Taken from a thread on the Wizards boards started by Razz...
http://209.221.178.225/showthread.php?t=840946
Logan:
We certainly took MM4 criticisms to heart when working on MM5.
All the classed monsters are really weird variations, not just a monster with levels in barbarian. They're either using really strange class and template combinations, or using new feats and equipment, or have their types changed. (I guess the mind flayer cleric's just a cleric, but that's an exception.)
In Dave Noonan's game, he seriously kicked our asses with the phantom ghast ninja.
I edited the mind flayers in here. Only one is actually uses a mind flayer as its base creature. Most are new monsters and they're all cool. The entry really has the illithids and their minions, so you can really build them in as a recurring campaign element.
Mike Mearls
The hardest thing facing RPG R&D is that it's very, very hard for us to get concrete feedback on what's a good idea for a product. We can figure out what people like after we release something, and we can ask questions about what they already know and play, but it's tough to get a picture of how a new thing, like Tome of Battle or humanoid entries with classed monsters, will fare.
The truth of the matter is that we listen to feedback, but the forums represent only one portion of our audience. There are tons and tons of gamers who don't come here and read the boards, or if they do read the boards they don't post.
Now that said, I did significant development/design work on two of the classed humanoid entries, and comments made here had an effect on what we did. For example, many of the "classed" humanoids are new monsters with class-like abilities. In some cases, you have humanoid X with levels in class Y and new feat Z. In other cases, the relationship is more like the link between ogres and ogre mages - a creature in the same family, but with a new set of abilities.
Rodney Thompson
I think the few classed monsters in MMV are a lot more interesting (at least, from what I've seen) simply because the combination of creatures and classes produce an entirely different gameplay experience. A gnoll with a few levels of barbarian isn't that much different from a gnoll without them, but some of the really weird stuff (phantom ghast ninja) radically changes the fight.
I didn't design any of the classed monsters (all new ones for me!) but I think they're going to interest even the people who were disappointed a lot more.
Logan
MM5 has plenty of fey. Chris (Sims) edited most of those, though. I don't really think focusing on creature types is that important (unless you're a ranger); it's more important to get monsters DMs want to put into play.
BTW, I did all the plants and there's a CR 1 plant creature that's actually interesting.
Mike Mearls
Any word on either the were-flamingo or an anthromorphic flamingo?
2008 is pretty much the Year of the Flamingo. Look for about 1,500 pages over 5 books directed toward their exploration and development.
It all ties into our new line of D&D mascara.
Razz: Yeah, but still, rearranging a pre-existing monster in line with the way ogres and ogre mages are doesn't make it a NEW monster. It makes it different, but again, that can be accomplished with class levels and feats and templates.
I disagree. I think that it's asking too much of a system built for characters (classes, levels, and feats) to use it to build all the variations on a base monster concept. I can see using it to make a hobgoblin barbarian/spiked chain specialist, but it can't possible cover the gap between a hill giant and a frost giant.
I can't remember the proportions in MM V off the top of my head.
Porting monsters from 1e/2e is tricky. I mean, honestly, is that all that different from a classed monster? I have all the basic rules for the qullan from Fiend Folio 1e, and it isn't hard to stat that up in 3e, no harder (perhaps even easier) than adding levels to a humanoid.
In a lot of cases, stuff doesn't get updated because it wasn't too popular in the first place, or the book has different needs (we need a CR 15+ critter, and nothing really fits that.)
As a previous poster said, a monster with class levels is basically a new monster. The challenge we face is making them different and interesting. I can readily understand, and even agree with, criticism that the levelled monsters in MM IV were short on imagination. However, I don't agree that MM IV kills the concept. It definitely has high utility; the key is to make it click for as wide range of DMs as possible.
Now, all that said, we're not committed to doing classed humanoids forever and ever. We are listening, but we think the concept is worthwhile enough to keep using it. Our goal is to make gamers happy.
Personally, I think the concept works best when the monsters are genuinely new (a la the ogre mage), impossible to create without new rules contained within the entry, or if the classed versions appear as part of the monster's first appearance. The last example is probably the best fit for the basic versions we made in MM IV.
Razz: But any creatures converted from older editions make appearances? Do you guys plan to do Monster Manual VI with more conversions, possibly?
It depends. I think there are a lot of cool monsters waiting on deck to make a 3e appearance. I also think that we can use existing stuff in the game to create cool new monsters, like minions of the demon lords and elemental evil.
There are some creatures from 1e that might look goofy or have a weird mechanic, but have potential with a few tweaks. I redesigned the magens from Mystara and Castle Amber for my current campaign, and I think they make for cool, immortal guardians.
Soel Griffin: I do have one question for the designers/developers that you might be able to answer. Is there any sort of new group of connected creatures in this one akin to the Spawn of Tiamat?
Yes, there is a group of monsters in the book. They're based on an existing, popular D&D monster that isn't the drow.
It's fun interacting on the boards. I think after the magazine thing, we realized that it's better to get out and talk to gamers rather than let speculation drive stuff. It's easy to forget sometimes that you guys don't know what's coming up in next month's books, or what's on the schedule for next year. We know all that stuff, and it's easy to forget how gamers perceive what we're doing.
Logan:
Also, will we be seeing adventure sites/encounters in MM5?
There are no generic site maps.
I can't remember off the top of my head but does it show the AC calculation?
Usually. There are sections, such as that and racial skill bonuses (the sections at the end of the stat block, not the actual skill numbers ), that tend to be the first to get cut when we need the space.
####
Lots of information there.
Cheers!
http://209.221.178.225/showthread.php?t=840946
Logan:
We certainly took MM4 criticisms to heart when working on MM5.
All the classed monsters are really weird variations, not just a monster with levels in barbarian. They're either using really strange class and template combinations, or using new feats and equipment, or have their types changed. (I guess the mind flayer cleric's just a cleric, but that's an exception.)
In Dave Noonan's game, he seriously kicked our asses with the phantom ghast ninja.
I edited the mind flayers in here. Only one is actually uses a mind flayer as its base creature. Most are new monsters and they're all cool. The entry really has the illithids and their minions, so you can really build them in as a recurring campaign element.
Mike Mearls
The hardest thing facing RPG R&D is that it's very, very hard for us to get concrete feedback on what's a good idea for a product. We can figure out what people like after we release something, and we can ask questions about what they already know and play, but it's tough to get a picture of how a new thing, like Tome of Battle or humanoid entries with classed monsters, will fare.
The truth of the matter is that we listen to feedback, but the forums represent only one portion of our audience. There are tons and tons of gamers who don't come here and read the boards, or if they do read the boards they don't post.
Now that said, I did significant development/design work on two of the classed humanoid entries, and comments made here had an effect on what we did. For example, many of the "classed" humanoids are new monsters with class-like abilities. In some cases, you have humanoid X with levels in class Y and new feat Z. In other cases, the relationship is more like the link between ogres and ogre mages - a creature in the same family, but with a new set of abilities.
Rodney Thompson
I think the few classed monsters in MMV are a lot more interesting (at least, from what I've seen) simply because the combination of creatures and classes produce an entirely different gameplay experience. A gnoll with a few levels of barbarian isn't that much different from a gnoll without them, but some of the really weird stuff (phantom ghast ninja) radically changes the fight.
I didn't design any of the classed monsters (all new ones for me!) but I think they're going to interest even the people who were disappointed a lot more.
Logan
MM5 has plenty of fey. Chris (Sims) edited most of those, though. I don't really think focusing on creature types is that important (unless you're a ranger); it's more important to get monsters DMs want to put into play.
BTW, I did all the plants and there's a CR 1 plant creature that's actually interesting.
Mike Mearls
Any word on either the were-flamingo or an anthromorphic flamingo?
2008 is pretty much the Year of the Flamingo. Look for about 1,500 pages over 5 books directed toward their exploration and development.
It all ties into our new line of D&D mascara.
Razz: Yeah, but still, rearranging a pre-existing monster in line with the way ogres and ogre mages are doesn't make it a NEW monster. It makes it different, but again, that can be accomplished with class levels and feats and templates.
I disagree. I think that it's asking too much of a system built for characters (classes, levels, and feats) to use it to build all the variations on a base monster concept. I can see using it to make a hobgoblin barbarian/spiked chain specialist, but it can't possible cover the gap between a hill giant and a frost giant.
I can't remember the proportions in MM V off the top of my head.
Porting monsters from 1e/2e is tricky. I mean, honestly, is that all that different from a classed monster? I have all the basic rules for the qullan from Fiend Folio 1e, and it isn't hard to stat that up in 3e, no harder (perhaps even easier) than adding levels to a humanoid.
In a lot of cases, stuff doesn't get updated because it wasn't too popular in the first place, or the book has different needs (we need a CR 15+ critter, and nothing really fits that.)
As a previous poster said, a monster with class levels is basically a new monster. The challenge we face is making them different and interesting. I can readily understand, and even agree with, criticism that the levelled monsters in MM IV were short on imagination. However, I don't agree that MM IV kills the concept. It definitely has high utility; the key is to make it click for as wide range of DMs as possible.
Now, all that said, we're not committed to doing classed humanoids forever and ever. We are listening, but we think the concept is worthwhile enough to keep using it. Our goal is to make gamers happy.
Personally, I think the concept works best when the monsters are genuinely new (a la the ogre mage), impossible to create without new rules contained within the entry, or if the classed versions appear as part of the monster's first appearance. The last example is probably the best fit for the basic versions we made in MM IV.
Razz: But any creatures converted from older editions make appearances? Do you guys plan to do Monster Manual VI with more conversions, possibly?
It depends. I think there are a lot of cool monsters waiting on deck to make a 3e appearance. I also think that we can use existing stuff in the game to create cool new monsters, like minions of the demon lords and elemental evil.
There are some creatures from 1e that might look goofy or have a weird mechanic, but have potential with a few tweaks. I redesigned the magens from Mystara and Castle Amber for my current campaign, and I think they make for cool, immortal guardians.
Soel Griffin: I do have one question for the designers/developers that you might be able to answer. Is there any sort of new group of connected creatures in this one akin to the Spawn of Tiamat?
Yes, there is a group of monsters in the book. They're based on an existing, popular D&D monster that isn't the drow.
It's fun interacting on the boards. I think after the magazine thing, we realized that it's better to get out and talk to gamers rather than let speculation drive stuff. It's easy to forget sometimes that you guys don't know what's coming up in next month's books, or what's on the schedule for next year. We know all that stuff, and it's easy to forget how gamers perceive what we're doing.
Logan:
Also, will we be seeing adventure sites/encounters in MM5?
There are no generic site maps.
I can't remember off the top of my head but does it show the AC calculation?
Usually. There are sections, such as that and racial skill bonuses (the sections at the end of the stat block, not the actual skill numbers ), that tend to be the first to get cut when we need the space.
####
Lots of information there.
Cheers!
