Monster Manual IV, from Amazon.com

[ColonelHardisson]

The naming convention is as old as Yugoloths (1e Daemons) have been in print, almost as old as I am.

Y'know, if what had been said originally was "the naming convention of putting 'loth (originally daemon) at the end of their names is almost 30 years old" the meaning would have been more clear. My entire point was that 'loth itself, not as a replacement for daemon, was not a 30 year old convention. Demons, devils, and, it could be extrapolated, daemons, were renamed due to the "devil worshipping" charges against D&D in the mid 80s.

Besides, even the daemons aren't really 30 years old yet. 23-24 years, going by when they appeared in the Fiend Folio.

 

[dren]

This is the first monster book from WOTC I'm not happy about. I have a severe dislike of monsters with class levels or a variety on already well known creatures: drow, githyanki, gnolls, lizard men, orcs, ogres and yuan-ti. If it was just one or two of them that's almost "acceptable" but I have NPC designer, it takes a few moments to come with individualized creatures of these types and many, many more. (I'm also not thrilled with the spawn but that's a style issue and I can change enough about them to incorporate some of them into my campaign.)

I probably will still get it...I'm a sucker for these books. I try to turn away, but there's always a monster or two that I want more then my dislike of the duplicate beasties. But if they pull this stunt with the next one, I won't even bother picking up the book to get dissapointed.

Sigh, anyone know when the next Tome of Horrors is coming out?

 

[Shemeska]

Y'know, if what had been said originally was "the naming convention of putting 'loth (originally daemon) at the end of their names is almost 30 years old" the meaning would have been more clear.

Gotcha, I was sneaking in posts while at work. My apologies for not being as clear as perhaps I should have been originally.

Besides, even the daemons aren't really 30 years old yet. 23-24 years, going by when they appeared in the Fiend Folio.

I knew they were early 1e (Monster Manual II) but I didn't have the book with me at work, and I didn't take the time to look up the publication date online. It's 1983-2006, so yeah, a 24 year old naming convention.

 

[MerricB]

My main disgruntlement with the statted creatures is the Githyanki. They use supplemental rules elsewhere in the book (like scouts and ninjas), but fail to use psionic rules here. Githyanki are archetypal psionic creatures. They deserve to have a few creatures statted out using the XPH rules. As Githyanki are not OGC, I can't go to third party publishers to fill this need.

I think your only hope is in a book that requires the XPH. You can't just throw a psionic class (save soulknife) onto a creature without reprinting pages of rules that explain how psionics work.

Cheers!

 

[Voadam]

I think a level 1 GithX psychic warrior could have had their psionics explained without taking up too much space as a useful variant of the grunt warriors for the psionic races.

 

[Voadam]

Its odd that the art gallery does not include the bluespawn godslayer from the preview.

 

[Mercule]

I think your only hope is in a book that requires the XPH. You can't just throw a psionic class (save soulknife) onto a creature without reprinting pages of rules that explain how psionics work.

Even a gith soulknife would have been a nice adder.

 

[Vocenoctum]

I think a level 1 GithX psychic warrior could have had their psionics explained without taking up too much space as a useful variant of the grunt warriors for the psionic races.

They're higher level samples, making a 1st level guy IS pretty easy on the fly...

That said, even a PW would require a feat, psi-focus and a power explained.

 

[Izerath]

Seconded

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.

I agree with Eric here. I have a pretty hectic job and often find little time to "prep" those stat blocks. I'm good at it but not "fast." Lately, I've found myself just sitting down and statting out existing monster advancements out of "a need for speed" when I have to adjust pre-written encounters using stock monsters.

Here's a great example. I'm running Shackled City. Test of the Smoking Eye. I need stat blocks for the random encounters prepped to save time in looking up all the monsters and on top of it I need to advance the creatures at least 2 CRs, because the group is outside the recommended levels for the adventure. I can't make it too much harder, but a few quick advanced creature substitutions would sure be nice.

Voila, MM4. I haven't seen the book, - haven't turned one page. But does the concept of "ease of use" appeal? Yes in certain ways it does.

've been gaming for over 22 years. I did it the old way, and occassionally I still do it all myself for the sheer fun of it (30HD Vrock baby!!). But the reality is, I have other things to do in life and if a little money saves me time so I can spend more time playing the game instead of prepping it, then that's goodness to me.

I applaud WotC for taking a risk. I'll check out the format. I too echo applause for more on ecologies and environment - they are important to establishing certain "realities" in the game world.

I'll probably sit down with a cup o jo at the local Borders and read a while to determine if its worth the cash. Who knows - I may find something else I might like in my search for more play time less prep time.....

 

[Nightfall]

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

Nurture?! Dude it's already past that and on it's way to "Old age!"