D&D 5E Rename the Monster Manual

[MechaTarrasque]

I think the problem is that there is an orc and a goblin entry in the MM, but not human and elf entries. The solution is simple: take out the orc/goblin/etc. humanoid entries from the MM, except for special cases like the Eye of Gruumsh, add some fluff for the NPC entries, like bandit, and make some new ones, like marauder (and make small and medium size versions of the NPC's). If marauders are always CE, then it doesn't really matter if they are human, orc, goblin, elf, dwarf, or whatnot.

 

[LordEntrails]

edit: nevermind, this just isn't worth the effort

 

[Lanefan]

To the OP: <facepalm> You seem to be serious about your idea but in that I suspect you might be alone.

To the rest of the thread: thanks! Best laugh I've had in days!

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

As I said before, just write the flavor text from the perspective of unreliable narrator and all of those issues disappear.

I would love a MM that was in the style of Bert Feg's Nasty Book for Boys & Girls

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Assuming you actually wanted to do this (and IMO it's completely silly to do so), I would simply go with D&D Bestiary. It provides the same purpose with a less evocative title.

Slight improvement, especially if we stop nonsensically calling every creature that can be fought a “monster” as if that made sense somehow.

 

[dave2008]

Assuming you actually wanted to do this (and IMO it's completely silly to do so), I would simply go with D&D Bestiary. It provides the same purpose with a less evocative title.

I don't know. Now your calling everyone a beast. That seems more degrading than "monster." I mean, even Bugs Bunny could see the potential of a monster.

 

[dave2008]

Slight improvement, especially if we stop nonsensically calling every creature that can be fought a “monster” as if that made sense somehow.

By definition it includes things you don't fight to:

 

[doctorbadwolf]

By definition it includes things you don't fight to:
View attachment 124112

Come on, dude. You gotta know that when someone criticizes the usage of monster in D&D they’re criticizing exactly the definition you’re quoting here.

My position is exactly that defining monster as a game term that means “all the creature that you could fight” (note that Isaid could fight, not the creatures you fight. I’m well aware of the scope of the definition) is a dumb decision.

 

[dave2008]

Come on, dude. You gotta know that when someone criticizes the usage of monster in D&D they’re criticizing exactly the definition you’re quoting here.

My position is exactly that defining monster as a game term that means “all the creature that you could fight” (note that Isaid could fight, not the creatures you fight. I’m well aware of the scope of the definition) is a dumb decision.

Come on dude - i'm just being silly. This whole thread is one joke after another - relax!

 

[Eubani]

Is the next step to remove the combat and weapon rules so we do not unfairly harm the OP's "not monsters"?