Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Biomage 07-11-06, 01:14 AM	I recently got the Monster Manual IV and have some time to look over it. While there are a few new creatures that I like (Windblades, clockwork Mender and Avatars of Elemental Evil), overall I am quite disappointed in the book. The first thing I noticed was the new “easy-to-use statistic format”. What? I don’t like it. Taking out the “Environment” from the stats make you have to search the text to determine whether a creature is appropriate for an area. Likewise, “Typical Treasure” under its own header? Why? Also, with text separated with so many headings just takes up too much space and inconveniently spreads out the information. There is nothing easy about that. Sample Encounters and Lairs just seem like filler. Monster Manuals used to be 200+ pages of crunchy goodness. Now, half of the MMIV is nothing but fluff. I like fluff, but I like my MM with crunch. In my opinion, MMIII did it right; stats, description, brief background and ecology, combat and use in other campaigns. The worst thing about MMIV are the drow, orc, gnolls, githyanki, etc. :confused: Different versions of creatures represented in other books, given classes and different names. What? Any competent DM could do this. This just seems like much more fluff to fill pages. I have every non-campaign 3/3.5 edition book. Most of them are great! With Tome of Magic and Fiendish Codex, I thought D&D books were going in the right direction. I buy most books before even reading them. But after MMIV, I am not sure. I'll take greater consideration before buying other D&D books in the future. Don’t get me wrong. I appreciate all of the effort those at WOTC put into new products (but where’s D20 Spectaculars! :mad: ). I hope more people enjoy MMIV. I hope I am in the minority in my dislike of MMIV. I want the best for the company that I have given so much time and money to over the past six years. So, for those at WOTC, listen to the gamers. They will voice their opinions and tell you what they want. If I am the only person that doesn’t like the new format and direction, keep up the good work. I am the one that is wrong. ;) Finally, did anyone else think that the Whisper Demon sounded like a Loumara?
SOPI 07-11-06, 01:48 AM	Unfortunately, you are not the only person displeased with the book. I am getting it tomorrow, and am hoping that I will like it. (I've not let anyone influence me on my thoughts of the book.) However, you've just invited a number of MMIV haters (obrysii, cwslclgh, razz) to come and ***** about the book. Either way, it's good that you look at your own negativeness towards the book in a positive way. It's better than the people that hate it and decide then that anyone who likes it at all is wrong.
cwslyclgh 07-11-06, 01:50 AM	****, ****, and **** :P
cwslyclgh 07-11-06, 02:03 AM	It's better than the people that hate it and decide then that anyone who likes it at all is wrong.for the record I do not, nor have I ever thought that people that like the book are wrong... slightly missguided maybe, but every person has the right to like what he likes, or dislike what he dislikes, and IMO they have the right to talk about what they like or dislike... and even sometimes debate it with people of the opposite view. My stance on MM4 has actually softened somewhat over the last couple of weeks, I still will not be buying it, at least not new... but I can see why WotC decided to go the direction that they did with it (although I still think it was a mistake, and they would have been better served releasing a MM full of original creations, and releasing a book full of NPC types and advanced/leveled/templated monsters). my stance on the new stat block has also softened considerably since the first time I saw it... I still think introducing it was unnecissary, and for that reason dislike it, as I tend to dislike anything that adds extra complexity with out needing to... but after using while creating a few monsters, I found that it did not add more then five or so minutes to the creation time (although the ecology and such can add considerable time, but that is extra word count...so if I were to write an article for dragon with new monsters instead of making up a lot of monsters I make fewer and would get paid the same amount... when it comes down to it I am as lazy as the WotC writers :P ). My only real complaint with the new statblock at this point is the lack of HD breakdown, which I will NEVER stop thinking is important (I would also prefer LA, Treasure, etc. in the statblock, but can live with them elsewhere ::shrug::)
YabaTheWhat 07-11-06, 08:00 AM	I read complaints a couple months ago about the reduced content of recent WotC publications in another section of this board (future releases I believe), and filed it in the back of my mind. When I was about to place a preorder for the book, I decided to check for previews. One minute reviewing the table of contents was enough to make me cancel my order.
Doom_Linnorm 07-11-06, 12:04 PM	I'm a big fan of MM's but I think I'll pass on number IV. When I first heard about it and saw a few previews I was like: :dancin: DRAGONSPAWN FTW!!! :D , WAHOOOO, then I saw the rest and thought.. ye know... looks good but why... why the heck are there so many things like Orcs and Drow covered AGAIN in it? Then finaly with a few previews my excitement died... These are the dragonspawn?!..... they're worthless.... I can make more and probably more to my liking... So now I'm toiling away at making my own Dragonspawn... LOTS OF EM :evillaugh
lugnut71 07-11-06, 12:52 PM	While I like the new stat block I find myself none too excited about the classed monsters from other books. I tend to agree that a NPC book would of been a better choice for that (and one that I would probably buy to be truthful). I also am not too big a fan of all the dragonspawn. Where I stand one dragonspawn for each color would of been great but I feel that they went overboard on them. I don't think I will be making the purchase unless I find the other monsters very much to my liking.
FenrysStar 07-11-06, 01:03 PM	I am getting this sometime this month when my finances allow it. I am not fond of the fact that orcs, ogres and drow are getting in. Whatever space they are taking could be better used for other monsters. The lupin and other anthropomorphic animal races for instance.
Biomage 07-11-06, 01:05 PM	DRAGONSPAWN FTW!!! :D , WAHOOOO, Yeah, I liked the Dragonspawn as well. But, I think 34 pages is overkill. I would have been happy with a single template for each of the 5 dragons.
JBW 07-11-06, 01:12 PM	I looked over the book during a long sitting at BAM and I was unimpressed. It's all different! For one thing, the new stat blocks made this feel terribly unfamiliar to me, and having played 3.0 since the summer of 2000 and quickly jumping on the 3.5 revision, I don't like something that feels this different. The new stat block is not progress, it's change simply for the sake of change. It's all the same! With the new stat block were they really hoping to pass off Orcs, Ogres, Drow, and other old hat monsters as something new? For DMs that can't or won't take the time to add class levels on their own, this might be worthwile - for me it's a waste of space. Jay
Khan the Destroyer 07-11-06, 01:12 PM	I'm a bit disappointed as well. There are a few monsters in there that I like (the neutral outsider that upholds balance for instance). But having gnolls, lizardfolk, orcs, ogres, and drow with class levels was just crap. And there's like 40 pages devoted to dragonspawn (which aren't too spectacular). I'm curious though... didn't they take a poll after MM 3 came out about the new format? I wonder what the results were. I enjoyed MM 3's layout a lot, and I would have thought that it got a lot of good responses. So, why the new format again? I mean, this thing takes up a lot of pages.
Kilsek of Sheverash 07-11-06, 01:45 PM	But having gnolls, lizardfolk, orcs, ogres, and drow with class levels was just crap. It's not total crap, and I'll explain why. Manually doing versions of the monsters is a PITA - a time-consuming task at the very least. Sure, the first few times, learn the process, the rules. But after your 100th monster with class levels, you really need to spend more time on the entire adventure itself, not hours on monster statting that involves several templates and calculations. The problem is MMIV should be an ELECTRONIC AID and no longer a book. D&D needs to get into the times here and start working harder to make and/or fully endorse more D&D-centric Digital Aids. There's some activity going on that front, sure. But how long has this aspect of the game been decidedly sub-par? It's 2006, and aside from the SRD being a true electronic aid for actual gameplay, the rest of the digital aid support is lacking. I just don't see any of the fire or energy or enthusiasm from WotC on these types of aids versus their books. I have plenty of their books, almost all, have for many years - but, c'mon WotC, it's 2006 now, but electronically, I still feel like the majority of players are playing in a time frame of 10-15 years ago. It's shocking. It's amazing to me we have to dig deep throughout the entire internet, for example, to find decent monster generators that incorporate all the things you see in MMIV for some common monsters. How long has 3e been out again? And 3.5e? Wow, just wow. Remember when we got that CD with the 3.0 PHB? Well, all I can say is it feels like we've gone either nowhere or backwards on that front - and given today's computer, technology and gadget-filled world, that is astonishing.
Kothardarastrix 07-11-06, 01:49 PM	Thanks for the heads up. The new stat block is all good and fine for NPC's and monsters with class levels, but it's just to complicated for a basic monster.
cwslyclgh 07-11-06, 02:16 PM	not hours on monster statting that involves several templates and calculations.an exageration, unless you are not very good at the system, it takes less the five minutes to put together an advanced monster with a templete and several class levels if you know what you are doing... and like I said on another thread if you don't know what you are doing you shouldn't be trying to use those things until you learn how to do it correctly. my current adventure arch that I am DMing has many nonstandard monsters in it, including a large number of blackscale lizard folk, all advanced (broken roughly into 4 types, "hunter/scout" with ranger levels, "Warrior" with npc warrior levels, one "leader" type with sorcerer levels, and some "Blackwing guardians" with barbarian levels and the half dragon template), water nagas with sorcerer levels and the bone naga and spellstiched templates, and a mature adult black dragon (another creature that takes a lot of work, rather then being able to pull it directly out of the MM)... all in all it took me less then 30 minutes to stat up all of the non-standard monsters for my adventure.
SOPI 07-11-06, 02:36 PM	for the record I do not, nor have I ever thought that people that like the book are wrong... slightly missguided maybe, but every person has the right to like what he likes, or dislike what he dislikes, and IMO they have the right to talk about what they like or dislike... and even sometimes debate it with people of the opposite view. Ah, I see. Sorry then. I was under the impression that you thought the people who liked the book were wrong and you wouldn't budge on the subject. I was just a bit angry at you when you commented that I was an incompetent DM for liking classed monsters in the MMIV. :embarrass Sorry, again.
Khan the Destroyer 07-11-06, 02:39 PM	It's not total crap, and I'll explain why. Manually doing versions of the monsters is a PITA - a time-consuming task at the very least. Sure, the first few times, learn the process, the rules. But after your 100th monster with class levels, you really need to spend more time on the entire adventure itself, not hours on monster statting that involves several templates and calculations. I disagree. At least, in my experience, it doesn't take very long for me to stat out an advanced/non-standard monster at all. The problem is MMIV should be an ELECTRONIC AID and no longer a book. D&D needs to get into the times here and start working harder to make and/or fully endorse more D&D-centric Digital Aids. Well, if you are suggesting that we pay for an electronic aid that is full of monsters with class levels, then, I still disagree. At this point, you are filling up a quarter of the book with one type of monster, using a new format that takes up a lot more space, AND adding in monsters that already exist in another monster manual. Something has to give so that the consumer doesn't feel... disappointed.
General_Ridley 07-11-06, 03:00 PM	I disagree. At least, in my experience, it doesn't take very long for me to stat out an advanced/non-standard monster at all. Agreed. If it's something complex, it can take around an hour (usually that only goes for when I need to pick out spells for a monster to know) as for the MMIV itself, I looked at the index, and didn't like. I looked at the previews, hoping to like. I hated. I looked at other books with the new stat format, and I still didn't like. I just find the new format to be much more of a waste and a hinderance than a help. When I pick up Fiendish Codex, I'm going through each and every monster and demon lord and reformatting them to the old format. I've already done Yeenoghu and Jubilex based on the previews. I don't have the time or desire to bother with MMIV.
Mellowship Slinky 07-11-06, 03:00 PM	Heroforge is a nice electronic aid that will allow someone to make monsters with class levels fairly easily and electronically. It even produces a statblock.
cwslyclgh 07-11-06, 03:02 PM	Ah, I see. Sorry then. I was under the impression that you thought the people who liked the book were wrong and you wouldn't budge on the subject. I was just a bit angry at you when you commented that I was an incompetent DM for liking classed monsters in the MMIV. :embarrass Sorry, again. actually I am the one who should appologize SOPI, I had no idea that you took the YOU in my posts to be directed so directly at you, (I stopped following that thread before you wrote your responses), reading it now I feel bad... infact my use of the word YOU in the post that seems to have offended you most was a broad generalization aimed at no one person in particluar. "if a person does not have enough free time to prepare correctly for DMing a game, they are better off not DMing at all." would have been a better way to put it, and I still stand by that sentiment... however from your later statements it seems that would not apply to you, who seems to have enough time (it doesn't all take much), you seem to be realy looking at them from a sheer convienience point of view. there is a difference between wanting classed monsters because you think they would be convienient, and wanting classed monsters because you can't or won't be bothered to advance them yourself... however either way I think that they do not realy have a place in a Monster Manual, and should be featured in thier own book, so that we could get more original monsters in books like MM4.
Sorcen_Anenooata 07-11-06, 03:24 PM	I myself dont like the new format mostly because its not needed and because its change and I dont like change. Like I said in the other post, my final decree is that I personally will stick with the old format and if I want a creature that is only under the new format then I will convert it to the old format. As for MMIV, I see a few things that catch my interest so I may get it if I get around to it. And I have a suggestion that I was looking to get some feedback on before I start a new thread, I was flipping through some AD&D annual monstrous compendiums and thought that somebody should make an evolutionary tree for all the monsters of DnD. Just like the evolutionary tree that supposes that microrganisms turned to fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then dinosaurs, mammals and birds and everything like that. It would be interesting to see what the evolutionary tree of DnD looks like. Anyway sorry for leechin off this thread but I didnt wanna start a new one just yet, and feel free to ignore this is you feel it is leeching. Thanks for your time.
Argali 07-11-06, 03:31 PM	For a whole different perspective: I think one of the biggest shortcomings WoTC has had with 3.0 and beyond is how sub-par the Monster Manuals are when compared to the 2E Monstrous Compendiums. So much of the MMs are fluff and redredged stuff. To me, there is but a fraction of innovative monsters in the MMs that were put out in the Compendiums.
pileobone 07-11-06, 03:38 PM	Meh, I don't like the new format either personally. However, I am not so loathe to use it that I will bother to take the time to convert it to the old format. For my own personal monsters, I'll continue to use the reliable old format As for being dissapointed by MMIV, couldn't tell ya. Due to money constraints I haven't been able to purchase a D&D book since the DMGII. :(
obrysii 07-11-06, 03:42 PM	I looked over the book during a long sitting at BAM and I was unimpressed. It's all different! For one thing, the new stat blocks made this feel terribly unfamiliar to me, and having played 3.0 since the summer of 2000 and quickly jumping on the 3.5 revision, I don't like something that feels this different. The new stat block is not progress, it's change simply for the sake of change. It's all the same! With the new stat block were they really hoping to pass off Orcs, Ogres, Drow, and other old hat monsters as something new? For DMs that can't or won't take the time to add class levels on their own, this might be worthwile - for me it's a waste of space. Jay I agree with everything said here. This will be among the first books I won't even consider. All this filler stuff--it isn't working for me. I can only wait for a new, revised feat format that expands information about a feats to a half to a full page per feat. The last book that I've purchased that seemed just right was Frostburn. And even that contained the expanded PrC format...space that could have been filled with more useful and relevant information. I hope they make... Monster Manual IV: The Real Version that contains more monsters and few, if any, NPCs as well as the old (and in my opinion, only) monster format.
MerlintheTuna 07-11-06, 04:01 PM	I have to say, having read the article on stat blocks (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060707a), it blows my mind that people could complain about the new ones. Excess flavor text might be a problem, and monsters with class levels is garbage to be putting in an MM, but the new stat blocks are nothing less than spectacular.
primemover003 07-11-06, 04:13 PM	When Dungeon started using the new stat block I wasn't thrilled with it, but after a few months of looking at it and building a few NPC's with it I find that I can do it faster than the old stat block I was used to. So I kinda like the new stat block format... but I do agree the level breakdown needs to be there AND the AC breakdown. As fo the MMIV I don't have it but I was kinda suprised seeing all the MM monsters in the art gallery. I might buy it now, but it's not on the top of my list now.
Kilsek of Sheverash 07-11-06, 04:14 PM	D&D itself is long overdue for an official NPC/monster generator as part of their DMG/MM package. And for those of you who don't mind taking about an hour to fully stat out an advanced character or monster with all its abilities and spells... well, I think that time is better served by a digital aid, as most of that is all mathematically quantifiable changes to a base monster. There's absolutely no need to do that time-consuming manual work - especially if you know how it's done in the first place :P Like I said, I'd much rather spend more time on other "crunchy" aspects of the game, as well as fluff like developing the possible story elements, the PCs interaction with the world and their background, etc. As DM, you never have enough time for everything - and there's a lot to do - so anything that is a reasonable time-saver is a huge help. I absolutely know a signficant amount of time can be saved on NPC/Monster generation by using a digital aid. Isn't this a reasonable expectation and offering from the king of RPGs? The new stat block format is good in that it's intended to be easier to use in actual gameplay. And I believe it is - the "senses" section up top and ordering spells by most powerful first alone are excellent changes. That said, there still needs to be more focus on electronic integration of these smarter ways of presenting information. They're supposed to be time-savers, just like having a hyper-linked SRD at your fingertips on your laptop is a huge time-saver.
cwslyclgh 07-11-06, 04:28 PM	James Jacobs said on a thread on the Paizo message boards... The spreadsheet I use for building new monsters was actually developed at WotC for internal use; the fact that WotC has gone through the trouble of making thier own spread sheet for developing new monsters, makes me sceptical of claims that they are using Heroforge to do so...
Biomage 07-11-06, 05:04 PM	I have to say, having read the article on stat blocks (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060707a), it blows my mind that people could complain about the new ones. Excess flavor text might be a problem, and monsters with class levels is garbage to be putting in an MM, but the new stat blocks are nothing less than spectacular. I've read the article. There are a few benefits to the new stat block format. However, removing Environment, Organization and Treasure Type isn’t convenient. Other than that, I don’t have a huge problem with the stat “block”. I just don’t like all of the useless stuff that comes after the stat block. Then again, the new stat block is not the biggest problem with MMIV. Biomage
JBW 07-11-06, 06:02 PM	I have to question wether the article was written to discuss a perceived need for a new stat block or if it was written to justify the change after the fact. I strongly suspect the latter, so it's pretty obvious where it leads the reader... Jay
Biomage 07-11-06, 07:20 PM	I have to question wether the article was written to discuss a perceived need for a new stat block or if it was written to justify the change after the fact. I strongly suspect the latter J. Wyatt has done some good stuff in the past. I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt. But, you are probably right.
The Commoner 07-11-06, 08:57 PM	I actually kind of like the Monster Manual 4. My take on it is that it displays monsters as factions (Drow, Gnolls, Orcs, etc.). The Tiamat dragonblooded stuff is really fluffy and crunchy at the same time. Oh the Knowledge skill blocks... thank you WotC. Nothing ticks some players off worse than a less than informed knowledge check and now I have further justification to back up why I am not telling them everything just cause they rolled a 30-something knowledge check on the beast. Also the new stat block is better for me. Senses at the top is a big plus because those are practically the most used skill by monsters. The book isn't perfect but it works for me for the price (which I ordered via overstock so I didn't get hit with the cover price). I also like the break down of all the player usable stuff (ie the Exotic Weapons, place in the campaign setting world, tactics, etc.) Anyway I am not going to be harsh on the book at all. I enjoyed (am enjoying) reading it and finding cool new things to throw at my players.
Kenzuki 07-11-06, 10:11 PM	Agreed. If it's something complex, it can take around an hour (usually that only goes for when I need to pick out spells for a monster to know) as for the MMIV itself, I looked at the index, and didn't like. I looked at the previews, hoping to like. I hated. I looked at other books with the new stat format, and I still didn't like. I just find the new format to be much more of a waste and a hinderance than a help. When I pick up Fiendish Codex, I'm going through each and every monster and demon lord and reformatting them to the old format. I've already done Yeenoghu and Jubilex based on the previews. I don't have the time or desire to bother with MMIV. Hey mate, I read earlier today that you said you were converting the demons and demon lords in FC:I to the old MM format. I was wondering if it wasn't too much trouble, if you could send me a copy of those when you are done eh? I'm with you on this, the old format was more neat and tidy looking.
SOPI 07-11-06, 10:18 PM	I got the book and like it. Not the best MM, but it's not the worst. And I want to point out to those who mention the lack of an environment being mentioned in the stat block, the table with Knowledge about the monster usually mentions it. (ie Balhannoth is underground...if the picture didn't tip you off...)
SOPI 07-11-06, 10:21 PM	actually I am the one who should appologize SOPI, I had no idea that you took the YOU in my posts to be directed so directly at you, (I stopped following that thread before you wrote your responses), reading it now I feel bad... infact my use of the word YOU in the post that seems to have offended you most was a broad generalization aimed at no one person in particluar. Thanks. At least there are no disputes between us any more. (Unless you count the fact that I like the MMIV and you dislike it. ;))
Sorcen_Anenooata 07-11-06, 10:56 PM	Hey mate, I read earlier today that you said you were converting the demons and demon lords in FC:I to the old MM format. I was wondering if it wasn't too much trouble, if you could send me a copy of those when you are done eh? I'm with you on this, the old format was more neat and tidy looking. Yeh I was wondering if you were going to post them on here when you were done. EDIT: ^ Ignore that ^, I wasnt thinking about copyright laws and all, stupid question sorry. Although it would be nice to get the creatures in the old format, I'll just have to get the book and do it myself if I want them done like that.
Elessar 07-11-06, 11:27 PM	Well, while I personally don't own the book yet, nor have I decided whether to get it, I hope they use the new stat blocks in all the new books. People's hatred of them is, I think, just a natural aversion to change, but all in all, I think that once people are adjusted to it, they will see the benefits. The stat block is geared towards running the monster quickly right out of the book. Of course people won't be able to do this immediately because they're not used to it, but the same was true when 3.0 monster stat blocks came out - they were unintelligible to someone only familiar with AD&D (where is THAC0???) And this isn't radical, it's just a rearrangement that breaks the stat block into in-game events (detection, player's round, monster's round). Seems right to me. As for the lack of the environment and the treasure, I think it was actually good to remove them. If you have made an adventure already, you don't need to quickly find the environment or the treasure - you determined these things while you were doing the adventure. I put my monsters where I darn well please, regardless of the environment suggested (the same actually goes with alignment, while we're at it.) And treasure should be tailored to the circumstances, so you need to slow down and think anyways. Nobody is like "Quick! Think fast! What sort of treasure does a mind flayer have? Standard or Double! Need to know now!" They actually went the extra mile by telling you more than just Standard or Double by breaking it off into a whole section that suggests what sort of baubles the creature likes to collect. As for the monsters with class levels... yeah, gotta say they bungled that one. It still might be worth getting, but I'll know for sure after a quick perusal at Borders. P.S. Keep in mind this stuff is all coming from someone who's generally difficult to please, and I'm still keeping an open mind about it. Heck I still have gripes with MM1, which I felt had too many monsters that either had no use in the average game or was too dumb/weird to belong in the core rules.
obrysii 07-11-06, 11:50 PM	I have to question wether the article was written to discuss a perceived need for a new stat block or if it was written to justify the change after the fact. I strongly suspect the latter, so it's pretty obvious where it leads the reader... Jay Yeah. It's about the rather overwhelming dislike of the new stat block that so is apparent among the boards. His article is very heavily biased towards the new stat block. It serves no purpose aside from propaganda. I'd rather read an article that examines in it an unbiased manner, going point-for-point. My feelings aside (as everyone knows how I stand), I wonder what their excuse is for putting in so many NPCs into a monster book. If they're claiming this new format makes DMing soo easy to do, how come they don't provide more monsters in this "great" new format?
EvilMrStubbe 07-12-06, 02:06 AM	doom linnorm, once you stat your spawns you should post them, since the only thing that I was interested in were the spawns.
MerlintheTuna 07-12-06, 02:30 AM	I have to question wether the article was written to discuss a perceived need for a new stat block or if it was written to justify the change after the fact. I strongly suspect the latter, so it's pretty obvious where it leads the reader... Jay What exactly is your point here? That they should ask permission before making miniscule changes to their own game? Or are you simply blasting them for writing an article? I mean, this is a pretty simple process. It probably began with a signficant number of people complaining about older stat blocks being too mashed together. But even if that's NOT true (which I would tend to doubt), they made a change, people on the internet countered with "change is dumb you're dumb I hate you," and they had an article written that basically says "this is why we made the changes we did, and here are the reasons that this way works better than the old way." At this point it just sounds like you're being contrary. If they hadn't had an article, more likely than not there'd have been a backlash of "They're not even TRYING to defend their money-grubbing statblock scheme," and now that they have, it's cries of "Propoganda!" It was a well written article describing the problems with existing statblocks and documenting a well-formulated plan for resolving them. What else would've made it better?
JBW 07-12-06, 05:57 AM	My point, Tuna, is that their article did little to objectively compare the new and the old stat blocks. It's all rosy towards the new and entirely critical of the old. Further, it concentrated its scorn on the old condensed block found in adventures rather than the typical spread used in the older MMs. In effect, it is an apples-to-oranges propaganda spin, and I don't buy it. They should have just said: "The new spread is what we want." rather than "The new spread is what you want!" Jay
obrysii 07-12-06, 09:43 AM	They should have just said: "The new spread is what we want." rather than "The new spread is what you want!" But they're the company! We're supposed to accomidate their needs and wants! :P Oh wait. WE are the ones paying for the content. Shouldn't WE decide how things go? If the majority dislikes the new format, wouldn't it make economic sense to use the old format, if it would help sales? I don't know about you, but I, as well as all of my group, aren't even considering buying the new MM, simply because it contains the new format. And sadly, the content of other books does not warrent purchase if the monsters (usually a big selling point for me) contained within are written in that new block. Let's hope WoTC starts using their brains and get their act together.
babysamurai 07-12-06, 10:03 AM	If the majority dislikes the new format, Correction - if YOU dislike like the new format. Last time I checked, you, as one person, are not the majority. Just as many people, myself included, actually prefer the new format. As you are obviously so vehemently opposed to the new format, just reformat any creatures in the new format, into the old.
Biomage 07-12-06, 10:38 AM	Let's hope WoTC starts using their brains and get their act together. My initial reason for starting this thread was to present my opinion and find out if others felt the same way. I believe that WOTC pays attention to what is being said on the boards. If an overwhelming majority of people are displeased with the new format, I think they will consider changing it. However, your argument isn’t well supported when you end it with insults. As you are obviously so vehemently opposed to the new format, just reformat any creatures in the new format, into the old. I don’t like the new stat block. But, there is no way I am going to go to the trouble of reformatting it. That would defeat my argument that I think the new stat block is inconvenient. Reformatting an entire book isn’t convenient either. I can live with it the way it is. But I will think twice before buying another MM. That is how I will make the biggest statement my displeasure of the new format. Besides, I spend way too much money on WOTC :) . Overall, I think my biggest problem with MMIV is that it is an unexpected representation of Monster Manuals, mostly for the lack of original content. A better name for the book would have been Monster Ecologies. If you look back at all of the Monster Manuals, Monstrous Compendiums, Fiend Folios and Creature Crucibles, they were largely filled with new content that had not been previously presented in their respective editions. They did not include dozens of maps of sample layers or sample encounters. They were filled with Monsters, as the name would suggest. What do I want in a Monster Manual? I would like to see a manual, cram-packed with 1 monster per page, giving me 300+ pages of crunchy goodness :D . But I know that isn't going to happen. Unlike some people, I don't expect WOTC to cater to my exact taste. If they did, Faction War would have never occured :eek: , Eberron would simply not exist :confused: and Planescape would be the best selling campaign world for D&D :dancin: .
babysamurai 07-12-06, 10:43 AM	What do I want in a Monster Manual? I would like to see a manual, cram-packed with 1 monster per page, giving me 300+ pages of crunchy goodness :D . But I know that isn't going to happen. Unlike some people, I don't expect WOTC to cater to my exact taste. If they did, Faction War would have never occured :eek: , Eberron would simply not exist :confused: and Planescape would be the best selling campaign world for D&D :dancin: . Oh, I definitely agree with that. The only thing I like about the new MM is the format. Everything else sounds like rubbish (including most of the actual creatures) - sample this, sample that...hate it.
obrysii 07-12-06, 11:09 AM	Correction - if YOU dislike like the new format. Last time I checked, you, as one person, are not the majority. Just as many people, myself included, actually prefer the new format. As you are obviously so vehemently opposed to the new format, just reformat any creatures in the new format, into the old. Correction - Last time I checked, many people, as in people who regularly make monsters in the monsters forum, equate to closer to a majority than you seem to think. And I'm not going to pay for material I have to rebuild.
yonman 07-12-06, 11:14 AM	Well, I'm going to have to agree with the poster on everything he stated already. I usually don't rant about books and supplements, but I am disappointed with this book as well. I mean $35.00 for a book that has 1/2 as much new creatures in it as the past books? What's the point. They're attempt at making old races with character classes playable by newbies by incorporating already pre-existing templated ones is kinda silly. WotC is just trying to make it easier for new players but I disagree that it should have been in the monster manual. I also don't like the new format, again WotC is trying to make it more "new user" friendly by changing the format to more storyline creatures. I don't like the fact that I can never find out where these creatures live... I spend a lot more time trying to figure out the stats because they moved everything around from the past books. What was the point of that? Put movement here, put HP here, put abilties here...it's like buying the next version of a college text book only to find out that they just moved all of the chapters around. Well, the only thing I did like was the Knowledge rolls, I kinda don't understand how they came up with these numbers, as they explained it somewhat in the beginning, but they still don't add up to the creature's HD.
babysamurai 07-12-06, 11:16 AM	And I'm not going to pay for material I have to rebuild. I like rebuldiing. That's why I'm reformatting all the old creatures into the new format. Oh, and the Monsters Forum does not represent the majority of people who play this game. But I agree with everything else you feel about the new MM.
General_Ridley 07-12-06, 12:54 PM	Hey mate, I read earlier today that you said you were converting the demons and demon lords in FC:I to the old MM format. I was wondering if it wasn't too much trouble, if you could send me a copy of those when you are done eh? I'm with you on this, the old format was more neat and tidy looking. sure. Haven't got the book yet, but I've already done each demon that's shown in the previews. Once I have the book, I'll convert my handwritten notes into a Word document. Then I'll be done. I'll send them over when I've got that far.
Kenzuki 07-12-06, 01:36 PM	sure. Haven't got the book yet, but I've already done each demon that's shown in the previews. Once I have the book, I'll convert my handwritten notes into a Word document. Then I'll be done. I'll send them over when I've got that far. Awesome General Ridley, you rock! :D
General_Ridley 07-12-06, 01:41 PM	just drop me a PM in a couple weeks to remind me, hopefully I'll have the book by then. and it's really no problem. about 15 minutes a monster is all it takes. And there aren't too many in Fiendish Codex, from the Table of Contents
Kenzuki 07-12-06, 01:55 PM	No problam, one of the main things about the stupid new system they use is they don't show how much bonus hp they got from Con et cetera.
Nature_King 07-12-06, 03:58 PM	3 fey all gay. they are all mediocre at best and evil useless and not needed in any campaign I am so dissapointed.
obrysii 07-12-06, 05:40 PM	3 fey all gay. they are all mediocre at best and evil useless and not needed in any campaign I am so dissapointed. You should be wise not to throw around the word "gay" ...people will take offense. It is also not a sign of intelligence to be using such a word as an insult.
Kenzuki 07-12-06, 06:26 PM	What is up with the little demonic squirrels? :eek:
bholdr_mage 07-12-06, 07:58 PM	Someone mentioned about the past MM's being more crunchy and well, worthwhile. I haven't looked at the MMIV yet, and quite honestly from the art of the monsters and the table of contents I'm not too thrilled about it. The MM1 was awesome, the MM2 stank like 3 day old rotten eggs, and the MM3 was pretty cool. I'm looking at all these monsters from 2nd edition and going...man, these monsters were awesome. Where are they now? I wasn't too impressed with Fiendish Codex either, even though I still purchased it. Regardless of who likes the new stat blocks or not (I'm indifferent as I can highlight the treasure, terrain, etc if it's not in the stat block...I normally do a spreadsheet on what monsters are from what environment for random encounters anyways). Writing in my book is a good way to keep notes and remind myself what I've done as a DM so I don't repeat myself. But one thing is for certain: Most on this thread at least agree that they could have done without the drow class leveled fluff and orcs and the like. I'm probably the king of fluff, but when I buy a monster manual, I want crunchy monsters; and lots of them. :D Wizards of the Coast...if you are paying attention to your customers, please adjust certain things in the future to not only increase your sales, but help us in our games and continue with this game for another 30 years. Sam Walton, founder of Wal-mart, said it best: "The boss, or the customer doesn't care if you just opened business or have been around for a hundred years;" if the customer doesn't buy your product, they WILL put you out of business. Also, make a Bodak and a Hippogriff mini.
Part-Human2 07-12-06, 09:40 PM	Can somebody break down the page count into new material and recycled material (i.e. reprinted monsters or existing monsters with class levels)? Just how many critters in how many pages are we talking about?
celtredleg 07-12-06, 10:06 PM	Oddly enough, I was not planning on buying this one for one big reason, I wont use a monster I dont have a mini, or at least a close approximation. Now it sounds like I can use a lot of it. I like monster manuels. I also loke NPC books. Yes I can stat, and templ;ate and all that other stuff. But sometimes, I fail of insperation, and need a bit of boost. I am a shameless plagerizer, I will steal ideas from anywhere that works in my game. So, it now looks like I have to start trying to figurte out how to buy the new minis set, and a monster book. Wes, good to see you in a thread, havent read anything by you for a while. I still hate that I had to drop your ganm, is it really 2 years ago now?? Anyway, if you have an opening, or are looking for a game, PM me. Or just to say hi if you like.
obrysii 07-12-06, 10:10 PM	Can somebody break down the page count into new material and recycled material (i.e. reprinted monsters or existing monsters with class levels)? Just how many critters in how many pages are we talking about? Looks like there is directly 28 pages of recycled material. This is not including new monsters that have class levels...or sample encounters...and going solely on the ToC.
Cainne 07-12-06, 11:42 PM	You know after looking through the MMIV after buying it (I have a weakness... so sue me). I actually didn't find it to be TOO bad, i dare say, i even liked it. I like a lot of the new monsters including the dragon spawn and the fluff is very good and I do like a LOT of the artwork. Now i do agree they redid a lot of monsters, but i was surprised to find more new monsters than i thought even after looking at the index. Now its not a perfect release of course, but i dont think its horrible and i actually find the new stat block helpful, it'll take some getting used to of course, but i dont mind it. Haven't cracked open secrets of Xendrik yet but as i've liked most of the eberron books, i'll probably like that as well.
Vaalingrade Ashland 07-12-06, 11:45 PM	Correction - if YOU dislike like the new format. Last time I checked, you, as one person, are not the majority. There's a hell of a lot more than him, Timmy. That said, the form for the blocks, being more linear and easier to physically read is nice -- For NPCs. The actual content, specifically breaking up the feats and creating the wholly useless 'Attack Options' line as well as ditching Environment, Treasure and LA/Advancement (from all the examples I've seen) from the block frankly sucks for almost all monster uses. Advancing, Leveling or Templating a monster from that block is a pain and a half. Personally, I stat monsters in the linear (MM3.5) block and then if its an NPC that I'll be using, I'll port it into a modified version of the DMGII block. My retooled block: Character Name CR X Gender race class level AL Size type Initiative: +x; Senses: Spot +x, Listen +x Languages: Common, et all ------------------------------------------------------------ AC x (10 + Dex), touch x, flat-footed x HP x (x HD); DR Immune Resist ; SR Fort +x, Ref +x, Will +x ------------------------------------------------------------ Speed x ft. Melee: Weapon +x (damage/crit. range) Ranged: Weapon +x (damage/crit range) Base Attack/Grapple: +x/+x Class Features: Spells (Caster level; +x ranged touch) 0th (dc x) - 1st (dc x) - 2nd (dc x) - 3rd (dc x) - Barred Schools if any Spell-Like Abilities: At will – x/day – ------------------------------------------------------------ Abilities Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha SQ Feats Feat 1, feat 2, feat 3 Skills skill +x, skill +x, skill +x Possessions (xgp xsp xcp) combat gear -- other items -- Spellbook spells prepared, plus spell, spell, spell (if any) I more or less just fully removed the useless crap from the new block -- its still useless for actual monsters for the DM to actually use in anyway but out-of-the-book though.
babysamurai 07-13-06, 04:15 AM	There's a hell of a lot more than him, Timmy. Is that a bad South Park reference, Nancy-boy?
obrysii 07-13-06, 10:47 AM	Please. Stop the flaming. You still haven't addressed the matter than there is a sizeable portion of the population (ie, the majority) who dislike the new format, babysamurai.
babysamurai 07-13-06, 11:03 AM	You still haven't addressed the matter than there is a sizeable portion of the population (ie, the majority) who dislike the new format, babysamurai. Oh, I'm sure there is a sizeable portion that dislikes the new format. I'm just wondering why you assume that the majorty of D&D players worldwide dislike it? There are people on this planet, besides those who visit these boards, that play this game. ...Thank god.
obrysii 07-13-06, 11:24 AM	Oh, I'm sure there is a sizeable portion that dislikes the new format. I'm just wondering why you assume that the majorty of D&D players worldwide dislike it? There are people on this planet, besides those who visit these boards, that play this game. ...Thank god. And of all of them that I have spoken to, the vast majority cannot stand to use the new format. Especially if they are the types that build monsters.
babysamurai 07-13-06, 11:31 AM	And of all of them that I have spoken to, the vast majority cannot stand to use the new format. Especially if they are the types that build monsters. That's cool. I, however, had the opposite experience.
Freakboy 07-13-06, 12:09 PM	And of all of them that I have spoken to, the vast majority cannot stand to use the new format. Especially if they are the types that build monsters. Indeed, and the vast majority of people I have spoken to who play the game love the new format. Especially if they are the types that build monsters. As is the case with your sample, neither population size is big enough to say the majority of DnD players think anything. The real proof either way will depend on the sales of supplements that have the new format for monsters in them. I have friends in at least 6 other states who play DnD and they have all told me that in their areas the new formats are being recieved with great enthusiasm. I happen to also think the new formats make running monster encounters significantly easier. It took me a little adjustment to know where to look for things, but now it is much easier than the old statblocks for me. There is nothing wrong with disliking the book, but you shouldn't make assumptions about the majority of DnD players unless you actually have the sales and market research data to support your blanket statements.
babysamurai 07-13-06, 12:12 PM	Indeed, and the vast majority of people I have spoken to who play the game love the new format. Especially if they are the types that build monsters. As is the case with your sample, neither population size is big enough to say the majority of DnD players think anything. The real proof either way will depend on the sales of supplements that have the new format for monsters in them. I have friends in at least 6 other states who play DnD and they have all told me that in their areas the new formats are being recieved with great enthusiasm. I happen to also think the new formats make running monster encounters significantly easier. It took me a little adjustment to know where to look for things, but now it is much easier than the old statblocks for me. There is nothing wrong with disliking the book, but you shouldn't make assumptions about the majority of DnD players unless you actually have the sales and market research data to support your blanket statements. Well said.
Zyrusticae 07-13-06, 01:04 PM	I just have to put a vote in here... I hafta say, it really shocks me just how some people can despise the new statblock format so much. Really, it's so much easier to use than the old mashed-up thingamabob that I can't help but wonder what the hell they were thinking when they made that thing up in the first place. Being able to read all the relevant information in the same place just makes so much more sense than listing everything one-by-one - I mean, anyone can just list everything off in a mashed up block of text. There's just no organization to it, regardless of whether or not there's a standard order to it all - it's still a hard-to-read, mashed up block of text. Now, maybe I'm a little biased as I'm a relatively new DM and never got my eyes adjusted to the textblocks of stat-ness, but I still think that some people are just disliking change for the sake of change, which is rather silly and immature, IMO. As for the book itself, I have yet to see it, so I'll reserve judgement until then. And yeah, using "the majority agrees with me" as an argument is never a good one unless it's with a topic where it's clearly obvious that the majority agrees with you - in this case, it's about a single released DnD publication and the content within that publication we're talking about, and as far as I'm concerned, unless you have contact with every single DnD player and DM around the world, you can't just *assume* that everybody agrees with your opinion on such a trivial matter, regardless of how many people you've seen agree with you on a *message board*. Thank you, and good day to you, sirs.
JBW 07-13-06, 04:26 PM	There is nothing wrong with disliking the book, but you shouldn't make assumptions about the majority of DnD players unless you actually have the sales and market research data to support your blanket statements I'm sure that WotC won't share any of that data since it might leand insight into what they are really trying to do. They want to sell more to new customers because the research data shows that the current customer base is too small and groth there is effectively insignificant. The research shows that they really need to rebuild their base from the ground up - with new players - to stay ahead. Existing players that don't want to play along are - in their eyes - acceptable losses. Business think, pure and simple. I'll never again pay money for a WotC product. Jay
Kenzuki 07-13-06, 04:58 PM	Have you noticed that in the Dragons of Faerun book, it says they will be using the classical Monster Manual layout?
obrysii 07-13-06, 05:51 PM	Have you noticed that in the Dragons of Faerun book, it says they will be using the classical Monster Manual layout? Heh. We'll have to see what they mean by that. If the monsters contained within are in the old format, I may just have to pick it up.
yonman 07-13-06, 06:09 PM	The real proof either way will depend on the sales of supplements that have the new format for monsters in them. There is nothing wrong with disliking the book, but you shouldn't make assumptions about the majority of DnD players unless you actually have the sales and market research data to support your blanket statements. You can't base the sales and market research nor the amount of sales on this kind of item. It's a book, we buy it cuz it's the newest thing out there, but we can't exactly return it in good faith, especially if it was already open. I'm sure some book stores would let you, but the majority of places I buy my books are small specialty stores. It's not the kind of book that new people are going to buy, its something existing players will get so the numbers won't change. You'll never need 2 anyway so the # of sales won't necessarily increase/decrease. Anyway, you only need one, so once you buy it the sales is already completed. Like people have already stated, it's just good business techniques for a large million dollar company. It isn't anything I wouldn't do myself if I were the CEO, but its not a good thing. They're just trying to appeal to individuals who need more help creating adventures rather than introducing more new material (which is harder to do and takes up more pictures, etc.). Makes perfect sense from a business standpoint but I knew it would happen sooner or later.
Tarlyn Alurach 07-13-06, 06:34 PM	I guess I wasn't the only one who found MM4 to be highly disappointing. I got a good look at it a couple days ago and while there are some interesting monsters, there simply wasn't enough for me to shell out $30+ for this book. I had the feeling that it was more like "See what we can do when we level up monsters!" So far, I don't know of anyone that's going to buy it. We love the artwork, but we all feel the same way...Sorry Wizards...This was a bad product that someone should have stopped.
Magius_Rerecros 07-13-06, 06:56 PM	The main two things that I don't like about MMIV is that they don't give the Environment portion, and they don't tell you what kind of HD a monster has for if you want to advance it yourself. I realize that you can figure out what kind of HD it is yourself, but that's just a pain. Otherwise, the MMIV isn't that bad. It's got some cool monsters in it, though I don't own the book yet. I just browsed through it recently at a bookstore.