Monster Manual IV thoughts?

[TheNovaLord]

I really like it! .

me too.

thought new stat blcok, and DC for knowledge is great. Like the little maps they added. revisit of some old monsters with class levels and such. Can finally use my blood hulk mini for wot its meant to be. Just like lots of stuff in it, and as abonus seemed to be more lovel CR critters than MM III, which has sat on my shelf and never been used.

thumbs up from me

JohnD

 

[Vrecknidj]

Someone bought the MM2 for me so long ago. I don't buy monster books. (Ironic, because sometimes I work on them.) If it ain't in the original Monster Manual (and I'm using the word "original" only to mean relative to the current edition of the game), then I'll make it up myself.

And, besides, when other people take the DM helm for a while, this means that they get to throw monsters at me that I haven't seen, because I haven't read the other books. I rather like it this way--makes playing fun.

Dave

 

[BlueBlackRed]

I was pretty disappointed with it.
Now I liked many of the new monsters (minus the goofy white spawn with ice-skates), but I felt the book was only half as good as it should be.

The monster ability layout was a good change, mostly. I'd prefer they'd have left the treasure and number appearing in the stat block, but I can get past that.

But it was 220 pages with about 120 pages of wasted space.

Each monster took up at least 2 pages, sometimes more, when only 1-2 pages was needed.

And the gnolls, orcs, drow, etc. was simply not needed. Any DM with 5 minutes of prep time can make an orc with rogue/ranger/scout levels and call him a scout. So to me these monsters were needless reprints.

When it comes to WotC books anymore, they really seem to be hit-or-miss IMO.
From now on I will not be buying any of their books without listening to others with a similar outlook on the game.

 

[Psion]

I just got MMIV and I was a bit disappointed, what is your opinion?

Well, as mentioned in an earlier thread on the topic, it sort of chaps my hide that they felt free to use supplemental material to define some creatures, but dropped the ball on statting up proper Githyanki.

I have no problem creating usable classed version of creatures. But if you are going to do it, you should do so in a way that makes them maximally useful. If I am going to run a Githyanki campaign, the Githyanki should be psionic, or at least have a psionic representative or two.

That said, I still liked the book better than MMIII.

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

I've got MMIV.

I used the Tomb Spiders (& the Swarm & Mummy) to great effect last game.

The book is OK. If you like Monster Books, you can get your money's worth.

It just feels like they tried to do too much. They've tried to reinvent EVERYTHING, a complete transformation of Format, Style and Philosophy, and crammed it all into one book, rather than merely concentrating one 1 aspect to make sure they got it right.

1. I can see how the new stat block could make things easier to run, but it needs to be revised a bit more before that happens. I like how they break it down into 4 sections, with each along a similar theme, it should make things easier. Part of that is me (I've memorized the old format). While I might find it easier to run the monster 'as is' if I want to add a few Hit Dice, modify some numbers on the fly, this new format is a pain in the neck. While it might be easier to run, it's a lot harder to modify quickly. Also, given WotC's past 'success' at correct stat blocks, I have a little bit of problem with the new 'Trust us, it's right' version of HD. (My wife, who plays, but doesn't run, still has problems with how 9HD could equal both 32 and 104 Hit Points). She thinks 9HD is 9HD, thus it should be the same. 9d6 (32) and 9d12+45 (104) she has no problem with.

Making it easier to run a combat, I like that. Making it harder to run a campaign, I don't like that.

2. All the classed monsters. An Orc Barbarian 4 is, in many ways, just another type of CR 4 Melee Combat Monster. An orginal monster could be developed that would basically do everything a a Orc Bbn 4 would. The difference is that it take me about 30 seconds to make an Orc Bbn 4, while creating a whole new monster from scratch could take hours to days (more if I want to playtest it correctly). Also, I have about 30+ adventures, articles, source books that have a sample Orc Barbarian, usually 3-9th level. In short, classed monsters that are 1) easy to create & 2) already can be found/downloaded within 15 seconds aren't really needed.

The classed monsters read, felt, and seemed to me to be a Web Supplement rather than so cool they deserved their own hard-copy pages. (One exception, I really like the Orc War-singer, a Bbn/Bard, if you have to put it classed monsters, give them unique multi-classes/wierd combos that people might not have considered).

Classed monsters should either be 1) Included with the 'Parent Creature' ie, Orc Stats Block then Sample Orc Fighter/Barbarian/Cleric, etc. 2) A web supplement (most of the MM4 would have been better there) or 3) Of such a unique combo or rationale that it really takes the base creature to another level.

3. The much longer entries. I have no problem with this. In Theory. Some of my favorite Monster Books have this format (The Monsternomicon). I like this format. Both the 'Cram as many as we can' and the 'Let's take a couple of pages to fully flesh out each creature' hold equal spots on my Monster Resource Depth Chart. MM4 just seemed to miss the mark here. Using a paragraph to tell me that the CR 6 creature has 2,000 gp of various treasure (just like the DMG Table) is not any good. About half of the treasure entries seemed to be there, just because somebody decided every monster HAD to have a treasure paragraph. Same with the environment. Some was really useful, others just re-stated the old Monster Stat Block Line in 3-5 sentences.

I think if they had just tried to focus on any ONE element for this book instead of trying to re-do everything at once, this could have been a really great, innovative book. Instead it feels cobbled together and incomplete.

I said before, this book COULD be the beginning of trully something great. We might look back on this as the turning point where monster books really became super easy to use & chocked full of all sorts of goodies.

While I can't recommend this book, I can't condem it either. It could have been a really great book (the framework is there). Just the execution suffers in quite a few areas.

All-in-all a mediocre book. It has enough good book, I can't tell you not to get it, but it has enough problems I can't tell you to buy it.

 

[Sleepy Voiced]

I was pretty underwhelmed. A lot of the new monsters seemed to have redundant concepts (I could be wrong, but that was my impression - especially the undead). I was looking forward to the return of ecology and society sections, but the actual execution was disappointing. I think too much space was dedicated to each creature. I think 1 page per monster is my ideal.

Side note: Take my opinions with a grain of salt, I liked and got a lot of use from the MM II.

 

[Rawhide]

I hate, hate, hate the cover. I know that's supposed to be a dragon-thing bursting out of a hide wrapping, but it looks dumb to me. The worst WotC cover ever, by far.

I love everything else. While other are complaining about 7 pages for lizardfolk, I'm enjoying a set of foes you can build a whole campaign, or at least a major adventure, around. I found the focus on groups of thematically-linked foes, including the statted out humanoids and spawn (though I agree the iceskate dragon is kinda dumb) makes this book much easier to use. I never get more than a few monsters out of a single monster book anyway (original MM excluded), but this way when I do the work to add a new theme to my game, I get a whole set of foes to use. And, of course, I have new orcs and ogres ready to go.

Much better than FF, MMII (both of which I now find useless, thanks to conversion woes) or MM III.

For both those that liked the book and those who were dissappointed, what are your favorite and least liked single monsters?

I beleive I enjoyed the corrupture the most, and disliked the whitespawn iceskider more than anything else in several books.

 

[BryonD]

To me, it's not really a monster manual but rather some insedious cross breed of an Enemies and Allies book crossed with a Monster of the Week article from Dragon magazine with some additional information thrown in.

Not terrible but certainly NOT what I'm looking for in a monster manual.

Agreed.

Half of two potentially very good books and the whole is well less than the sum of the parts.

 

[Sleepy Voiced]

OOh, ooh, let me add my voice to the "hated the cover" group. When I saw it in the WotC catalog I assumed it was a mock-up, and we'd get something much cooler when the book appeared in stores. Boy was I wrong.

 

[Psion]

Side note: Take my opinions with a grain of salt, I liked and got a lot of use from the MM II.

That's no reason to take your opinions with a grain of salt at all. The MMII had a lot going for it. Admittedly, some creatures require a bit of cleverness to use in a game instead of being mere sword-fodder... but that's not a bad thing. We already had a book of sword-fodder.