Using Non-Monster Manual Monsters

[Murrdox]

The MMII has a ton of these "Out there" creatures that are just SO specific in what they do that you could never ever just run into them, and designing encounters using them is extremely difficult.

I mean, when are you ever going to use a Bone Ooze or a Flesh Jelly? They're just too out there. Granted, most abberations and such usually ARE out there by definition.

One thing I liked about the monster manual I had in AD&D 2nd edition was the "rarity". Granted, most of the cool creatures were classified as "rare" or "very rare"... otherwise if Red Dragons or something were labeled as "uncommon" you'd just have red dragons flying everywhere torching towns.

 

[barsoomcore]

I barely ever use ANYTHING out of the Monster Manual. Golems, dinosaurs, a roper once, vermin and animals of course, but otherwise... nada. Tell me a beholder's not an "out there" monster.

Monsternomicon, on the other hand, has rapidly become the most-used book I've ever bought. I LOVE the beasties in there.

Wraiths with guns? What's not to love?

 

[kenjib]

Oddly enough, IMO, the Tome of Horrors has probably the highest count of "out there" monsters of any monster book I own. Because they are historical D&D creatures, though, you overlook that, and instead complain about the Monsternomicon's steampunk (which is really only half a dozen or so tops of all the creatures in the game) or other books that certainly are no worse offenders than even the base MM.

I won't disagree with you there. The nostalgia factor is definitely the definitive factor in why I like the Tome of Horrors.

I will disagree about the MM though, because while it does have plenty of dumb stuff like the Ravid, Tojanida, and Destrachan, it also has more classics than any other book, including stuff like trolls, ogres, orcs, goblins, manticore, griffin, etc. No other monster book out there can make this same claim.

 

[barsoomcore]

stuff like trolls, ogres, orcs, goblins, manticore, griffin, etc.

See? All those are monsters I would NEVER use. Give me Spine Rippers and Mechanithralls and Iron Liches... Yum!

 

[MarauderX]

Gotta say I like using most of the critters out of the MM. I tend to call them different things and describe them in a new way to capture the PCs attention and/or scare them. I think most DMs tweak the monsters a little to add more challenge, and it's aways funny you can scare a 4th level barbarian with a kobold shaman that speaks common.

 

[Gez]

I truly discovered D&D with 3e, so you may rule the nostalgia factor out. I like the ToH, and have used it already.

I have MM, MM2, MC:MoF, the CC1 & 2, the ToH, plus several books with creature content (MotP, PsiHB, OA, D&Dg, FRCS, MaoF...). I've used as a DM, or faced as a player, creatures from all of them save Magic of Faerûn and Seas of Blood.

 

[Desdichado]

I will disagree about the MM though, because while it does have plenty of dumb stuff like the Ravid, Tojanida, and Destrachan, it also has more classics than any other book, including stuff like trolls, ogres, orcs, goblins, manticore, griffin, etc. No other monster book out there can make this same claim.

No, not really, but after all the years I've been D&Ding, I'm not really all that interested in most of these "classic" monsters anymore. And, Monsternomicon did have trolls (at least half a dozen varieties) ogruns and gobbers, at least, so you've got analogues for most of the classics in there as well.

Like Barsoomcore says, and for probably pretty much the same reasons (since our taste in homebrewed campaign settings is very similar), I'd much rather use things like the pistol wraith, the iron lich, or some of the other creatures out of a book like Monsternomicon. Although they aren't classic, they actually seem to make more sense than many of the monsters in the MM, because they were built with more forethought on how they could be integrated into a campaign, while the MM entries were built along the lines of "we need a creature of CR XX with special abilities YY -- come up with something."

 

[Arnwyn]

I don't think that "way out there" monsters have anything to do with a specific book, for the most part. As has been mentioned above, the MM has loads of strange creatures in there.

So, how often do I use "exotic" monsters? I keep it relatively uncommon. How often do I use monster books outside the MM? All the time.

 

[Psion]

To me, whether it fits in the background of the game is a more fundamental issue than how exotic the creature is. If a creature fits in the setting, I'll use it. Otherwise, I usually won't.

But the rub is that if a creature is interesting enough, I will find a way to fit it in. I find both ToH and Creature Collection II (and a few things from CCI) to have a lot of interesting ideas that deserved fitting into my game. Ratmen and Tempus Twins are two creatures I worked into my game.

I find Monsternomicon a little too out of phase with my campaign needs, but there will be two (Iron Lich and Iron Maiden) that will fit in an upcoming construct-themed plot arc I have planned.

 

[Carnifex]

I too love the Monsternomicon, awesome book indeed. In my Planescape campaign I used bog trogs and a tomb maiden when the party was on a prime world. I'll be using certain monsters in my online campaign as well, and in case theRuinedOne reads this, I categorically deny any accusations that there might be an iron lich in Acrozatarim