The 4E Monster Manual: good...bad...ugly..
Mustrum_Ridcully
Hero
I was stuck between good and OK, but eventually chose good.
The Good:
The layout. I like how every monster gets a single or double page dedicated to it. (My group still remembers the day where our DM in our Oriental Adventures campaign accidentally read the Giants stat-blocks wrong and had us face a Giant way more dangerous then the intended one. It was probably our first Total Party Kill in 3E, with the Giant making one regular attack, some cleave attacks and then finishing the last man standing off with his second regular attack...)
"Variant" Monsters:
The fact that I don't have to manually advance my humanoids is a great boon. It's a nice "trick" they use - monsters you tend to use in groups (most humanoids or "cultured" creatures) exist in mutliple stat blocks around a certain level range. Monsters that you use more solitary are often available for different levels and tiers, so if you didn't get to use this monster at level 7, you have another chance at level 12, without manually advancing the monsters.
Art & Illustrations. I like most of the artwork, and of course, every monster entry also contains art (luckily, this has been the case since at least 3e...)
Knowledge DCs. That's something I like a lot - it provides information and also tells the DM how he can dispense it to his players.
Monster roles and categories. (This could also go towards the DMG)
The roles are extremely helpful in creating good encounters, and to explain how to use them effectively.
The categories like Minion/Elite/Solo are also great. Previously HD or CR was the only measure of power, and they affected critical numbers like Saves/Defenses and Attacks and hit points, so you had a narrow window to work with effectively. Minions, Elites and Solos expand the options in creating monsters and encounters.
The Bad:
Descriptions: Some monsters could be described in a little more detail. Having artwork is great, but a read-a-loud description would be fine, especially when you keep the players on their toes - showing images spoils all the mystery.
The Ugly:
I want more monsters, and some new monsters aren't that interesting - for example, I can't really warm up myself to the Kruthiks. I could probably have gotten more out of a Delver or a Phantom Fungus!
The Good:
The layout. I like how every monster gets a single or double page dedicated to it. (My group still remembers the day where our DM in our Oriental Adventures campaign accidentally read the Giants stat-blocks wrong and had us face a Giant way more dangerous then the intended one. It was probably our first Total Party Kill in 3E, with the Giant making one regular attack, some cleave attacks and then finishing the last man standing off with his second regular attack...)
"Variant" Monsters:
The fact that I don't have to manually advance my humanoids is a great boon. It's a nice "trick" they use - monsters you tend to use in groups (most humanoids or "cultured" creatures) exist in mutliple stat blocks around a certain level range. Monsters that you use more solitary are often available for different levels and tiers, so if you didn't get to use this monster at level 7, you have another chance at level 12, without manually advancing the monsters.
Art & Illustrations. I like most of the artwork, and of course, every monster entry also contains art (luckily, this has been the case since at least 3e...)
Knowledge DCs. That's something I like a lot - it provides information and also tells the DM how he can dispense it to his players.
Monster roles and categories. (This could also go towards the DMG)
The roles are extremely helpful in creating good encounters, and to explain how to use them effectively.
The categories like Minion/Elite/Solo are also great. Previously HD or CR was the only measure of power, and they affected critical numbers like Saves/Defenses and Attacks and hit points, so you had a narrow window to work with effectively. Minions, Elites and Solos expand the options in creating monsters and encounters.
The Bad:
Descriptions: Some monsters could be described in a little more detail. Having artwork is great, but a read-a-loud description would be fine, especially when you keep the players on their toes - showing images spoils all the mystery.
The Ugly:
I want more monsters, and some new monsters aren't that interesting - for example, I can't really warm up myself to the Kruthiks. I could probably have gotten more out of a Delver or a Phantom Fungus!
Wormwood
Adventurer
I'd say previous editions (particularly the Fiend Folio and some of the Monstrous Compendia) were a little more fun to read---lots of flavor, background and minutiae for me to idly pore over.
But like much of 4e, the MM is focused on facilitating actual play with a minimum of fuss. The organization and layout is very user-friendly, as is the encounter and tactical advice.
I can open the book and run my game directly off the page---that''s a win.
But like much of 4e, the MM is focused on facilitating actual play with a minimum of fuss. The organization and layout is very user-friendly, as is the encounter and tactical advice.
I can open the book and run my game directly off the page---that''s a win.
I don't DM very often; that said...
I like the vast majority of it. The page layout is very user-friendly for use right at the table and that is a big plus in my eyes.
My main gripe with it is that the book lacks a full alphabetical listing of every entry in the book. There is the CR table in the back and a quasi-listing in the front; but the front listing only lists "Abominations" - not what creatures fall under that listing.
How do I find the Terrasque if I forget it's an Abomination?
I like the vast majority of it. The page layout is very user-friendly for use right at the table and that is a big plus in my eyes.
My main gripe with it is that the book lacks a full alphabetical listing of every entry in the book. There is the CR table in the back and a quasi-listing in the front; but the front listing only lists "Abominations" - not what creatures fall under that listing.
How do I find the Terrasque if I forget it's an Abomination?
Gort
Explorer
The Good:
I love variant monsters! It's brilliant that a goblin tribe has a bunch of statted individuals with variant powers, rather than the way it was in 3e where they were just lower-level versions of your players classes, no real individual powers.
I like that some humanoids are just tougher than others. So for instance, you start off fighting goblins and kobolds, as drow are just way too hard.
The Bad:
Some of the monster roles don't seem to work too well. Brutes, in particular, seem very poor compared to soldiers. The idea of "low hit balances high damage" and "low defenses balance high hitpoints" doesn't really work when you bring the fact that pretty much all player character attacks come with a "rider" on them that will screw over the brute. If attacks only did damage, they'd probably be balanced, but brutes seem to spend all their time dazed, immobilised, stunned and a million other things, while soldiers suffer from this stuff a lot less.
The Ugly:
Errata. A lot of the monsters have been heavily errataed. It's a bit of a shame 4e needed such a lot of errata right from the off, but hopefully they can polish this rough diamond into something that'll really shine.
I love variant monsters! It's brilliant that a goblin tribe has a bunch of statted individuals with variant powers, rather than the way it was in 3e where they were just lower-level versions of your players classes, no real individual powers.
I like that some humanoids are just tougher than others. So for instance, you start off fighting goblins and kobolds, as drow are just way too hard.
The Bad:
Some of the monster roles don't seem to work too well. Brutes, in particular, seem very poor compared to soldiers. The idea of "low hit balances high damage" and "low defenses balance high hitpoints" doesn't really work when you bring the fact that pretty much all player character attacks come with a "rider" on them that will screw over the brute. If attacks only did damage, they'd probably be balanced, but brutes seem to spend all their time dazed, immobilised, stunned and a million other things, while soldiers suffer from this stuff a lot less.
The Ugly:
Errata. A lot of the monsters have been heavily errataed. It's a bit of a shame 4e needed such a lot of errata right from the off, but hopefully they can polish this rough diamond into something that'll really shine.
Kunimatyu
First Post
I really like the monster choices, and for every monster that should have been in here (frost giant especially), there are several usually-in-MM2-but-should-be-core monsters like the dracolich and deathknight.
I like that nondangerous "ordinary" animals are no longer present, and only genuinely threatening animals (wolves, bears) or magical versions (spectral panther, fire beetle) are there. It's a lot better than the "here's some lame stuff in the back of the book" approach that 3e took.
We got one of the best selections of aberrations ever, with the balhannoth, grell, and new gibbering beasts joining the "usual suspects". In fact, the designers did such a good job of pulling in aberrants that I'm a little concerned that there won't be good ones for other Monster Manuals, except for Beholderkin(Eye of the Deep! Eye of the Deep!) and more variants on the "social" ones like illithids, grell, and aboleth.
Dinosaurs were a little lacking, and I'm honestly surprised there was no T-Rex in the book.
The Planescape rejects were gone(rast, ravid, guardinals: I'm looking at you), and in general most of the monster choices are interesting, flavorful, and easy to stick into adventures. The berbalang(or whatever it's called) is a little odd, but apparently it's a classic monster that someone really likes, so I guess it's okay.
All in all, a very well-executed and thought-out Monster Manual.
I like that nondangerous "ordinary" animals are no longer present, and only genuinely threatening animals (wolves, bears) or magical versions (spectral panther, fire beetle) are there. It's a lot better than the "here's some lame stuff in the back of the book" approach that 3e took.
We got one of the best selections of aberrations ever, with the balhannoth, grell, and new gibbering beasts joining the "usual suspects". In fact, the designers did such a good job of pulling in aberrants that I'm a little concerned that there won't be good ones for other Monster Manuals, except for Beholderkin(Eye of the Deep! Eye of the Deep!) and more variants on the "social" ones like illithids, grell, and aboleth.
Dinosaurs were a little lacking, and I'm honestly surprised there was no T-Rex in the book.
The Planescape rejects were gone(rast, ravid, guardinals: I'm looking at you), and in general most of the monster choices are interesting, flavorful, and easy to stick into adventures. The berbalang(or whatever it's called) is a little odd, but apparently it's a classic monster that someone really likes, so I guess it's okay.
All in all, a very well-executed and thought-out Monster Manual.
I don't know how a new DM would use this without more description of the monsters and their societies. I would have no idea what role different humanoids should play. That means any new monsters introduced will have a very hard time becoming 'classics' as it is the cool things about what makes them unique that turns a monters into classics. This may work great for running adventures right out of a module you buy, but I can't see how anyone could create a world from this book.
That said, I love the stat blocks and the variants a lot. I think the spellcasters need more options, but otherwise it is great.
My other issue is with the lack of variety of low level monsters. Oh, and between here and the DMG, more advice on building groups/encounters would be great for the beginning DM (or even one that used to DM a lot in the old days....).
That said, I love the stat blocks and the variants a lot. I think the spellcasters need more options, but otherwise it is great.
My other issue is with the lack of variety of low level monsters. Oh, and between here and the DMG, more advice on building groups/encounters would be great for the beginning DM (or even one that used to DM a lot in the old days....).
Thistlenote
First Post
There's lots of great creatures and I like the stat block format but that's about all the info you get. There's virtually no descriptions or background information for most of the creatures. If you've played D&D for awhile and are already familiar with most of the monsters, this probably doesn't matter much but what if 4e is your first PnP game?
I miss the wordiness of the old MMs.
I miss the wordiness of the old MMs.
The Good:
- I'm just gonna say that the new format for the statblocks is possibly my most favourite 4e thing ever. So quick and easy to read.
- Solid variety, both within certain monster types (nice array of Orcs, for example), and across the various types of monsters.
- Kinda digging the new Angels. Can't wait to use them.
- I like how useable the book is. There is not one creature I wouldn't consider using, and the way 4e scales gives you wider options at each level, I don't mind using monsters a few levels higher or lower than the party.
The Bad:
- I'm not the biggest fan of the Elementals ... I know the developers were happy to get rid of the "only differentiated by size" elementals of 3.5, but I'm not sold on the new ones like the Rockfire Dreadnought. (Though the name is cool)
- More low-level variety would be nice ... especially some low level creatures that are neither undead or Humanoid. (Like a small fire elemental, for example )
- the Abomination category seems a little to catch-all for my taste.
- Call Dinosaurs Dinosaurs, and have the latin names in a sidebar. Behemoth? No.
- I'm just gonna say that the new format for the statblocks is possibly my most favourite 4e thing ever. So quick and easy to read.
- Solid variety, both within certain monster types (nice array of Orcs, for example), and across the various types of monsters.
- Kinda digging the new Angels. Can't wait to use them.
- I like how useable the book is. There is not one creature I wouldn't consider using, and the way 4e scales gives you wider options at each level, I don't mind using monsters a few levels higher or lower than the party.
The Bad:
- I'm not the biggest fan of the Elementals ... I know the developers were happy to get rid of the "only differentiated by size" elementals of 3.5, but I'm not sold on the new ones like the Rockfire Dreadnought. (Though the name is cool)
- More low-level variety would be nice ... especially some low level creatures that are neither undead or Humanoid. (Like a small fire elemental, for example
)- the Abomination category seems a little to catch-all for my taste.
- Call Dinosaurs Dinosaurs, and have the latin names in a sidebar. Behemoth? No.
I dislike the new MM for pretty much the opposite reason I liked the DMG. This MM really doesn't seem geared for new DMs at all - or any DM, for that matter. There are no hooks, the monsters are barely described at all, and the stat blocks can get really bizarro at times. It's not as bad as the new PHB, but it's still pretty lousy. It just feels like a set of stats geared not for placing in games, but to refer to later while playing though a module.
Similar Threads
