Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mearls" data-source="post: 3498297" data-attributes="member: 697">There's a few reasons to try it in the first place, and a couple more to keep doing it. The most important factor is that, while there were critics on message boards, plenty of other people liked their inclusion. AFAIK, we didn't see signs anywhere else (customer surveys, sales) that indicated that the book was poorly received.The first and most important reason is that most DMs use humanoids as a big part of their adventures. It makes sense for us to support the most popular monsters in the game in a way that makes DMing easier.There's also a question of the appropriate way to present a humanoid monster. If a creature is meant to be modified with class levels and abilities, it makes more sense to present it that way. For instance, a new humanoid race should probably come with three stat blocks to make it playable out of the box. It's the same reasoning behind giving a sample creature with each template.Finally, it remains to be seen if objections to the humanoids in MM IV were driven by the specific design behind them, their proliferation, or some other factor. The approach has enough fans that it's worth tinkering with. The approach has enough potential benefits that it's worth pursuing.Frankly, I think Monster Manual formats are something we'll continue to tinker with. I don't think any of the Monster Manuals (and Fiend Folio) have been more than qualified successes. A lot of monsters never see play, simply don't fit into the game, don't do anything interesting, or just lack a compelling hook. Monster design is something that needs improvement from all angles (presentation, format, story, mechanics), and it's something we think of alot.I think it would be really interesting to do a survey where everyone goes through MM I - IV, along with Fiend Folio, and marked down every monster they used in a home brew adventure. I did that myself, and I was really surprised at the results. The number is a lot lower, and a lot more focused on a small range of monsters (humanoids, constructs, outsiders) than I had anticipated.FWIW, I don't think there are as many entries given over to existing monsters in this book as the previous one. We might like the idea, and we see people who do like it, but we aren't ignoring complaints! At this point, we think (and hope!) there's a baby in that bathwater. If there isn't, out it goes.Feedback is a little tricky, because it generally only comes from the most dedicated and high level gamers. I wouldn't be surprised if the humanoid entries are much more popular with beginning DMs and casual gamers. We listen to feedback, but we also have to take into account all D&D players, not one group to the exclusion of others.</blockquote>

Verification