Oooooh Monster Descriptions...

[delericho]

Yes, despite of it. And monster ecology too.

MM4E fails miserably.

Yep, I agree with this. MM4e should have had more pages, or fewer monsters, or both, and should have included descriptions and (brief) ecologies for all the monsters.

Sure, we know what all these things are, or can reference them in older books, but that's not true of everyone. Every new edition is someone's first edition, so it needs to be able to stand alone, and the MM for this edition does a poor job of that, IMO.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

Hm. MM4e has color pics (and quite good ones, in fact!) of bugbears, goblins and hobgoblins, and the following bits of description:

A member of the goblin species has skin of yellow, orange or red, often shading to brown. Its eyes have the same color variance; its hair is always dark. Big pointed ears stick out from the sides of the head, and prominent sharp teeth jut from the mouth. Males have coarse body hair and might grow facial hair.

Hobgoblins prize their possessions and make their own weapons and armor. Compared to their more brutish kin, they wear decent clothing and armor, and they maintain their personal armaments with care. Hobgoblins prefer bold colors, especially crimson and black.

Not a lot, but I don't see how that is any worse than the bugbear description quoted. (And I point at the pics again.)

 

[avin]

I would prefer more monsters, and just add the flavor myself. It's not like the players will be looking through the MM. Also, is it so hard to look at a picture and summarize it in a few words?

I hardly think the MM fails - quite the opposite, in fact. I think the MM is great for the variety of powers found in the monsters and the various tactics that can be employed with them. Anything else is really the realm of the DM's imagination, not some book. In any case, there's always Wikipedia if you don't know what a standard D&D monster looks like.

There's a lot of Monsters on the Compendium, including variations of the monsters printed on MM.

What I want from a Monster Manual is fluff, ecology, hooks not just tables. I'm paying for the book so I want it inside as much as you want powers.

You point me wikipedia I point you DMG which have a session about creating monsters, if you don't kknow how to create them.

See what I did here?

 

[avin]

Hm. MM4e has color pics (and quite good ones, in fact!)

Now we are swimming on different rivers... bugbear and hobgoblin pictures on MM are too cartoonish for me

 

[Pbartender]

Now we are swimming on different rivers... bugbear and hobgoblin pictures on MM are too cartoonish for me

Okay, have you ever read the descriptions of hobgoblins in previous editions? Bright red faces with yellow eyes and blue noses, wearing red and black leather.

It makes them sound like evil baboons that my kids colored in with Crayolas.


Too cartoonish, he says.

 

[Lord Xtheth]

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only DM out there that has the ability to come up with this stuff himself... am I right? Please say yes, there ARE other DMs who aren't clueless without a book telling them what to do?

 

[King Nate]

Well heck, I thought everyone knew about this. I've known this for months now. I should have spread the news months ago.

Here's something you might not know that I found out about the compendium. If you search Aboleth Servitor you will see in the description that they mention "Aboleth Servitor ritual (see sidebar)". There is no sidebar in either the compendium or MM. There is no Aboleth Servitor ritual in the Player's Handbook either, however if you look up Aboleth Servitor Ritual in the compendium you will find it and it says that it was first published in the MM.

The rituals to create Golems, Guardians, Helmed Horrors, and Homunculus are there as well.

My guess is that they intended to add the descriptions to the MM (hence the 'see sidebar' phrase) along with the rituals but didn't have space. Now either somebody hasn't told this to the people making the compendium or they added them to the compendium on purpose. Who knows but it's there.

 

[Pbartender]

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only DM out there that has the ability to come up with this stuff himself... am I right? Please say yes, there ARE other DMs who aren't clueless without a book telling them what to do?

Yes, there are.

 

[Nebulous]

Frankly, I'm a bit annoyed at this. This should have been in the monster manual. I'm thinking that most players who start DnD with fourth edition could have used it.

It's not like they didn't know about the fluff. It's about the same as the last editions.

That does bother me too. It SHOULD have been in the monster manual, a few scant lines of descriptive text. What we got was gobs of white space and encounter suggestions. Maybe it will be in the gold-gilded collector's edition.

 

[Shadeydm]

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only DM out there that has the ability to come up with this stuff himself... am I right? Please say yes, there ARE other DMs who aren't clueless without a book telling them what to do?

Did someone actually state in this thread that they could not come up wth this stuff themselves or is this just another instant strawman?