Ok...they wanted to reduce the previos multitude of monters that filled up a lot of manuals (five Monster Manuals, exactly), but this mass extermination is too excessive!
First...where are metallic dragons?I saw only chromatic dragons in Monster Manual...metallic dragons are only mentioned.
Second: the titans? they are all extinct? where are they?
But it's impossible to enumerate all the old Monsters Manual's monsters aren't included in the 4th ed Monsters Manual.
The athach, the achaierai, the barghest, the behir, the cockatrice, the couatl...and the fiends?where are the babau, the dretch and the erinni?
Hoping in a Monster Manual II...
4th ed. is the end of power playering...but is a godsend for TrueRolePlayers said the 3.5's rules are "too and too complicated" or munchkins who want super PCs with super stats, super hit points etc.
PCs will become all identical! All with high intelligence, wisdom, strenght, charisma etc.
Oh yeah, we're all beatiful, strong and smart!
Bah!
I think I'll never play 4th edition...
Back In topic...I don't like monters descriptions...4 lines for a beholder is too little, and he's not the only one...
2e had over 20 monster manuals. Granted most of them only had 60 or so monsters, but that's because we got to find out what they eat, how the reproduce, and all kinds of neat stuff like random encounter tables. And they were cheap! $10 is my kind of D&D book. Adjusted for inflation that's around $15 in today's dollars. The only problem was the looseleaf part.
Personally I like the hp bonus up front instead of at every level, and adding half your level to AC, saves, and skill checks. And I plan on making reserve feats for some of the at-will spells. And I think I'll make some 3.5 epic destiny style PrCs. But that's as much 4e as I'm going to use. The rest will be taken from OD&D, AD&D and 3e.
I've read the 4th ed Monter Manual...and I think it's too...empty.
Ok...they wanted to reduce the previos multitude of monters that filled up a lot of manuals (five Monster Manuals, exactly), but this mass extermination is too excessive!
First...where are metallic dragons?I saw only chromatic dragons in Monster Manual...metallic dragons are only mentioned.
Second: the titans? they are all extinct? where are they?
But it's impossible to enumerate all the old Monsters Manual's monsters aren't included in the 4th ed Monsters Manual.
The athach, the achaierai, the barghest, the behir, the cockatrice, the couatl...and the fiends?where are the babau, the dretch and the erinni?
Hoping in a Monster Manual II...
Agreed. I like 4th ed. Makes a DM's life easier. A spartan MM doesn't. There are some critical staples from 3.5 and even earlier editions they forgot to post. They did say they wanted to stick to monsters that where popular to fight and seemed easily recognized (dropping allot of strange ones that made little sense to use). Despite the fact you can customize and create new ones as they suggest (even state players should never be able to read the MM and know what they are fighting) this book no matter how you spin it is flimsy. They could have at least put all the monster builder pieces together in this book rather than 80% of it scattered in the DMG and rest in MM (even this most crucial piece to customize was not fully complete by a long shot).
I suggest a coherent monster building engine (not just relying on dm's to 100% wing it design and change what they want and dont want) with enough material to accurately describe and create monsters of your own. For now we must use the suggestion to remake existing monsters from MM with what little they provided to do so and/or wait for yet more books/web updates.
"Within the pages of this core rulebook for the 4th Edition DUngeons & Dragons Roleplaying game lurk nearly 500 fearsome and deadly monsters . . ."
From the Monster Manual v.3.0 (224 pages):
"Over 500 fearsome foes" (in big, bold letters).
The MM v.3.5 doesn't say but at 320 pages, it prolly had the same (if not more) monsters as its predecessor (v.3.0).
Between editions, the number of monsters presented has remained about the same. The new Monster Manual isn't empty, it just isn't a carbon copy of the previous one. I'd be disappointed if this were the case.
No metallic dragons this time but the dragonspawn look interesting. I wonder if these are the same as the Spawn of Tiamat in MM IV? I never bought that one.
From the back cover of the Monster Manual 4e:
"Within the pages of this core rulebook for the 4th Edition DUngeons & Dragons Roleplaying game lurk nearly 500 fearsome and deadly monsters . . ."
From the Monster Manual v.3.0 (224 pages):
"Over 500 fearsome foes" (in big, bold letters).
The MM v.3.5 doesn't say but at 320 pages, it prolly had the same (if not more) monsters as its predecessor (v.3.0).
Between editions, the number of monsters presented has remained about the same. The new Monster Manual isn't empty, it just isn't a carbon copy of the previous one. I'd be disappointed if this were the case.
No metallic dragons this time but the dragonspawn look interesting. I wonder if these are the same as the Spawn of Tiamat in MM IV? I never bought that one.
There's the problem: They used to be merely fearsome, but now they're deadly! They probably had to follow a safety law of how dangerous the book can be in total.
Doesn't bother me too much. They can't fit everything into one book or it would be 1,000 pages and cost $70. I'm willing to wait, even for iconic monsters. I mean they have every low level monster I could think to send after my players so I have what I need.
I would pay $70 for a Monster Manual if it meant I would get a full collection of Lycans, Dragons and Golems, with maybe a better collection of Player character Races but thats just me.
It's very good, although you might want to add an additional modifier for how powergamed your group is. I typically subtract 5 from the final EL of the monster.
No Nymphs!
That's just not right.
2e had over 20 monster manuals. Granted most of them only had 60 or so monsters, but that's because we got to find out what they eat, how the reproduce, and all kinds of neat stuff like random encounter tables. And they were cheap! $10 is my kind of D&D book. Adjusted for inflation that's around $15 in today's dollars. The only problem was the looseleaf part.
The looseleaf Monster Compendiums sucked. The later hardback Monstrous Manual was much better, and chock full of coloured Tony diTerlizzi art. The paperback annuals that followed had their ups and downs.
And to the original poster:
There are Titans in the 4E Monster Manual. They're more elemental in nature and listed with the various giants. I find them more interesting now, personally.
There are some monsters I miss, though. Bullywugs, for instance.
The looseleaf Monster Compendiums sucked. The later hardback Monstrous Manual was much better, and chock full of coloured Tony diTerlizzi art. The paperback annuals that followed had their ups and downs.
And to the original poster:
There are Titans in the 4E Monster Manual. They're more elemental in nature and listed with the various giants. I find them more interesting now, personally.
There are some monsters I miss, though. Bullywugs, for instance.
Erinyes as they appear in classical literature are in there, too. They're just called Angels of Vengeance now. Which is actually all they were in classical literature. And even though they were originally goddesses in the Greek, they were lesser goddesses.
My disappointment is that many what I consider standard creatures are gone and replaced by exotic creatures I don't use a lot or at all.
Some terrains are woefully underrepresented too.
I did like the DC guidelines for knowledge checks though.
They have fewer different types of monster now, with more options within each type. I like the three-tiered Angel of Valor, for example - an enemy that will probably become a staple in my campaigns. Giving minion versions of enemies designed to be obliterated by higher-level characters is awesome. But, come on. Who stole my blink dogs?
(Yes, I know blink dogs don't fall under the "monsters-as-enemies" thing they're doing. Don't care. Some of the most amazing enemies I've faced in D&D have been good-aligned people who didn't agree with what I was doing. So, nyah nyah, Wizards, and give me back my teleporting dachsunds!)
(Yes, I know that they aren't dachsunds.)
Edit: So help me Pelor, I will report anyone who makes a "Who Let The Dog Out" joke.
It's got about the same number of monsters 3e had, but it's missing a bunch of the normal animals (no druid, no need, I guess) and most of the aquatic enemies (which are rarely seen in most campaigns). There are some I'd like to have in there, like centaurs, frost giants, shadows, winter wolves, and bullywugs, but I think they did a pretty good job of including things. Almost every monster having several different levels/variants is a big plus for me.
On the other hand, I don't think I've ever used a mephit or couatl, so I suppose mileage varies.
Also, consider that they didn't present just one "Orc" or just one "Aboleth." I think there are fewer unique monsters but the monsters that are presented have more variety. It is nice that I don't have to apply different classes to a variety of orcs to attempt to add diversity. Still, it would have been nice to have animated objects, a full compliment of golems, etc.
Combine less fluff with more variation in single monster groups (rather than several unique monsters) and the end result is a book that seems empty when it isn't. The fluff made way for more monsters (or maybe just more monster stats, given powers and diseases seemed to take up a notable amount of room), which means more mechanics. I don't know about others, but unless I am actually going to be running a monster soon, I glance over the stats. Thus, it would have taken me several days to completely read through a 3.X MM; 4e, just a few hours. Comparable amounts of information, just not the same sort.
I do care that there are more than one type of goblin and they come in a variety of combat roles and their tactics are more than just 'swarm and die in one hit'. If I want a goblin caster I don't need to craft one by hand, I just slap on a template.
I don't think the new MM is so bad.
It's got about the same number of monsters 3e had, but it's missing a bunch of the normal animals (no druid, no need, I guess) and most of the aquatic enemies (which are rarely seen in most campaigns). There are some I'd like to have in there, like centaurs, frost giants, shadows, winter wolves, and bullywugs, but I think they did a pretty good job of including things. Almost every monster having several different levels/variants is a big plus for me.
On the other hand, I don't think I've ever used a mephit or couatl, so I suppose mileage varies.
I didn't really see the need for multiple versions of the same monster since the DMG has rules for changing monster roles and creating more advanced versions. It's a nice time saver in some cases but it would have been nicer to have had more monsters.