Monster Manual IV thoughts?

[Mercule]

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.

Fair enough. That's the problem when I try to describe what is dorky about them.

Yes, I'm overusing the word "dorky". It's the one I've settled on as pretty well summing up my thought on the Spawn, but without sounding like I'm trying to be too intellectual.

I guess to frame the whole thing in a different way, the Spawn could all be replaced with various flavors of well-statted (meaning not "broken") mutant florescent bunnies. In a wargame, I could cut loose and enjoy the carnage and humor caused by Neon Lagomorphs of Doom (tm). In a roleplaying game, I'd have a bit of a problem if my tough and gruff fighter was thrown up against NLDs. In a really (really) casual game, it might be funny once. Once.

Maybe some people want to play such a game all the time. That doesn't make them wrong. Nor does it invalidate the fact that I consider taking up a pretty good chunk of a major release with NLD to be a value-subtracted proposition. NLDs are dorky. Spawn of Tiamat are dorky.

Or, maybe it's just that I'm sick of mutant dragons. I'm done with half-dragons. I didn't like the write-up for kobolds in RotD. I don't like the Dragonborn of Bahamut. I don't like the Spellscales. I don't like draconic heritage feats for sorcerers. And I don't like freakish gengineered Spawn. Honestly, I don't think there has been a single good idea about dragons that has come out of WotC during the entire "Year of the Dragon". There may be some of which I'm not aware. All that I've seen, though, are some of the least appealing ideas I've seen.

Actually, I take that back. I'm quite looking forward to getting my Colossal Red figure.

 

[Scribble]

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

sniff... Now you've gone and made me self concious about my wardrobe.

 

[WizarDru]

Add me to the ranks of those who really liked the book.

• Good Artwork
• Interesting Creatures (I LIKE the Dragonspawn)
• Detailed Monster Descriptions
• Lots of Supplemental Material
• A Clear Emphasis on saving the DM work

MM IV is clearly the most DM focused book of the bunch, and my favorite after the first. There are plenty of monster books out there...what I need is a book that I can use RIGHT NOW. I could grab the DMG2 and MMIV and run a campaign out of Saltmarsh within fifteen minutes. I like that a LOT.

 

[Lizard]

MM IV is clearly the most DM focused book of the bunch, and my favorite after the first. There are plenty of monster books out there...what I need is a book that I can use RIGHT NOW. I could grab the DMG2 and MMIV and run a campaign out of Saltmarsh within fifteen minutes. I like that a LOT.

In the elder days, when dinosaurs roamed the land and rocks were soft and we argued over whether or not female dwarves had beards, we had similair products.

We called them 'modules', for reasons arcane and obscure.

I love buying rulebooks and sourcebooks.

I generally do not buy modules.

The current Reeses Peanut Butter Cup approach -- "You got module in my rulebook! Well, you got rulebook in my module!" may very well appeal to some. It doesn't appeal to me. If I'm in the minority, well, let's hear it for 3rd party publishers, of whom there are still a few.

I'm guessing, frankly, that I am in the minority, as the trend has been more and more towards adding adventure/module material into the sourcebooks, which implies that it's popular.

 

[Mercule]

Lizard, you have just pounded that nail on the head. Driven it clean through the board, in fact.

 

[Glyfair]

The current Reeses Peanut Butter Cup approach -- "You got module in my rulebook! Well, you got rulebook in my module!" may very well appeal to some. It doesn't appeal to me. If I'm in the minority, well, let's hear it for 3rd party publishers, of whom there are still a few.

I'm guessing, frankly, that I am in the minority, as the trend has been more and more towards adding adventure/module material into the sourcebooks, which implies that it's popular.

It's been popular with publishers. There was a cry for more adventure support. Adventures aren't profitable except in very rare cases (because only a subset of a small market buys them), so publishers fit the material in with sourcebooks that do sell.

This isn't entirely new. "In the elder days, when dinosaurs roamed the land" publishers did the same thing, but we were less jaded. A monster or two and some new magic items were enough to get us to buy a module. Now, you need much more added value to make it popular.

Dungeon survives because each issue has multiple adventures in it. That's usually 3 chances to find a one-shot to fit in your campaign (or 2 chances if the current issue has an adventure path adventure). It also has additional articles, humor, etc.

 

[BryonD]

I'm guessing, frankly, that I am in the minority, as the trend has been more and more towards adding adventure/module material into the sourcebooks, which implies that it's popular.

I'd guess it has more to do with the overall saturated market.

 

[BryonD]

There are plenty of monster books out there...what I need is a book that I can use RIGHT NOW. I could grab the DMG2 and MMIV and run a campaign out of Saltmarsh within fifteen minutes. I like that a LOT.

Would a book with a wide range of CR stat blocks be more or less valueable?

 

[Razz]

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.

Traps, mechanical and magical, provide challenges to PCs too, maybe MM5 should have 1/3 of the book dedicated to tons of new traps, the ecology impacted by those traps, the society of people creating those traps, the typical treasure left behind when those traps slay their victims, Knowledge (dungeoneering) or Knowledge (architecture&engineering)tables for those traps, maps providing areas of where to stick those traps for DMs without a second of time to waste.

And we'll still call the book "Monster Manual 5", btw.

 

[BryonD]

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.

I disagree that editions has anything to do with it.
Enemies and Allies is a 3E book that was not called a monster manual and I don't recall anyone suggesting it should have been.

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.

As Razz points out, traps don't go in an MM.
Even closer to monsters are "hazards" which are still DMG material.

But even all that aside, go ahead and fill a book up with classed creatures and call it an MM if you want. That'd be better than the part done "Here's the one level we offer" alternative.