Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Beckett 07-18-06, 12:39 AM	I mean come on, in a 3.5 game, Monsters of Faerun had better stuff. It was 200 some odd pages of dumb. Spawn of Tiamat just made it even worse. I mean at least AD&D didn't try to railroad you into their next gimic, they just gave you a nice blank entry at the end for you to make your own easy. A ECL 19 playable creature? Seriously, I think the thesis behind the book was "lets try to through a few things together on a few dice rolls, and see if they work as monsters"! The art is pretty good, I can't complain there. I especially hate two things. First, they used that damn new presentation of stats, and two they not only wasted the space to put "IN FAERUN" on almost everything, but they continued to add "IN EBERRON", despite the wide request by fans not to.
KingGolem 07-18-06, 12:54 AM	Ah yes, i too was disapointed somewhat about a few of its entries. Such as old monsters with class levels. Spawn of Tiamat was also incredibly lame; instead of them the evil dragonkind could just kidnap a human or whatever subject and producie great ammounts of evil half-dragons. As for the new stat presentation i felt the same way when i first saw it. I didn't see why they didn't stick to the old saying of, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". But i got over it and i can understand it relatively well. As for the "In Faerun/Ebberon", i didn't really care if they wasted space, they had some good monsters. Overall i think that the monster manual 4 is like a rough cut diamond. It has many flaws but also has mostly good qualities to it.
Beckett 07-18-06, 01:14 AM	But that is the worst part, there really isn't many half-decent monsters. I'll take that back, the Celestial-Fiend-Devil of Balance is okay, but I didn't see anything else.
Johnny_Angel 07-18-06, 01:36 AM	I was disappointed as well. I did still buy the book because I wanted some of the material from it, but a lot of the material wasn't new material. If I wanted a Drow with class levels, I would make one. I thought some of the new monsters were great, but the problem was that the majority of the book wasn't new at all. I expected a lot more.
Karak_Nechot 07-18-06, 01:49 AM	I didn't care much for the classed monster builds in the MMIV, and I really didn't like the full page maps. There was a lot of glut that should have been dropped for more monsters. I can't say I was too disappointed with any monsters in particular, though some of the Spawn of Tiamat were a bit too redundant. However, I was not terribly impressed by most of them, either. I did like the skiurid, as a call back to the 1e heyday of strange and silly monsters, and the fact that it makes for an actual effective creature in 3.5. I hope the future MMs are in this format and style, just with less filler crap and some more inventive monsters. It's like what KingGolem said, a rough diamond that needs a lot of cutting and polishing, but shows potential for great worth.
runestar 07-18-06, 02:11 AM	I have a query about the darktalon lizardfolk, which are essentially MM lizardfolk with elite stat array, plus a good backstory which is supposed to explain why they are statistically superior to the rest of their ilk. A darktalon lizardfolk with class lvs will share the same elite stat array as a normal lizardfolk with class lvs, thus they will end up having the same stats. Where's their statistical superiority now? How are they stronger than normal lizardfolk when they now share identical stats? :rolleyes: This is the most absurd thing I have ever seen wotc do: attempt to repackage an old race as a new offering, but they evidently couldn't be bothered to even give it some new stat modifers/features. Shame on you, wotc. :mad:
Beckett 07-18-06, 02:13 AM	If they had to do stuff like that, they could have at least taken things from the MM2 and made them 3.5, yes. It is probably the worst book they've made yet in my opinion.
Raven Dark 07-18-06, 04:25 AM	I read all the previews and stuff and hated much of what I saw. Then I bought the book. I absolutely love it. The artwork alone is almost worth paying full price. It is easily some of the best artwork I have seen in any WotC product to date. I also hear a lot of people whining about the pre-statted monsters (drow, gnolls, orcs, etc.), and have even done so in the past myself, but now that I have actually seen the builds, I can't wait to use them in my games! It saves me a lot of time and effort and I can still throw some interesting challenges at my players (let's face it, drow warriors do not live up to the race's infamy :rolleyes: ). The builds even utilize classes from the Complete books such as the Scout class. No worries if you don’t own Complete Adventurer though--they give you enough info to play the NPC without it. The new stat blocks really are something that grow on you. I've been a naysayer about the new changes for months, but some of the people on these forums turned out to be right--the new stat blocks really are easier. They just have to grow on you. You have to get over the older, inferior format that you have been brainwashed with for so many years. The Spawn of Tiamat are interesting creatures and are mechanically sound to boot. I don't like the flavor for them though. Apparently, all Spawn are born in place of True Dragons. Why in the nine hells would Tiamat spawn creatures that are immeasurably weaker than what she already had? It just doesn't make sense to me. It is also annoying how much space of the book they take up by themselves. If I use them in my games, they are going to be used as much more generic monsters, not this hyped up "Spawn of Tiamat" crap. In my opinion this is the ONLY down side of the book. I also spoke with several of my friends as well as unfamiliar roleplayers around the hobby shop, and I found out that the majority of roleplayers (in my area at least) love the new book. I guess it is just an extremely vocal minority on these forums that don't like the book. Many older RPGers are happy to see the Ecology section from 2nd edition return. Many feared that D&D was headed in the direction of WoW and similar MMORPGs, with less and less flavor text, and more and more mechanical stat blocks. The MM4 seems to be heading away from that by dedicating lots of space to important "role" playing information. Newer roleplayers who don't have to worry about getting over the old stat block format love it too, since the entire book is made to be simpler to read, understand, and play with. After all, who wouldn't want an easy to read stat block to speed up one's game? IT IS A GREAT BOOK. WotC is definitely headed in the right direction. Many of the naysayers on these boards either haven't seen the book yet, or are so caught up on the old, familar crap that they will put down any kind of change regardless of it's actual quality.
Raven Dark 07-18-06, 04:53 AM	I mean come on, in a 3.5 game, Monsters of Faerun had better stuff. That is strictly a matter of opinion. Personally, I think both books have equal value in the qualitiy of monsters that they produced. It was 200 some odd pages of dumb. At least your review is sensical, clear, and not at all childish. :rolleyes: Spawn of Tiamat just made it even worse. I agree that WotC dropped the ball on the SoT. They would be much better as generic monster with different flavor text. I mean at least AD&D didn't try to railroad you into their next gimic, they just gave you a nice blank entry at the end for you to make your own easy. AD&D had its fair share of railroading, make no mistake of that. A ECL 19 playable creature? Such creatures, albeit rare, do see play as PCs sometimes. Seriously, I think the thesis behind the book was "lets try to through a few things together on a few dice rolls, and see if they work as monsters"! I imagine all of the monsters start off that way actually. It is the extensive playtesting that makes them eventually worthy to put into a published book. At this point you are merely throwing out unlikely explanations that can never be substantiated in a vain attempt to garner support. The art is pretty good, I can't complain there. I wholeheartedly agree. I especially hate two things. First, they used that damn new presentation of stats... It will grow on you. You just need to get over the inferior stat blocks of the past. I hated them too, but I can now scan them and get all the sueful info I need in only half the time it took me for the older models. ...and two they not only wasted the space to put "IN FAERUN" on almost everything, but they continued to add "IN EBERRON", despite the wide request by fans not to. This is the first I have heard that the majority of fans requested that WotC leave out those entries. Where is your proof? If anything, I think it is the opposite. Many roleplayers find such text to be an invaluable guide. TO NAYSAYERS IN GENERAL: If you don't like the book, that's all well and good. Posting your opinion on these boards is also fine. But please for the love of roleplaying, give us an intellectual review that actually explains the pros and cons of the book and stop with all of the knee-jerk rants that we have all heard a million times already! :mad:
ieattrollsforbreakfast 07-18-06, 05:49 AM	I posted my thoughts in more detail on the Future Releases board, but I'll repeat myself here. I liked the MM4, overall. I think the rough cut diamond analogy is a good one, since it certainly has its flaws, but most of its pretty good. I agree that a few of the Spawn of Tiamat are a bit redundant (thunderlizard and firebelcher are pretty much exactly the same monster), but I can see myself making use of most of them (even if not as spawn of Tiamat). The other major issue is the stat block, which I love. I know I'm not as adept at using it as I am the old one yet, but I know that in time I'll become faster with the new one. The prestatted monsters I don't like. I could see myself using some of them, particularly the orc and ogre ones, but classing monsters doesn't take very long and so, IMO, don't really deserve print unless you want to pay for that. The final thing that irks me is the Lolth-touched Template, simply because it adds nothing new, and the entire template can be condensed into one line (not an exaggeration). It's the kind of template any DM can come up with on the fly in a few seconds if they want to make a monster more challenging with no change to flavour or appearance. That's a pretty specific point, though, so it hasn't clouded my view of the rest of the book. I have never heard anyone complain about the 'In Faerun' or particularly the 'In Eberron' section. I've heard nothing but praise for these sections, and even though I'm experienced enough with Eberron to find my own places for things, they do act as good inspiration.
lugnut71 07-18-06, 10:21 AM	Yes I find myself leary about both the prestatted old creatures (I don't mind it for new monsters in the book but it bothers me that they do it for old monsters) and the sheer amount of spawn of Tiamet, really one for each dragontype would of been plenty enough.
Raven Dark 07-18-06, 10:44 AM	The final thing that irks me is the Lolth-touched Template, simply because it adds nothing new, and the entire template can be condensed into one line (not an exaggeration). It's the kind of template any DM can come up with on the fly in a few seconds if they want to make a monster more challenging with no change to flavour or appearance. Yeah, I had forgotten about that. What was it again? +6 to Strength and Constitution, +4 to Hide and Move Silently checks, immunity to Fear effects, alignment changes to CE, and +1 to CR or LA. Is that everything? :P That really irks me too.
savant_warlord13 07-18-06, 01:10 PM	The Spawn of Tiamat are interesting creatures and are mechanically sound to boot. I don't like the flavor for them though. Apparently, all Spawn are born in place of True Dragons. Why in the nine hells would Tiamat spawn creatures that are immeasurably weaker than what she already had? It just doesn't make sense to me. It is also annoying how much space of the book they take up by themselves. If I use them in my games, they are going to be used as much more generic monsters, not this hyped up "Spawn of Tiamat" crap. In my opinion this is the ONLY down side of the book. I can think of a few good reasons for Tiamat to do that, and I don't even have the book! 1. Dragons (especially chromatic dragons) are like pissy 5-year olds. They don't like to share, and they think the universe revolves around them. This makes them poor minions. 2. Dragons suck during their first few hundred years of life. I am guessing that spawn of Tiamat mature much faster. 3. Dragons are like adventurer magnets. Spawn of Tiamat could probably fly under the radar considerably more easily. 4. Wizards of the Coast needed more dragon-esque monsters for the year of dragons. Happy birthday D&D!
Johnny_Angel 07-18-06, 02:41 PM	I'm not saying that I hate the book. I did still buy it, but what I was saying by posting the first time is that I expected a lot more from a new book. I thought that the "In Faerun" and "In Ebberon" sections as well as some of the fluff was great; I agree with the post which mentioned that D&D was starting to become too focused on the mechanical aspects of the game. On the other hand, I still say that the rehashing of old monsters by placing class levels on them is BS. I have a very bittersweet taste in my mouth after buying MM4. I love the parts that I like, but I hate the parts that I don't like. Personally, I thought the Spawn of Tiamat were kinda cool, and I loved the new Minotaurs...as well as many of the new monsters. On the other hand, a lot of the book was filled with old monsters, and there were a few of the new monsters which were just totally ridiculous. I liked the fluff, but I think that there was too much rehashed material; if they were going to update some of the old monsters, they should have-as has been mentioned- updated some of the MM2 stuff. The pregenerated monsters with class levels can be useful, but I don't think it was necessary to dedicate a monster manual's pages to that unless it was for a new monster. It doesn't take very long to stack class levels onto something; I felt that was something that was better reserved for a web enhancement or magazine article.
scienceman47 07-18-06, 03:08 PM	I say that we could have had new monsters in place of the pregen statted ones. That sort of thing belongs in a book of its own, which might just sell really well. Advanced monsters, you thought that orc was cr1/2, but not with 17 levels of bard, and the touched by the bad man template.
Beckett 07-25-06, 09:05 PM	I still hate the book. Personally, I highlight specific parts of each monsters entry throughout the entire book, and with the format, it is impossible. Not to mention that sometimes you need to look a page or two, or even three in one case for entries like L.A. I find the explinations difficult to understand for one thing. Is power Attack included? If not, I have to stop, calculate what the Base Attack is, then where all the Modifiers are comming from. Are the penulties for using an improperly sized weapon taken into account? Are they adding an ability that is considered always active or not? It saves some space, (usually, not always), but it leaves out some of the important stuff that you might actually have to go look in another book or two to find out if you need it. The so called "fluff" is actually pretty weak in many cases. It seems like they just reiteratted things that are already in shorter form in the stat blocks, but didn't really expand it to include anything new. The MM3, I think, was designed for more of a power-gamers play, or included many boss monster types, but the MM4 just through in a lot of rather dumb monsters that seem to go out of their way to aviod any fantasy theme, venturing more into a Sci-fi setting. The SoT are an obvious exception, but not even worth considering. Not really on topic directly, but when I heard of the war of the Dragon Queen theme, first I thought wow they are finally doing something major for Dragonlance. Then I found out not so, and I thought, cool Darksun. But nope, just Tiamat acting all Chaotic and PMSing, big wow. I like to run settings that are more real world based than typical D&D, and am very dissappointed that so many monsters in the MM4 specifically say they are never or very rarly Clerics, in my opinion what should be the absolute worst (meaning all around meanest) class for a boss fight monster. If you take out the SoT and the alternate Class build NPC's, you seriously cut the book by 1/3. Take out the maps, the "What If Encounters", and a few more things like the weak suggestions, and seriously, how much decent material is actually there? $40 worth? Most definetly not in my opinion.
Dracomortis 07-26-06, 12:36 PM	I personally didn't like the prestatted NPCs, but I can understand why they did it. It's the same reason why they made the new stat block: to make the game easier for newer players, and to save time for older ones. As the MM3 was aimed at power gamers, the MM4 was aimed at role players. Worth $40? Maybe. It's hard to say one way or the other, but I don't feel that I entirely wasted my money.
Tower_of_Pain 07-26-06, 02:29 PM	I know I am going to get flamed for this but I will say it anyway. I like the prestated monsters, i.e. drow, lizardfolk, etc. I do believe they took up too much space however. It even inspired me to play a drow scout. As for the SoT, I like them too. Again, they took up too much space, but I like them. It makes for a much better army than just hordes of dragons. And as for them being weaker than dragons.. Bluespawn Godslayers have a CR of 10, Blackspawn Stalkers 9, and it takes 51 years for the dragon of the same color to match or beat that. And being monstrous humaniods the SoT would age faster. And finaly, as for the ECL 19 and 20 creature, they are great for epic play, and a player in our grou has already made a verdent prince druid.
Gothenem 07-26-06, 09:32 PM	I disliked the statted monsters. Not because I don't like having pre-statted monsters, but because I don't want to pay for them in a book when I can make them myself. It is a "monster" book, not a "pre-statted races" book. Put more monsters in it. The Spawn of Tiamat is a cool idea, and I like it, but I think it was a bit overdone. The art was awesome, and I like the new statblock and presentation. I also like the In the Realms and in Eberron sections. Dislikes: Pre-statted monsters. Please, do not put them in the books. Leave them for a web-enhancement, or another book altogether. Spawn of Tiamat: Just too many in one book. Maps: Leave maps for a web enhancement, they take too much room in the monster book. In fact, it's not an adventure book, leave the adventures out of it. <rant> I understand that Wizards likes holding the hands of new players, but in doing so, they risk loosing alot of their older crowd. This trend is becoming very big, and alot of the experienced players are getting rather fed up with it. We can make our own adventures. We don't need to pay for adventure sites in a monster book.</rant> Now much of this is simply my opinion.
Sarlax 07-28-06, 01:41 AM	I have previously tended to buy monster books with only a brief glance. This is how I picked up MM2, MM3, Creature Collection, Creature Collection 2, Fiend Folio, and Monsters of Faerun. I didn't buy MM4 after a quick flip. I didn't buy it after a long read. I find so little good in the book. First, I have no objection to the new stat block. By itself, it condenses a lot of mechanics into a small space, particularly when one thinks about the special abilities that used to occupy a bigger space with a large font in the Combat section. I do, however, object to the rest of the monster format. The specific treasure section is ridiculous. The DMG does what these paragraphs do. The treasure section is redundant; it also becomes a problem after the first encounter with the new monster, since it either makes treasure rewards repititve (and boring), or becomes useless when the DM does away with it. Tactical suggestions are a bad idea. When I see a creature with Melee: Greatsword +15 (2d6+8) who also has Int 3, I don't need to be told "The elite yellow toadspawn is a solid melee warrior but had problems with clever tactics." The stat block already makes it very clear on even a casual read the manner in which a monster should be fighting. It's a waste of space to repeat in rushed, vague, and general terms the information contained in the stats. Elite monsters don't belong in a monster book. I had a problem with this in MM, but didn't get upset because they occupy comparatively little space. MM4 goes to extremes. Vast sections of the book are simply NPC classed reprints. They are nothing new, and nothing that can't be done with the DMG! The DMG already provides generic NPC classes and quick notes on how to modify them for specific creatures. Worse, so many supplements already contain elite versions of these creatures. We're 3 years into this edition; if we're thinking about buying MM4, we probably already have an excellent write up of a 5th level drow ranger. If we don't, it doesn't matter, since it's so easy to make anyway. The Spawn are a bad idea in that they force a particular campaign setting. This issue is distinct from the "In Faerun, In Eberron" materials. In those paragraphs, we merely get suggestions. When it comes to the Spawn, however, they can't be introduced as written without also presupposing a sudden escalation in some war between dragon gods. If your campaign isn't about the battle between Tiamat and Bahamut, the flavor material for the spawn is largely wasted space. Likewise, I agree with the conceptual objection - dragons are better than dragonspawn, so why have dragonspawn? Ack. I can only imagine that they are somehow bred faster. Anyway, half-dragons still make much more sense. Products like this make me very aware of how close we are to 4th edition.
pita 07-28-06, 03:15 AM	When they announced the DMG II I stopped buying wizard's products. This is the reason. And some guy said "A very vocal minority". We are a majority, or obviously people who support it would not say "I hope noone flames me". Notice none of us non-believers get flamed. MM4 is pretty much :P
Raven Dark 07-28-06, 10:32 AM	When they announced the DMG II I stopped buying wizard's products. This is the reason. And some guy said "A very vocal minority". We are a majority, or obviously people who support it would not say "I hope noone flames me". Notice none of us non-believers get flamed. MM4 is pretty much :P You ARE a minority. I have done professional surveys around my town, trying to find what products roleplayers liked best in the WotC line. About 7 in 8 roleplayers I spoke with have never been on these forums before. Of those 7, an average of 6 approved of the new products after having a fairly extensive look over.
Tower_of_Pain 07-28-06, 01:00 PM	I will just point out that the 'don't flame me' comment I used was not about supporting the book, witch I do and dont care if anyone disagrees, but at the support of prestatted monsters, witch pretty much everyone else hates.:tiphat:
Sarlax 07-28-06, 01:15 PM	You ARE a minority. I have done professional surveys around my town, trying to find what products roleplayers liked best in the WotC line. About 7 in 8 roleplayers I spoke with have never been on these forums before. Of those 7, an average of 6 approved of the new products after having a fairly extensive look over. A small group of gamers in a Florida town with 1600 residents is not a valid sample. If you really want to know what D&D players think, you need to compile a very large, representative list of them and randomly select a significant fraction of them (500 to 1000) to be asked questions. Going to your friends from the game store and asking if they like a new book doesn't count. In any case, declaring any position to be a majority or minority with no valid evidence is a waste of time and does nothing to support an argument.
Raven Dark 07-28-06, 01:34 PM	A small group of gamers in a Florida town with 1600 residents is not a valid sample. If you really want to know what D&D players think, you need to compile a very large, representative list of them and randomly select a significant fraction of them (500 to 1000) to be asked questions. Going to your friends from the game store and asking if they like a new book doesn't count. In any case, declaring any position to be a majority or minority with no valid evidence is a waste of time and does nothing to support an argument. At least I have evidence of a kind. No one else has offered up anything in the defense of their statements. As for my samples, they came from the univerisities, military bases, bookstores/gaming shops/hobby shops, well known roleplaying hangouts (such as specific restaurants), and surrounding cities/towns. All in all, close to 3,000 people. There is no way that is a bad representative sample--at least for Florida.
Lord_Bahamut 07-29-06, 01:33 AM	Wow, lots of people seem to hate the MM4, while only a few that have posted on here actually like it. I haven't picked up the book yet, and all this talk about "It SUCKS!--No it DOESN'T!" arguments are being repetitive. I understand if you dislike the way the monsters are layed out or if the most of the monsters are useless (to you, at least), but STOP HIGHLIGHTING THE BAD AND SHOW SOME OF THE GOOD, PLEASE! And stop repeating yourselves. Once you've said something, that's good unless everyone forgets about it, in which you have the right to repeat yourself. But if seomone disagrees with you, you don't need to restate yourself with another five-paragraph rant. If the SoT are so bad, then stop whining about them and CHANGE them! I've done this in my campaigns with monsters that I thought would work batter a little differently, and so instead of saying "This monster sucks, I'm not using it," I would say, "This monster isn't quite right, what can I do to make it better?" In most cases I was right, while a few ground the game to a halt and taught me a valuble lesson in DMing. And if you don't like the SoT still, MAKE YOUR OWN. You all say that creating an NPC is easy, so build off of the monsters already in the MM4 and make them different! Originally posted by ieattrollsforbreakfast liked the MM4, overall. I think the rough cut diamond analogy is a good one, since it certainly has its flaws, but most of its pretty good. I agree that a few of the Spawn of Tiamat are a bit redundant (thunderlizard and firebelcher are pretty much exactly the same monster)... I agree with the rough-cut diamond analogy as well. As for the thunderlizard and firebelcher, just change some of their special abilities, change the sizes, natural armor, and other things that you think are needed, and boom, new monster. If it's easy for me, it should be easy for everyone else. Now, I'm going to take my own advice and get off my soapbox.
Beckett 07-31-06, 08:13 PM	I started this thread not because I wanted to see the good in the book, but because I wanted WotC or whoever official might see it exactly how angree I was at buying this book and it's sheer lack of even half descent material. It is most assuredly not a diomond of any kind.
Raven Dark 07-31-06, 09:09 PM	I started this thread not because I wanted to see the good in the book, but because I wanted WotC or whoever official might see it exactly how angree I was at buying this book and it's sheer lack of even half descent material. It is most assuredly not a diomond of any kind. That is you opinion anyways. Please don't state it as if it were fact, lest the forum hoards come down upon you for improper English. :P I think of it as a step in the right direction.
Beckett 07-31-06, 11:53 PM	It is a fact that I started this thread for that reason. I think you are confussed. . .
Asadeseth 08-01-06, 12:39 AM	Okay i must say i did has some problems with the book too. Some were mild and some just erked me. First what erked me more than anything were the feeking maps, for the love of all that is abberition i realy dont nead those, i would MUCH rather have more pages deticated to... oh i dono MONSTERS? I dont nead maps, i dont know meny people who do, please stop provideing them where they arent wanted or neaded just to fill space. Second were the Spawn o Tiamat were seriously anoying, havent met anyone who likes them yet. I personaly found the monster reprents somewhat anoying, but ill let that one pass, i can see use for it. On the Fearun/Ebbron thing im torn. lets meet half way on this, keep the Fearun and loose the Ebbron :P On the pluss side, the art genraly WAS good, heck the Ogers look a 100 times beter, though the Lizardfolk and Githyanki were a bit off. Also I LIKED the longer write ups for monsters, i alwase thought they were too short, fluf is good.
Raven Dark 08-01-06, 12:35 PM	It is a fact that I started this thread for that reason. I think you are confussed. . . I'm sorry. I wa referring to the line where you said "It is most assuredly not a diomond of any kind." I probably should have trimmed the quote down a bit to avoid confusion.
Ninetails Demon 08-01-06, 02:46 PM	I liked the art. Didn't mind all the NPCs and lairs, I thought they should be in another book. New format, I don't want to adjust, but as long as they get all of the kinks out of it that people have been pointing out on these boards, I don't mind. (Sorry, can't remember any because I think they fixed one from DMGII to MMIV that was being used as an example and I'm confused now :( ). Enjoyed the monsters (Shadow Squirrels! YAY!! SQUIRRELY WRATH! :D ) and didn't mind the In Faerun and Eberon stuff. They gotta support their campaign settings, right? My one major complaint was about the fluff. I enjoy the addition of Ecology and what-have-you, but it felt kinda weak. Also, the SoT seemed weird, but I thought perhaps instead of dragon eggs, why not Kobold eggs or some other servant race of dragons? It makes more sense in my tiny head. :) In summary, work out the new format kinks and I won't care, better fluff, and please keep NPCs and lairs out!!
SageBahamut 08-01-06, 03:03 PM	I'm going to jump on the bandwagon here and say that I could have lived without the Spawn of Tiamat. As for the art, I want to go back to the good old days when Todd Lockwood still did D&D art. I've hated the art in all the new books. It looks ridiculous and doesn't inspire high fantasy like his did. I miss those days.
Dracomortis 08-01-06, 03:34 PM	As for the art, I want to go back to the good old days when Todd Lockwood still did D&D art. I've hated the art in all the new books. It looks ridiculous and doesn't inspire high fantasy like his did. I miss those days. A book with all the artwork by Wayne Reynolds, Todd Lockwood, and Sam Wood would be composed of pure win.
Dumat 08-01-06, 04:55 PM	The prestatted NPCs were a marketing ploy. They included classes from supplement books like the Complete Series to try to entice you into buying the Complete books. They were ads, pure and simple. Useful ads in some cases, but ads nonetheless. Pretty light on the crunchiness, I'd say. A better use of dead trees would have been an updated MMII. Where are my gem dragons???? THAT would have been useful for a dragon theme.
David E 08-01-06, 08:14 PM	The prestatted NPCs were a marketing ploy. They included classes from supplement books like the Complete Series to try to entice you into buying the Complete books. They were ads, pure and simple. Useful ads in some cases, but ads nonetheless. Or it is possible that WotC tried to appease fans who were clamoring for more official (i.e. WotC) support of the Complete Series classes such as the scout and warlock. Seems to me there's nothing wrong with that. As for the MMIV itself, I wasn't a huge fan of the classed MM monsters or the Spawn of Tiamat (the Thunder Lizard and Firebelcher seem very uninspired). However, I can understand that older games with less time on their hands to stat out monsters will find the classed monsters very useful. Still, though, I wish there had been more original monsters... On the plus side, I really liked the expanded entries for all the monsters. The ecology and "In Faerun/Eberron" sections really get the creative juices flowing, and give you a sense of how a monster should act besides just the standard "you see the monster; it attacks you. Here's what it does when it attacks you." Booooring. Plus, the new demons and yugoloths were sweet! Corrupter of Fate and Deathdrinker... you have to admit those sound pretty darn cool. All in all - great new format, but less cheesy/classed monsters please. Edit: Oh yeah, and the maps were... eh. Like the Spawn of Tiamat, they seemed rather uninspired. I have to agree with an earlier poster - give me more monsters, not maps, please!
moscatabaco76 08-01-06, 08:16 PM	When they announced the DMG II I stopped buying wizard's products. Your loss. That means you lost jewels like Player's Handbook 2 and the Hordes of the Abyss. In case you want to know, I hated the Spawns of Tiamat, the pregenerated NPCs, the lairs and pretty much a lot of things. I liked the neutral outsider, some of the new demons and the aspects of the elemental evil. All things considered, after MM1, this is the monster compendium I disliked the least ;) What really, really gets in my nerves are delirious know-it-alls that think that what them and their friends and online contacts (or even the people in their area) think about the direction of the game (for better or worse) is a worldwide opinion. Wizards is a Worldwide Business, with players all around the globe. The people that really know if a product flunked horribly or archieved a new pinnacle in RPG material (or something in between) ain't telling us. Praise or beat as much as you want, but remember: is just YOUR opinion.
Bongitybongbong 08-01-06, 10:45 PM	when i was flipping through the MMIV in a bookstore, i saw this evil (or neutral) angel-devil thing and at that point i had seen enough carbon copy crap (this was after i had seen the SoT and statted monsters which i wasn't a fan of)