Previews for May and Beyond is up

[Razz]

A lot of us? Really? I'm more inclined to believe Mearls assessment that there are a handful of folks on the boards who don't like it, but that many more actually do like it and use it.

While new classed versions of existing monsters are not as exciting as entirely new monsters, they got a lot more use . . . in my campaign, and apparently in others as well.

I think that the tweaking of this concept in MMV is freaking brilliant. Classed monsters with new feats, special abilities and other unique options. This makes this book a must buy for me!

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

 

[JohnSnow]

For everyone poo-pooing putting monsters with classes and levels in the monster manual as being something "nontraditional," I just want to make a couple points:

The original Monster Manual (I'm talking 1e here) had entries for "Man" and a whole bunch of humans with different classes and levels. The entries for elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears and orcs all had stats for those races at various different levels and ability.

Now I don't necessarily want to see a pegasus or unicorn with class levels, but a hobgoblin seems fine to me. And this traditionalist says it belongs in the Monster Manual.

At least, that is, until WotC decides to make the Adversary Album or Opponent Opus Core Rulebook IV.

 

[w_earle_wheeler]

At least, that is, until WotC decides to make the Adversary Album or Opponent Opus Core Rulebook IV.

Don't forget Person Portfolio and the Enemy Esoterica.

 

[mearls]

Interesting design comments by Mike Mearls. I am glad that there is some retrenchment from adding old monsters with class levels.

BTW: I would like to see the Gem Dragons converted to 3.5E - am I in luck in MM V?

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

 

[Knight Otu]

For everyone poo-pooing putting monsters with classes and levels in the monster manual as being something "nontraditional," I just want to make a couple points:

The original Monster Manual (I'm talking 1e here) had entries for "Man" and a whole bunch of humans with different classes and levels. The entries for elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears and orcs all had stats for those races at various different levels and ability.

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.

 

[mearls]

A lot of people say they don't belong in Monster Manuals at all. I'm one of them. Many of us have agreed that classed monsters and new creatures need to have their own books. Monster Manuals should stay, as traditionally, as the book that brings new critters to your games. Not cluttered with classed creatures from previous Monster Manuals.

Why don't you guys consider a "Book of Adversaries" or some such, where it's thick chock full of classed monsters and keep the Monster Manuals the way they should've been?

There's a few key reasons. The first gets back to the design intent of the monster. If a humanoid is meant to take class levels, it makes sense to present it that way.

If we split the books, we probably just split our audience. It's also hard to communicate to people that "Monster Manuals" have no humanoid monsters, but "People Portfolios" do. It wouldn't make sense to present creatures that way if, getting back to the point above, you intend humanoids to take class levels.

Even in the core MM, most of the humanoids (orcs, goblins, etc.) are presented as 1st level warriors. MM IV takes it to the next step and presents them as they would actually be fond "in the wild", so to speak. 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.

 

[howandwhy99]

I'm ambivalent regarding print products for classed monsters.

It's Class + Race = Statblock. That's a D&D staple. If it is so egregiously time consuming or complicated, download a freeware program to do it for you. Of course, this all presumes you are creating every creature before the session begins.

OTOH, I don't like game systems where I cannot create a character on the fly while DMing. So I get the appeal of classed monsters for games like 3rd edition where cheats are required just to run an unprepped NPC.

Here's the catch though. It almost seems more useful to publish a book with every possible 1-20 level and/or size advancement combination for every monster because attempting to do so while playing is a trial. If such is the case, why even have race-class multiplications at all? They were supposed to be a sign of potential diversity, not to cause session seizures or limit any means of running games other than railroads.

 

[mearls]

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.

I think that's the key, and I believe that in some ways MM IV's approach is too late to the party. By this point, veteran DMs have statted up low-level NPCs. Newbies are buying MM I - they might never actually see MM IV.

The MM V approach is something more like adding new types of giants or golems. Sure, there's a hobgoblin entry, but they use some new mechanics that (hopefully!) make them easy to use off the shelf and compelling as something new.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I am another of the 'Put it in another damned book' persuasion - I have no difficulty adding classes to critters all by my lonesome - I do not need it done for me.

So. I will ignore V as I ignored IV, and if VI is the same way then I will ignore it too. (Is it just me, or does this sound like a rant about Star Trek movies, but without the even numbers being good?) It really didn't help that I didn't even like the new critters that were in IV.

A Book of Adversaries (or some other such title) might have been a better idea, at least as far as part of the audience is concerned. Too late now though.

The Auld Grump, waiting for Monsternomicon Volume 2.

 

[Henry]

A lot of us? Really? I'm more inclined to believe Mearls assessment that there are a handful of folks on the boards who don't like it, but that many more actually do like it and use it.

Not that it matters much, but one of the reasons I never bought MM4 (but bought MM1 and MM2 and MM3) was because of the classed monsters taking up such a noticeable percentage of the book. I usually either plan out my baddies before the game, or if needed can add enough of the class level and feat benefits on the fly to make it work in-game. 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!)

A Book of Adversaries (or some other such title) might have been a better idea, at least as far as part of the audience is concerned. Too late now though.

In fact, WotC hasn't re-used the name "Rogue's Gallery" in quite a while, have they?