few of their abilities for cohesiveness. :\

 

[Asmor]

I bought the MMIV a while ago and had used 3 or 4 things from it (including the gnoll warlock and the defacer). I actually bought it solely because of the new stat blocks, and it's the only monster book I've bought since the Creature Collection II way back when... I don't even own a monster manual anymore (I lost all my old 3.0 books). Reading this post has been very interesting, as you've given me insight into what makes all the other monsters so interesting which at first I'd just passed over.

They really should add a quick blurb to the tops of monster entries about what makes the monster cool. That's one of the things I like about the lore checks given, I can read that and get a good overview of why the monster is interesting without having to read all the other stuff first.

I'd never even taken a second glance at the tomb spider, but now it sounds awesome. Why can't they just say at the top "Tomb Spider: Has a poison which causes positive energy to damage the victim and negative to heal them."

 

[MerricB]

Regarding demon types: I consider them a 2e abomination that we'd do better off without.

Regarding daemon names: If we'd kept -daemon as the end of the name, I'd agree. I consider -loth a 2e abomination that makes them sound silly and we'd do better off without it.

Cheers!

 

[demiurge1138]

Regarding demon types: I consider them a 2e abomination that we'd do better off without.

Regarding daemon names: If we'd kept -daemon as the end of the name, I'd agree. I consider -loth a 2e abomination that makes them sound silly and we'd do better off without it.

Cheers!

Right. Because everything 2e did for the game was an "abomination" :\

-loth is no more silly than -daemon, and a lot more convenient - definately rolls off the tongue better than the irregular vowel combination, and daemon sounds too much like demon (because, you know, it is). And the demon/devil types started as a 2e hand-wringing to get demons and devils into books without enraging the Mad About Dungeons and Dragons types, but since then they've easily evolved into a handy way of relating fiends to each other (especially with FC1's introduction of more related families of demons).

On a totally unrelated note, I have to disagree with you that the game doesn't need a zern because it has the daelkyr. For one thing, not everyone uses Eberron. For another, daelkyr are the highest of high level threats. The zern maintain some of that master-mutant-manipulator flavor for mid-level PCs, which I like, and are more interesting, mechanics wise, an explanation for where aberrations come from than simply "an evil wizard did it".

Demiurge out.

 

[Pants]

That's perfectly reasonable, and it's really the least of my issues with it, but of the monsters presented, only the deathdrinker really feels "demonic" (unlike say the shadow demon or the cataboligne). Plus, we know that several obyriths were cut from FC1, so I'd much rather have seen them here.

True, of course, my opinion wasn't accounting for 'untyped, but still lame' fiends.

 

[Thomas Percy]

Thanks for review.
I've read this book too and I have to say "WotC is going right side imo".
I like maps: crypt, wilderness lair, underground lair and mines.
I like ecology stuff, because there are tons of adventure ideas and hooks for me.
I like some of new monsters, because of their fun combos.
I like oldies goldies monsters rewriten decriptions, because even if it's not new staff for me, I'm happy to have it all in one place.

I don't buy this book, because I don't need all these Tiamat and Tarizdun staff.

 

[MerricB]

Right. Because everything 2e did for the game was an "abomination" :\

Rubbish. The cleaning up of the surprise and initiative rules was great.

Seriously, there's a reason why I find Demon, Devil and Dragon to be better than Tanarii, Whatsit, and Makriszon: they are names that draw upon our own mythology. We're already familiar with them, and so they imply connections that resonate. Daemon shares that, although to a lesser extent than those three.

Any new monster in D&D has a problem because it's new. It's not accepted. The choice of name is vital because it helps set a monster in our minds. Appearance can also play a part, but names are vital - especially as D&D is mainly a game of words.

When you come up against a Mind Flayer or a Beholder, the names already have some meaning to you. Made-up names have to start from scratch, and can only resonate after much use. The Githyanki may be a case in point of this.

As an aside, I think the Vitreous Drinker is an awful name, because hardly anyone understands what Vitreous is. If it had been called a Sight Drinker, it'd be much better IMO.

I understand totally the objections to daemon; to an extent I share them. However, even with its flaws, it resonates much better than yugoloth to me. Yugoloth means nothing. I wasn't paying attention to 2e when they came in. Planescape seemed to be actively working to disaffect me. So, I have no meaningful connection to Yugoloth at all.

On a totally unrelated note, I have to disagree with you that the game doesn't need a zern because it has the daelkyr. For one thing, not everyone uses Eberron. For another, daelkyr are the highest of high level threats. The zern maintain some of that master-mutant-manipulator flavor for mid-level PCs, which I like, and are more interesting, mechanics wise, an explanation for where aberrations come from than simply "an evil wizard did it".

No problem. My dislike of the Zern is minor at best. I really have trouble finding monsters in MMIV that I really don't like. I can't say I'd ever use the Zern, but I'm not surprised there'll be people that will.

Cheers!

 

[Shade]

Some other observations on the book:

- I really wish WotC would stick with an organization format. If I go to look up a justice archon, I expect to find it under "archon, justice", for example. This isn't a criticism solely on MMIV, as this has happened in many previous books. At least the fang golem is where I'd expect to find it.

- It's interesting to note that WotC has changed its stance on "fallen celestials". At one time, a designer stated that the "fallen" template was cut from the Fiend Folio because they decided that a fallen celestial would simply become a comparable fiend. In the justice archon entry, it specifically allows for an alignment change, with no powers lost. I'd really like to see them decide on a standard for a shift in alignments for planar exemplar races. For example, would a CN justice archon retain the Good subtype? Should it lose aligned strike (good)?

- Why, in the Year of the Dragon, do we get no creatures of the dragon type, yet we get numerous drow and drow-related creatures? I supposed MM V will be loaded with dragons.

- Why the continued fascination with spiders and spider-like creatures? We have SO many spiders...do we really need more variations? I know drow sell books, but the MMIV already has a drow section.

- The Lolth-touched template is so bare bones it could have been a sidebar. Instead, it eats up another three pages of the book.

- Sample encounters are fine; listing the EL for a solitary creature seems awfully redundant.

- The dwarf ancestor makes more sense as a deathless than an outsider.

- Only one new giant, and its a variant of an existing type (and still only Huge). <sigh> When will we some more truly gigantic giants?

- As always CE outsiders, why don't the windblades have the Chaotic and Evil subtypes (and thus aligned strike [chaotic, evil])?

- Of the most underused (and oft-requested) monster types, we get 3 fey, 1 giant (not counting ogres with class levels), and 0 vermin (not counting one sample templated creature)

I'll end on a few positives:

- Kudos for including something from Pandemonium! Now if only the Positive Energy Plane, Negative Energy Plane, Arcadia, Beastlands, and Bytopia would see some more populating.

- I think the aligned strike, magic strike, and metal strike abilities are brilliant. I'd love to see more simplification of such common abilities. I die a little inside every time I see sneak attack spelled out in detail in a creature's description. Certain abilities are so commonplace they belong in the glossary. Kudos for a step in the right direction!

 

[Shade]

Any new monster in D&D has a problem because it's new. It's not accepted. The choice of name is vital because it helps set a monster in our minds. Appearance can also play a part, but names are vital - especially as D&D is mainly a game of words.

True. But "action figure-y" names don't necessarily make them better.

When you come up against a Mind Flayer or a Beholder, the names already have some meaning to you. Made-up names have to start from scratch, and can only resonate after much use. The Githyanki may be a case in point of this.

I think many think of mind flayers as "illithids" first and foremost, since it sounds cooler.

By your recommendation, beholder would be an inferior choice than its nickname, "eye tyrant", no?

Which do you prefer: "tusken raider" or "sand people"?

I'm not saying your opinion isn't valid, but simply that it is an opinion.

As an aside, I think the Vitreous Drinker is an awful name, because hardly anyone understands what Vitreous is. If it had been called a Sight Drinker, it'd be much better IMO.

I thought it was a great name! Vitreous sounds creepy. Had it been called "sight drinker", I would've shrugged. I've seen posts that people wished the spawn of Tiamat had more original names that Xspawn Nounverb, ad nauseum.

I understand totally the objections to daemon; to an extent I share them. However, even with its flaws, it resonates much better than yugoloth to me. Yugoloth means nothing. I wasn't paying attention to 2e when they came in. Planescape seemed to be actively working to disaffect me. So, I have no meaningful connection to Yugoloth at all.

Of course if you weren't familiar with 1E, you wouldn't have a connection to anything other than yugoloth to describe these fiends.

 

[Ripzerai]

As an aside, I think the Vitreous Drinker is an awful name, because hardly anyone understands what Vitreous is. If it had been called a Sight Drinker, it'd be much better IMO.

I think it's better to encourage people to learn new words than to assume most people have a smaller vocabulary and "write down" to them.