Monster Manual IV, from Amazon.com

[Truth Seeker]

Well, since I didn't see any, and I don't have the book myself, yet.

Read here, first.

Then discuss.

 

[Kunimatyu]

Well well well, Ms. Kestrel, we meet again. :: pets white cat ::

Sigh.

It could have been so good!

 

[No Name]

Had I have only known. Unfortunately, I got it sight unseen. The first three were great, so why would the fourth be any different.

I agree with the two amazon reviewers. It's not worth the money. Lots and lots of wasted pages. Githyanki with class levels. Gnolls with class levels. Ogres with class levels. Orcs with class levels. Why Wizards, why?

 

[Treebore]

I don't want to nurture my reputation as a WOTC hatemonger, so no comment about the obvious.

 

[DonTadow]

I like the improvements. I might actually buy a monster manual for the first time in a bit. The reason I've never bought a monster manual before is that there are tons of sources for monsters. If I buy a book, I like a little inspiration from it as well. MM4 has the interesting treasure break out, the encounter suggestions (which is a recommendation from a previous thread on enworld) and some decent new monsters.

As far as envinorment, I've always hated that inclusion. I dont think I even used it. I dot nt think I"ve met a player who said "you can't use that monster in these lands". I'd rather have suggested things as opposed to making things like einvronement and treasure apart of the monster itself.

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

As far as envinorment, I've always hated that inclusion. I dont think I even used it. I dot nt think I"ve met a player who said "you can't use that monster in these lands". I'd rather have suggested things as opposed to making things like einvronement and treasure apart of the monster itself.

Environment has a been a key factor in my games for over 10 years.

I build my random encounter charts based on environment.

I design my world based on the monsters' prefered environments.

If you are ignoring environments, you are ignoring a great way to bring life and detail to your campaign settings, as well as differentiate different areas within the world.

As well as potential plot hooks (Polar Bear on Deserted Tropical Island for example).

 

[Psion]

I agree with the two amazon reviewers. It's not worth the money. Lots and lots of wasted pages. Githyanki with class levels. Gnolls with class levels. Ogres with class levels. Orcs with class levels. Why Wizards, why?

You know what... this is fine content. Very useful.

What I expect in a "monster manual"? I dunno. They were striving for something different, but it probably needed a different name and format. I guess its a matter of marketing convenience.

That said, here's my big personal grumble: they feel free to use supplemental material to make their ninjas and scouts. But then they go and make their Githyanki with no psionic classes. I think this is a mistake. Githyanki are closed content. We cannot rely on third party publishers to do us right here.

Same problem with Incursion. Sigh.

 

[Cam Banks]

I think about the reasons why they made the changes they did, and other than to cross-market their lucrative miniatures line, I think it was in response to a perceived need to make the job easier on the DM.

It's possible that WOTC R&D have gone too far in this respect, based on the limited feedback and noise I've seen already about MMIV. With the caveat that you can't use the internet to base your success or failure with gaming products, I imagine that there is not as big an audience out there for Monster Manuals with maps, classed versions of existing monsters, and so forth as they thought. I especially noted that comment of the second reviewer - the DM can do this himself.

WOTC are getting more and more focused on instant gratification end-user product. A mini comes with a card, all the info is there, pick it up and play. Stat blocks are designed to be grabbed and run with. Creatures are pre-loaded with options. In theory, this is awesome. In practice, perhaps it's way too much hand-holding. If D&D 4.0 comes with pre-loaded modular archetype characters a step beyond those in PHB II, there's a good chance that while it will be much easier to pick up and run with the game, the real gamer audience is going to feel talked down to.

What's the feeling here?

Cheers,
Cam

 

[EricNoah]

I think pre-statted humanoids are a great idea. Would be even better if they were in the original MM next to their main entries. And the easier the material is to pick up and play, the better in my opinion. Having some pre-built material doesn't stop you from using the tools provided to make other things for your game. It's like saying no one should publish campaign settings or adventure modules because any DM can do that.

 

[DonTadow]

Environment has a been a key factor in my games for over 10 years.

I build my random encounter charts based on environment.

I design my world based on the monsters' prefered environments.

If you are ignoring environments, you are ignoring a great way to bring life and detail to your campaign settings, as well as differentiate different areas within the world.

As well as potential plot hooks (Polar Bear on Deserted Tropical Island for example).

Yeah but can't you do that without hte training wheels? I mean 9 times out of 10 it looks like they just roll the environmental chart dice and put them there. They inclusion of them in the monster chart was pretty much useless.

It's not deterimental to your plot hooks (actually plot hook, the only one its hurting is you putting monster A. (whose not spuppose to be there) into envoronment B. You can easily do this by just saying
Roll me spot or knowledge nature

YOu see an A which is normally exclsuive to region B.