Monster Manual IV thoughts?

[Mercule]

Out of curiosity, what exactly about a monster makes you feel like tool using it, but being really, really fun to use in the DDM game?

Short form is that I don't really care about DDM monsters besides as a collection of stats. Origin story, appearance, etc. don't matter so much -- and I can accept a higher level of cheese.

I've been told that the Spawn were all designed to work together and complement each other. That's a great idea for building warbands. Or for any other collectable game, as several "themes" in M:tG proved.

In D&D, though, I really don't like the "Tiamat corrupts chromatic eggs" origin story. Many of the spawn are more than a bit goofy, in and of themselves, too. They run counter to any game that encourages depth and verisimilute. I can't imagine a game that is so beer-and-pretzels that the Spawn wouldn't seem a bit odd.

 

[philreed]

Many of the spawn are more than a bit goofy, in and of themselves, too. They run counter to any game that encourages depth and verisimilute. I can't imagine a game that is so beer-and-pretzels that the Spawn wouldn't seem a bit odd.

I don't see how they're any more goofy than a lot of established D&D monsters. The beholder, even though I love it, is actually a pretty goofy monster. As are several other monsters that have been around for decades (nilbog, for example).

 

[BryonD]

I don't see how they're any more goofy than a lot of established D&D monsters. The beholder, even though I love it, is actually a pretty goofy monster. As are several other monsters that have been around for decades (nilbog, for example).

I do.

Just saying.

 

[satori01]

My opinion was very similiar to Demi's better than MMII worse than MM III and FF. Some of the monsters were creative and many of the monsters had abillities that complmented each other well.
General Complaints:

Format: it has taken WOTC three books now before we have a 'New' Stat Block format that does not have structural errors in it. Yeah Wizards of the Coast, best send Amazon, Buy.com, and Overstock.com a Xmas card because I will not be your test subject for full retail.

The 'New' stat block is fine, as I have said before I want to see the HD calculation, listing the Con bonus to HP is useful for on the fly calculations for buffs and curses. Wizards decided to skip having prefigured Power Attack in the monster entries, which after Hordes of the Abyss I am ok with. The 'New' entry style is really nothing more than the 2e expanded entry style, and frankly, I think it is a bit much. In the first case, so much extra and often wasted verbiage makes the book tiring to read. I skipped the last monsters of the book, I was to fatigued to go on. Secondly whole paragraphs can be excised quite easily. Having a stat block line that says LA +4 is a lot more efficient than having a paragraph of 32 words amount to the same. Likewise do we need complex Ecology entries when it amounts to "the monster is a carnivore and likes to eat people"
Ecologies should have some in game effect, like how a monster changes the terrain to make a lair, different larval stages etc.

Monsters: there are too many of the same type of monsters in this book. There are a lot of Spiders, Wasp like things, and Fey. Now for the most part they are designed well, but I could not help thinking "another spider, another Web entry". Clearly the Mantra of this book was add more Fey, add more Insects, add creatures that eat magic.

NPC Stats: Dungeon does it better for less cost and more gain.
Dungeon NPC stats have used the 'New' format for like a year now. Dungeon authors use very creative templates and class combos, all books used to make the creatures are listed WITH THE PAGE NUMBER OF THE BOOK USED WHERE THE MATIERAL CAN BE FOUND, and you get usuable stats and a context to use them.

The lizard man tribe in MMIV felt thematicaly identical to the lizard man tribe in Age of Worms, and that had plenty of NPC stats. Do I really need an ecology for a Drow Arcane Guard? The Drow/Githyanki stats where for throw away monsters, no real thought, no real intresting classes, so do I flavor text for flavorless things?

Things I like:

The monsters were well designed for the most part, many with intresting complimentry abilities. I liked the Spawn of Tiamat, I actually did. Will I use the back story probably not, I will just make them servants of Chromatic Dragons, but many of the monsters where neat. I would definetely use them in conjunction with Draconians, especially the Spawn that work as mounts.

I like that information is provided for Summoning spells and new monsters. I like the treasure section. I love the Lore check section, that is brillant and would love to see retro fits onto the old Monster books, anything that rewards players for lore skills is great.

Overall I think it is a decent book, the nuts and bolts are well designed, the monsters are solid, not awe inspiring, but solid.

 

[satori01]

The Spawn would fit like a glove in a Dragonlance campaign, perhaps the research into Draconians. I would make the War of the Lance much more a genocidial affair with Draconians, Chromatic Dragons, Spawn of Tiamat, and the associated minions of the Dragon High lords intending to inherit the earth, all else are dead. Doesnt seem trivial to me.

Spawn make sense in why send a young and fragile Dragon to do something, when you can send an expendable Spawn. Every Dragon that dies before becoming a Wyrm is a creature of great power that wasted it's potential. If a Wyrm is an Aircraft Carrier and Battleship combined why would you risk that asset when it is a Coast Guard Cutter, why not send something more expendable?

Also do Dragons in your World have guards? Do they make Half Dragon servitors? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then Spawn have a place. File off the serial numbers, remove refrence to Tiamat, and have the creation of spawn be the act of individual Dragons. I can totally see Long Lived, Selfish, Evil creatures like Chromatic Dragons engaging in rituals to convert their eggs into guardians. Over the long hall, serveral less dragons in the world mean less competion, and does not hurt the survival of the species.

I'm sorry Mercule, YOU have a problem with Spawn, and that is cool, everyone probably has some creatures that rub them the wrong way.
You categorical reasons, however I think overwrought , over enthusiatic, and over reaching.

Besides what did beer and pretzels ever do to you?

 

[Mercule]

I don't see how they're any more goofy than a lot of established D&D monsters. The beholder, even though I love it, is actually a pretty goofy monster. As are several other monsters that have been around for decades (nilbog, for example).

I hate the beholder, too. It's just a glorified flumph.

In its favor, though, it doesn't take up 1/6 of the Monster Manual.

 

[Lizard]

So Make It A Template Tome

To me Monster Manual IV is the first Monster manual to grow up and adapt the format to the 3rd edition rules. Time was when you needed a different challenge you created a new monster. That created the format for the MMs past...

Now we have templates, classes, advancement and stat modification, all of which can tweak monsters without arbitrarily creating a new monster. There's still a niche for new monsters. But we also need to make better use of the monsters that already exist. And that's what MM IV caters to, in addition to the new monsters.

Then how about, instead of a Monster Manual, a Template Tome? Or something like the excellent FFG Monster Handbook, with oodles of monster modification, monster-only classes/feats/goodies, etc?

If it's called a "Monster Manual", I want new critters, dammit.

 

[Deadguy]

Then how about, instead of a Monster Manual, a Template Tome? Or something like the excellent FFG Monster Handbook, with oodles of monster modification, monster-only classes/feats/goodies, etc?

If it's called a "Monster Manual", I want new critters, dammit.

This is my point. Pre-3e any changes meant a new monster. That's what's got us into this rut that if it isn't totally new it isn't worthy of being in a Monster Manual. But really all a Monster Manual is is a book compiling creatures for PCs to be challenged by. And under 3e that can be done by making those changes I mentioned earlier just as well as can be creating a load of arbitrary new monsters to wedge into a campaign. These things equally deserve space in a 3e Monster Manual.

 

[Mercule]

I'm sorry Mercule, YOU have a problem with Spawn, and that is cool, everyone probably has some creatures that rub them the wrong way.

You are absolutely correct. I dislike the spawn. I've never claimed to have some mathematic formula that proves they suck on an absolute level. In a discussion of what I liked and disliked about the book, I think it's perfectly fair to break out a seperate bullet point for the largest discernable section of the book.

When you get right down to it, I just plain think they're dorky. The only reason they deserve special mention is because of the amount of space they take up in the book and the amount of hype WotC has done over them.

As I mentioned, I think the beholder is a pretty dorky monster, too. It doesn't bother me, though, because it only takes up a couple of pages, which leaves lots of room for cool monsters.

You categorical reasons, however I think overwrought , over enthusiatic, and over reaching.

Well, I gave an opinion as part of a review. When asked why I disliked them, I gave my best answer and tried to do so as well as possible. I think "overwrought" and "over enthusiastic" are your perception, but that perception may be born of the vagueness of the subject matter.

Please explain to me what make a plaid leisure suit dorky. Really try to explain it to someone without sounding a bit overzealous.

So, yup, I may be a bit overstated in my opinion. But, really, it's just my opinion. You don't have to agree.[/QUOTE]

 

[Glyfair]

Well, I gave an opinion as part of a review. When asked why I disliked them, I gave my best answer and tried to do so as well as possible. I think "overwrought" and "over enthusiastic" are your perception, but that perception may be born of the vagueness of the subject matter.

Well, I think you overstepped when you implied that any campaign that used them well didn't have "depth and verisimilltude." Just because you can't use them well doesn't mean that someone can't and still maintain those things in the campaign.