Monster Manual

[IronWolf]

I have to agree with what I percieve to be the majority opinion on this product. This book contains a lot of great monsters, introduces the concept of 'templates' which cover certain types of monster far better than they have ever been treated before in D&D (essentially, the template is laid over the top of a character or monster - thus you can have a vampire sorceror, a ghost crocodile or whatever takes your fancy).

The artwork is, mainly, excellent and colouful (althought here's not enough of it). However, the layout leaves much to be desired. It can be difficult to find the monster you want.

Secondly - some monsters are missing. I understand that many of these can be found in the Monsters of Faerun book - but they are so generic and core that they really should have been in this one.

To score a perfect 5, this product would need to have one monster per page with ilustration (a la 2nd Edition Monstrous Manual). As it is, I give it 4/5. It's still an essential purchase.

 

[nexx]

This book could have been so much more, and that's disappointing.

Like many others, I'll harp upon the layout, which was often confusing and difficult to follow. I agree with Wizards that putting one monster per page would've been problematic, since you then give a false page count; sure, you seem to have a hefty book, but you also have a lot of wasted space. I would've instead gone with a more 1st edition Monster Manual approach to layout, with the monsters in neat, easy to read blocks, rather than wraping text around pictures and so on. A better effort really should have been made to put all of the stats for a given monster on a single page, as well, since the current setup makes some monsters difficult to use.

Next, we have the choices of creatures to go into the book. I dislike that they included many creatures that are dependant on the core cosmology, such as the Celestials, the various types of demons and devils, and the etheral creatures. Since you haven't covered these areas in any 3e book (aside from blurbs within spells), including creatures specific to them is a poor design choice; new players won't have the background in these creatures that older ones do, and older players (i.e. those with previous edition experience) have probably already decided whether they use them or not.

Mechanically, the book was passable, but only barely. I found most of the CRs to be completely out of whack, but its very easy to figure out what the new CR should be based on any changes you make to a monster (of course, that new CR is still out of whack). One of my major peeves is that, along with the CR stat, they did not include a "Level Equivalent" stat, telling you how many levels this race counted as if you wanted to play it as a PC. What if I want to play a pseudo-dragon? How many levels is that worth? We don't get a clue, except for exhortations by WotC staff to "wing it".

What were the good points? I rather like templates as a concept, but I also think they could have been more widely implemented... a mummy template, or even a zombie or skeleton template, would make a lot of undead easier to deal with. Personally, I'd also like to see precalculated stats for the summonable monsters (fiendish badgers, celestial dire rats, whatever), since that's certain to come up again and again. Grouping the normal animals together makes for easy reference, and classifying creatures by "animal", "beast", etc. makes things very clear as to where the creature fits into the world.

This book could have been so much more, but its riddled with systemic weaknesses. The rating would more accurately be 2.5, but there isn't that degree of control.

-Nexx

 

[Psion]

I had an early look at the 3e playtest material. To be honest, at that time I wasn't convinced that 3e was worth the switch. I had already purchased the 3e PHB and DMG, and I was going to take the good stuff and leave the rest.

The monster manual is what sold 3e to me. It wasn't until I perceived the impact of the change in treating monster more like characters that I realized the impact it would have on my game. Unlike prior editions, the 3e MM allows you to make larger creatures, change their skills, make variations, and give them classes -- in short, allow them to be treated like other beings. In one stroke, the last mar of inconsistancy was removed from the game and possibilities for new challenges and engaging NPCs was opened.

The MM is stuffed with monsters. Alas, some layout clarity was sacrificed to ensure that they could bring you as many monsters as possible. I feel that this was a necessary sacrifice, as it is important to bring the DMs as many of the creatures from prior editions as possible. Alas, the greatest flaw I see in the book is that I really would have preferred that oddball creatures like the Ythrak be skipped in favor of more of the classic creatures that were shuffled off to books like Monster of Faerun and adventures like Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil.

The art in the MM is overall very good.

The addition of the concept of templates increased the possibilities even more without costing valuable extra entries to realize some of the creatures made possible with templates. Now you can make fiendish bats, celestial weretigers, half dragon ogres and vampire goblins. Or more dreadful combinations.

To me, this is an immense resource that makes 3e what it is. What more need be said?

 

[Messageboard Golem]

I wasn't planning to review any of the core books, but some of the reviews given for the MM just aren't fair or accurate.

Here's the deal: the MM is NOT a monster book. It is a monster construction kit with 17 new classes, a dozen new feats, at least a hundred new special qualities and abilities, a new classlike element (the template), and 500+ examples.

Monsters in 3E are PC-like not only because of their ability scores, but because their HD are derived from levels in monster "classes", like Construct, Dragon, and Undead. Because these levels also provide skill and feat points, saves and attack bonuses, monsters are _exactly_ like PCs. The old-fashioned split between monster and character has been completely exploded.

Because of this new, modular system the MM can also present the two crown jewels of the monster system: advancement, and templates. Advancing a monster works very much like adding class levels to a character--the HD, attack bonus, skills, saves, etc. all increment, and in some cases the monster's size can increment as well. This is a fantastic system not fully realized by most DMs--a CR 8 monster is just a CR 10 monster waiting to be advanced, and coupled with the EL/CR table in the DMG, a savvy DM can modify and tweak his encounters for any occasion, even beef up a familiar monster to an unfamiliar power level.

Templates are a little like prestige classes, but instead of raising a monster's character level/HD, they change its type, add new abilities, and (usually) raise its CR. They also effectively widen the range of encounters even further: an advanced, fiendish owlbear rises from CR 4 to as high as CR 10! They are much easier to use than advancement, so most DMs are already well-aware of the advantages of this new mechanic.

A lot has been posted about the layout of the MM, and I honestly don't get it. Many critics complain that the layout should have left space for an entire monster per page, as the 2E Monstrous Manual did, and the 1E MM and FF did not. This sounds great in concept, but in practice do you really want a whole page for the shrieker? For the owlbear? Is that really necessary? Monsters with longer writeups, like dragons, would have slopped into multiple pages anyway, regardless of layout, and short, simple monsters (the pegasus, hippogriff, orc, goblin, kobold) would get more than their share of space. I _like_ the tight, compact layout because it means less flipping between entries, more monsters inside one cover, and less wasted space.

Finally, the illustrations are excellent throughout, in sharp contrast to the old Monstrous Manual, and highly appropriate.

This is a top-notch piece of game design and development, and I can't recommend it highly enough for DMs.

 

[Messageboard Golem]

I am intending to review several "creature encyclopedias" over the next week or two so I may as well start with the main one.
First of all, I have to say that it is my least favorite of the three "core books" for DnD. What follows is therefore a largely negative review. To balance it out, I have to say that the book is exceptionally illustrated and remarkably well edited and that I have yet to find a single rule inconsistency or error. (No wonder, it was done by Skip 'the Sage' Williams himself).
That said, however, why do I not like this book ?
First reason is one that has been talked about a lot already - format.
All the old Monster Manuals and all the other "creature encyclopedias" have a single creature per page. If more space is needed part of the second page is dedicated exclusively to that creature. This format has several advantages: it is easier to navigate, it is easier for DM to photocopy several important pages prior to the game, it keeps same kind of information at the same place on the page thus making it easier to find out a specific info on a given creature without reading its whole entry. Finally, and I admit this is a matter of taste, this way of organizing things, with illustrations in one of the corners, gives the book more stately encyclopedic look.
New Monster Manual, to the contrary goes with free-flowing monsters continuing after each other without respect to the page layout. They go so far that at many occasions they cut the stat block of a monster in half by a page cut, practice that makes the book significantly harder to use. Illustrations are also spread around and sometimes it is hard to match them to the particular monster, especially for someone who had not encountered the material before.
It has been said few that this was done in order to replace the encyclopedic look with more fantasy one of medieval bestiaries but I do not believe that as the similarities are very few. Bestiaries, for example, tended to eschew alphabetic categorizing and instead grouped creatures by their geographic and "ecological" properties (something that in fact would not have been a bad idea in a "creature encyclopedia", compounded by a master index of course).
Much more likely cause of this formatting, and the source of my contention against this book, is much more frequently quoted reason: "We wanted to give you guys as many monsters as possible in the allotted space".
To put aside the question of space allotment (it is not like the Hasbro CEO came down and said "Monster Manual will have 240 pages"), I want to question the more is better philosophy when it comes to monsters. (I believe it is questionable when it comes to prestige classes, feats and practically any other aspect of the game but the sheer prevalence of the "creature encyclopedia" type of books it seems to me that it is most frequent on the monster front).
While fantasy and FRP as its sub genre do involve certain amount of the suspension of disbelief, it is a known fact that most successful fiction as well as most successful campaigns take place in the, not necessarily realistic, but believable settings. Having a relatively small set of monsters, but having them well developed with their cultural and ecological significance well explained enhances the value of the campaign world significantly.
On the contrary having a weird monster appear in mid-campaign without much explanation of its significance beyond "…well, you know, it is a Grick, they infest dungeons and caves…" makes the world seem much more contrived and diminishes the game itself.
What I am trying to say is that this book fails, because it goes for quantity and thus limits itself in quality. Coming up with combat statistics is to a great problem to me, attaching them to a creature that will remain remembered by my players is much greater challenge and one in which Monster Manual does very little to help me. In this respect this book is a great step down from Monstrous Manual, the big hardback that was for a long time considered one of the core books of the 2nd edition which, although not perfect, went to some lengths to give valuable background to its monsters.
Going into particulars, the most valuable thing about the book is that it does feature 3rd edition updates on the old, and well developed, monsters. It also introduces the system of templates which is both very usefull and very practical. For those that do not know it allows the adding a new property, such as lycantropy, to an existing monster or a character.
Monsters new to this book are largely uninspired and sometimes outright silly (Attach and Digester being examples of creatures I can not imagine used in a serious campaign) but few new undead are borderline usefull. Fomorians, that are supposed to be taken seriously, (and are even rather prominent in the summoning table) are to drastic adition to an ongoing campaign and a summoning alternative for them would have been nice.
That a lot of second edition monsters are missing I find to be a leser flaw then the missing information on the ones included.
All in all a servicable book, suffering from quantity over quality problem and formating style and, in my oppinion, overshadowed by some of the creature encyclpedias coming after it.

 

[Messageboard Golem]

While eagerly awaiting the arrival of Monster Manual II, I thought it fitting to revisit Core Book III: Monster Manual I. While I have a suspicion that MMI and MMII will join together in a higher state just as the old MCI and MCII (later merged and expanded into the 2E MM), Core Book III can stand on it's own feet easily. Here are some highlights:

Great Introduction

The introductory chapter introduced us to so many of the new - long overdue - innovations of monsters in the 3E/d20 system. The division of monsters into types and large list of predefined special abilities are a true boon as is the new system of Creature Advancement allowing the DM to tone monsters up and down (a concept further strengthened by the invention of "templates").

Monster Selection

The selection of monsters in the MMI is by no means as complete as the fantastic repertoire of the 2E MM, the artwork is several leagues better, though, and the more customisable monster system will surely allow the DM access to a greater array of exciting foes than it's predecessor did.
There are both old favourites and some new innovations to be found in the book:

Aranea: The spellcasting, shapeshifting spiders have always been favourites of mine back to the days when they appeared in OD&D...

Bulette: Gotta love a landshark...

Nightshades: Some of my favourite undead - truly horrific. Feature the coolest picture in the book (closely contested by the Mind Flayer depiction).

Tendriculos: This ravaging plant wrecked havoc on my first 3E group - not much of an intelligence test but a great atypical physical monster.

Xill: I was glad to see the alien-like Xill from the original Fiend Folio make a surprise appearence in this book. The Xill serve many functions - from disgusting foes to tricky (very tricky!) allies.

And of course 80% of the monsters are more or less the essential classics such as: Beholder, Bugbear, Goblin, Orc, Drow, Illithid, Ankheg, Behir, Ghost, Lich etc. as well as a broad selection of Dragons, Giants, Celestials, Devils and Demons.

Templates

Templates is on of my favourite design elements of the 3E/d20 system - it has opened the door for the creation of some truly unique and interesting monsters and adds tremendously to the flexibility of both DM and players choices. It's nice to see that pretty much everyone can now become a vampire, lycanthrope, half-fiend, half-celestial etc. The concept has been expanded upon so much by now that the templates in MM may seem a bit moot by comparison. It's my guess, though, that'll you'll find these templates extremely hard to miss in your gaming sessions.

Conclusion

All in all, I still think the MM is one of the most useful resources in my now fairly comprehensive 3E library. It provides the DM with what it sets out to provide: A solid base of standard DnD/fantasy monsters for use in several different genres of fantasy play. Personally, I'd have liked a bit bigger book but my appetite for monsters is insatiable and I won't hold that against this product.

-Zarrock

 

[The Sigil]

The Monster Manual is the third of the three Core Rulebooks for the D&D/d20 System, published by Wizards of the Coast.

Note: This review, along with the review on the PHB and DMG is considerably shorter than usual and focused on my opinions and reactions because of the tremendous amount of reviews they have already received and the assumption that everyone is quite familiar with them by now.

Percent of OGC: 0%* (This deserves an asterisk because a great deal of the MM was released as Open Game Content in the System Reference Document though currently is under the Gentlemens' Agreement)

First Impressions: Not quite the "wow" factor of the PHB or DMG, but still very good. The format looks a little cluttered, as though they were trying to jam in a lot of material (they were, but they reduced the page count from the DMG and PHB). Having the rules of "how to make a monster" right in the front of the book is great! 14 pages of explaining special abilities, how they work, and finally separating monsters into definitive types (as was started back in the days of the D&D Accessory AC9, the Creature Catalogue) was terrific, and helps quickly define a monster's role.

Initial Annoyances: Many of the monsters "break the rules" outlined in the beginning of the book. Don't give us rules and then turn right around and break them. Sheesh. Also, the "cluttered" format makes things very hard to read - especially on entries such as "Devil" where all the devil "stat blocks" are jammed together and hard to read. Give us a separate entry for "Devil, Kyton" and "Devil, Barbazu" to make it easier on the eyes!

The Good: Where to start? Um, pretty much gives you a huge selection of monsters for your campaign. You could run forever with just this book based on range of CRs and creature types. The collecting of Animals and Vermin into appendices at the end was an excellent move too, especially given the druid and ranger abilities of animal friendship. This way, all the animals are in one place - and anyone who needs more detail on a particular animal can go to an encyclopedia. Not too bad a move, that. The introduction of templates to the system is LONG overdue and is probably the second-most exciting part of the book (behind the creature creation rules) for DMs.

The Bad: Why vermin were collected into an Appendix is a little tricky to understand. Also, notably missing from the book are some of the "Trap" monsters such as the various molds and slimes we all adored (or not) from previous editions. Perhaps an appendix with "trap" monsters could have been done, too. Also, as I mentioned before, this book breaks its own rules early and often.

The Ugly: Too much compression. The DMG and PHB were slightly longer and looked better-organized. Another 32 pages (to get the page count up to 256) would have made a huge difference in making this an easier read, even if the amount of material contained inside remained the same.

Presentation: The information is great, but as mentioned before, the layout is awful. Most of the creatures have pictures which are for the most part good. No complaints here.

Conclusion: This is the third book that defines the d20 system, building on what is presented in the PHB and the DMG. You really cannot avoid the DMG with this book - it leans heavily on a lot of the Special Attack descriptions in the DMG, so you really can't use this on its own - you need the DMG, too. That's not necessarily a bad thing, BTW, as it is expected that the three books should build on each other and have synergy that way. I have since seen better-laid-out monster collections, but nothing approaching the depth and scope here. If you must get a monster book, get the MM first, despite the layout issues. Other than that, there's not much to not recommend here. Templates are a great idea, you get the entire litany of "standard" monsters and you get rules to make your own to boot. Well done, though not quite on a par with the DMG and PHB. Still gets a "Superb" but not as strong a superb as the other two.

--The Sigil
October 18, 2002