Previews for May and Beyond is up

[Knight Otu]

No, I don't think they are in the book. Sorry!

If you're allowed to tell, a question - does the MMV revisit or reprint older/existing monsters outside of providing classed humanoids? Either updates from older editions, monsters from the pages of Dragon or Dungeon, or even monsters from older 3.X supplements?

For instance, if you re-wrote MM I today, the stock goblin might be a 1st level rogue, with a 3rd level fighter/rogue chieftain and a 3rd-level wizard as a shaman, and the racial info there to let you build whatever you want. The assumption in that entry is that the off the shelf goblin tribe has those guys in it.

While I'd like to keep the 1st level warrior for simplicity's sake, I definitely think that this is how it should be, providing the new monster along with common variations, be it officers or shamans, or templated variations.

 

[JohnSnow]

In my opinion at least, that is fine. Why? Because that is the monster book they also first appeared in. A comparison would be the MM III, which had classed variants of monsters appearing in the book, such as Dractotaur Ragers, Eldritch Giant Confessors, or Lumi Crusaders. The classed monsters in the MMIV do not appear in the books where the base monsters first appeared.

So instead of putting them in Monster Manual IV, you'd prefer that, if WotC thinks there's a demand for this sort of thing, they make a Monster Manual - Version 3.6 just to include classed versions of the monsters in that book? That's silly.

I prefer to think of the Monster Manual as one book in multiple volumes. So, it doesn't matter to me if the base monster appeared in MM II or III, if you have a good idea for a USEFUL variant version, throw it in MM V, VI, or XII. When we get to 4e, I fully expect the first Monster Manual to present the most relevant (and popular) monsters from every MM printed to date. Some "old standbys" (goblins, hobgoblins, orcs) should have their "slots" preserved, but a monster doesn't necessarily deserve inclusion in Fourth Edition's first Monster Manual just because it was in 3.5's.

The idea of the Monster Compendium in 2e (a binder that new monsters could be slipped into) wasn't a bad idea, but it's totally impractical. What would everyone say to monster trading cards?

 

[Knight Otu]

So instead of putting them in Monster Manual IV, you'd prefer that, if WotC thinks there's a demand for this sort of thing, they make a Monster Manual - Version 3.6 just to include classed versions of the monsters in that book? That's silly.

Yes, that's silly, which is why I never said that. What I am saying is that, if they include classed monsters, I'd prefer them to be chosen from the base monsters actually in the book and, when the time for 4th Edition comes around, they should include classed monsters from the start. For classed humanoids from monster books that did not benefit from this idea, I'd prefer an updated Enemies & Allies type book. Mike Mearls has already said that this does not work out, so I'll just have to accept that I won't get some of my preferences, and enjoy what I do get.

 

[bento]

Aaaannndd getting back to the preview discussion, I read more excerpts on the new Drow book, and I might have to add it to my buy list.

The excerpt is about what players should know when facing drow. It made them seem a lot more badass than I've read otherwise.

(Paraphrasing)"If you weren't expecting them, cast daylight and get to defensable position as quickly as possible!"

You'd think they were talking about trolls or iron golems!

 

[JohnSnow]

Yes, that's silly, which is why I never said that. What I am saying is that, if they include classed monsters, I'd prefer them to be chosen from the base monsters actually in the book and, when the time for 4th Edition comes around, they should include classed monsters from the start. For classed humanoids from monster books that did not benefit from this idea, I'd prefer an updated Enemies & Allies type book. Mike Mearls has already said that this does not work out, so I'll just have to accept that I won't get some of my preferences, and enjoy what I do get.

Fair enough. I actually find the concept of classed monsters useful enough that I don't want to wait until Fourth Edition is released to get some more varieties of off-the-shelf orcs, hobgoblins or whatever. Substitute your favorite monster race (I personally like hobgoblins).

I wouldn't even mind covering human adversaries in the Monster Manual series, but that may be just me. If I didn't want to keep the name for nostalgia's sake, I'd suggest borrowing a leaf from d20 Modern and renaming the series the Menace Manual, just so you don't have the weirdness of "what exactly constitutes a 'monster,' anyway?"

But since that's NOT going to happen, I'm happy with WotC taking a broad definition of "monster" and covering any and all "creatures that need stats" in the expansion volumes of the Monster Manual series.

My two coppers.

 

[howandwhy99]

However, I have a much harder time coming up with totally new monsters on the fly, even if it's something like slapping a totally different description on a same old set of stats. (In fact, there was an invaluable Dungeon Article not so long ago that did that very thing!)

This I could see. An MM that mixes completely new monsters with old monsters given new descriptions.

By new monsters I mean: rule expanding ones. Far too often, like in the Spell Compendium, there are only a couple dozen new options. Everything else is simply a different configuration of older materials (e.g. acid fireballs, bludgeoning cones, dazzling cylinders, etc.) Maybe this is why template books are so popular? A new monster, if you're selling it on combat alone, needs new combat options.

On the new descriptions. How about releasing old monsters with classes added on. Then, instead of leaving that as the only real option, give a number of slight alterations for completely new monsters using the same stats? A 5th level assassin medusa could qualify as a few other alternate monsters by including a couple of easy, on-the-fly alterations with each description. In the medusa's case, I'd change the petrification gaze to some equally fun gaze attack and maybe her movement rate.

 

[Dire Bare]

Yes, there're a lot. But I am sure there's twice that many who LIKE the classed monsters. More power to them, but even those people still agree that a Monster Manual book is not the ideal place to put those creatures. WotC should put those classed creatures as:

A) Web Enhancement
B) Web Article (like "Elite Opponents" or something)
C) Their own product
D) All of the above

Sorry, I'm still not buying that a "lot" of people are upset with classed monsters in MMIV and MMV. I'm also not buying that for those who like classed monsters, most of us would prefer them not to be in a Monster Manual.

Where are you getting your info? Did you do some marketing research to back this up? WotC did. As Mearls said, they have seen the complaints and are taking them into consideration, but their market research doesn't show that the classed monster haters are anywhere near the majority or even a large minority.

There are a decent sized group of posters on ENWorld who are vocally against classed monsters in the Monster Manual series, but that hardly proves that "most", "a lot", or even a "significant amount" of folks are against this idea.

 

[Dire Bare]

In my opinion at least, that is fine. Why? Because that is the monster book they also first appeared in. A comparison would be the MM III, which had classed variants of monsters appearing in the book, such as Dractotaur Ragers, Eldritch Giant Confessors, or Lumi Crusaders. The classed monsters in the MMIV do not appear in the books where the base monsters first appeared.

While I too would have preferred classed variants of hobgoblins and lizardmen being in the main Monster Manual along side their respective main entries . . . it's a bit late to go back and add them in . . .

So, we get them now. I'm happy with it!

And really, if you think about it, it all balances out. If classed variants had been included from the get go in MMI, there'd a been less unique monsters in the book.

So, those unique monsters we got in MMI "bumped" classed variants to MMIV and MMV. If you own all five MMs, then it's balanced out! (sort of a joke, sort of not)

 

[Teemu]

WotC has already published a rogue's gallery type book, Enemies and Allies. That was in 2001, 3.0 of course.

 

[Dire Bare]

WotC has already published a rogue's gallery type book, Enemies and Allies. That was in 2001, 3.0 of course.

Huh, I'd forgotten about that, and I even own it. Did sales tank for that product? I remember some interesting ideas but was overall underwhelmed.

Of course, that book was more oriented towards unique NPCs then classed variants of existing monsters. A fuzzy but important distinction I would say.