MM Review

Post/Author/DateTimePost
#1

andypalmer

Oct 01, 2014 9:37:37

Background: I've played DnD/D&D since before AD&D (1e), so I've seen a lot of Monster Manuals.

 

THE GOOD: The book is nice looking and well bound. The art work is well done. There is good variety in the monsters presented and they all have a good amount of background. The stats are clearly defined and flavorful special abilties have been added that both align with 5e mechanics and give the monsters that little bit extra than just base stats.

 

THE BAD: PC Race humanoids (formerly known mostly as Demi-Humans) are not present in the MM, as they were in previous editions. The "use the generic roles in Appendix B" is a very weak substitute and overall, creates an unpleasant, and unnecessary challenge for DMs who want to run an Evil aligned party. Also, while some of the entries include "leader types", there is no information on size of travel groups, lair sizes, nor the richness of "layered" leadership that existed in previous editions. There is also no detail on monster-specific treasure attributes (i.e., no coins, 50% gems, etc.); the DMG may handle this by creature type, but the omission here is worrisome.

 

OVERALL GRADE: C-

 

SUMMARY: What is in the MM is well done. The problem is in what is missing. These completely unnecessary ommissions make this product far less usable than prior editions.

#2

Grifford

Oct 01, 2014 9:57:17

As far as "travel groups" and "lair sizes", all of that is handled on the encounter-design side of things. If you want a pack of orcs, you'll specifically design an encounter using one. All a "travel group" entry would do is list the gross XP for the number of monsters and maybe a what levels such a group is easy, moderate, hard, etc. That stuff has been handled on the DMG-side of things for some time now. Also, I think the DMG is going to cover the needs for evil aligned parties.

#3

dmgorgon

Oct 01, 2014 12:19:28

After watching and reading many reviews of the MM, I also think it's getting an easy pass.  

 

As AD&D 2e player, I think are issues with the MM.

 

I think the NPC appendices are needed, but they don't go far enough.    

 

We need information like Activity Cycle, Organization, Frequency, Diet, Encounter sizes, Lair details, treasure details, etc.      A list of monsters by CR should be in the MM not wasting space in the DMG

 

 

 

 

#4

Timborama

Oct 01, 2014 13:23:25

A lot of this is DMG stuff.

 

The monster manual is just that, a manual full of monsters.

 

Whether or not that's a good thing? A bad thing? Well...

#5

andypalmer

Oct 01, 2014 13:36:24

Grifford wrote:
#6

pukunui

Oct 01, 2014 13:38:11

I would've liked to have seen knowledge DC blocks like the 4e MM had. Otherwise, I'm pretty happy with it.

#7

Quasadu

Oct 01, 2014 13:40:58

dmgorgon wrote:
#8

Rakier7

Oct 01, 2014 15:35:33

I have just started reading the MM and have noticed that basic physical descriptions of the monsters are missing from many entries.   Also, some things are mentioned in the fluff but then aren't in the stat blocks.  For example, it mentions that the Death Knight doesn't really die unless it has attoned for its transgressions, but returns.   Yet..there are no details about how long or when it returns.   Other monsters that return from the dead are given lengths of time (1d10 days, etc...) before they respawn but not the Death Knight.

 

I guess I miss the basic physical descriptions the most.   Like...how tall is the Cyclops?  What color fur does XYZ have?   Things like that.  It makes it harder to describe the monster to the player, especially with newer players who have never encountered the monster before.

#9

CyberGeek

Oct 01, 2014 15:49:44

dmgorgon wrote:
#10

lawrencehoy

Oct 02, 2014 3:12:06

Quasadu wrote:
#11

Brock_Landers

Oct 02, 2014 10:28:39

Art is too big/takes up too much space; as for the actual crunch of the monsters, I find I prefer some of the playtest versions (the playtest pit fiend is much more interesting); and I prefer my own conversions of some monsters (yugoloths, modrons, deva, salmanders, mephits).  

 

I also agree with some of the above posters about missing info (physical descriptions).  

 

Yeah, looks like the 2nd Ed MM was the peak.

#12

dmgorgon

Oct 02, 2014 10:43:38

Quasadu wrote:
#13

andypalmer

Oct 08, 2014 19:54:06

For those interested, I posted an "updated" entry for Goblins here.

 

Note: My 1e and 2e MMs are in storage, so I didn't post full details, but it's still a usable entry consistent with 5e.