Monster Manual IV thoughts?

[Scribble]

MM4 has 228 pages. And I get my books at less than the US$ price in Canadain$ so

BLAME CANADA!




*someone had too...

 

[JoeGKushner]

MM4 has 228 pages. And I get my books at less than the US$ price in Canadain$ so

Well, that's one example.
Change in and of itself is not necessarily bad.

But to me, a lot of material coming from WoTC these days seems like filler. (6 pages for a PrC that used to take 1 page, etc...) Some people are going to disagree about some other changes that have been made that I think are bad. And that's okay. I think it's a big enough hobby that if I say I don't like MMIV because X, Y, and Z and another person does, that they're my enemy. They're just coming from the game at a different angle.

 

[satori01]

I

I think people would be less unhappy with the book if it wasn't entitled Monster Manual IV. Certainly, I don't remember the same complaints for Dragonomicon, Libris Mortis and Lords of Madness.

Yep, theme goes a long way in adding enjoyment to a book.
What about the monsters make them more playable? I've grabbed monsters straight from the MM1 and so forth many a times and ran them fine. Nothing about MM IV strikes me as more playable, except for possibly the slightly expanded Treasure Section, and really beyond specifying certain items in a monsters possesion was not all that different than the treasure entry.

The Hostility to "Peanut Butter and Chocolate" is a bit odd to me. Maps to me, good challenging, not 20' x20' room, type maps are the hardest most time consuming things to make. So I never mind their inclusion into a product. I almost never use the maps as written, but they become a starting off point. A little mix and match I think can be a good thing. The FR book Faiths and Pantheons would be worthless to me if not for the sample and intresting temples layouts in the back.
I'm never going to use the stats for Torm. I'm never going to use the poorely designed PrCs. but I might use the map and encounters for a temple of Shar.

A sample map of a Beholder layer is not a bad thing in my book. I'd sacrifice the Phantom Fungus for a good Beholder lair Map in the MM1, even if I only used it once to great effect. A game aid that creates memories is better imho, than squeezing one extra random type monster. The problem of course is someone's trash is someone eles' treasure....though I hazard a guess very few people feel much of anything for the Phantom Fungus.

 

[BryonD]

I'm not sure I understand the first question. You're asking if I would have like it better if I had gotten just stat-blocks, without any material about the monsters at all? Or are you asking if I'd preferred only to have gotten upgrades to old monsters instead of the monsters in the MM IV? I thought I was clear on both points, above...if given the choice between nothing but stat-blocks or a book of stat-blocks with space devoted to lairs, psychology and placement...I'll favor the latter, after the first book.

Neither of those is the question really.

The question is not about the value of lairs and placement at all. It is about new monsters.

You said you don't need new monsters. With MMIV you GOT new monsters.
You paid for a whole book and better than 2/3 of that book is stuff you said you do not need. I gather you are so happy with the remainign portion that it is still worthwhile overall.

But if they had offered a book with the same page count as MMIV but with NO new monsters, would that have been preferable to you? Instead of new monsters they had offered many more stablocks, lairs, psychology, etc... all for monsters you already have and use. Wouldn't that be a vastly better product for someone who does not want more monsters?

I think people would be less unhappy with the book if it wasn't entitled Monster Manual IV. Certainly, I don't remember the same complaints for Dragonomicon, Libris Mortis and Lords of Madness.

Again, I think people would have been unhappy if Spell Compendium had been 1/3 feats. There is nothing wrong with feats. But don't tell me you are selling one thing and give me another.

With the books you listed people got what they expected based on the title.

 

[BryonD]

I'd love it if Wizards gave me all their books for free, yes.

I don't understand how that is responsive to what I said.

 

[Pants]

Yep, theme goes a long way in adding enjoyment to a book.
What about the monsters make them more playable? I've grabbed monsters straight from the MM1 and so forth many a times and ran them fine. Nothing about MM IV strikes me as more playable, except for possibly the slightly expanded Treasure Section, and really beyond specifying certain items in a monsters possesion was not all that different than the treasure entry.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the old statblock is 'unusable.' I've used it straight out of the MM many times and I will continue to do so, but then I also used the old 3.0 statblock and the old 3.0 MODULE statblock (shudder) straight up. I think it's more an instance of WotC saying 'Hey, can we make our existing statblock better?' and they honestly tried, but I can't say for certain whether they succeeded (my opinions on it are mixed).

As for the new treasure section, that's a vast improvement. I don't think I ever cracked the DMG open to look up the treasure chart. Ever.

But if they had offered a book with the same page count as MMIV but with NO new monsters, would that have been preferable to you? Instead of new monsters they had offered many more stablocks, lairs, psychology, etc... all for monsters you already have and use. Wouldn't that be a vastly better product for someone who does not want more monsters?

This is probably the fairest criticism that can be made. The classed monsters probably belonged in a different book. That doesn't mean that I won't use them.

Again, I think people would have been unhappy if Spell Compendium had been 1/3 feats. There is nothing wrong with feats. But don't tell me you are selling one thing and give me another.

With the books you listed people got what they expected based on the title.

That's not a good analagy at all, considering that all of the classed monsters from MMIV are ll 'monsters' from the original MM. Thus, they fit the definition of monster.

 

[Scribble]

That's not a good analagy at all, considering that all of the classed monsters from MMIV are ll 'monsters' from the original MM. Thus, they fit the definition of monster.

yeah... it would have been closer if a portion of the Spell Compendium has been meta magic Feats... or just "templated" spells...

 

[BryonD]

This is probably the fairest criticism that can be made. The classed monsters probably belonged in a different book. That doesn't mean that I won't use them.

Me too. I'd certainly be quite interested in a useable set of statblocks.
I just don't see that, for me, this approach really makes them at all useable.

When this issue first came to light one of the contributers pointed to the Ogre Barbarian 4 as precedent. To me that just drove home how flawed this approach really is.
I don't think of a stat block for a single Ogre Barbarian 4 as a source for Ogre Barbarian stats. I also do not think of the MM as a source of customized stat blocks at all, even though there are quite a few scattered through it. They are all very specific and to me the greatest value in them was just as go-bys as to what WotC had in mind for ways to advance creatures.

But if I want an ogre barbarian for my game, I'm going to want whatever level fits right now, not whatever one level option WotC choose to provide me. So when I want an ogre barbarian I think, I need to stat it up. I do not think: I wonder if the exact statblock I need just happens to be in the MM. That is just not the type of resource the MM is and I do not even think of it that way.

If I had a book with a bunch of ogre barbarians at various levels and maybe even various concepts, then I would certainly think of that as a resource immediately. And when I need one, I would go there. It never even crosses my mind to look at the MM that way.

So a single example is worth far less than 1/10 the value of ten examples.

The same goes with a single drow ninja 4.

Make me a book full of stat blocks and I'm there.
Make me a book full of new monsters and I'm there.

Reduce the number of monsters in a monster book and replace it with single examples of advancements for pre-existing monsters and you have a case where the total is much less than the sum of its parts.

 

[BryonD]

That's not a good analagy at all, considering that all of the classed monsters from MMIV are ll 'monsters' from the original MM. Thus, they fit the definition of monster.

Here I disagree.
It is an example of expecting A and getting B.

 

[WizarDru]

You said you don't need new monsters. With MMIV you GOT new monsters.
You paid for a whole book and better than 2/3 of that book is stuff you said you do not need. I gather you are so happy with the remainign portion that it is still worthwhile overall.

But I didn't JUST get new monsters. For me, that's a critical difference. I didn't purchase the MM II (though Shackled City has me considering it, just for completeness' sake) and wasn't thrilled with the MMM III. I liked the Fiend Folio, because it had some monsters I wanted in it (and again, Shackled City). MM IV didn't just give me stat-blocks, it gives me cookie-cutter material I can drop in anywhere I want, without having to do a lot of work or spend a lot of time. That's worth it to me. Considering how much I tend to cherry-pick any particular book, I'd say that Yes, the remaining portion is worthwhile to me.

But if they had offered a book with the same page count as MMIV but with NO new monsters, would that have been preferable to you? Instead of new monsters they had offered many more stablocks, lairs, psychology, etc... all for monsters you already have and use. Wouldn't that be a vastly better product for someone who does not want more monsters?

I would buy that in a heartbeat, as I was in the minority that really liked and got a lot of use out of Enemies and Allies. However, you've changed verbs there and that changes my answer, somewhat. I said I didn't NEED new monsters, I never said I didn't WANT new monsters. The difference, for me, is that I don't need the same density as the Monster Manual. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy new monsters...the Elemental Avatars, for example, are nearly worth the price of the book for me. And I LIKE the Dragonspawn.

Again, I think people would have been unhappy if Spell Compendium had been 1/3 feats. There is nothing wrong with feats. But don't tell me you are selling one thing and give me another.

Well, I got the impression that people didn't like Spell Compendium because it was riddled with errors and mistakes.

With the books you listed people got what they expected based on the title.

I see your point, although I know some folks who were pretty disappointed in Libris Mortis.