D&D 5E We need a Monster Manual II

[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?