What would you like to see in future monster books?

[Shade]

This is meant to be a sort of "open letter" to monster developers out there. It seems like most of the monster books use the same formula time and again, leaving large parts of the customer base unsatisfied. Additionally, the presentation has been inconsistent from book-to-book.

Here's my wish list. Please post yours as well, and perhaps someone will take notice.

Types of Creatures:

• Less humanoids. I can't recall the last time I saw a truly inspiring humanoid creature.
• Less "watered-down" versions of existing creatures in order to create low LA races (see spikers, mephlings, etc.)
• Less specific undead, more undead templates. The Warcraft RPG Manual of Monsters did an excellent job with this, presenting nearly all the undead as templates, but using the sample creatures to represent the iconic versions of the creature.
• More creatures that round out well-developed subspecies of creatures (such as beholderkin, demons, devils, yugoloths, illithids, etc.)
• Less creatures that are simply a slight variation on an existing creature. ("It's a tiger...wing wings!", "It's a troll, but is vulnerable to cold instead of fire!", and so on).
• Less unnecessary reprinting of templates. Rather than printing a whole new type of undead that is essentially just a ghost or vampire with slightly different powers, follow the precedent set by Monsters of Faerun and Oriental Adventures and just list the variations (such as ghosts and liches in these books). The Draconomicon does a nice job updating the half-dragon template as well.
• More conversions. Why create a lackluster new monster just for the sake of it being new, when numerous interesting creatures from previous editions of the game have yet to make their appearance in this edition?
• More high-CR creatures. I know that the rationalization is that a DM can simply advance a low-CR monster. However, this is challenging to those who don't live and breathe monster conversions, and it is extremely time-consuming. Plus, although the MM 3.5 took great strides forward, the rules still don't cover every aspect of advancing a creature (such as whether spell resistance, damage reduction, and caster level for spell-like abilities improve when HD are added).
• Giants that are truly gigantic, of Gargantuan or Colossal size.
• Some interesting Fine and Diminutive creatures.
• More types. The introduction of the deathless type in Book of Exalted Deeds helped categorize a problematic niche of creatures. I don't think they should go crazy with this, but if a monster truly doesn't fit any of the existing types without serious problems, a new type could be introduced.
• More subtypes. Krishnath proposed an electricity subtype awhile back, and I could easily see subtypes for sonic, positive, negative, and shadow as well.
• Rationalization of how a monster can actually survive in its indicated environment. Shouldn't a xeg-yi be immune to negative energy? Shouldn't arctic creatures have some higher threshold for cold than a desert-dwelling creature?

Presentation:

• Stop giving a creature only a descriptive name, when the creature is intelligent or cultured enough to have a unique name for its race (as with mind flayer/illithid). Be consistent with naming conventions throughout various books (devils go by "horned devil" in the main entry, but list "cornugon" in the text, while demons list "glabrezu" in the title, not something like "arrow demon").
• Be consistent among monster types. If a troll is a giant, then a war troll, desert troll, soup troll, etc. should be giants.
• List all the monsters immunities, resistances, vision, etc. on the SQ line consistently, rather than occassionally stating simply "tanar'ri traits", etc. Continue to simply list "incorporeal traits" and "construct traits" for things that are always consistent to a certain type or subtype.
• LA's for creatures whose ECL would be over +20. Throw us epic-level players and DMs a bone. It only takes at most one more character to type "+X" instead of "-" on the Level Adjustment line.
• ALways list the languages a monster can speak (or if it can't speak or understand a language).
• Continue to list what spells (if any) can be used to summon a creature. Although I'm not a fan of the new system of listing a creature to remove from the existing summon lists, I'd like to see them pick a system and stick with it.
• More "if you are using X book" sidebars like in Fiend Folio, but less "In the Realms or In Eberron" in the core books.
• Include pronunciation for each monster entry.
• List monsters in a consistent manner. For example, all golems should be listed as "Golem, <name>" (see MM2 where chain golem appeared under "c", while all the rest of the golems were under "g").
• Always include index of monsters by name, by type, and by CR.

 

[Shade]

For more good discussion on this topic, check out this thread on the NG boards:

http://p082.ezboard.com/fnecromancergamesfrm31.showMessage?topicID=726.topic

 

[Knight Otu]

Less specific undead, more undead templates. The Warcraft RPG Manual of Monsters did an excellent job with this, presenting nearly all the undead as templates, but using the sample creatures to represent the iconic versions of the creature.

Yep.

More creatures that round out well-developed subspecies of creatures (such as beholderkin, demons, devils, yugoloths, illithids, etc.)

Yep.

Giants that are truly gigantic, of Gargantuan or Colossal size.

Indeed. I currently have only three giants of those sizes in my database - and that's counting 3rd party material.

More types. The introduction of the deathless type in Book of Exalted Deeds helped categorize a problematic niche of creatures. I don't think they should go crazy with this, but if a monster truly doesn't fit any of the existing types without serious problems, a new type could be introduced.

I'm unsure about that. I really don't see much room for expansion, and the deathless could have worked as Undead (Positive). But now that the Deathless are out there, more deathless!

More subtypes. Krishnath proposed an electricity subtype awhile back, and I could easily see subtypes for sonic, positive, negative, and shadow as well.

Indeed. Interestingly, the Electricity subtype existed in 3.0.

Be consistent among monster types. If a troll is a giant, then a war troll, desert troll, soup troll, etc. should be giants.

A little bit of deviation is ok, if it makes sense (planetouched). But otherwise, yes!!

List all the monsters immunities, resistances, vision, etc. on the SQ line consistently, rather than occassionally stating simply "tanar'ri traits", etc. Continue to simply list "incorporeal traits" and "construct traits" for things that are always consistent to a certain type or subtype.

Imho, WotC got a lot better in that department since 3.5.

LA's for creatures whose ECL would be over +20. Throw us epic-level players and DMs a bone. It only takes at most one more character to type "+X" instead of "-" on the Level Adjustment line.

Indeed. They've got some epic content in the DMG now, but no epic level adjustments??

As for something I'd like to see: Material that ties into the monsters. I know its hated by many, but an example would be the desmodu with their unique equipment - and in a similar vein the ethergaunts. Or maybe the creatures form a part of some kind of organization? What about feats, prestige classes or, to use the next big thing, substitution levels? Are there parts of the creature that can be re-used? If they ever put the battleloths into a monster book, how about a prestige class that allows them to improve their weapon form?
There is no need to do this for every monster, of course. But everything that stops the monster from just hanging there without flavor is good.

 

[Shade]

As for something I'd like to see: Material that ties into the monsters. I know its hated by many, but an example would be the desmodu with their unique equipment - and in a similar vein the ethergaunts. Or maybe the creatures form a part of some kind of organization? What about feats, prestige classes or, to use the next big thing, substitution levels? Are there parts of the creature that can be re-used? If they ever put the battleloths into a monster book, how about a prestige class that allows them to improve their weapon form?
There is no need to do this for every monster, of course. But everything that stops the monster from just hanging there without flavor is good.

Excellent suggestions! The ethergaunts, kaorti, and shardar-kai are some of my favorites from the Fiend Folio for that very reason.

Along those same lines, I wouldn't mind seeing references to existing prestige classes, feats, etc. in the monster descriptions.

For example, it would be cool for a new giant's entry to suggest giving them levels of the war hulk prestige class and the Large and In Charge feat.

 

[Filby]

• Stop giving a creature only a descriptive name, when the creature is intelligent or cultured enough to have a unique name for its race (as with mind flayer/illithid). Be consistent with naming conventions throughout various books (devils go by "horned devil" in the main entry, but list "cornugon" in the text, while demons list "glabrezu" in the title, not something like "arrow demon").

To which I would add, just because it's a pet peeve: Less creatures whose names consist merely of two words that are supposed to sound "cool" together. For example: vilewight, skybleeder, ethergaunt, hagspawn, swamplight lynx, darksomething whatzit, and so forth. It's just so unoriginal.

Also more creatures from "ethnic" fantasy. That is, less Western European and Greco-Roman monsters, more from other parts of the globe -- Slavic, Egyptian, African, East Asian, Aztec, whatever.

 

[Voadam]

Include CR charts and lists by type/subtype.

Include material on what can be summoned, gained as an improved familiar, or used as an animal companion.

Good art is important for monster books more so than for most any other mechanics niche although races are a close second. Always get as many of them illustrated as you can.

Good descriptions so there is more than combat stats for a DM to use, 2e was better than 3e for this with their ecology and habitat/society entries.

 

[Ferret]

I would like some more Back grounds on them, rather thne "No one knows who or what created...." or "The only reason such a creature could exist is a horrible mistake in a magical experiment". Ugh, just tying up loose ends willy-nilly.

 

[Filby]

Good descriptions so there is more than combat stats for a DM to use, 2e was better than 3e for this with their ecology and habitat/society entries.

I agree with this 100%. This has been my biggest problem with D&D 3E since I first saw the MM five years ago.

 

[Tav_Behemoth]

As for something I'd like to see: Material that ties into the monsters... Or maybe the creatures form a part of some kind of organization? What about feats, prestige classes or, to use the next big thing, substitution levels?

Wish I'd seen this thread before we started work on the first Masters and Minions books! I think we covered a number of these bases: check Joe Kushner's review for some examples. But not only did we miss out on the next big thing, I don't even know what a substitution level is. Any help would be much appreciated!

 

[BOZ]

I agree with this 100%. This has been my biggest problem with D&D 3E since I first saw the MM five years ago.

you should know my feelins on that subject by now.