Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Messageboard Golem" data-source="post: 2008349" data-attributes="member: 18387">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.</blockquote>

Verification