Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Kensan_Oni 07-10-07, 11:40 AM	I am a reasonable person. I've been playing D&D since I was as tall as a halfling, but the current treatment of the monster manuals are really, REALLY starting to irk me, and once again, it seems you are printing a book that is completely undervalued to what I have come to expect from them. This time around, we are given 3 pages less the the MM3, given a huge recycled amount of monsters, and have pages taken up by scaling monsters. We have 10 pages devoted to the Dragon of the Game, a wasteful filler in my opinion, and another 6 pages of space wasted on Hobgoblins that I could have done myself. The saving grace is that the Throon section of the Mind Flayers at first glance doesn't seem to be a waste of time, although all this fluff is REALLY unnessicary. The new format that's been around for the last year still annoys the living daylight out of me, and I don't find it superior to the old format, and I still find it more confusing. While the new monsters that are around are neat, I am not comfortable with how they are presented. A monster should fit on one page. Every monster you present is a two page monstrosity. Once again, I will not be purchasing the new Monster Manual. There is still plenty I haven't used in the first three and the Feind Folio. I would like to see at least halfway return to the older format, with less filler text. One page is plenty for most monsters, thank you. If this happens by the time we have a Monster Manual VI, I'll be plenty satisfied in purchasing that product. Short form: Make more like the Monster Manual III, and I'll actually have a product I will like to buy.
Ongorth 07-10-07, 11:57 AM	Its true. I'm finding third party monster encyclopedias better then the first party ones. MM3 was good and Fiend Folio was good. The rest were either terribly desgined (IV and V) or sit on my shelf in ignomy (II).
metamind 07-10-07, 12:03 PM	Um, if you don't like it don't buy it?
Kensan_Oni 07-10-07, 12:07 PM	Um, if you don't like it don't buy it? If you are not going to bother reading the part where I say "I am not buying this", then maybe you shouldn't try to add to the conversation. :D
RobbyPants 07-10-07, 12:16 PM	This isn't the first of these threads. It seems that many people have been disapointed with the latest MM releases. Personally, I quit buying them after the 2nd, and I don't even use that one all that often. I flipped through the 3rd and didn't see enough in it to justify buying it. I thought the 4th was worse. I wasn't even planning on giving the 5th a glance.
Morgen 07-10-07, 12:23 PM	*shurgs* We just use the plain old MM, haven't even looked into the other 4.
Azezel 07-10-07, 12:31 PM	The new stat block format is bad, but we will just have to live with it (as I recal, we all told WotC that we did not like it w-a-y back when they unveiled it, and that didn't stop them). In any event - I havn't even considerred buying the MM IV or MM V. Honestly, I have several hundred monsters in my three MMs - 70% of which will never be used in any game I run (as I said last year - just because Wizards printed it, doesn't mean it exists in my world). This combined with the increasingly stupid monsters one sees in the MM II and III (Half-Golem? Omnimental, Warforged), means that I confidently assume that most of the creatures in the new manuals are the sort I'd not use in a game. Finally, I'd be prepaired to bet that the number of CR 1 creatures in the MMIV does not exceed the number of fingers on my hands. 'cos, you know, no-one ever has trouble making encounters for low-level parties but there are just far too few monsters with DR and three-digit hit points. Jesus.
Lazigothi 07-10-07, 12:58 PM	I'm of the opposite opinion. I looked in all of the MM series and I only disliked MMII. I wasn't going to consider the others, feeling that the original was good enough until I examined them all at a bookstore. I adore the changes, and I hope they continue. I've always enjoyed the increased fluff and ecologies as well as a sample round-by-round strategy, and I love how they come now in a hardbound, fully colored book instead of having to buy the big binder and insert supplemental black and white pages in manually. My only complaint is that I don't have enough money to buy all of the splats out there that I want.
CCS 07-10-07, 01:00 PM	This combined with the increasingly stupid monsters one sees in the MM II and III (Half-Golem? Omnimental, Warforged), means that I confidently assume that most of the creatures in the new manuals are the sort I'd not use in a game. I know what you mean.... A half-golem. WTF? You know how we'd get a half-golem in our campaigns? The PCs chop a whole one up. And it's stat block is real easy to determine: DEAD. I will look through the MMV when it arrives at the shop. I'm prepping to DM a classic Dragonlance campaign though, so I doubt I'll find much of imediate use in it.... Most likely I'll leave this as a birthday/Christmas gift idea for my cousins.
Salla 07-10-07, 01:09 PM	Oh, you did NOT just diss the Warforged, the most awesome PC race ever. :)
Stormonu 07-10-07, 01:20 PM	I love MM's, I really, really do. But MM3 was a bit underwhelming and MM4 absolutely sucked. I haven't looked at 5, but I'm guessing there isn't likely to be a change. Meanwhile, the ToH series has put out at least 3 books, and it is a great resource. For some reason, the WotC monsters seemed forced - they feel like they were designed to fill a niche and are just mechanical stats to fill in an encounter (Arcane Ooze or Balhannoth, anyone?). Other books have the feel that these are creatures that you can design entire adventures or campaign around (Crucifixion Spirit, Fear Guard ).
Adrinor 07-10-07, 01:25 PM	I only own a few books of monsters, I feel they're just milking the whole monster thing. at least the monsters dont suck as much as they could. remember the modrons? CIFAL? flumph?
Azezel 07-10-07, 01:39 PM	Oh, you did NOT just diss the Warforged, the most awesome PC race ever. :) Whilst the problems I have with warforged are numerous and valid - my complaint in this instance is that they take up space in one of my Monster Manuals. I'd have bought the Eberron Campaign Setting, or even the Races of Eberron if I'd wanted warforged information. Oh, and CCS. I have to say - I used the concept of replacing limbs with construct prosthetics long before I ever saw the half-golem template. So I don't have a problem with the basic idea. I have a problem with the template granting a boatload if idiotic powers and turning the subject evil for no reason.
Reinforcements 07-10-07, 02:33 PM	I guess MMIV and MMV are more relevant, but I don't have those books and I just gotta say that I love MMIII. It is one of my very favorite books. My favorite mid-low monster (Boneclaw) and mid-high monsters (Grisgol) are in there. It's seriously great.
graddlin 07-10-07, 02:39 PM	There needs to be a changing of the guard. We need to face the facts: the creative designers are losing steam. This is to be expected. Ideas eventually run dry when the same group of people are cranking them out over the course of several years. I say it's time for new talent to step in and throw out some ideas. Take care, friends.
Sleepwalker13666 07-10-07, 02:46 PM	4 was a letdown, 5 looks like it will be an improvement over 4, but then I think monsters of faerun had more to work with than MM 4. If you don't mind using a non-wizards book I highly recommend Tome of horrors from Necromancer games, it has over 400 critters most of which are from the 1st ed monster manuals that haven't been reprinted yet.
Mocoso 07-10-07, 03:05 PM	I'm looking forward to it... dunno why the problm, guess MMV :D
n00dle_king 07-10-07, 03:16 PM	I only own a few books of monsters, I feel they're just milking the whole monster thing. at least the monsters dont suck as much as they could. remember the modrons? CIFAL? flumph? How dare you insult the noble Modron! Oh MM4 and 5 are terrible btw.
Azezel 07-10-07, 03:51 PM	Ah... the Modron. I'm pretty sure the modron is what you get when you give a game designer a bottle of scotch, a bag full of polydice and a copy of Flatland.
pawsplay 07-10-07, 03:56 PM	Ah... the Modron. I'm pretty sure the modron is what you get when you give a game designer a bottle of scotch, a bag full of polydice and a copy of Flatland. That's a design paradigm I can endorse. I guess giving them a permanent marker, a plastic bag, and a copy of the original Dragonlance trilogy gets you Spawn of Tiamat. hey, look, it's a mid-CR "god' slayer with a biotech weapon that looks like a blue version of Barney. Thank you so much, that's just what my campaign needs.
graddlin 07-10-07, 04:24 PM	Hey, look, it's a mid-CR "god' slayer with a biotech weapon that looks like a blue version of Barney. Thank you so much, that's just what my campaign needs. Every campaign needs one of those! They fit in sooo well!;) Take care, friend.
Tealgorthian 07-10-07, 04:42 PM	I hate how often they cross print things. Warforged, Shifters and Changlings. They really didn't need to be in an MM. (And oh god, how I hate Warforged). I don't like the stat blocks. I haven't bought a MM since the first one. Or any other monster book for that matter. I thought about MMV, since it had so much on Mindflayers, but desided against it. Honestly, about half the WoTC books I own were terrible let downs. The ECS. Weapons of Legacy. Races of Faerun. Map Folio. Hell, the ECS hasn't been opened since I photocopied the pages on the Artificer, Changlings and Shifters and put the in my setting notebook. Other than the Core Three, the only books that get used regularly are the XPH and Complete Arcane (And even that is just for the Warlock.. maybe I should photocopy that and stick it in my setting notebook.) Short and sweet: WoTC monster books get two thumbs down.
Manyfist 07-10-07, 04:58 PM	I hate how often they cross print things. Its in order to put it in a campaign neutral setting for people can pick it up and put it in their campaign without having to get Eberron or FR or DL...etc. Warforged, Shifters and Changlings. They really didn't need to be in an MM. (And oh god, how I hate Warforged). Warforged, Shifters, and Changelings were put in the MMIII to let people who don't buy Eberron have them. What do you have against the Warforged? They're one the most unique things that WoTC has ever thought off. Honestly, about half the WoTC books I own were terrible let downs. The ECS. Weapons of Legacy. Races of Faerun. Map Folio. Hell, the ECS hasn't been opened since I photocopied the pages on the Artificer, Changlings and Shifters and put the in my setting notebook. Why did you even get ECS if you were never going to run an Eberron campaign? You should of just photocopied or written the rules down and put it back in the self if you were never going to use a campaign setting. All the other books I do agree, they were a major let down. Short and sweet: WoTC monster books get two thumbs down. Except for MIII {excluding Gem Dragons and maybe the Slyph [personal favorite fey, behind the nymph] from MMII), I agree with you.
Azezel 07-10-07, 05:35 PM	Its in order to put it in a campaign neutral setting for people can pick it up and put it in their campaign without having to get Eberron or FR or DL...etc. Warforged, Shifters, and Changelings were put in the MMIII to let people who don't buy Eberron have them. I cannot imagine anyone who does not run Eberron wanting to use those races. Besides which - as I said before, it's just wasted space, I baught the MM II because I wanted monsters, not so WotC could try to sell me on their latest white elephant. What do you have against the Warforged? They're one the most unique things that WoTC has ever thought off. Yes - they are unique. Modrons were unique too, but that doeszn't mean they aren't stupid. Warforged are just wierd for the sake of wierd. No creativity, no thought, no real artistry went into the idea, just dur... Magic Robots! Awesome! And to go with that, a bunch of silly effects that combine the least interesting elements of construct and living. Not to mention all the rules questions they raise - for example, what happens if a warforged gets hit by a Brilliant Energy weapon? Nobody knows... So you'll esxcuse us if we don't want to use that particular race. Why did you even get ECS if you were never going to run an Eberron campaign? I can only imagine the poor chap was taken in by the hype. (We were told that it would be a good setting) Either that or his group demanded that he buy it. You should of just photocopied or written the rules down and put it back in the self if you were never going to use a campaign setting. Perhaps he's not a pirate? Jim lad.
Manyfist 07-10-07, 06:54 PM	I cannot imagine anyone who does not run Eberron wanting to use those races. Besides which - as I said before, it's just wasted space, I baught the MM II because I wanted monsters, not so WotC could try to sell me on their latest white elephant. I can't imagine anyone who's not running a FR campaign wanting Drow in the original MM...etc. Wasted space is in the eye of the beholder. Yes - they are unique. Modrons were unique too, but that doeszn't mean they aren't stupid. Warforged are just wierd for the sake of wierd. No creativity, no thought, no real artistry went into the idea, just dur... Magic Robots! Awesome! And to go with that, a bunch of silly effects that combine the least interesting elements of construct and living. Not to mention all the rules questions they raise - for example, what happens if a warforged gets hit by a Brilliant Energy weapon? Nobody knows... A construct with freewill? With thoughts of their own mortality, something not seen in fantasy only in sci-fi as androids? Warforged bring a new element, in the if something has an intelligence and is not an outsider [excluding native] does it have a soul? They bring the flavor of having playing a construct without all the negatives such as, mindlessness. Also Warforged are Constructs (living). So Brilliant Energy Weapons would do jack to them. Since it says: A brilliant energy weapon cannot harm undead, constructs, and objects. So you'll esxcuse us if we don't want to use that particular race. Then don't use it. It doesn't mean its wasted space. Thats like saying "I don't want to use Ogres, so they are waste of space and shouldn't of been printed." Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean someone else doesn't. I can only imagine the poor chap was taken in by the hype. (We were told that it would be a good setting) Either that or his group demanded that he buy it. It is a good setting, its just different. What group demands players to buy books? Running some nazi group? Perhaps he's not a pirate? Writing something down or photocopying I think is not pirating. However I think if he was to sell it or photocopied the entire book, I call that pirating.
Stardrake 07-10-07, 07:22 PM	I can't imagine anyone who's not running a FR campaign wanting Drow in the original MM...etc. Wasted space is in the eye of the beholder. They may be playing in Greyhawk--after all, Gary Gygax introduced the Drow in AD&D years before TSR knew the Realms existed. Just so you know. I do agree with your basic argument. After all, one could make the argument that if you're not running Greyhawk or The Realms, that the entries for Beholders and Mind Flayers are wasted space--yet can you imagine the hoo-rah if they were left out of the original MM? Hey, there are enough complaints about them being left out of the SRD!
Manyfist 07-10-07, 07:25 PM	They may be playing in Greyhawk--after all, Gary Gygax introduced the Drow in AD&D years before TSR knew the Realms existed. Just so you know. Ya, I know. It was sarcasm (bad sarcasm, but still sarcasm).
MerlintheTuna 07-10-07, 07:26 PM	I do agree with your basic argument. After all, one could make the argument that if you're not running Greyhawk or The Realms, that the entries for Beholders and Mind Flayers are wasted space--yet can you imagine the hoo-rah if they were left out of the original MM? Hey, there are enough complaints about them being left out of the SRD!Agreed. I mean, despite the name of the game, I'd just as soon not include dragons in my campaigns, and that's a pretty hefty chunk of multiple monster manuals.
zorgling25 07-10-07, 07:30 PM	There needs to be a changing of the guard. We need to face the facts: the creative designers are losing steam. This is to be expected. Ideas eventually run dry when the same group of people are cranking them out over the course of several years. I say it's time for new talent to step in and throw out some ideas. Take care, friends. Or they decided to do their own stuff (e.g. Monte Cook).
shadzar 07-10-07, 07:44 PM	Oh, you did NOT just diss the Warforged, the most awesome PC race ever. :)Eberron is an abomination that has soiled D&D to its roots and should never have existed in the first place. It was just WotCs way of trying to move away form the classic campaign settings created by TSR, yet players wouldn't just stand for this second-rate garbage product so WotC had to continue producing material based aorund Forgotten Realms, and the other more published campaing settings. The day that Eberron and its ilk are the only settings published is the day true D&D dies. its already on its last leg as is, but this warforged stuff is not something that should be in D&D...whats next Mecha Dragons?
General_Ridley 07-10-07, 07:44 PM	I'm horribly conflicted about MMV. On the one hand, I resolved that the only books I would buy with the new stat format would be Fiendish Codices and books detailing evil. Nothing else other than that. But MMV has the Thoon stuff, and it has awakened within me the need to own it, simply because I must own anything and everything Illithid related. damn it all, I have no idea what I'm going to do. Probably let my parents buy it as a gift for my birthday.
zorgling25 07-10-07, 07:56 PM	Eberron is an abomination that has soiled D&D to its roots and should never have existed in the first place. It was just WotCs way of trying to move away form the classic campaign settings created by TSR, yet players wouldn't just stand for this second-rate garbage product so WotC had to continue producing material based aorund Forgotten Realms, and the other more published campaing settings. The day that Eberron and its ilk are the only settings published is the day true D&D dies. its already on its last leg as is, but this warforged stuff is not something that should be in D&D...whats next Mecha Dragons? You are entitled to your opinion. Believe it or not, there ARE people who enjoy playing Eberron (its not my favorite setting, but I know plenty of people who do like it). Like it or not, D&D is now WotC's now. They will take it in the direction that they want to. If that involves publishing sub-par splatbooks, then so be it. If you don't like the material that WotC prints, then don't buy the books, and do what most groups have done at some point or another: make your own! Ultimately, its YOUR game, and you are entitled to make whatever houserules and homebrew additions as you want. There is really no need for you to come on to Wizards' forums and rant about "real D&D." Real D&D doesn't belong to anyone, its whatever the DM and the players want to make it.
MerlintheTuna 07-10-07, 08:09 PM	Hoohah!Your post is one filled with bile, demanding that the old ways be adhered to strictly, and that when they die, so too does the game. Your signature, on the other hand, is a calm quote from the old ways that encourages creativity and making "the AD&D game grow in a variety of different directions." In the words of a wise man, "Stop hitting yourself."
Kensan_Oni 07-10-07, 08:40 PM	About Bad Material My fellow formites, every monster manual since day one has had stuff that just plain is just weird and is hardly, if ever used. The Camomorph, the Floom, the Kampfult, and that's from 1st edition AD&D. Every monster manual releases monsters that others do not like or do not use. That isn't the point. The point is that all these monsters that we are getting nowdays are taking and consuming way too much space, and instead of getting a book with a brief description of the monster and it's nessicary stats, we are getting books with less monsters and more fluff, just for the sake of having hard back books with the same page count. Even though I hate the new stat format, I would complain a lot less if 1) The monsters being offered were not redundant, and 2) the mainly vanilla creatures took one page or less. Verdant Revear, and the Archon Avenger should be one page entries or less, not two or more pages. And the whole book is like this. If we removed all the fluff, we could get the pagecount down for a nice softcover, or a smaller book like the Complete series, and still have the content that is need, without the bloated feel that every entry has. I just want what I need, and not all this excess junk that will be useless in my campaign. You want to include the monsters background, make a module. That's what they did in the past, and I say that it was overall successful in case of the Drow and the Half Dragons. Just leave out the stuff that we don't need to run the game with, and place that excess material in places where it will count.
Shade_Damara 07-10-07, 08:54 PM	You know, some people actually like fluff. Just shut up and don't buy the books instead of flipping out. They don't care about some random guy flipping out on their forums.
UltimateReality 07-10-07, 08:59 PM	Actually, Kensan Oni kind of put into words what I've been feeling but didn't know how to say. The problems you mention with the new MMs are what have been subtly bugging me for awhile. I haven't seen the MM5 yet, although I did get a chance to check out the list of creatures in it. I will not be buying it, in part because of that list. I also agree that we can advance or stick class levels on monsters by ourselves. The MM gives instructions on how to do that, complete with examples. I'm also starting to change my mind about that stat block. When it came out, I liked it a lot, but you're right. It takes up WAY more space. And I still end up looking for things in their old spot, and then being confused, and then having to scan the page to try and find them...I've been using this new format since it came out for NPCs, and it's still not familiar to me. when I make NPCs, I still wonder where some abilities should go. I think it's time to switch back to the old one. If the monster's going to take up 2 pages, it should be 1/4 page stat block, 1/4 page picture, another 1/4 to 1/2 page text, and the rest as generic unkeyed maps I can rip off and a bit of fluff on the monster in case I feel lazy. I don't need three different classed drow -- I know how to do this already. Besides, the provided examples are never at the CR I need anyway.
vaerdhdragonkin 07-10-07, 09:15 PM	Eberron is an abomination that has soiled D&D to its roots and should never have existed in the first place. It was just WotCs way of trying to move away form the classic campaign settings created by TSR, yet players wouldn't just stand for this second-rate garbage product so WotC had to continue producing material based aorund Forgotten Realms, and the other more published campaing settings. The day that Eberron and its ilk are the only settings published is the day true D&D dies. Lest we forget: Eberron and Forgotten Realms were both home-brewed campaign settings. The Realms were created by Ed Greenwood, not TSR. The same holds true for Eberron, or did we conveniently forget the open call WotC had for campaign settings? Like it or not, there are people who enjoy Eberron, and play in that setting exclusively, just like there are people who will only play in or run FR or DL. You are, however, entitled to your opinions. As to the splatbooks/MM/etc: The same thing applies. There are people who love the monsters, classes, feats, and so forth. It wouldn't surprise me if those of us who hate these items and sourcebooks are actually the minority! Otherwise, there'd be no justification for publishing them, now would there?
mearrin69 07-10-07, 09:23 PM	...my complaint in this instance is that they take up space in one of my Monster Manuals... I don't have it in front of me but aren't Elves in MMI? And Dwarves? M
shadzar 07-10-07, 09:47 PM	Your post is one filled with bile, demanding that the old ways be adhered to strictly, and that when they die, so too does the game. Your signature, on the other hand, is a calm quote from the old ways that encourages creativity and making "the AD&D game grow in a variety of different directions." In the words of a wise man, "Stop hitting yourself." the discussion at hand is about the Monster MAnual V. a book posessing a collection of monster for "generic" use through campaigns. to my knowledge it is not an Eberron setting. the person who posted about warforged was where my post was directed. the concept came from the Eberron settings IIRC, and that is not really general to a fantasy setting. i also don't even agree with some of the things from Dragonlance (my fave setting) belonging into fantasy genre, but they are melded in nicely to make them more believeable. these warforged just seem like predecessors to what i next stated, that the potential for Mechs in D&D is coming closer. D&D itself is a fantasy game. the d20 modern is where these warforged would seem to better fit. i don't have the book, and am only going from hearsay, but if it tries to include just random monsters from all settins it is not usefull for people looking for soe new monsters for a specific genre wherein the book contains such a vast mix, that only say 10% of the book adheres to the genre of choice. new material is one thing (Eberron), but when it steps outside of the genre it violates the basic concept and premise of the game. my eidition preference not withstanding when it comes to basic principles of how to publish a decent product. that and i do hate the concept of Ebberon. :P Lest we forget: Eberron and Forgotten Realms were both home-brewed campaign settings. The Realms were created by Ed Greenwood, not TSR. The same holds true for Eberron, or did we conveniently forget the open call WotC had for campaign settings? no fortunately i had distanced myself from WotC products at that time and had alreayd cancelled my Dragon/Dungeon Magazine subscriptions when all odler editions and their players were scrubbed from it like they were not worthy of playing D&D. only as of Jan have i started playing MtG and tried this new D&D WotC has created, and it seems again i have had enough of both. for many of the same reason i quit the first time. bad products and a few other reason, that i wont go into here. only recently did i learn someone off the street won some contest with Eberron as the new mainstream setting for D&D. as for FR, i started playing before Forgotten realms was a full blown settings and there was only Greyhawk or homebrew. ;)
shadzar 07-10-07, 09:50 PM	You know, some people actually like fluff. Just shut up and don't buy the books instead of flipping out. They don't care about some random guy flipping out on their forums. when you run a forum, only then should you tell someone to "shut up" and either set the forum to private invite accounts only, or just ban people you disagree with. otherwise you have no right in a public place to try to censor someone elses opinion or right to voice it. 1st amendment....freedom of speech...et all.
zorgling25 07-10-07, 09:59 PM	these warforged just seem like predecessors to what i next stated, that the potential for Mechs in D&D is coming closer. D&D itself is a fantasy game. the d20 modern is where these warforged would seem to better fit. new material is one thing (Eberron), but when it steps outside of the genre it violates the basic concept and premise of the game. my eidition preference not withstanding when it comes to basic principles of how to publish a decent product. that and i do hate the concept of Ebberon. :P I know this is going off topic a bit, but I see this is where you and I differ. I thought WotC didn't go far ENOUGH with Eberron. Personally, in my roleplaying with systems other than D&D, my favorite RPG setting has been a SteamPunk setting. I was excited when I saw some of the preview stuff for Eberron, and was disappointed that Warforged were one of the ONLY steps in that direction. Luckily, I found DragonMech. :D
Erato 07-10-07, 10:00 PM	Btw, why do people have a problem with warforged and not with golems? Golems seem way more mechanical to me, and, ironically, fit less with the original concept of a golem. What about inevitables?
Neofish 07-10-07, 10:14 PM	Btw, why do people have a problem with warforged and not with golems? Golems seem way more mechanical to me, and, ironically, fit less with the original concept of a golem. What about inevitables? Shhh! Complex and deep ,thought provoking, questions like this will cause the old foogies to scream and pout some more, derail the thread, and opne new threads about how warforged are the worst thing ever made because they are kinda, sorta, but not really anything like if you bother to check them, robots...
shadzar 07-10-07, 10:29 PM	I know this is going off topic a bit, but I see this is where you and I differ. I thought WotC didn't go far ENOUGH with Eberron. Personally, in my roleplaying with systems other than D&D, my favorite RPG setting has been a SteamPunk setting. I was excited when I saw some of the preview stuff for Eberron, and was disappointed that Warforged were one of the ONLY steps in that direction. Luckily, I found DragonMech. :D SteamPunk isn't Fantasy therefore isn't D&D. that is what they created d20 for all the other genre. golems are magical constructs of "junk laying around" to protect. the warforged seem more (as i know very little about ehm other than they are Ebberon) like autonamous lifeforms created from machines (Borg anyone?). since i have not seen MMV i do not know anything about its formatting, but will agree with one statement i have read on here. one monster, one page. while the fluff is good for some, others like to have the meat on a single page for quick access or reference while playing. while fighting a griffin it isnt that important to have cambot stats on the same page as breeding habits. if you want more about the monsters than have fluff on one side, and combat data on the other. that lets you create the adventure based on where and why the creature would be there, and not need to look back at that seciton when trying to use the monster in a fight.
zorgling25 07-10-07, 10:40 PM	SteamPunk isn't Fantasy therefore isn't D&D. that is what they created d20 for all the other genre. D&D is what the players and the DM choose to make it. DragonMech works for us. Its essentially a SteamPunk setting written for D&D. Apparently, it must be working for other groups too, if its Goodman Games is still getting sales. D&D doesn't HAVE to be traditional high fantasy. Any setting that works with the skills, feats, and classes presented can be D&D. Otherwise, the DMG wouldn't have rules for guns, would it? I can say from experience that SteamPunk works better with D&D than it does with d20 Modern.
Nor'Morgwae 07-11-07, 12:09 AM	The best vocalization you can make against a book you don't like is to buy something else. If the book sells poorly they will reevaluate what they put in it. If the book sells well then they are less likely to change content. Coming on here and saying what you don't like a product isn't a bad idea, and I dare say they do care (we get posts from various staff members form time to time so they DO read this). You do, however, have to realize that this board is not wizards pimary market. Just by being on here you represent a very small percentage of WotC's business, the hardcore gamer. You can advance a mosnter in 10 minutes or less. You can stat up an appropriately CRed NPC in about the same. Off the top of you head you gan dish out the results of a DC 23 Knowledge check on a chart in any rulebook. Most DMs can't. All of that fluff is there for people without the time, experience or raw ability to pull it together on their own. There are a lot of smaller companies using the OGL to appeal to more hardcore audiences and will not include that kind of information in their books because they know their audience neither needs or, often, wants it. Wizards has worked very hard to make the game accessable to more people and that means trying to pull in the more casual players who don't have 10 hours a week to spend building an adventure. I myself, own only the core MM. If I find I need something that isn't in it I just make it up. Frankly I would like to see a book specifically for making oyu own monsters, but I really don't see that happening. The market would not support that kind of product from WotC. Maybe from Mongoose or Green Ronin, though. A lot of long term players get very hostile about concepts of fantasy that aren't traditional tolkein or sword and sorcery fantasy. I can tell you that Steam Punk is fantasy. Why? Because it opperates based on fictional laws that have not basis in reality. That is what makes fantasy. If it could not happen in the real world now or ever, then it is fantasy. It's not classic fantasy, but it works just fine in the D20 rules and meshes with other Dungeons and Dragons element as well. D&D is a ruleset, not a setting. It has an implied setting, but that's not the same thing. If it were that would mean anyone not playing Greyhawk (the implied setting for the PHB, MM and most of the splatbooks) is not playing D&D. I mean, if you've been playing this long certainly you are familiar with all of the sci-fi intrusions that happened in early modules including aliens and lasers (I beleive it was Temple of the Frog God, or something along those lines). If that happened way back then it's hard to call anything 'not Dungeons and Dragons' now. Heck, you could add Klingons to you campaign world. Does it suddenly become 'not Dungons and Dragons'? Lets see... Still using racial modifiers? Check. Still using the D&D classes, skills, feats and spells? Check. Does it still need a silver weapon to hurt a werewolf or a holy weapon to hurt a fiend? Check and check. Does the book with all of the rules in it say "Dungeons and Dragons"? Check. Hmmm.... funny. Looks like D&D to me.
zorgling25 07-11-07, 01:27 AM	Nor'Morgwae: Thank you! Someone who agrees!
Tealgorthian 07-11-07, 01:54 AM	Its in order to put it in a campaign neutral setting for people can pick it up and put it in their campaign without having to get Eberron or FR or DL...etc.[quote] Isn't that why they release race books? Shifters could have been fit in Races of the Wild, and Changlings in Races of Destiny. [QUOTE]Warforged, Shifters, and Changelings were put in the MMIII to let people who don't buy Eberron have them. What do you have against the Warforged? They're one the most unique things that WoTC has ever thought off. Again, races books. I don't like Warforged. Their concept is bad, and their execution poor. Frankly, I think they are overpowered as well. Not a single person I play with looked at them said "wow! neat!" Most of them looked at them and said "Wow. Why the hell would I ever play a dwarf or half-orc again?" Or "Why would I want to learn 3 pages of rules to play a new race?" Why did you even get ECS if you were never going to run an Eberron campaign? You should of just photocopied or written the rules down and put it back in the self if you were never going to use a campaign setting. All the other books I do agree, they were a major let down. 1: That's stealing. Its taking intellectual property you didn't pay for. 2: It was a gift. Wish I could have sent it back
Salla 07-11-07, 02:08 AM	Eberron is an abomination that has soiled D&D to its roots and should never have existed in the first place. It was just WotCs way of trying to move away form the classic campaign settings created by TSR, yet players wouldn't just stand for this second-rate garbage product so WotC had to continue producing material based aorund Forgotten Realms, and the other more published campaing settings. The day that Eberron and its ilk are the only settings published is the day true D&D dies. its already on its last leg as is, but this warforged stuff is not something that should be in D&D...whats next Mecha Dragons? Well, guess it's a matter of perspective, since I'd rather they flush the Misbegotten Realms and make Eberron the standard, because it's actually interesting and makes WotC not stand for Warmed Over Tolkien Crap. Eberron IS fantasy, it's just not traditional Tolkien (or his host of imitators) fantasy. It's a fantasy world that makes SENSE, where magic has had effects on sociological deveopment ... agriculture, communication, commerce, development, government, transportation, even warfare. Eberron is what a world that has functioning, predictable magic would be like. A D&D world where magic hasn't had any effect on society would be like the real world if nothing ran on electricity. People complain about Eberron having technology. It DOESN'T. It has magic, applied in logical fashion to the world. It's not Steampunk, it's not modern, it's not sci-fi. It's fantasy.
zorgling25 07-11-07, 02:31 AM	On a slightly off-topic note: Does anyone else find it amusing that the Monster's Lair forum only says its for Monster Manuals 1-3?
Optimized_Commoner 07-11-07, 02:44 AM	People complain about Eberron having technology. It DOESN'T. It has magic, applied in logical fashion to the world. It's not Steampunk, it's not modern, it's not sci-fi. It's fantasy. Unfortunately the creativity of the designers seems limited to making "logical well-applied magic" absolutely identical to real world science and tech. This isn't a problem unique to Eberron. Pick up the exalted source-book "Wonders of the lost age" some time, and you'll see that their high magic items are things like magical cell phones or magical spaceships with magical AIs (except AI stands for Animating Intelligence). Or hell, read some Robert Jordan. I feel like giving up on the series in disgust every time I read about the Age of Legend's "Sho-wings and Jo-cars". I would love to see a D&D world where the designers applied magic in a logical fashion. Unfortunately it's not Eberron, as much as anyone might like it to be.
Salla 07-11-07, 02:49 AM	the exalted source-book "Wonders of the lost age" some time, Robert Jordan. I have no interest in either of those things.
NobodyRemembersThis 07-11-07, 04:30 AM	Or hell, read some Robert Jordan. Only if you like reading the combined worst aspects of Tolkien and King. Those books are crap on a stick. :P
Escef 07-11-07, 07:03 AM	I know what you mean.... A half-golem. WTF? You know how we'd get a half-golem in our campaigns? The PCs chop a whole one up. And it's stat block is real easy to determine: DEAD. Let me see if I understand this. Evoking out a forty foot wide burst of flame by waving your arms around, utterring nonsense, and playing with sulfer and bat poop makes perfect sense to you, but a magical version of Robocop doesn't? :confused:
Escef 07-11-07, 07:15 AM	I cannot imagine anyone who does not run Eberron wanting to use those races. If you can't even imagine that how the hell do you manage to play D&D to begin with? :confused: Eberron is an abomination that has soiled D&D to its roots and should never have existed in the first place. It was just WotCs way of trying to move away form the classic campaign settings created by TSR, yet players wouldn't just stand for this second-rate garbage product so WotC had to continue producing material based aorund Forgotten Realms, and the other more published campaing settings. The day that Eberron and its ilk are the only settings published is the day true D&D dies. its already on its last leg as is, but this warforged stuff is not something that should be in D&D...whats next Mecha Dragons? Funny, because WotC made a Forgotten Realms Campaign setting years before the Eberron was in people's heads. In fact, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, FR relaeses per year still outnumber thos of Eberron. As for players not standing for Eberron because it is "second-rate garbage", why is it then that it is so damn popular? Eberron, overall, is a critical and economic success for WotC. (Coincidentally, the only discontinued setting that ever was loved as or more widely than Eberron was Planescape, and it also was radically different from the standard generic fantasy setting.) And what gives you the idea that D&D is on its last legs? The game still sells well. In fact, I recommend you speak to the managers at local bookstores and your FLGS, I'm wagering you will be very surprised. Edit: And mecha dragons have graced the pages of Dragon Magazine more than once, and well before WotC came on the scene.
yrogerg 07-11-07, 07:54 AM	Ya, I know. It was sarcasm (bad sarcasm, but still sarcasm). Well, for another example, see the majority of the NPCs and PRC's listed Epic Level Handbook, again, if you're not playing in the Realms. Or Tome of Magic. Apparently it's okay for WotC to support one of their official non-default settings in their general books, but if they support another one anywhere other than a line book, it's destroying D&D. That's a reasonable position to take. Again, races books. I don't like Warforged. Their concept is bad, and their execution poor. Frankly, I think they are overpowered as well. Not a single person I play with looked at them said "wow! neat!" Most of them looked at them and said "Wow. Why the hell would I ever play a dwarf or half-orc again?" Or "Why would I want to learn 3 pages of rules to play a new race?" Umm... I did. In fact, I think those were my exact words upon seeing the race. Honestly, the only reason I actually decided to join a tabletop D&D campaign was because my friends had started an Eberron campaign. I've seen enough of the Realms, between every D&D video game ever made, and those dozens and dozens of novels I read in middle school, that I was pretty sick of it before I'd even rolled a d20.
shadzar 07-11-07, 08:53 AM	And what gives you the idea that D&D is on its last legs? The game still sells well. In fact, I recommend you speak to the managers at local bookstores and your FLGS, I'm wagering you will be very surprised. Edit: And mecha dragons have graced the pages of Dragon Magazine more than once, and well before WotC came on the scene. sadly to say Dragon Magazine was never a solely D&D peridodical. it included all things TSR and many other games including FASA, there were more than just fantasy games in it. it had sci-fi, and many other type including board games and such. that being said it was also not an official source for D&D material. unlike Citadel Journal and White Dwarf are almost required subscriptions for a warhammer player, you didn't need Dragon or Dungeon Magazines to play D&D at even a tournament level. the artowrk in them was based on cross-genre and platform styles by many great artists, and has nothing to do with the game. back on topic. the mecha-dragon just doesn't fit with the fantasy genre and wouldn't be believeable in stadard fantasy concept. there must be a basis for conparison in the real world for setting genres and those are broken down by ages: medieval dark industrial technologic futurist those are pretty much a summary of how the genres are defined and not saying the only posible way they can be. but as base genres then you have something to work with. D&D originated in classic medieval and then spread out into other areas like sci-fi (alternity), and became other games. the root of D&D is still fantasy aka sword and sorcery role-playing. there in real world history a mecha would not exist normally. therefore is not included in general concept of medieval genre. that is my point. the steam punk etc would fit more into a industrial type of genre. try looking over some tv series, or movie and see what genres it lists and you will see they cross over, but few have only one genre. and those that do adhere to there single genre. Snarf Quest i thought was funny, but just wasn't D&D genre related, but it was roleplaying. ergo if the MM series is supposed to be for D&D then it should stay true to its target audience and genre. a d20 modern "MM" would work for d20 modern, but a generic all genre MM would offer very little use when those "monsters" are outside of a genre specific environment. thus dragon magazine fulfilled that cross-platform and multi-genre publication void. ;) and around here, no D&D does not sell well. maybe 2-3 books a month. either because the size of the populace, or maybe because people just aren't interested in such a game.
Erato 07-11-07, 08:59 AM	there in real world history a mecha would not exist normally. therefore is not included in general concept of medieval genre. Sorry, but there's lots of medieval inspired fantasy (including D&D) that includes things that didn't exist normally in the real world - all of it in fact, since that's what makes it fantasy. And I still can't see the difference between warforged and golems, apart from the fact that golems seem more 'technological' to be, whereas warforged seem more like magically animated statues.
Erato 07-11-07, 09:17 AM	Isn't that why they release race books? Shifters could have been fit in Races of the Wild, and Changlings in Races of Destiny. And if they had been in RoD and RotW, I could hear people complain: "Why do they take up 1/3 of a book" :P Really, Changelings and Shifters are a lot like planetouched, only with the fiedish and celestial ancestry replaced with doppelgangers and lycanthropes, and IMO they fit well in to the MMs. And whether you like them or not, warforged are a hell of a lot better than half-golems, and obviously appeal to a lot of people. Giving the Eberon races 4-5 pages in a MM (not much considering the number of pages in the MMs and other monster books), to benefit the people who like them but don't wan't to invest in the Eberron setting, is an extra service to the players, not a personal offense to you. I think WotC did the right thing (in this case) by posting the stats of the these races in MM3, and make 'Races of Eberron' to the people wanting more fluff and extra options, instead of filling other 'Races of...' books with races typcial to one specific campaign setting.
High Octane 07-11-07, 09:32 AM	First off: Warforged, many people love them. Not everyone, but MANY people. That makes it a good idea. And seriously, how often do you actually see brilliant weapons? As for comparing warforged and golems, you should. The difference is that warforged are given individual will. As for the new Monster Manuals, I like them. Why do I like them? Monster Manual 2 I dont care for really, but Monster manual 4 has a lot of things in it that the earlier monster manuals really needed. Their format is a lot more useful to a DM in planning encounters, having detailed descriptions on how treasure is found on creatures (kind of weird explaining how some creatures have treasure, really breaks the mood of the game) as well as giving examples of encounters, and finally telling us what exactly a knowledge check reveals. It has some useful tools for DMs instead of a plethora of new monsters. In all seriousness, you dont need THAT many monsters. What is more useful to a DM is encounters, and the MMIV provided them in better detail, in addition to some of our old friends made with character levels fleshed out so the DM doesnt have to write up and roll up an entire character for just a random encounter. Edit: I have not sampled MMV yet. Will look into it.
Erato 07-11-07, 10:04 AM	(kind of weird explaining how some creatures have treasure, really breaks the mood of the game) That reminds me of a situation with my old party. We had defeated a scary and powerful mummy, and the DM rolls for treasure and starts telling us about all the wonders burried in it's tomb: The lustrous jewels, glittering coins, powerful magical ring, and pretty... musicbox :uh-huh: ? We spent a lot of time trying to figure that out :D About the new MMs: I'd personally prefer less premade monsters with class levels, and I find the new stat block confusing (though I might get used to it), but I like that they've finally defined more clearly what information a knowledge check will give you :)
Tealgorthian 07-11-07, 10:29 AM	That reminds me of a situation with my old party. We had defeated a scary and powerful mummy, and the DM rolls for treasure and starts telling us about all the wonders burried in it's tomb: The lustrous jewels, glittering coins, powerful magical ring, and pretty... musicbox :uh-huh: ? We spent a lot of time trying to figure that out :D Shouldn't be too hard. Mummies are often buried with things they held dear in life. Music box could have been a gift from their spouse, mother, or child. Umm... I did. In fact, I think those were my exact words upon seeing the race. Honestly, the only reason I actually decided to join a tabletop D&D campaign was because my friends had started an Eberron campaign. I've seen enough of the Realms, between every D&D video game ever made, and those dozens and dozens of novels I read in middle school, that I was pretty sick of it before I'd even rolled a d20. I fairly clearly stated that the people I played with felt that way. FR is more interesting to me. It has more to do, more to see. It's a classical fantasy setting without Robocop running around. And frankly, the attitude of a fair portion of the Eberron players (on this very board) made me disgusted with the setting before I even read it. It's awfully hard to like something when every elitist is ramming it down your throat as the best thing since sliced bread, and if you like Forgotten Realms, or any other setting, you are a tasteless powergamer. I don't have a problem with steampunk settings. Hell, I play Shadowrun. But I see a lot more Eberron stuff creeping into source books than I do FR. I like Shifters and Changlings. I found a way to bring them into my homebrew setting. I had Eternal Wands long before Eberron came out in my own setting. Well, for another example, see the majority of the NPCs and PRC's listed Epic Level Handbook, again, if you're not playing in the Realms. Or Tome of Magic. Apparently it's okay for WotC to support one of their official non-default settings in their general books, but if they support another one anywhere other than a line book, it's destroying D&D. That's a reasonable position to take. The ELH was out BEFORE Eberron, you know? When it came out, the only two settings supported by WoTC were Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms. Every single book with class options (other than the Player's Handbook, ironically) has had sample builds. So they were either going to stat new, unknown Epic level character, or stat Epic level character people had heard of , as examples So they stated well know characters from both of their settings. They couldn't have stated any from Eberron anyway. There are no epic level characters in that setting. (At least none in the ECS. Would be rather stupid to introduce one in a later book, I think) Maybe I am blind, but what PrCs are FR specific in the Tome of Magic, or are we talking something Greyhawk specific here? I have the Living Greyhawk setting book, but never really gave it a read through.
zorgling25 07-11-07, 10:29 AM	Umm... I did. In fact, I think those were my exact words upon seeing the race. Honestly, the only reason I actually decided to join a tabletop D&D campaign was because my friends had started an Eberron campaign. I've seen enough of the Realms, between every D&D video game ever made, and those dozens and dozens of novels I read in middle school, that I was pretty sick of it before I'd even rolled a d20. You realize that this might warrant a response about how you're too young to know "Real D&D"... :P
RadicalTaoist 07-11-07, 11:31 AM	I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing where Warforged must run counter to fantasy. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein was not the first story to ask questions about what life we may create, and the original legend of the Golem not the only myth of that variety. But various Eberron-bashing and other digressions have brought this thread far from its original topic, how bad the new MMs are. I actually haven't read 4 or 5. 3 was cool.
tuffn00gies 07-11-07, 12:58 PM	Agreed. I mean, despite the name of the game, I'd just as soon not include dragons in my campaigns, and that's a pretty hefty chunk of multiple monster manuals. I don't mind dragons, but I don't need a bajillion different colors of dragons.
Escef 07-11-07, 01:35 PM	sadly to say Dragon Magazine was never a solely D&D peridodical. it included all things TSR and many other games including FASA, there were more than just fantasy games in it. it had sci-fi, and many other type including board games and such. Actually, there was a stretch of several years when Dragon was D&D and D&D only. that being said it was also not an official source for D&D material. unlike Citadel Journal and White Dwarf are almost required subscriptions for a warhammer player, you didn't need Dragon or Dungeon Magazines to play D&D at even a tournament level. Actually, Dragon for several years has had the words "100% Official" on the cover. I am also unconcerned by publications for Warhammer games, as I do not play Warhammer and they are irrelevant to this discussion. the mecha-dragon just doesn't fit with the fantasy genre and wouldn't be believeable in stadard fantasy concept. Why not? A dragon that has lost a limb, an eye, it's wings, whatever in battle would seek a means to replace the lost functionality. If we can have characters like Theros Ironfeld (if I recall the name correctly) in Dragonlance (can you get more traditional fantasy than that?) have a magical silver arm that replaced one he had lost, I see absolutely no reason why a Dragon couldn't have magically made body parts. Up with Draconis Cybernetica! there must be a basis for conparison in the real world for setting genres and those are broken down by ages: Agree or not, I fail to see how any setting doesn't fit into one or more historical genres. D&D originated in classic medieval and then spread out into other areas like sci-fi (alternity), and became other games. the root of D&D is still fantasy aka sword and sorcery role-playing. And the root of Star Wars is fanatsy, so what? For that matter, the root of D&D is not sword and sorcery role playing. The root of D&D is historical miniatures wargaming. there in real world history a mecha would not exist normally. therefore is not included in general concept of medieval genre. And what about in 50 or 60 years when it no longer is science fiction? People couldn't fly before ballooning came along, yet people in D&D (argueably pre-ballooning) fly with startling regularity (spells, scrolls, potions, rings, cloaks, boots, etc.). Snarf Quest i thought was funny, but just wasn't D&D genre related, but it was roleplaying. ergo if the MM series is supposed to be for D&D then it should stay true to its target audience and genre. Ok, so you buy the idea of a costruct, but not a free-willed construct? What of the Greek tale of Pygmalion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_%28mythology%29)? and around here, no D&D does not sell well. maybe 2-3 books a month. either because the size of the populace, or maybe because people just aren't interested in such a game. Since D&D does not sell well in your area, and D&D makes up the majority of the RPG market, I might suggest that D&D is still most likely the best selling P&P RPG in your area. Just a hunch.
Stormonu 07-11-07, 04:06 PM	There needs to be a changing of the guard. We need to face the facts: the creative designers are losing steam. This is to be expected. Ideas eventually run dry when the same group of people are cranking them out over the course of several years. I say it's time for new talent to step in and throw out some ideas. The problem is, other 3rd party publishers aren't running out of steam; many of their MM's are of much better quality than WotC's. The creative designers at WotC just aren't putting in the love of the game. It's becoming obvious they're just in it for the money. D&D originated in classic medieval and then spread out into other areas like sci-fi (alternity), and became other games. the root of D&D is still fantasy aka sword and sorcery role-playing. I think you need to check your sources again. Several of Gygax's sources mixed elements of sci-fi into their fantasy. As to the Mechs, may I direct your attention to the 1E DMG, p114 - Powered attack/assault armor. Which is, in essence, a mech, with rules for use in an AD&D game. And the Mighty Servant of Luke-O (a mech, plain and simple that you can sit inside and operate as a fighting machine) on p159, the Machine of Lum the Mad (A computer) and the Apparatus of Kwalish (p 137). Don't forget the Greyhawk god Murylnd and his 6-shooters (who has been conveniantly left out of 3rd ed.) ...And adventure S2 - Expedition to the Barrier Peaks ...And adventure Blackmoor - Temple of the Frog ...And adventure Blackmoor - City of the Gods ...And adventure Tale of the Comet ...Clockwork spiders/horrors, Copper Automatons, Gnomish sidewheels (and just about all dragonlance gnomish inventions) and Halaster's Automatons from the original Undermountain adventure ...And the collosus from X1 - Castle Amber (a mech if ever I saw one, expressed in fantasy terms) All of which are official sources that proves Eberron (as much as I dislike it) is not the harbinger of doom some seem to be making it out to be. I think its simply an evolution to bring the Harry Potter-style fantasy (a mix of modern day and classical fantasy) into the game.
Dontgothere 07-11-07, 04:32 PM	*shurgs* We just use the plain old MM, haven't even looked into the other 4. Ditto.
Hochiu 07-11-07, 04:47 PM	I stopped buying monster manuals after 3, because I realized I never use the amount of monsters in the books I own, so it doesn't justify me buying it for one or two books. I'm sticking to more 3rd party publications now because my players get the monster manuals and know them well enough to metagame how to destroy the guys I give them - they won't bother buying non-WoTC material. I don't like the new Statblock changes and I don't like how each monster has to have a variety of pages dedicated to it. I don't care about how the monsters are found in Faerun or how they're found in Eberron or their ecology or general knowledge for it. I change all of that anyway!
Ruerl 07-11-07, 05:23 PM	The point of raising a complaint: To notify someone about something you are dissatisfied with. It is NOT an unreasonable thing to do, by giving WotC feedback, even by telling them how much their last products suck and how much they smell of three-weeks old socks dipped and used with a mix of cheese, honey, mud and milk, you do yourself, and them, a favor, it is called custemor feedback, anyone interested in keeping the hobby alive would do well to give such feedback, if you just rely on old die-hard fans your company will die out, if you get feedback and work with your fanbase, then you can keep your product alive. No sense in bashing critism or feedback then with the words "if you don't like it, don't buy it" because simply put, those words are detrimental to the hobby, you may agree or disagree with the statement "X suck Y for Z amounth of V" but you should never disagree with the right of the poster to make the statement, unless its ungrounded and unexplained, anyone making a statement should after all, back the statement up with a logical and reasonable explanation. A construct with freewill? With thoughts of their own mortality, something not seen in fantasy only in sci-fi as androids? Warforged bring a new element, in the if something has an intelligence and is not an outsider [excluding native] does it have a soul? They bring the flavor of having playing a construct without all the negatives such as, mindlessness. Come on, the concept is not new, it is not innovative, it is in fact as old as the sci-fi genre, and as such considerably older than even D&D. Original? I am afraid not, but then, very very little that is written in D&D cant be claimed to orgin from some other place before that. Still calling it a new concept is stretching it, a lot and as others, I personally believe it should stay in Eberron where it belongs, it has no place in a generic fantasy setting. Now, on the monsters manual, I would personally like a little more "story" behind each of the monsters, I loved the old AD&D monster's manual because of the habitat/ecology descriptions, or descriptions on how you made that dragonlich and so on, my biggest "irk" with todays MM's are that they use nearly all the time on statistics wich can be bland and boring and nearly nothing on what the monster really is, it removes the MM's as sources of inspiration to me, and that is the worst critism I can come with. I want a D&D book I buy to inspire me, if I wanted rules and such technicalities I could make them myself and pretty easedly, I have done that before and will do that again, and to me it just seems that posting rules withouth background is incredibly lazy and an easy way to sell off a book. Regards Lars
Stormonu 07-11-07, 05:34 PM	A construct with freewill? With thoughts of their own mortality, something not seen in fantasy only in sci-fi as androids? Warforged bring a new element, in the if something has an intelligence and is not an outsider [excluding native] does it have a soul? As Ruerl stated, its not a new concept. It's been studied in Mary Shelly's Frankenstein and even in the older tale of the original story of the Golem.
Dontgothere 07-11-07, 06:22 PM	He runs, he jumps, he scores. He's such a good player!
shadzar 07-11-07, 06:52 PM	Why not? A dragon that has lost a limb, an eye, it's wings, whatever in battle would seek a means to replace the lost functionality. If we can have characters like Theros Ironfeld (if I recall the name correctly) in Dragonlance (can you get more traditional fantasy than that?) have a magical silver arm that replaced one he had lost, I see absolutely no reason why a Dragon couldn't have magically made body parts. Up with Draconis Cybernetica!magical powered is not the same as "mecha" by mecha i mean the norm for mecha. furutursit eletro-mechanical run with circuitboards, etc. a magically powered replacement would be somewhat viable, but stretches a bit far for me. why wouldn't the dragon just seek a new limb from flesh, or seek to regain his own limbs back via magic rather than replace them? And the root of Star Wars is fanatsy, so what? For that matter, the root of D&D is not sword and sorcery role playing. The root of D&D is historical miniatures wargaming.actually the root of D&D isn't that at all. it was from boredom with historical reenactments via miniature wargaming that Dave created his chainmail rules where there was no real history. Then Gary devised it further into a system whete you only played one character rather than an army and based things strongly off of tolkein, eldritch, etc... see the fit books and read tem for yourself... http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/dd/dd.htm "Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames" and Nazgul among other things were in their. and these things were based around myths of all times where the fights were by handheld weapons, mainly swords and by wizards and gods using sorcery.... And what about in 50 or 60 years when it no longer is science fiction? People couldn't fly before ballooning came along, yet people in D&D (argueably pre-ballooning) fly with startling regularity (spells, scrolls, potions, rings, cloaks, boots, etc.). sword and sorcery. Merlin could probably fly. Aladdin could fly on his magic carpet. Perseus fly on Pegasus. what does this really have to do with a half century into the future? when that time comes the edition of d20 modern with change to meet the times. maybe no d20 future will exist then. and i could care less about either. why would anyone want to play in the current time frame. and the current modern may be turned into a new genre "Internet Age". Ok, so you buy the idea of a costruct, but not a free-willed construct? What of the Greek tale of Pygmalion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_%28mythology%29)?i have no problem with free-willed, but for fantasy steam and/or mechanical powered just doesn't fit well with me. not even gnome tmkers and inventors does it feel right to me. Since D&D does not sell well in your area, and D&D makes up the majority of the RPG market, I might suggest that D&D is still most likely the best selling P&P RPG in your area. Just a hunch.no d20 sells better around here from what i gather at all the store. maybe the lack of support and gaming in this area for years is what did an and the gamers had to go other places and play other games that were close enough for them to travel too. and d20 is not equal to D&D. d20 modern =/= D&D 3.x (or other) Stormonu i ignored the wierd stuff and quickly threw it out of the books if it was too far stretched, but all this is better served for another thread. maybe a mod could split this thread at the most recent for posts so the OP can have his topic back which many people want to forget and drive away from....
zorgling25 07-11-07, 07:59 PM	actually the root of D&D isn't that at all. it was from boredom with historical reenactments via miniature wargaming that Dave created his chainmail rules where there was no real history. Then Gary devised it further into a system whete you only played one character rather than an army and based things strongly off of tolkein, eldritch, etc... see the fit books and read tem for yourself... http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/dd/dd.htm "Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames" You guys basically said the same thing...you just chose to bring in a different aspect. Flavorwise, Tolkeinesque fantasy was the root. Mechanically, there is nothing tying D&D to a fantasy setting. i have no problem with free-willed, but for fantasy steam and/or mechanical powered just doesn't fit well with me. not even gnome tmkers and inventors does it feel right to me. That is your OPINION. As I said before, I'm pretty sure my group and I are not the only ones out there who enjoy playing SteamPunk settings. If thats the direction Wizards wants to take it in, so be it. If they take it in another direction, thats fine too. Like it or not, D&D is now Wizards' IP. They can take it in whatever direction they want. At the same time, you will always be free to play whatever setting you want. Wizards has no obligation whatsoever to write rules for the setting you want to play. From day one, people have been homebrewing their own adventures and settings. If you've only ever used official D&D content and never homebrewed anything, I assure you, you are in the minority. Any complaint on your part is your own laziness to homebrew your own stuff. and d20 is not equal to D&D. d20 modern =/= D&D 3.x (or other) You're right. d20 modern and D&D are not the same. However, they both are different d20 products. They still run under the same system. At their core, they still both use races, skills, feats, and the same combat rules. Wizards can print whatever they want and if you don't like their stuff, you should make your own, or find what you want somewhere else, instead of coming onto their forums and complaining.
Kensan_Oni 07-11-07, 07:59 PM	Oh, no. I've had my say on the origional topic at this point. If anyone wants to add onto it, that's fine, but obviously this means a lot to people. Definatly redirect it to a subject like "How Mechanical are Warforged" at your lesiure, though.
yrogerg 07-11-07, 08:33 PM	The ELH was out BEFORE Eberron, you know? When it came out, the only two settings supported by WoTC were Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms. Every single book with class options (other than the Player's Handbook, ironically) has had sample builds. So they were either going to stat new, unknown Epic level character, or stat Epic level character people had heard of , as examples Right, but you missed the point here. When the ELH did come out, it was _okay_ that the book included FR content (including, most notably, the Chosen), even though Greyhawk was the "default" D&D setting even in 3.0. Heck, the same is true of the DMG, come to think of it. If this was okay, why is including Eberron content in new "generic" releases not okay? Why was it not super-offensive and wrong when FR-specific stuff got included, but is now when Eberron-specific stuff does? Maybe I am blind, but what PrCs are FR specific in the Tome of Magic, or are we talking something Greyhawk specific here? I have the Living Greyhawk setting book, but never really gave it a read through. Not PrCs, but all of the Vestiges derived from a specific character history did come from either either Greyhawk or FR, and with about equal frequency. Karsus makes an appearance, among others.
UltimateReality 07-11-07, 08:55 PM	So is anyone willing to name titles for these 3rd party supplements they find much more appealing? Inquiring minds want to know.
Kensan_Oni 07-11-07, 10:29 PM	Well, I've been impressed by Monsters and Mayhem, and More Monsters and Mayhem from the Warcraft Line. I liked Legacy of Dragons from Malhavok Press, and I liked the first White Wolf one from long ago... Also liked Monsters of Rokugan... Encyclopedia Arcane Constructs was useful in a way. That's about all that I've used.
zorgling25 07-11-07, 10:52 PM	So is anyone willing to name titles for these 3rd party supplements they find much more appealing? Inquiring minds want to know. Well, in general, I think Monte Cook's stuff is fantastic. IMO Ptolus is a better investment than any other setting books for D&D out there. I can't think of non-core monsters in there. There really isn't an need. Depending on whether you consider stuff from Dragon and Dungeon as 3rd party, thats good too (IMO they pick the monsters from MM2-5 that WORK, and leave out the ones people wouldn't use).
yrogerg 07-11-07, 10:59 PM	[QUOTE=Manyfist;13024681] Again, races books. I don't like Warforged. Their concept is bad, and their execution poor. Frankly, I think they are overpowered as well. Not a single person I play with looked at them said "wow! neat!" Most of them looked at them and said "Wow. Why the hell would I ever play a dwarf or half-orc again?" Or "Why would I want to learn 3 pages of rules to play a new race?" Just to reiterate, I'm very confused by your claims that warforged are boring, unoriginal, and poorly executed. On one hand, you seem to be implying that the race entry -necessarily a mechanics-heavy section of sourcebooks- can somehow make a race inherently *interesting*. I may have to re-read the Elf entry in the PHB, because I missed the parts that made them interesting, either mechanically or conceptually, if that's where they were listed. The thing is, in-setting, they're probably the *most* interesting new race: -They're an extremely young race -having existed for less than 30 years- and even their masters know little about the arcane process that spawned them. You'll note in the demographics entry that they're not given an maximum age: the explanatory text makes it clear that this is not necessarily because Warforged don't die of old age, but rather being a young race that has seen most of its existence on the battlefield, no one knows of an instance of Warforged dying of old age. It may be that they do die after some time, and that upon discovering this, a Warforged will have to face their mortality on a new and profound level, one that "natural" races tend to take for granted. -Until a year or two prior to the 0 date of the setting, they existed in a state of slavery: they were deemed property, weapons, rather than independent sentient beings. As a result, newly free Warforged face a dilemma: they can try to assimilate into post-war society, and try to live their life among their former masters, despite prejudice against them, and a simmering hatred of the society that deemed their lives without value, or they can turn against their former masters, and join various incipient Warforged nationalist and racial supremacist groups whose goals are largely aimed at carving out a Warforged society by force. -At the same time, most warforged have known nothing but war for their entire lives. This makes the demobilization problem uniquely challenging: The human war veteran may remember his old life as a farmer, and be willing to struggle towards that former life, but a Warforged has lived nothing but war from their very birth. A life of peace, much as a life of freedom, is completely foreign to Warforged, who have never known anything else in their entire history. Many Warforged are likely to carry the war with them, refusing to adjust to a life of anything other than fighting, while even the Warforged who do struggle to adjust to peacetime face increased prejudice from the other races: after all, to the other races, the 'forged are a symbol of the War itself. And this is without discussing the cosmological debate of whether Warforged have souls, the conflict that lies in the 'forged dual sense of kinship with constructs and with living creatures, the ancient mysteries of the origins of the race itself, the fact that, as a 30 year-old race, warforged are still struggling to develop a true cultural identity... Actually, come to think of it, you're right: the dilemma faced by demobilizing soldiers, the conflicts faced by a slave that's just been granted freedom, or the first time a creature -or race- is forced to face their mortality in real terms off the battlefield, are not incredibly original themes in themselves. However, that hardly makes them uninteresting, nor does it make the synthesis of these themes, in the Warforged, unoriginal.
Androlphas 07-12-07, 12:27 AM	On "You're getting sci-fi in my D&D": I'm sorry, but that argument holds no water. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but some sci-fi elements have been part of D&D as far back as some of the literature that influenced it, and by this I refer not only to "sword and planet" stuff a la Burroughs, but also early D&D products like CM4-Earthshaker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthshaker%21) and S3-Expediton to the Barrier Peaks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedition_to_the_Barrier_Peaks). On "I hate warforged because they're so mecha": I'm afraid this is a literal case of judging a book by its cover. Read before you judge. Warforged are not mechanical, period. They are constructs, yes, but they are a mixtue of organic parts, non-organic parts, and magic. They do not run in any scientific, mechanical fashion. No gears, steam, electricity, etc. Nuff said. (Finally) On current MM format: I may not pick up the MMV because of the sheer number of monster books I already have. However, I am probably among the few that does like the stats for different varieties of "known" monsters. I've always thought of the MMs as books of adversaries for the game and not just monsters (literally). I like being able to run some of these "off the box" without having to spend hours preparing their stats. The fluff, especially on adapting to current WotC campaign settings in print is very helpful. Heck! I'm still waiting for an MM with what I think was one of the most important entries in previous edition's MMs, and is sadly absent from the current MM, the entry of Men, with stats for pirates, bandits, knights, and other encounterable humans. On the new stat block format, well, I can take it or leave it. It has neither helped nor hindered my games.
Stormonu 07-12-07, 12:30 AM	So is anyone willing to name titles for these 3rd party supplements they find much more appealing? Inquiring minds want to know. [Necromancer Games] Tome of Horrors I-III (#1 is 95% creatures converted from previous editions to 3.0. They have a PDF-only version for 3.5 because it's just so freaking huge) [Sword & Sorcery Studio] Creature Collection I-III [Fantasy Flight Games] Draconic Lore, Elemental Lore, Necromatic Lore, Giant Lore [Green Ronin Publishing] Legions of Hell, Armies of the Abyss, Jade Dragons & Hungry Ghosts [Mongoose Publishing] Slayer's Guide to... These are just basically the top of the pile. There are many other monster books/monsternomicons out there that are just as good or of better quality than WotC's books.
Stormonu 07-12-07, 10:33 AM	i ignored the wierd stuff and quickly threw it out of the books if it was too far stretched That's perfectly fine, but the fact is that it has been there, and for quite some time. I'm not fond of Eberron myself mostly because of the pervasive techno-magic qualities but its not going to be the ruin of D&D - its just a different style (and not as nearly as wild as Dragonstar or Dragonmech - two campaigns I'd really like to try out). At the same time, and oddly enough, I have written into my own campaign world the existance of technological gadetry, though I've downplayed it to the point its more background fluff than anything characters are likely to encounter. Still, if a character were to look hard enough in theory they could find themselves a musket - or a ray gun, and I've got years of D&D precedent to have them in my game.
trolloc 07-12-07, 05:34 PM	So is anyone willing to name titles for these 3rd party supplements they find much more appealing? Inquiring minds want to know. [Necromancer Games] Tome of Horrors I-III (#1 is 95% creatures converted from previous editions to 3.0. They have a PDF-only version for 3.5 because it's just so freaking huge) [Sword & Sorcery Studio] Creature Collection I-III [Fantasy Flight Games] Draconic Lore, Elemental Lore, Necromatic Lore, Giant Lore [Green Ronin Publishing] Legions of Hell, Armies of the Abyss, Jade Dragons & Hungry Ghosts [Mongoose Publishing] Slayer's Guide to... These are just basically the top of the pile. There are many other monster books/monsternomicons out there that are just as good or of better quality than WotC's books. I have some of those books, give me a few days UltimateReality and i will tell you why 3rd party Bestiary books are more appealing than the high production WotC's books.
shadzar 07-12-07, 09:14 PM	Still, if a character were to look hard enough in theory they could find themselves a musket - or a ray gun, and I've got years of D&D precedent to have them in my game. blackmoor's alien devices (i think thats where they come from) come to mind. but things like that shouldn't litter the countryside. with as many worlds and ways people can travel between worlds and planes there is no reason why things shouldn't be able to exist unlesss your world has never been visited by anyone other than its own inhabitants and the gods. i don't mind the strange and out of the ordinary at times. but they must have reason to be there in my worlds. for example a low or high magic world would vary greatly formt he norm, but makes sense. all i am saying is that a general product that deals with D&D should contain more generic stuff that would be found on all worlds. i was never fond of buying adventures/settings but i would buy as many accessories describing many items, races, classes, etc as i could. then add the ones that fit into my game. i rarely bought much spelljammer as i didn't want to include it greatly in my game. likewise with a product like a generic D&D monster manual thre should be mostly generic materials for use in all common D&D genre environs. now if they made genre or world, etc specific monster manuals like the compendiums of old then they could put those unique things in there. this would allow interested parties to purchase these books, and also allow those not interested to avoid them. example again from warhammer...white dwarf magazine costs $4-6 per issue depending on where you get it. the magazine has information on most of the Games workshop games and they keep adding new ones. the page count doesn't increase, however the advertising space alloted does. the book is almost half ads. this means that new games reduce the number of pages for material for older games and each game constantly loses space available. this is the same general concept. the less in a product that you want means the less likely you will purchase it.
zorgling25 07-12-07, 09:30 PM	i was never fond of buying adventures/settings but i would buy as many accessories describing many items, races, classes, etc as i could. then add the ones that fit into my game. i rarely bought much spelljammer as i didn't want to include it greatly in my game. likewise with a product like a generic D&D monster manual thre should be mostly generic materials for use in all common D&D genre environs. now if they made genre or world, etc specific monster manuals like the compendiums of old then they could put those unique things in there. this would allow interested parties to purchase these books, and also allow those not interested to avoid them. In general, its good business practice to continue making what is selling well. Unless you're saying that how much is selling is not an indication that people like it, Eberron is selling, like it or not. Hence why they continue to make new adventures/splatbooks for it. There are well more than enough places (as listed above in 3rd party sources) to find more than enough monsters you'd ever need for traditional high fantasy D&D. You are also free to make whatever you want for the game, so there's no point whatsoever in complaining that Wizards isn't making what you want. They are making what it seems apparent that customers want. If that happens to be more Eberron, so be it. Its not as if Wizards is sneaking Eberron stuff into the Monster Manual, since as I can recall, their books aren't plastic-wrapped in the bookstore, meaning you're perfectly free to look in the index before you buy it to see if you like whats in there.
GhostStepper 07-12-07, 09:48 PM	If warforged hadnt been included in the ECS originally, i can guarantee you we wouldnt have a single grognard complaining about them, even if they were included in the MM3 because there is nothing less fantasy about them than any other construct in the game. People see non-traditional fantasy like eberron and freak out, apparently assuming that its something that its not (and by extension, everything associated with it is something that its not). There is simply nothing less fantasy about warforged than there is about iron golems, nimblewrights, apparati of kwalish or anything else in any of the monster manuals (illithids are soo lovecraft. lovecraft writes stories that occur in modern times. Oh no! Illithids arent fantasy! ;)). As has been pointed out previously in this thread: read pygmalion, read frankenstein, read about talos, read about the jewish golem, read about hephaestus's creations in greek mythology. Warforged are just as much a part of classic fantasy as anything is in DnD.
rivaltuna 07-12-07, 09:48 PM	I say that IV was the worst of the first 4, which I bought, But I don't know about the V. Should I buy it?
Ross 07-12-07, 10:25 PM	In my games, the monsters found in MMI are the standard stock monsters. Even the stranger monsters, like the xorn or the yethhound are getting to be your average encounter. My player's have fought and killed a hundred tendriliculoses. The other MM are the less seen, more unknown monsters. That's why I buy them; 'something new.' That being said, I will not buy the next version of MM until the monsters in my current version become 'something old.' The argument that too much fluff is being added, while valid, is muted because as someone already pointed out, hardcore gamers are only a small percentage of the market. The third, and final valid argument I've gleened from this discussion; that there's too few good, usable monsters in V. I'd be really angry if I bought a book only to find out it didn't have what I wanted, luckily, most stores will allow me to look through a book and decide on my own whether or not it's of interest to me, and, as a consumer, I have the right to take my bussiness to another publisher if I don't want what they're selling. Game theory is all well in good, but trying to convince somebody that they don't like something that they know they do like isn't only futile, it makes you a jerk.
ewancummins 07-12-07, 11:02 PM	I was looking over a copy at work today[ ah, I love working in a bookstore]. I dislike the kuo toans and hobs showing up, as they are covered elsewhere. I'd rather those pages had all new beasties printed on them. The other stuff looks pretty good at a quick glance. The art is lovely. Some cool monsters in this one. I could do without the maps and generic lairs, though. The Thoon illithids are sweet. Very HPL. :88E: