What do you want from the Monster Manual?

[I'm A Banana]

Man, so many people Agreeing On The Internet.

Now...what monsters go in/lairs get made? How many pages each? How many creatures are balled into each preset environment?

I think part of that will be determined by the target page count, but circa 5-10 pages for each "chapter" hits a sweet spot. Some critters might have slightly more, some might have slightly less, but that seems to give a good balance.

And there's the question of fluff...which many posters here, at least, seem to want as minimized or generalized as possible. Are we going to have a kobold warren of dozens of little dragon-worshippers and half-dragon-kobold sorcerers with a "young" blue dragon at the end...or red...or green dragon? Or a warren of little scaly dog-men? Either presenting with their traps and, seemingly all important vermin. And how are you going to argue/survive the backlash of one preference or the other? Are goblins automatically "wolf/worg-riders"? What about giant bats or giant lizards? Or are we going to have "Forest Goblin", "Subterranean Goblin", "Dessert Goblin" "Tundra Goblin" entries...spread willy nilly throughout the book with fifteen entires in the, extraordinarily important for this work, "Index"?

I think the desire for minimal fluff is part of that desire for a traditionally formatted MM. Which, I guess, we avoid if we just call this third core book something different.

And I think even in such a book, it's necessary to make it very clear that DMs can take anything in their own direction.

This is presented as "one vision" of how goblins could be, presented so that DMs can tweak it if they want to. If you include goblins as wolf-riders allied with worgs in the book, but a DM decides he wants them on spider-back instead, it should be easy for him to either use the spider statblocks in the drow section, or just whip up their own spider statblocks from the DMG's monster-building directions. The kobolds might be dragon-worshipers, but it shouldn't take anything more than a change in how the DM describes them for them to be dog-rat-things. The tricks that DMs have been doing for 30 years with MM entries will still be valid tricks. What the MM says a dragon might be has never been the last word on what dragons are in D&D.

I think part and parcel of that is to have a monster-building system that is seamless and easy. 4e got us most of the way there, so they can probably handle it.

Are there going to be entries for Goblin Camp, Hobgoblin Camp, Orc Camp, Bugbear Camp...or doing one with some DM's Note that you can swap out the creatures as desired? All of those "cultures" are to be expected, by players, to be one and the same? Or, Orcs and Hobgoblins can be swapped...Bugbears and Ogres can be swapped...and where are the stats for those that don't have their own lairs presented?

I think if I was to do this myself, I'd include "Goblinoids" as one entry, with goblins (minions), bugbears (brutes), and hobgoblins (soldiers) all there, working together. It's pretty normal in D&D to have these critters enslaved/conscripted/unified, anyway, and their differences will stand out more in contrast to the others if they're together.

Orcs would probably be a separate entry -- they're pretty distinct.

And swapping would just be a case of identifying equal-level monsters, much like it is in 3e or 4e (or even 1e and 2e, to a certain degree): any monster with a similar level would be a potential swap.

Creatures without their own lairs might get bundled into other creatures who have their own lairs. You might have wolves in with the goblinoids entry, rather than in their own entry, for instance.

How do we defend from the point I've made repeatedly that once you've used one of these little scenarios/environments your players now have a map (mental or literal) of what any encounter with a camp of goblins or orcs is set up like...i.e. using each piece of this adventure guide more than once.

Well, much like the MM, this book would be presumed to be full of DM information, not something the player needs to look at. Inevitably, that will happen to some degree, and for that, DMs can use the same tricks they've been using for years on players who read the MM -- refluffing, changing little bits, replacing, templating, etc. Just because the Kobold entry shows a trap in this room doesn't mean that there WILL be a trap in the room, especially if the players have already read the book.

Don't even get me started on how/where to build an encounter/lair/adventure that incorporates the width and breadth of Demons or Devils...Elementals...Giants...One entry for Hill Giant Steading, one Frost Giant Glacier, and one Fire Giant Volcano, perhaps? What about the others? Should Treants be listed/treated as "Wood Giants" or have their own place in some "The Ancient Forbidden Forest of the Faeries" setting?

For those, you'll need to divide them up into smaller, more easy-to-manage groups. The Demons entry probably wouldn't include ALL the demons D&D has available, but a selection of them relevant to most DMs with especially iconic demons (Vrocks, Marliths, Succubi), along with things like Demon Thralls and the like. Elementals, I think, are prime candidates to appear in other creatures' entries -- the Fire Giants summon Fire Elementals, for instance.

How many places...the "anchor monsters" I think you've called them, are we presenting in this "Adventure Guide"? And how big are we talking? 3 or 5 or 10 pages per "entry"? A simple 150 pages? 200? 400? (at an average 5 pages per entry, with each individual monster's stats, ecologic/interactive fluff, maps, traps, etc. doesn't sound unreasonable, 150 pages gives us 30 "encounter/lair/mini-adventures."

Sounds like a pretty good target to me. Usually the realities of budget and printing capability will dictate this for you, but if I could get "enough adventures to run characters from 1-10," that would hit the need of the 3rd core book pretty well. At 3 entries/level, that means 30 entries would be quite perfect.

If it takes most D&D groups about a year to get to level 10 anyway, we'd be able to then either publish a sequel, or write it off as a failed experiment.

That's certainly up to debate, though. The first Adventure Guide might want to hid a breadth of levels 1-20 so that multiple DMs at any given level can use it, and so 30 entries is just fine -- in fact, maybe a bit TOO many.

Let's see what I might do if I had one entry per level...hmm..
LV 1: Kobolds (dire weasels, urds, wild boars)
LV 2: Goblinoids (goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, wolves)
LV 3: Feywood (elves, dryads, centaurs, giant eagles...)
LV 4: Orcs (orcs, trolls, ogres)
LV 5: Haunted Graveyard (skeletons, zombies, wraiths, ghouls...)
LV 6: Hag Coven (annis, shambling mound, displacer beast)
LV 7: Drow (spiders, driders, matriarchs)
LV 8: Medusa's Isle (Medusa, Siren, earth elementals, Gorgon, Basilisk)
LV 9: Glacier Peak (white dragon, frost giant, winter wolf)
LV 10: Pirate Seas (kraken, merfolk, water elementals, sahagin, sharks)
LV 11: Serpentine Swamp (black dragon, lizardfolk, crocodile, catoblepas)
LV 12: Caverns of Madness (mind flayer, intellect devourer, mimic)
LV 13: Living Jungle (treant, green dragon, yuan-ti, naga, hydra, snakes)
LV 14: Vampire's Castle (vampire, ghost, banshee, werewolf)
LV 15: Distant Sands (blue dragon, wind elemental, efreet, janni, mummy)
LV 16: Primordial Depths (beholder, oozes, gibbering mouther, grell, aboleth)
LV 17: Crimson Volcano (red dragon, salamander, fire elemental, azer)
LV 18: Shrine to Graz'zt (balor, marilith, vrock, succubus)
LV 19: Shrine to Asmodeus (Kyton, Gelugon, Pit Fiend, Erinyes)
LV 20: Return of the Terrasque (terrasque, apocalypse cultists, golems)

...which isn't a bad quick survey. There's a few left out, but that is the nature of the design, here. Not gonna be able to fit in every tabaxi and rakshasa. And there's still probably room for a few more, especially short entries like ooze hazards and the like.

Where's the Rust Monster go? Displacer Beasts? The Mindflayers? The Beholders and Black Puddings? If this is to be the 3rd core book, then the D&D iconic monsters need to be there (at least a good chunk of them)...what's that list look like? Is that doable in 30 entries? 50? 100?

Rust Monsters and Black Puddings and Displacer Beasts are good candidates, I think for "support monsters." Maybe the gnolls use Displacer Beasts as guardians in their camps. Maybe Rust Monsters and Black Puddings live in the Abandoned Mines along with some undead and earth elementals.

Mindflayers and Beholders probably are anchor-monsters, with the former having an assortment of psionic minions, and the latter being good candidates for other alien aberrations like gibbering mouthers.

Again, this is subject to discussion.

 

[steeldragons]

Well, since I thoroughly advocate the "main game" going from 1st to 10th level, I have no problem with most of this.

Changing the name is...essential...and/with a "traditional alphabetical" Monster Manual being presented as well. As I said, some players might buy the "Complete Book of Lairs" as their third "core book" and some might prefer a 1e or 2e style "Monster Manual".

If you don't mind, [MENTION=10021]kamikaze[/MENTION]_Midget , I would like to branch this off to another thread of what people might like to see, in these "level-by-level pre-set adventures."

Your list is good. It seems, however, to make certain assumptions about play. How is a group supposed to go into a lair of the mindflayers, "Caves of Madness" was it?, with all the other psionic monsters lumped in, without some way to battle mental attacks? How is the group with no elves or mages supposed to use the "Living Jungle"? The "Medusa Isle" is just a hack-n-slash against all of the things that will turn you to stone? Where's the cockatrice?!

And, if you are saying things like oozes (or cockatrices or rust monsters, for that matter) might be included as lil' "side creatures" to be found...then it's not a 3-5 monster-per-adventure-stat-block book. Where're the stats you've claimed for traps? Terrain hazzards? ...with a map and illustrations and all of the "life" of the settings? That's not fitting in an average of 5 pages.

And, again, you haven't answered the questions of "What if I want a pack of Winter Wolves...by themselves...in the wild? How many are there? Is that info put under the Frost Giant entry with a "If you want..."? What if I need Displacer Beasts to be lone hunters on the savannah? "Go to the Gnolls' Tribe" because these use them as guardians?!

If you want spider riding goblins, go to the Drow entry?

How do you not see the organizational nightmare this format presents for those who DON'T want to use, what you present, outside the preset format?

I get saying "this is one vision", but how is that any different or "better" or "easier" than just listing them individually? That's what they always were/have been!

[not to mention, you're going to answer to Shemeska about the demon stuff...let alone yulgoloths! lol.]

But still, my imagination is flying! I'd like to start a different thread to talk about what people would like to see...or think they should see...in these groups.

 

[Arlough]

[sblock]That's just the point though. Steeldragon's MM IS the recipe book. Statblocks are more like pre-packaged meals.

I feel the Monster Manual should be a recipe book for monsters. Not a recipe book for adventures.

I can see other books being recipe books for adventures (Dungeon Delve? Adventure Guide?)
In fact, I'd like to take those two ideas together.

Fill out the monster manual exactly as Steeldragons described. Then put the billion other stat blocks into DDI under the... let's call it the Monster Vault.
WotC could then publish periodical issues of the Monster Vault for those who object to online subscriptions. This could be done in many different ways, be it 'complete kobold' or 'dungeon delve' or 'Adventure Recipe Book'.

I see this version of the Monster Manual as a book for experienced DMs who have a reasonable amount of prep time. If you don't have prep time, you should be using the Monster Vault and/or pre-packaged adventures.
The Monster Manual that Kamakaze Midget describes is what I would expect to see for novice DMs in the DnD starter kits.

[MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] I don't want to be all Negative-Nancy about this. I actually support your idea. I think it's brilliant. I just don't think the book you're describing is a Monster Manual.
I'd rather see it as an alternate line of books that DMs can opt to buy.
2E style DMs will buy the MM. 4E style DMs will buy your idea. And many DMs will buy both. It's a playstyle thing.


The more I ponder this idea, the more I like it. I've never purchased a published module. They just don't appeal to me. However, an Adventure-Recipe-Book appeals to me a great deal. Push the published adventures back into Dungeon Mag and give me a whole new series of books filled with partial adventures and stat blocks. Let me take the ideas presented in the book and flesh them out. Don't give me the whole story.

Absa-fracking-lutely.

I'd be very happy to drop the idea of the 'Core-Three', and indeed of Core in general.
At most I'd want to see it as core-three-ish where the guideline is:
For new DMs: Pick PHB+DMG+AdventureGuide
For experienced DMs: Pick PHB+DMG+MM
From that point onward, buy whatever you damn well please.[/sblock]

[sblock]This question is very interesting. What should the core books be, or what should be in the core books? It is a bit strange that, in order to play D&D, you need more than the PHB, DMG, and MM--you need an adventure. Generally it has gone like this:

PHB: Character creation rules, rules for playing the game
DMG: Adventure creation guidelines, guidelines for running the game
MM: A bunch of monsters

Does "a bunch of monsters" deserve an entire book? Maybe, if you have a lot of monsters (which you should).

Does "adventure creation guidelines" deserve an entire book? Maybe, if you have a lot of guidelines, examples, etc. (which you might?).

Could those two books be the same book? Maybe, if you do it without compromising the quality of either.

Could those two books each be separate from the PHB and DMG? Maybe, if you can expect players to buy that many core books.[/sblock]

Quite frankly, I would rather there were only two 'core' books, and then make additional material valuable enough to me that I am willing to purchase it. The PHB for players and DMG for DMs, the PHB should have everything needed to play a character from start to finish, the DMG should have everything needed to DM a campaign including ingredients and recipies for monsters a challenges. (Sell it in a starter pack for beginners with an adventure to run with some monsters, some dice, etc.)
Or, to torture the analogy further, I want the PCs (guests) to show up with the proper dinner attire (Characters made with the PHB.) I want the DM (host) to have available the recipes needed to make a good dinner with any of the ingredients available (Adventure crafting instructions from the DMG.)
And the option to go out and buy either complete individual parts like croissants (a real time consumer and pain to make without a major kitchen) or cheesecake (these would be the MM monsters) or have the event catered (pre-made adventures).

The more I think about it, the more I like packages of material that can be added to your MM, similar to back in AD&D with the monster binder (Just looked it up, it was the Monstrous Compendium.)

I like this for multiple reasons. One, you could build it over time to fit the kinds of monsters you wanted. Monsters could be sold in packs of similar monsters (Kobolds of the Talentia Plains, or whatever) or as monster pages in packaged adventures. You could organize them however you think most appropriate, and even create your own index. Plus, you could sell small packs of monsters at around the $5 price point which would reduce the barrier to entry for kids who are just starting out, as well as for DMs at game shops who have just discovered that they left their materials at home.
Each monster could be licensed as it's own IP (with a few exceptions of course) so you could buy the "license" that comes with a code, punch that code into your DDi subscription, and all those monsters would now be yours online and offline.

Still, in the end I hold that you should only ne

Darg! Windows update just crit on me!

As I was fininshing, I think you should only need the two books, PHB and DMG, to play.

 

[GX.Sigma]

The more I think about it, the more I like packages of material that can be added to your MM, similar to back in AD&D with the monster binder (Just looked it up, it was the Monstrous Compendium.)

I like this for multiple reasons. One, you could build it over time to fit the kinds of monsters you wanted. Monsters could be sold in packs of similar monsters (Kobolds of the Talentia Plains, or whatever) or as monster pages in packaged adventures. You could organize them however you think most appropriate, and even create your own index. Plus, you could sell small packs of monsters at around the $5 price point which would reduce the barrier to entry for kids who are just starting out, as well as for DMs at game shops who have just discovered that they left their materials at home.

If they do this, I will never buy another WotC product again. And I'm only exaggerating a little.

Why not just have a big book with all the monsters in it?

 

[Arlough]

If they do this, I will never buy another WotC product again. And I'm only exaggerating a little.

Why not just have a big book with all the monsters in it?

To the first sentence, I would ask why? I don't understand how the monster manual will ruin the entire game if presented in a different fashion.

To the third sentence, I answer "That could be an option too."
It's kinda like some people buy each comic individually, while others wait until the story arc is complete and buy the compiled book.
Or, to put it in more D&D terms, it's just like some people bought the PHB, DMG, and MM individually while others bought them as a box set.

 

[GX.Sigma]

To the first sentence, I would ask why? I don't understand how the monster manual will ruin the entire game if presented in a different fashion.

To the third sentence, I answer "That could be an option too."
It's kinda like some people buy each comic individually, while others wait until the story arc is complete and buy the compiled book.
Or, to put it in more D&D terms, it's just like some people bought the PHB, DMG, and MM individually while others bought them as a box set.

Okay, maybe I was exaggerating more than a little. What I meant to say was, nickel-and-diming the customer for their content is the opposite of what I feel is the right direction for a Monster Manual product. As I said before, I think the solution is to have a big book with all the monster-related content one could ever need. Upon reflection, I don't even mind if the monster book isn't part of the core (much like "the item book" is never part of the core), but it still has to be there.

Also, I don't see how they could sell a big book of monsters and little expansion packs of the same monsters.

 

[Keldryn]

If a basic monster can't pass the handwritten notebook paper test without being painfully time consuming then the statblock has failed.

I apparently need to spread XP around first, but this. A thousand times this.

Software or photocopying to write up stats for a pen & paper rpg takes it out of the realm of interest. I look at a 4E statblock and think: TL/DR

Wanna condense prep time:

Orc (AC 6 HD 1 HP 5 #AT 1 Dmg: by weapon, MV: 40', AL: C)

Yes. If I need the full write-up for a monster while running the game, I can always open up a Monster Manual. Even relatively straightforward monsters in 3e can be summed up fairly concisely:

Orc (HP 5; AC 13, touch 10; Speed 30'; Melee +4, Dmg 2d4+4, Saves Fort +3, Will -2; Listen/Spot +1)

I cut out anything that I don't need to know to run the majority of encounters with an orc. I pretty much only need to know hit dice in order to figure out hit points. Flat-footed AC is the same as the base AC. Reflex save is 0. Orcs have darkvision and light sensitivity and I can remember that. If if comes up that I need to know their ability scores, I can look it up pretty quickly, or just make a good guess.

In 4e, this is much more difficult to do, other than for minions. A simple monster with only one unique attack "power" might work okay, but even orcs and goblins get multiple attack powers, triggered actions, and such.

Complex monsters -- no matter which edition -- always need more space than that. As DM, I can't deal with too many complex monsters in one combat. Even running combat encounters with orcs and goblins in 4e gives me a headache, as I'm always forgetting things that they can do.

AD&D and BECMI D&D stat blocks are generally lightweight enough that I only need to glance at the summary while running the game. 4e stat blocks take an active effort to parse (and keep triggered actions and auras in mind) and slow me down.

Orc hunters might have long spears. Orc archers will have......you guessed it BOWS! Sub chiefs and leaders will have more HD, HP, better equipment and perhaps some extra description. A shaman will have more HD, HP, and some spells.

Exactly. And a DM with a bit of experience can make such modifications in a matter of seconds while running the game.

Combat encounters are always going to run a bit more smoothly when everything is prepped and written down in advance, no matter which edition. The beauty of the pre-3e monster stat blocks was that a DM could throw together an encounter on the fly when necessary without slowing down the game to a crawl.

Less time to prep beforehand, less time to read and easier to scan when running the game.

As for what I want from the 5e Monster Manual:

• artwork for each monster
• a short description of each monster, suitable for reading aloud to players
• monsters built as monsters, not using the same rules as PCs
• monsters should have ability scores for skill checks or when situations arise that make use of them, but don't apply modifiers to AC, hit points, etc. If a monster is quick, bake it into the AC.
• simple variations of monsters don't need full, complete stat blocks. If an orc chief has +10 hit points, +2 to attacks, +2 to AC for better armor, then just say that.
• don't use unique, custom "powers" for every monster just because you can. If a monster's attack works exactly the same as a magic missile, just say so and include an abbreviated description: Range 110', auto hit, 1d4+1 force damage. Note any differences, whether functional or flavor-wise.
• include enough flavor text to be able to place the monster in a fictional context. The 3e Monsters Manuals were decent for this, as is the 4e Monster Vault. I liked the "what you know" by skill DC lists in the 4e Monster Manuals. Some of the 2e monster entries went overboard with this and it was obvious that they were trying to fill space.
• don't give common monsters an overly-complicated design, such that scribbling down a few notes about a monster becomes impractical. I don't want to have to print out stat blocks because writing out everything I need to know would take too long.

 

[Hussar]

Keldryn - Yes and no. While I totally agree at the simple end of things, the 4e statblock is a bit longer than a 3e one. The one or two powers that a simple creature has will generally guarantee that.

However, on the OTHER end of the scale, the 4e statblock is MUCH simpler than the 3e one. I mean, I've got a book in front of me (AEG's Secrets - good book) with a coven of 3 6th level sorcerer hags. The stat blocks for these three creatures is a full page of 8 point type! And I cannot even really run these creatures from that statblock because I'd have to look up what their spells do and whatnot.

AD&D statblocks are always quite short because, like 4e, they don't have a lot of special abilities, by and large. 4e's are in between AD&D and 3e on average. I mean, for stuff that has no outright extra effects, you could easily boil the statblock down to one line.

 

[Keldryn]

Keldryn - Yes and no. While I totally agree at the simple end of things, the 4e statblock is a bit longer than a 3e one. The one or two powers that a simple creature has will generally guarantee that.

However, on the OTHER end of the scale, the 4e statblock is MUCH simpler than the 3e one. I mean, I've got a book in front of me (AEG's Secrets - good book) with a coven of 3 6th level sorcerer hags. The stat blocks for these three creatures is a full page of 8 point type! And I cannot even really run these creatures from that statblock because I'd have to look up what their spells do and whatnot.

I did specify "relatively straightforward monsters" in 3e, and I agree that stat blocks for complex monsters can get totally out of control in 3e. I'd have trouble managing a complex monster in 3e unless it was more or less on its own. I've got a good head for keeping track of complex plots and character motivations, but I'm lousy with monster stats once they pass a certain level of complexity.

4e does a lot to bring down the complexity on that end of the scale. Unfortunately, 4e also has a tendency to raise the complexity on the low end of the scale, and that's one of my biggest gripes about the system. This applies to both monsters and player characters.

I liked it when most of the text on a page in an adventure was describing the environments that the players were exploring, with all of the monster stats that the DM needed to know to cover 90% of situations summarized on a couple of lines.

I'm sure it's not a problem for all DMs, but when monster stat blocks get longer and more complex, I inevitably get more combat-focused and start to have trouble thinking "outside the encounter."

 

[kitsune9]

What exactly do you want from the next Monster Manuals in terms of write up?

Small stat blocks.