Will the MM2 have more than monsters...Forked from "advice to anyone still ..."

[Glyfair]

Forked from: advice to anyone still wondering if they should purchase a DDI subscription today

I will say that because of my DDI subscription, I don't feel the need to buy any book which contains only lists of powers, items, races, monsters, classes, etc. So I won't be buying AV2, Arcane Power, Divine Power, Monster Manual 2, PHB2, etc, because the DDI compendium is as good a way, if not better, to reference that material. My 60 a year gets me ~100 bucks worth of material, before any of the extra stuff. DDI is one of the best values out there, at least for a DM.

I see the point. Which is why I wonder if the Monster Manual 2 might have more than just monsters. A section not included in the compendium will increase it's value to those who make use the Compendium.

Maybe a section on creating monsters. Perhaps a section on monsters and their environment. Maybe a section on "reskinning monsters."

Thoughts?

 

[I'm A Banana]

there was a thread maybe a week ago that proposed "fluffster manual 2."

Given that the original MM is so. painfully. utterly. mechanical. to death. I think that making an MM2 that is a little more balanced no the side of fluff and crunch is a wise, DDI-proof move.

IMO, the "ideal" monster manual would be pre-packaged challenges. Lairs. Traps. Monsters in groups. Character info for playable monsters. Clever spirits of wisdom who make skill challenges for the party. Rival adventurers. With the DDI in force, an alphabetical encyclopedia of stat blocks is a waste of paper for anyone who has that. And those that don't can still make due with an index of whatever challenges the MM presents.

I really, really hope they learned their lesson with the original MM: people want more than stat blocks.

 

[Glyfair]

IMO, the "ideal" monster manual would be pre-packaged challenges. Lairs. Traps. Monsters in groups. Character info for playable monsters. Clever spirits of wisdom who make skill challenges for the party. Rival adventurers. With the DDI in force, an alphabetical encyclopedia of stat blocks is a waste of paper for anyone who has that. And those that don't can still make due with an index of whatever challenges the MM presents.

I 100% disagree with this. I do feel there is a place for this, but it is not in the Monster Manuals. I do expect them to largely be large statblocks for monsters (the Compendium info has to come from somewhere).

There is a place for this, but it is in the series we have that includes the Draconomicon and Open Grave.

To me, what you list is largely going to go unused. I might use one monster lair in a book, one or two might give me inspiration. The rest are wasted pages. Give me a Book of Lairs, on the other hand, and I might use more (and am more likely to buy it if that's what I need).

 

[Fallen Seraph]

While I am perfectly fine with the MM being stat-box heavy (even though got a DDI account (still useful for original scheming/on the fly finding of stuff)). If WoTC was to go in another direction what I would like to see:

-Skill Challenges oriented around individual monsters. So a ghost monster a Skill Challenge to overcome them possessing a NPC/PC for instance. Specifically they should be ones based around the monster's stats, not fluff, environment, etc. I am a chronic refluffer so that wouldn't be so useful if not based off stats.
-Alternative Abilities, in say the appendix have alternative abilities, say floating ones that can be added to a variety of monsters (this could though also be in a DMG equally).

 

[Dice4Hire]

One reason Martial power succeeded for me was its incredible focus on crunch. No oddball prestige classes that took up four pages of text and were never used in any game I have ever heard of, and honestly were just plain bad. Instead, page after page after page of options for the gmae. I know some powers wer bad also, but when you put 8-12 on a page, a few totally bad ones can be forgiven.

I do not want to see a lot of fluff in the MMII, instead I want stat blocks that I can add my fluff to. A pure crunch MMII is exactly what I want, as long as it is not a reprint o all the monsters form Dungeon, dragon, adventures and such. That I hope I do not see. I want new monsters.

 

[Starsunder]

I for one enjoyed (and still enjoy) the first MM, but I think that it could use a bit more fluff for the monsters. Im not saying they ought to harken back to the 2ed days of complete ecologies, histories, etc, but a little more fluff might go a long way.

As a side note, anyone want to hazard a guess as to what Demo will be (level and role wise)?

 

[Shroomy]

As a side note, anyone want to hazard a guess as to what Demo will be (level and role wise)?

As ostensibly the most powerful demon lord, I would say that Demogorgon will be a Level 35 Solo Soldier. If not soldier, than Brute.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I 100% disagree with this. I do feel there is a place for this, but it is not in the Monster Manuals. I do expect them to largely be large statblocks for monsters (the Compendium info has o come from somewhere).

I look at this from a practical, at-the-table perspective.

I use maybe 4-6 monsters per session.

At three sessions per month, that's ca. 150 unique monsters per year.

With the original MM, I have more than I need. With that + compendium + dragon + dungeon + supplements, I have WAY more than I will EVER use. Add to that templates, and easy monster creation rules, and I ALREADY have overload.

I don't need stat blocks. Stat blocks are pointless and useless, and especially so given 4e's "fluff what you want" mechanical approach that makes a given goblin stat block useful for any creature you can think of, goblin or no.

What I need are underpinnings -- how the monsters actually get used at my table. Which, believe it or not, isn't just about rolling dice in combat (which is just about all statblocks are good for). I don't need much quantity (though I certainly need a good amount -- 150 is nothing to shake a stick at!). I need more quality.

There is a place for this, but it is in the series we have that includes the Draconomicon and Open Grave.

At the same time, this goes too far in the other direction. While it's amusing to learn of the mating habits of red dragons, I don't need to know that, and it doesn't really help me use them at the table.

A middle path, something between IKEA assembly instructions and a treatsie on classism in vampire societies, is ideal. This "a whole lot of focus + a whole lot of stat blocks" approach leaves both sides under-served (especially if I don't happen to use dragons or undead or whatever the Coasties determine is cool enough for a focused monster book next).

Something like a page per stat block average is, I feel, an acceptable middle ground. Not everything will need an entire page, and some things will need more, but, on average, this is a pretty good mix (books like Denizens of Avadnu and the Tome of Horrors series all follow this to good results).

To me, what you list is largely going to go unused. I might use one monster lair in a book, one or two might give me inspiration. The rest are wasted pages. Give me a Book of Lairs, on the other hand, and I might use more (and am more likely to buy it if that's what I need).

How many monsters do you use in a year? How many maps? How many traps? How many NPC's? How many adventures?

How many unique stat blocks do you actually use? And how is MORE STATBLOCKS going to help you actually use what's there?

Of all the monsters out right now, what percentage have you used? And why did you use the ones you did use?

I've used a grand total of about a dozen stat blocks so far with 4e. Another 300 won't do anything for me. Especially without much of a reason to use them beyond their simple existence.

 

[Rechan]

One reason Martial power succeeded for me was its incredible focus on crunch. No oddball prestige classes that took up four pages of text and were never used in any game I have ever heard of, and honestly were just plain bad. Instead, page after page after page of options for the gmae. I know some powers wer bad also, but when you put 8-12 on a page, a few totally bad ones can be forgiven.

I do not want to see a lot of fluff in the MMII, instead I want stat blocks that I can add my fluff to. A pure crunch MMII is exactly what I want, as long as it is not a reprint o all the monsters form Dungeon, dragon, adventures and such. That I hope I do not see. I want new monsters.

This.

The only thing I think that should get fluff are things that are completely and utterly new or out there. For instance, I have no clue what to do with a Barbalang. It's just... a solo monster that splits in half when it's bloodied. I have no idea what it is or what its purpose is. Gargoyles and Foulspawn and Battlebriars and such, I don't need fluff because their existence creates it; I have no clue what a Barbalang is.

I do think there is a place for skill challenges/lairs/such, but I will echo Glyfair. I personally don't bother with the lairs, unless the lairs have new monster stats in them. Such things should go into a thematically appropriate book. I don't need to flip past ten pages of "Iron Spire of the Fire Giant" because I'm looking for the "Escape the Faerie Dancing Circle" skill challenge.

How many monsters do you use in a year? How many maps? How many traps? How many NPC's? How many adventures?

How many unique stat blocks do you actually use? And how is MORE STATBLOCKS going to help you actually use what's there?

Number of monsters used means little when you're making a custom monster and stealing a power from Statblock X and a power from Statblock Y. Monster statblocks, to me, are mechanical inspiration. They are also the place for new mechanics.

9 times out of 10, when I need a monster, I come up with an idea, and then look for a statblock with powers that matches my idea. Or, "I need a soldier roughly this level. Hm, these are my options?" The fluff is there before I look for a statblock. Or, the various mechanics, and how they interact, give me ideas. If nothing really makes me happy, I go for the Dim Sum method of Power Y + Power X for monster Z.

What I don't need is "Elite Brute #92819 with basic attack, double attack, and a useless/boring power". There are more "This monster's powers are not interesting" than I can count.

What I think the MM2 should have that the MM1 did not? Rituals. The ritual for lich making, for crafting a homoculus, for golem creation. I also think traps/hazards should be in the MM, but that's clearly going to stay in the DMG.

 

[I'm A Banana]

One reason Martial power succeeded for me was its incredible focus on crunch.

I haven't used anything from MP, and, most of the time, forget it exists. I might remember it next time I play 4e, because I kind of want to play a beastmaster ranger, but that desire in me has nothing to do with the rules of the game, and more to do with the archetypal fluff of a wild man and his pet beast.

Different strokes and all that, but I think a book that maintains a more even balance would be offering something useful for everyone's table, rather than just what the gearheads like or just what the dramatists like. Balance, y'know.

Number of monsters used means little when you're making a custom monster and stealing a power from Statblock X and a power from Statblock Y. Monster statblocks, to me, are mechanical inspiration. They are also the place for new mechanics.

9 times out of 10, when I need a monster, I come up with an idea, and then look for a statblock with powers that matches my idea. Or, "I need a soldier roughly this level. Hm, these are my options?" The fluff is there before I look for a statblock. Or, the various mechanics, and how they interact, give me ideas.

What I don't need is "Elite Brute #92819 with basic attack, double attack, and a useless/boring power". There are more "This monster's powers are not interesting" than I can count.

So don't you think fewer monsters -- each one with more work to ensure an interesting power set -- would be better than a scattershot of misses with only a handful of hits?