Monster Manual IV - Good, Bad, or Indiferent?

[Dr_Rictus]

Also, I was a little let down by the inclusion of monsters with PC levels.

See, to me, doing that in MMIV went a long way towards making up for the sin of not doing it in MMIII. That book had too many needless variations on existing concepts (*cough* flind! *cough*) that really could have benefited from this approach.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

The old Creature Catalogs from Dragon had dozens of beasts that haven't seen the light of day. this doesn't include the numerous old Dragon's Bestiary.

I really suspect there's a reason for that not-seeing-the-light-of-day thing.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I really suspect there's a reason for that not-seeing-the-light-of-day thing.

Unthinkable! No concept is too crappy to generate nostalgia!

 

[satori01]

I find it very intresting that we see a pretty and dare say even divide between those that want more monsters, and also want to see an updating of every monster of prior editions and those that want to see more classed monster supplements.

I think I am in the middle ground on this. Monsters were quite static in old D&D, thus you got monsters like the Lizard King and the Flind which were beefed up variations on gnolls and Lizardmen. A Flind is not really needed in 3.5. An Elite Array Gnoll with levels in Monk and a Racial Proficincey in Flind Bar is all it takes. The Lizard King with their tridents were different enough, and tyranical enough that they seem different from Lizard Folk.

A classed monster book would be intresting to me as long as it went the route of Draconomicon and stated a wide range of different CR type creatures. Though I have never used a Dragon from Draconomicon, as a DM I like the fact that if I need a dragon in a jiffy, I know well stated dragons are a book away, ready to be used. A resource like that for humanoids, specificaly high mid and upper level humanoids would be quite valuable, as those are the most time consuming and painful to stat out.

Any such book should have "break points" in the book, stating that such and such a creature can qualify for X PrC. MMIV did that with one of its creatures, indicating that the creature,(which one escapes my memory) automatically qualified for the Assasin PrC.

 

[Echohawk]

If WoTC announced that they were doing a Monster Compendium and including monsters from all editions and each book would be 224+ pages at $39.95 a crack, I'd be there.

Do you mean all the monsters from previous editions?

Let's see... I estimate that between 8000 and 12000 different D&D creatures have seen print over the last few decades, depending on how you count them. Because I want the maths to work out nicely, let's use a somewhat conservative estimate of 6000. Assume that WotC can cram 300 creatures into each 224 page volume. (That's pretty cramped with a picture for each and especially with the new stat block, but the Monster Manual v. 3.5 actually has a slightly higher monster per page density.)

That gives us a 20 volume set of Monster Compendia. And a total cost of $799!

Okay, so now I am forced to admit that I'd probably still buy a set, which dilutes whatever point I was trying to make. But still... 20 volumes...

 

[DMH]

I like the ecology and societies sections, but the selection of creatures is meh. I don't use or like undead and outsiders and my personal interests are in invertebrates. The spiders are okay, the hive insectoids (demonhive and howling wasp) are annoying*, the plants are pretty interesting (though the oaken defender needs a better physical design), I really enjoy the fey (first time for any MM) and the zern have a great deal of wasted potential (just like the kaorti and ethergaunts). The two fusion creatures- greathorn minotaur and varag are great examples for those who like the amalgam template in Advanced Bestiary.

* Can anyone not use ants and bees as a basis of social insects?!? Are termites, wasps, social thrips, etc. so unusable?

Edit- I forgot to add I like the giant as well. Evil doesn't always have to produce ugly or horrify artwork.

 

[BryonD]

I like the ecology and societies sections, but the selection of creatures is meh.

I think this is kinda the crux of it.
It tried to be to many things and the clear majority didn't like the way they went about SOMETHING.

 

[Psion]

I didn't think the selection of creatures was bad. I have a problem with the handling of the Gith, but that's another story.

I don't think they layout or concept is bad. It will be useful.

More to the point, I don't really think I need any more monster books.

 

[Soel]

Plusses -
Expanded ecology and lore.


Minuses -
Classed monsters (not even the fact they are in there, realy more the fact that they chose the same old, same old to give levels to.)
Too many spiders.
Too much focus on the Spawn of Tiamat (I will maybe use a couple of them, but more like a variant lizard creature or something. Too much of a focus to be in a regular MM.)
No updated monsters. (still a lot of older edition critters needing a 3.5 home.)

I might be able to eke out my money's worth in spite of all of this.

 

[Gez]

I do not intend to buy it at all. Not interested.