D&D 5E What the Monster Manual is missing

[Sonny]

For example, 4e (and I believe 3e) listed example encounter groupings according to monsters that commonly worked together such as fire salamanders being slaves to efreeti or kobolds riding dire weasels. For old DMs this stuff is a snap to improv, but not so for younger DMs.


Yes. 2e was chock full of this stuff, for example:

Displacer beasts have little to fear from other large predators, save perhaps trolls or giants. Some wizards and alchemists value their hides for use in certain magical preparations, and will offer generous rewards for them. The eyes of a displacer beast are a highly prized, if uncommon, good luck charms among thieves who believe that they will protect the bearer from detection.


I think so too. Back in the playtest there was a nice breakdown of treasure by pouch / chest / hoard that I thought was pretty well done. So far no word on morale, but it's not that complex. # appearing I suspect may have gone the way of the dodo, but time will tell.

I was hoping for it to be more like the 2e Monsterous Manual. I understand why they concentrated on number of monsters instead though, especially after people being disappointed with the limited selection of monsters in the 4e MM, and the fact that they aren't going to be publishing a ton of books every year.

However, I still think this Monster Manual is very good on its own, and I'm glad I bought it.

For those who enjoy reading entries for Monsters more like 2e's Manual, check out the 5th Edition Hackmaster Hacklopedia of Beasts. It's like 2e MM on steroids. A great read, and a beautiful book.

 

[Wrathamon]

http://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/dnd/MM_MonstersCR.pdf

Under Monster Manual on the D&D site they have a Monsters by CR pdf to download.

 

[thalmin]

http://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/dnd/MM_MonstersCR.pdf

Under Monster Manual on the D&D site they have a Monsters by CR pdf to download.

Thanks! I missed this.

 

[Morrus]

Thanks! I missed this.

You didn't miss it. It literally just got added.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

http://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/dnd/MM_MonstersCR.pdf

Under Monster Manual on the D&D site they have a Monsters by CR pdf to download.

Question is the Kuo-Toa Monitor in the Monster Manual because this makes I heard it's not.

 

[thalmin]

Question is the Kuo-Toa Monitor in the Monster Manual because this makes I heard it's not.

It is on page 198 as a variant without a full stat block.
(added) It is a variant of the Whip.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

It is on page 198 as a variant without a full stat block.
(added) It is a variant of the Whip.

K that is cool.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Another question for owners. What size is the Death Slaad.

 

[thalmin]

Another question for owners. What size is the Death Slaad.

Medium

 

[Grainger]

It's great, but it's also missing a physical description of the monsters! A pretty big omission. At least, this is true for some, e.g. the Troll. While there's always (or nearly always) a picture of each monster, that's only one artist's interpretation, and for many monsters one individual may look very different from another. I could have done with a short description of what the monster actually looks like (in fact, personally I'd rather have that than fluff about where they think it should fit into your game-world).

As an old-school player coming back to D&D, there are lots of no-doubt familiar-to-most monsters I'm not familiar with, or that I knew, but have since forgotten the details of, and in places it feels like they assume you already know what a Blah Blah Blah is.

Looking at the manual more closely, I now feel even more strongly that the lack of description is a serious omission. I don't know whether they assumed everyone already knows what all the monsters look like*, or that the picture will suffice, but in my view the picture definitely does not suffice.

I want a brief description of the monster - I don't always (or even very often) want to show my players a picture, and I certainly don't want to repeatedly show the same picture every time they meet a monster of a given type. A couple of sentences would have sufficed, but to have nothing... I wouldn't even mind if the picture and the description contradicted each other somewhat (for example, there are many approaches in fantasy to the humble Orc), but to give us nothing...


Edit: Hmmm.... a bit of research reveals that 4e also lacked the descriptions. Looks like this style is here to stay.


*I thought this edition was meant to draw in players of older editions?