Who's happy about MMV being MMIV again?

[MerricB]

Well, I think the marketing of the minis line provided the big impetus for the heavy inclusion of classed monsters.

And not the constant requests for NPCs to make the DM's job easier?

Cheers!

 

[Nyeshet]

This might be a foolish thought on my part, as I did not become involved in gaming until (literally) a week or two before 3e came out, but aren't there literally scores of monsters from pre-3e that have yet to be converted? Why not fill a MM with those rather than creature+class entries or encounter maps, etc? I would be interested in seeing what interesting creatures once graced the game but have fallen out of fashion, have yet to be placed in a MM.

 

[Felon]

And not the constant requests for NPCs to make the DM's job easier?

Cheers!

No, because any such requests weren't any more "constant" than any other request, unless there's some online petition somewhere I don't know about.

 

[Felon]

This might be a foolish thought on my part, as I did not become involved in gaming until (literally) a week or two before 3e came out, but aren't there literally scores of monsters from pre-3e that have yet to be converted?

See, they could kill two birds with one stone here. Take some of those unconverted monsters from MMII and Fiend Folio, and present them again, and they could throw in some bosses with class levels. Give us the 3.5 avolakia, and then the avolakia priest of Kyuss (cleric, dread necromancer, or favored soul). The 3.5 braxat, and then the braxat pack leader (ranger or scout). The 3.5 spell weaver, then the spell weaver exemplar (ultimate magus).

 

[Nyeshet]

See, they could kill two birds with one stone here. Take some of those unconverted monsters from MMII and Fiend Folio, and present them again, and they could throw in some bosses with class levels. Give us the 3.5 avolakia, and then the avolakia priest of Kyuss (cleric, dread necromancer, or favored soul). The 3.5 braxat, and then the braxat pack leader (ranger or scout). The 3.5 spell weaver, then the spell weaver exemplar (ultimate magus).

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of 2e or even 1e creatures that have not been converted to 3.5e - not 3e creatures that have not been converted (as often it doesn't take much effort to convert them myself. 3.5e was more of a revision than a new edition, after all).

 

[Glyfair]

The new monster format is fine, but the magic item format irks me something fierce. Information is so light, I lose interest in the item before getting to what it does!

What irks me is the "activation" area coming before the ability area. You have references to abilities and how to activate them before you even know what they are. The two sections should be combined, and the fluff perhaps cut down slightly.

 

[Vocenoctum]

This might be a foolish thought on my part, as I did not become involved in gaming until (literally) a week or two before 3e came out, but aren't there literally scores of monsters from pre-3e that have yet to be converted? Why not fill a MM with those rather than creature+class entries or encounter maps, etc? I would be interested in seeing what interesting creatures once graced the game but have fallen out of fashion, have yet to be placed in a MM.

Well, keep in mind that just because it's an older monster, doesn't make it any better than what the new guys can dream up. There were fans of nearly every monster at some point, but quite a few of them are just not worth updating.

 

[Razz]

Or maybe -- just maybe, mind -- you have more free time than some players. Or maybe you have more experience applying what you've learned to cool backstory creation.

It's cool if the book isn't aimed at you. But I think it's a little self-indulgent to insult all the the people is is aimed at by telling them they have no imagination. Please try to remember that a whole lot of people play D&D, and they aren't all exactly like you or me or some other random person. We're better off not painting with broad strokes - ""where are your imaginations?" - because you end up insulting people by mistake instead of actually making your point. I think your point is an interesting one, and it would be a shame if someone missed it because they're pissed at how you phrased it. A "better than thou" attitude doesn't carry a lot of weight here if you're trying to further a discussion.

At the end of my rant I did state that maybe that sort of thing comes naturally to me. I admitted there're other types of gamers and that I sure as heck still need to get used to the fact not everyone is a veteran player or DM. I even questioned if it actually was just me that felt that way or are there other people that also feel that some D&D books of late were more on "Here, do this" instead of "Here're some ideas, play around with it now".

I don't intend to insult anyone specifically, or broadly for that matter, but my statement was generalized and aimed mainly towards those that truly believe that's how D&D books should be written. If they know who they are then they'll defend against my opinion on the matter, but I sure don't mean to insult those that really don't have the time or imagination. I want to point out if those types would rather continue to be guided or would truly like to give it a crack at it themselves. Basically, I'm curious as to exactly when WotC will finally realize some people have matured enough in the game to play it their way or if they'll continue with the mentality that everyone has no time or everyone's a total newb.

 

[Razz]

Wow! He waited until page two to call us all spoonfed and unimaginative! That really is a record for you Razz. And nice insult to the community at large at the end there. This is easily one of your best flamebait posts in a while. I'm glad I unignored you long enough to read it! Shine on you crazy diamond!

Obviously you must be that type of player because you found what I said offensive. It wasn't meant to be offensive, it was meant to question oneself and then question on the matter of should WotC continue writing their books as if ALL players and DMs were plain newbs or will they finally realize many gamers, old and new, have matured enough in D&D so as to write better quality books that inspire instead of dictate what you should do.

But by all means, put me on ignore. If you read my signature correctly you will realize that I admit I say things that are rather radical, but that's no reason to bash me for it. I didn't bash anyone in my statement, they were very, and I mean VERY, generalized.

In other words, I said what I said in HOPE and with the benefit of the doubt that the majority of the gaming community truly don't believe that's the type of gamer they are. If so, I will feel rather disappointed but not angry or condenscending.

 

[Jolly Giant]

I used to buy every monster book WotC released. I've got the MM1, MM2, MM3, FF, MoF, Draconomicon, Libris Mortis, Lords of Madness and Fiendish Codex. I even have the two Scarred Lands Creature Collections, even if I've never played in that setting.

But I didn't buy MM4. I liked the Knowledge check write-ups, but hated everything else about it. Spawns of Tiamat took up way too many pages, and many of the other monsters were just too weird. The new stat-block format was totally unneccessary.

The many leveled monsters from MM1 were the worst, though. Printing them was just a waste of trees, IMO. From what I've heard about MM5, I won't be buying that either.