D&D 5E We need a Monster Manual II

[Beleriphon]

You aren't giving the IP to WotC. What you are doing is allowing anybody else on the DMsG to use your monster in their work. So say I come up with the Brightened-Mangler-and-Carpeater monster and post it to The DMs Guild. What Morrus can then do is use the BMaC () in an adventure he publishes on DMsG. I still retain the rights to that monster, but by publishing it on the DMsG I license it to other people to use.

WotC can't take my BMaC and publish a "The Big Book of BMaCs and their Habits", since I own the IP for BMaCs. But, WotC might offer to outright buy the BMaC from me, but that's a different kettle of fish than the Dugeon Master's Guild.

 

[Sunseeker]

Personally, I'd like some smaller, supplemental books of "progressively tougher bad guys" so that I don't have to throw a monster menagire at my players. So like a "Big Book of Soliders". Or "Book of Bad*** Orcs" or something like that so that if I want my players to fight less fantastical enemies at level 12, I'll have a good idea of what those should look like. I'd be fine if these were sold as PDFs on the DMsG or as physical supplements like we had for races in 4e.

 

[BMaC]

You aren't giving the IP to WotC. What you are doing is allowing anybody else on the DMsG to use your monster in their work. So say I come up with the Brightened-Mangler-and-Carpeater monster and post it to The DMs Guild. What Morrus can then do is use the BMaC () in an adventure he publishes on DMsG. I still retain the rights to that monster, but by publishing it on the DMsG I license it to other people to use.

WotC can't take my BMaC and publish a "The Big Book of BMaCs and their Habits", since I own the IP for BMaCs. But, WotC might offer to outright buy the BMaC from me, but that's a different kettle of fish than the Dugeon Master's Guild.

Beleriphon, actually, they can pretty much do whatever they want with poor BMaC one it goes on the DMGuild.

(b) Exclusive License to your Work. Effective as of the date you setup your Work through the Program on OBS’s website, you grant us the exclusive, irrevocable license for the full term of copyright protection available (including renewals), to develop,

license, reproduce, print, publish, distribute, translate, display, publicly perform and transmit your Work, in whole and in part, in each country in the world, in all languages and formats, and by all means now known or later developed, and the right to prepare derivative works of your Work.

(c) Exclusive License to all User Generated Content in your Work. Effective as of the date we first make your Work available through the Program, you grant us the exclusive, irrevocable license for the full term of copyright protection available (including renewals), to all User Generated Content included in your Work. You agree that the User Generated Content is available for unrestricted use by us without any additional compensation, notification or attribution, including that we may allow other Program authors, the Owner and other third parties to use the User Generated Content.

If I had a problem with that I wouldn't use the DM Guild. I don't actually unless I was an established RPG author, but then I wouldn't need the DMGuild. So my original post was just pointing out that for the hobbyist/occasional DMGuild author, it would be nice to have more monsters officially released by WoTC. The three main collections from Frog God, Koblod, and reddit are fantastic, can't be used in the DMsGuild.

 

[Bad Fox]

A question that Mike Mearls asked on Twitter a couple days ago makes me think that a new Monster Manual is at least in the planning stages...

"Hello Dungeon Masters of the world: Did we overlook any NPCs you need in appendix B of the Monster Manual? If so, what do you need?"

 

[werecorpse]

A question that Mike Mearls asked on Twitter a couple days ago makes me think that a new Monster Manual is at least in the planning stages...

"Hello Dungeon Masters of the world: Did we overlook any NPCs you need in appendix B of the Monster Manual? If so, what do you need?"

That's hopeful (although NPC types to reskin are perhaps the easiest thing for 3rd parties to design. You don't have to worry about your castle guard becoming redundant but your choker might)
For me the main thing is
- low level spell casters other than cleric or Druid.
- high level spell casters other than archmage

 

[CapnZapp]

About high level spellcasters: the difficult bit isn't to give them levels, hit points, AC, saves and so on.

It's working out a strategy for their spells.

What we need isn't more Archmages, we need more spell lists including "tactics" sections that relieve the overworked DM.

Which buff spell does he or she start the fight with? Does he or she spend a round to cast another if concentration for the first one is broken, and if so, which one?

Then, which attack spells does he cast?

Does she have any contingency spells (such as teleporting away at half hp)?

What use are the other spells for? That is, why did he prepare the spells that he did?

That's easily 90% of the work behind a memorable NPC spellcaster. Giving him AC 18, 120 hp and +7 against all mental saves is comparably easy. I mean, I just did it and it took me 20 seconds.

 

[Jester David]

Six months ago I would have agreed with you. But no.... With Fifth Edition Foes, Tome of Beasts coming soon, and the DMs Guild I don't see as much need for that product. I have as many monsters as I want.
And 3rd Party monster books are among the easiest to buy and use, since you only need t worry about balance for one fight.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Six months ago I would have agreed with you. But no.... With Fifth Edition Foes, Tome of Beasts coming soon, and the DMs Guild I don't see as much need for that product. I have as many monsters as I want.
And 3rd Party monster books are among the easiest to buy and use, since you only need t worry about balance for one fight.

Those are nice, but I want D&D IP monsters from previous editions officially updated. There are still a ton of monsters I like from previous editions out there that there was simply not enough room for in the Monster Manual. In fact, I have a list (that I'll post here one these days when I get the time and energy) of the 100 D&D creatures I'd like to see updated in a putative MM2.

WotC doesn't need to go overboard like previous editions (was anyone really using much from the 3e MM4 and MM5?), but a MM2 and a FF should be enough to fully update the vast majority of old D&D monsters, both the useful and fondly-remembered.

 

[Jester David]

Those are nice, but I want D&D IP monsters from previous editions officially updated. There are still a ton of monsters I like from previous editions out there that there was simply not enough room for in the Monster Manual. In fact, I have a list (that I'll post here one these days when I get the time and energy) of the 100 D&D creatures I'd like to see updated in a putative MM2.

WotC doesn't need to go overboard like previous editions (was anyone really using much from the 3e MM4 and MM5?), but a MM2 and a FF should be enough to fully update the vast majority of old D&D monsters, both the useful and fondly-remembered.

Anyone making content for the DMs Guild can update classic IP monsters. Provided they're from the Realms or a generic setting.

It'd be a good place for new designers to make a name, providing good updates for monsters and building a reputation.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Anyone making content for the DMs Guild can update classic IP monsters. Provided they're from the Realms or a generic setting.

It'd be a good place for new designers to make a name, providing good updates for monsters and building a reputation.

But, as was said earlier in the thread, few seem to want to risk it, since what they create might be instantly invalidated by an official WotC product. Yes, it will help raise an author's reputation and help out in the short run, but no creator wants to see his or her works made meaningless. So we're in a bit of a holding pattern as a result, since WotC is holding their cards close to their chests on any release schedule - if we knew a MM2 were forthcoming soon, then we'd probably see a lot of updated creatures ready to go right after (those that were "missed"); or, if we knew that no MM2 was in the works, people would be more likely to get started with updates as well. This isn't a knock against what WotC is doing (they are definitely doing well in building up anticipation for releases), but it is causing something of a block when it comes to monster updates...

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Personally, I'd like some smaller, supplemental books of "progressively tougher bad guys" so that I don't have to throw a monster menagire at my players. So like a "Big Book of Soliders". Or "Book of Bad*** Orcs" or something like that so that if I want my players to fight less fantastical enemies at level 12, I'll have a good idea of what those should look like. I'd be fine if these were sold as PDFs on the DMsG or as physical supplements like we had for races in 4e.

This actually reminded me of a great little article series that showed up in Dragon Magazine. Anyone remember "The Ecology of the [whatever]"? I always loved reading those things. The one on the otyugh was probably my favorite (Dragon #96) for some reason.

Anyway...I could really enjoy a series of well-reasoned and well thought out "ecology of..." type things for the monsters in the MM right now. As the saying goes..."I'd buy that for a dollar!". Background info, ecology info, known variants touched on, etc.

But as for a full-on MM2? Not even close to needing one yet. Give it another 3 or 4 years.

On a slightly different tangent...: One thing that has annoyed me with 5e's monsters is that there is no longer an entry for Frequency (Common, Rare, etc.), Number Found or % in Lair. Those are invaluable for me as a DM trying to make a believable world. In every 3.x/PF game I've played in, there was no rhyme or reason to why or how a monster was where it was...other than "Oh, it's of an appropriate CR for your PC's". It makes making intelligent decisions as a character almost impossible. If, for example, we (PC's) have to make a decision on either going left through the forest, or right, around the forest over the grassy hills... it's nice to have enough knowledge of the campaign world to be able to say "Well, if we go through the forest, we have to worry about Choke Creepers, which are common in those woods (unlike in many other woods). If we go around, we have to keep an eye out for Death-Bites, the Large Spiders that sometimes make webs between the trees at the entrance to the forest". Since the Frequency, No. Appearing, and % in Lair have been removed, all bets are off. It doesn't matter what or where you are...the 3.x/PF/4e DM's have been trained to put "appropriate challenges" for PC's as opposed to reasonable and logical encounters for the area.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[I'm A Banana]

My desire for a MM2 is primary for inspiring monster illustrations. Numbers don't excite me. The DMsG won't be a source of much inspiring art - at least legally.

FYI, the DMs Guild does have some free art available - it's what I used to illustrate the handful of critters I converted in this monstrous supplement. Some of it is QUITE nice!

But the art limitation in the DMs Guild is a real obstacle. What sells well over there is something with high production values, and if you're just some dork on the internet, you don't have high production values.

It'd be cool if newbie artists sold art services somewhere they'd be easy to purchase for fairly cheap!

 

[Jester David]

But, as was said earlier in the thread, few seem to want to risk it, since what they create might be instantly invalidated by an official WotC product. Yes, it will help raise an author's reputation and help out in the short run, but no creator wants to see his or her works made meaningless. So we're in a bit of a holding pattern as a result, since WotC is holding their cards close to their chests on any release schedule - if we knew a MM2 were forthcoming soon, then we'd probably see a lot of updated creatures ready to go right after (those that were "missed"); or, if we knew that no MM2 was in the works, people would be more likely to get started with updates as well. This isn't a knock against what WotC is doing (they are definitely doing well in building up anticipation for releases), but it is causing something of a block when it comes to monster updates...

Doing a big product is likely a waste if time, but you could do dozens of small monster products sold cheaply and then compile them later.
It's kinda invalidated *IF* WotC does their own, but you've made money in the meantime. And,mid your good, have created a reputation that you can use to segue into freelance work.

WotC can also use the stuff from the DMs Guild. If you do a bunch of awesome updates of monsters and WotC takes note, they might use those for the basis of the official versions.

 

[CapnZapp]

As for official monster, I would not hold my breath for a MM2.

Instead, expect a trickle of new monster in each campaign book.

 

[Uder]

WotC will put out at least one more monster book before 6th edition. I'd bet money on it.

 

[cmad1977]

We do? When did that happen?

 

[SkidAce]

On a slightly different tangent...: One thing that has annoyed me with 5e's monsters is that there is no longer an entry for Frequency (Common, Rare, etc.), Number Found or % in Lair. Those are invaluable for me as a DM trying to make a believable world. In every 3.x/PF game I've played in, there was no rhyme or reason to why or how a monster was where it was...other than "Oh, it's of an appropriate CR for your PC's". It makes making intelligent decisions as a character almost impossible. If, for example, we (PC's) have to make a decision on either going left through the forest, or right, around the forest over the grassy hills... it's nice to have enough knowledge of the campaign world to be able to say "Well, if we go through the forest, we have to worry about Choke Creepers, which are common in those woods (unlike in many other woods). If we go around, we have to keep an eye out for Death-Bites, the Large Spiders that sometimes make webs between the trees at the entrance to the forest". Since the Frequency, No. Appearing, and % in Lair have been removed, all bets are off. It doesn't matter what or where you are...the 3.x/PF/4e DM's have been trained to put "appropriate challenges" for PC's as opposed to reasonable and logical encounters for the area.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

I kinda see your point, cause that info could be used for inspiration. But, I kinda like the removal, because when I build my encounter tables by terrain, or decide blue dragons live on the beach. its not contradictory to anything. But if it was included, then we would both benefit, you would have it, and I could customize it.

However, to your last sentence about "trained" I disagree. By removing it, we are "theoretically" training the 5e DMs to customize their world with reasonable and logical encounters.

Just a thought...

 

[Morlock]

I prefer Monster Manual I, II, etc. "Fiend Folio" for a second book seems like what you do when you don't know you're going to go on to produce 5 monster books. It'd be fine if you stick with that (#3 becomes "Tome of Terrors," etc.), but it will inevitably put you on the spot when you run out of names, but not monster books.

Monster Manual [Roman numeral] is more future-proof.

 

[Uder]

Name's not important to me. As much as I want a MM2 though, I want it tightly focused on D&D monsters that "matter" (appear in adventures). The last thing I want is a series. 2E and 3E (and Tome of Horrors & PF Bestiary) had serious issues with redundant monsters just to fill page count and product schedule.

 

[Nilbog]

Well I'd love a new MM
I appreciate there is potential for creations through the DMs guild and also a few 3rd party products out there that have new monsters in, however I like having a physical book and a lot of the third party stuff ins't easy to get hold of in the UK (I prefer physical books to PDF, hate using a tablet at the table)

Also I'm a little behind on the DMs guild stuff, but does other than peer review, does it have any official review procedure behind it?