Monster Manual V

[reanjr]

More pre-statted NPCs? More maps? More monster prestige classes? More related spells?

Strangely enough, what I'd like to see is more monsters!!!

 

[reanjr]

Absolutely, positively no MM creatures with class levels!

Well, unless it's a 0-level humanoid...

 

[catsclaw227]

Personally, I was one (of the few it seems) that liked the MMIV and the way they presented existing monsters with classes/templates/lairs along side new monsters. I agree that the number of spawn of tiamat was a bit high, but whatever. I have tons of monsters already, I don't need more.

Maybe it requires a name change so that people better understand what it's for, but a book of OGL or official monsters classed and made into bands or lairs (with maps, yes) work best for this GM with limited time.

It looks like I'm in the minority here, but I think that we have enough monsters, what I need are more unique encounters.

 

[GeorgeFields]

I would like to see a mix of new creatures and creatures from previous editions. I don't want to see monsters that are already in the Monster Manual.

There you go. I'm all for that, too. WotC Has so much they can update without having to create new stuff by doing this. I think this is why Necromancer Games' Tome of Horrors is my favorite monster book.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Felon]

Pretend, for the most part, that Monster Manual IV never happened and work from there:

1) At a bare minimum, revise the new format so that it includes useful pieces of information like the HD breakdown, makes it more readable (and relatedly-easier to modify monsters with) instead of a visual fishing expedition, and doesn't take three times as much space.

2) A lot fewer classed monsters, and the classed monsters should be from the same Monster Manual, not previous Monster Manuals. 5% sounds about right.

3) Fewer variations on the same monster repeated throughout the book.

4) Take out the padding like the maps, enlarged treasure blocks, so on.

5) Add a section for DM's on how to figure out what a lore block ought to look like for a monster. Lore and ecology were two of the only good ideas MMIV had, and I'd like to see them retained.

6) On a more...intangible level, perhaps a greater or a bit upwards CR spread, with monsters that have more originality in their SA/SQ as well as their names (too many of them are fourword variedcombinations). Outstanding in their lack of being outstanding were the dragonspawn and the wizened elder.

7) Conversions of previous edition monsters, or inclusions of some of the monsters that've been converted from the Dragon magazines from previous editions.

8) Take out special qualities that actually make the monsters weaker...and do nothing else.

9) Make the monsters more 'friendly'/consistent with settings other than Faerun and Eberron. This is something that I think started in MMIII with a lot of the monsters being oriented along those lines, and continued in MMIV with some exceptions (such as the vitreous drinker and Vecna). I think that, to some extent, this has caused some major inconsistencies such as the massive loss of CR/power that happened to yugoloths in MMIII, or the relatively flavorless yugoloths in MMIV, or the demons that don't really 'fit' in the abyss.

Some of this criticsim is simply a matte of personal taste, but a lot of it is just massively unjustified.

1) Other than the fact that it's new to some folks, how is the current stat block a fishing expedition? It's arranged logically, whereas the old one was arbitrary. The first set of data is what applies prior to the start of combat, then next is defensive data, then offensive stuff. It does not in fact take three times as much space unless you count the fact that the creture's special abilities are entered in the stat block whereas previously they were down in the description somewhere with the flavor text.

3) There are only so many types of monsters out there. Most are variations on the same creature, just disguised a bit with a different name and appearance.

6) CR spread seemed pretty even.

8) I'm not sure what's meant by the referrence to special qualities that "make a monster weaker and do nothing else". If a special quality makes a monster hard to defeat--say, damage reduction or regeneration--what does that "do" that a weakness doesn't? They both can challenge the players' tactics, and they both can allow certain characters to have a chance to shine. The bloodbloater, for instance, has a ton of hit points, but takes 1d6 extra damage when attacked. That gives a tactical edge to a two-weapon-wielding ranger over the greatword-wielding power-leaping barbarian. It makes a player think outside the box by doing stuff like scattering caltrops across a floor just to inflict that 1 pip of damage many times over. Fantasy monsters throughout literature have had weaknesses that canny heroes took advantage of, and those weaknesses made for a far more interesting tale than if the hero had just hacked it to death.

9) There's nothing that makes MMIV setting-dependent. Just because there's info on how to incorporate a monster into an official setting, that hardly obstructs its inclusion in a homebrew campaign.

 

[Hussar]

And a lot of people who vehemently disagreed with me still agreed that WotC should do something to cut down prep time.

While we might not think that MM IV was the way to do it, at least there seems to be a definite response to what was being said here.

Agreed. Even though I admit that I disagreed with you on some elements, I always agree with anything that cuts prep time.

To me this is tied to the new design philosophy. Why have niche creatures?

Let me explain. A niche creature is only good if you need that particular niche filled. An Ogre Mage, for example, really only worked as a background puppet master type monster. You couldn't toss it in anywhere else because it's hp's and whatnot were just too low for its CR.

I would much, much rather have generic creatures that I can then template/class level/add equipment to to make a niche creature. Mearl's rework of the Ogre Mage points to this. I can now use the new Ogre Mage in pretty much any stock situation. If I want to use the new Ogre Mage as a puppet master creature, I can simply whack on some class levels and a few magic items and I'm golden.

Thus, the Ogre Mage becomes far more useful to more DM's. Instead of a monster having a very narrow appeal and filling that narrow appeal well, why not have a monster with general appeal that can then be tweaked using existing mechanics into a niche?

 

[Felon]

Personally, I would like to see some monsters that are specifically designed to be good at subduing characters rather than killing them outright.

I would also like to see variants of classic monsters that have proven over the years to be problematic. Mike Mearls' revamps of the rust monster and ogre mage are good examples. Another would be the mind flayer; its mind blast is its only real offense, which is problematic because it's basically save-or-be-removed-the-rest-of-the-battle. How about pulling a few other psionic tricks in the old bag?

 

[catsclaw227]

I would much, much rather have generic creatures that I can then template/class level/add equipment to to make a niche creature. Mearl's rework of the Ogre Mage points to this. I can now use the new Ogre Mage in pretty much any stock situation. If I want to use the new Ogre Mage as a puppet master creature, I can simply whack on some class levels and a few magic items and I'm golden.

QFT -- I kinda liked Mearls' revamping of the Ogre Mage and the Rust Monster. I don't see it as kid-gloving the players, I see it as repairing a broken monster. (Which then exposes me up to the broken/not-broken debate). I think MMV can do more like this, along with tactics and multiple encounter threads for each creature/band that will make my GMing easier.