I am really impressed with the Monster Manual. I have all five editions of the MM plus the D&D Creature Catalog. The 5E one is my new favorite.
One of the things I liked are the options that were missing from the previews. An option for dragons to cast spells. An option for fiends to summon other fiends. An option for PCs to become lycanthropes or vampires. Special magic items monsters can make. Spells they can cast in larger group rituals. Templates to put over other monsters.
And that is on top of so many classic monsters jammed into one volume. If not a real world animal or dinosaur or an NPC than each monster has at least half a page of ecology and then the stat block. Some monsters have a couple of different versions.
The art really stands out. The werewolf at the start of the lycanthropes is wild looking. I like the funny art in the table of contents and the index, especially the otyugh with an outhouse perched on his body.
Really good stuff.
I agree that the art is amazing. Really blows the PHB art out of the water. I also appreciate that lots of the major monsters have adventure hooks, some of the ideas could drive an entire campaign if need be. Some things that are missing that I thought would be in it (but will most likely make an appearance in the DMG) is there's no rules for converting Monsters into Player Characters or any real guide to making your own monsters (though, I suppose its not hard to figure out...I've been doing it for awhile anyway). Also, there's a lack of random encounter tables. Again, I assume this will be present in the DMG.
I agree. I've only been able to scan through the first 10 or so pages, but I absolutely love what I'm seeing so far.
I'm running the Isle of Dread converted for 15th level PCs. The aarakocra/garoyle feud is going to show up on the island. Also, probably some kenku who steal from the aarakocra and envy them their flight and wings.
Kravell wrote:
Totally agree. I just picked up my copy and I'm loving everything from the artwork (checkout the Wererat lol) to the monster ecology... and it's not just monster ecology but behaviors, special traits and descriptions of variances among other flavorful text. It's RAD! The miscellaneous creature appendix in the back will be quite handy as well, there's even a statblock for an Awakened Shrub 
My only complaint is that the overall monster CR is heavily skewed toward lower level encounters. I suppose that's been true for a long while, though I hope we get more monster entries for higher level characters in the future.
Kravell wrote:
It's exceedingly pretty. The art quality is both very consistant and very awesome.
I feel the statblocks are functional and clear, and generally take up as much space as needed and no more.
I do miss the slightly more interesting quirky tricks of 4E, but difference in systems.
The fluff and descriptions could be a bit more in depth in places, but generally very good. I particually love the take on Aboleths and Kraken and the links you can infer from them (The Krakens were created to fight the Aboleths?)
I was a bit fuzzled by the lack of Monsters/CR guide, but that already exists as a download on the D&D site.
http://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/dnd/MM_MonstersCR.pdf
So can't complain too much.
It is a stunning (and very large) book. I just swung by from work to my FLGS to pick up my copy.
Overall, without actually perusing, its a gorgeous book, the colors and layout are probably the best I have ever seen in any MM/Bestiary type game book.
I predict this one will win awards.
Kravell wrote:
The artwork is my favorite from any Monster Manual. It's kinda nice to be in an era where every page has color artwork. Hasn't always been that way.
So cool they let out the seams a bit and gave us 32 pages more (352 for the price of 320).
I like the stat blocks for this game. Arrangment, format, presentation, all that jazz 
.
Love the post-it field notes.
The lore ain't bad either. I especially like how they tackle the subject one point at a time.
I don't think FFSAA likes 5th Edition guys.
Good artwork, though.
I wonder why they decided to go with an understated way of announcing the name of the game. I mean, the cover says MONSTER MANUAL, then has 'D&D' above and in smaller letters (below) 'Dungeons & Dragons'. And, 'A menagerie for the world's greatest roleplaying game'.
Heck, they've got the most recognizable name in the business, why not flaunt it? Subtle is the way they wanna go? That's nuts.
Swede1985 wrote:
Took a look at it today at my local game store,. I dont like the art in 5th edition at all, I am not saying its bad, some of its really good and I appreciate that the vast majority is pictures I have never seen before, I just really dont like the style. The contents in my opinion were ok, pretty good actually, but for a 1st MM (and I am assuming there will be many (( I hope)) to come after) I thought there were just too many of the higher end monsters in it. What made me put it back on the shelf and walk away is, for as good as it is (and it is pretty darn good), its just not $50 plus tax good. not even close. will likely get a knock off from some interwebs store ... later. when there is more of 5th ed out.
FYI The Monster Manual page has a Monster By CR Index available for download;
http://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop-games/rpg-products/monster-manual
Plaguescarred wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
Swede1985 wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
JDizzleton wrote:
The 4th edition Monster Manual is still the most impressive to me- art wise. A toast to Stacy Longstreet!
ArkPanda wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
ArkPanda wrote:
Which artist is doing the cartoons in this book and the PHB? I think those are great.
Love the book overall. However, curently playing the Saltmarsh trilogy as playest. Was going to adjust the monsters when tehy can out but disappointingly the sahuagin are very vanilla. No light sensitivity, no underwater blind sense, no freshwater vulnerability, and no underwater raking with feet claws as a bonus action. There are a lot of very basic monsters, it just seems odd to have taken one of the few that was interesting and edit it into homogeneity. Easy enough to house rule - I already did - but seems a shame to have missed the opportunity to do them justice.
Also - none of the undersea races use tridents! Given how dodgy the trident is, maybe it was only included as a separate weapon in the PHB due to an editing error?
pauln6 wrote:
Kravell wrote:
pauln6 wrote:
Been impressed with it so far other than a few pieces of art I don't really care for but that's just a personal preference. I did find a pair of pages with smeared ink. It's in a straight line across both pages so I suspect a roller on the printing press either had excess ink on it or the ink in that area wasn't fully dry so the roller caused it to streak. It does make a couple words very hard to read but overall it's not a major issue and it's not on any stat blocks just some ecology areas. While I would have prefered no blemishes it's not bad enough to get it replaced (like some of the ones here have posted that they had). I can't blame wotc for that as it seems these issues are rare for the total books printed and it's not the first time I've had books (or comics) with similar (or worse) issues.
From an art perspective, I agree that this is definitely one of the best, if not THE best MM to date. While I'm not a fan of a few pieces, it's very good overall and has a nice consistency.
Entries I feel could have been more fully or better depicted are:
Carrion crawler (has very little detail), marilith (very vanilla and non-frightening), hobgoblin (very cartoony), owlbear (very plain for such a classic monster), and shadow (simply poor).
This is being overly nit-picky, however, as I feel that the vast majority of the art is very well done.
While the pieces I like are far too numerous to list, the one's that especially stand out for me are:
Spectator (creeeeepy), balor, dragon turtle, fomorian, efreeti, marid, githyanki, harpy, merrow, mummy (a favorite), pixie (fantastic), salamander, skeleton, and wraith. This is all my own opinion of course.
A monster by CR table should have also been a must too.
Angel7 wrote:
I'm glad to hear a lot of people are loving it.
As I have stated here before; even if I never play or run 5e, I want this MM. 
The only problem I have with the new stat blocks I've seen is the return to just listing PHB spells caster creatures have. I don't like the DM busy work of looking all that up, and I also don't like monsters having the exact same spells PC's have access to. It's just too predictable. One of my favorite things about DMing 4e was that even seasoned players were always kept guessing as to what exactly a lowly goblin shaman, or a godlike lich were going to cast. It was all just very different than PHB spells, and it didn't take up a ton more space, either.
I'm still buying it, if for nothing else than to have a great collection of fun stuff to read and awesome creature illustration.
seti wrote:
The art is great and I like the style of keeping most monsters and their stat box on the same page. It's my favorite MM. The Variant sidebars such as demons summoning demons takes me back. I lost some of my favorite characters to multiplying demons back in the day. Good times. A few legendary monsters will get a boost in my games. Lord Soth, Strahd, and Kas aren't your average unndead. At least Acererak got a little boost even if your average demilichs' CR are less than lichs' nowadays. I'm surprised by the size adjustments for demons and giants. I've always thought most giants should be huge but being the minis fan that I am, my huge Nalfeshnee and Glabrezu minis will still get some use. I'm curious about the reason to change monster sizes. Maybe it might have something to do with game balance for grapple feats and designer concepts.
PsiD wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
I don't have the new MM yet, but a quick look at my old AD&D MM (1977), I see that Type VI demons (aka Balors) and Pit Fiends are both 12' tall, which is taller than a hill giant (10.5' tall), and the same height as a stone or fire giant (i.e. 12' tall). So, at least from a traditional viewpoint, having giants and the greater fiends the same size is just fine, and making that size be Huge doesn't seem a problem.
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
Llenlleawg wrote:
Ohmigosh, the Erinyes art is amazing! Robert, the owner of the game store we all play D&D at (The Armchair Adventurer, Honolulu, HI) flipped to that page to show us, and a collective delighted gasp went up from the crowd. No gratuitous nudity at all, but we all -LOVE- the art for that bad girl! Well done WotC, you tried something different with that painting, and it really wowed us!
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
ArkPanda wrote:
There are many things I like about the new Monster Manual. I like the good long descriptions, they are a great creative boost as a DM. I'm sad there isn't more consistent ecology, habitat, and community information. I am most disappointed though in the overall impression that the art projects. Almost all of the gendered monsters' images (recognizable humanoids...) are MALE. The text is very gender neutral, in fact there is a lessening of some of the strength of the monsters who used to be only one gender (minotaurs are now both). So the overall statement of the book is that foe are male. I am so so disappointed that there couldn't have been a better balance of male and female images.
Most monsters don't wear clothing so they are portrayed as gender neutral. If this was a Monster Manual from the 70s, they could comfortably show breasts and genetalia, but that doesn't fly nowadays. Mariliths have their chests covered and devils don't have their junk exposed. Parents would have a fit.
Added: please disregard. You said humanoids, which are clothed. My mistake.. awkward..
Yeah, dont want no "junk" in my books, I am good.
I must have been distracted by how impressed I was with the female images in the book to realize that there weren't actually a fair enough number of them.
To be fair, many of the creatures depicted could be female. I'm not about to sex a dragon, beholder, zombie, owl bear, etc.
This book seems to be currently sold out on amazon.com.
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
I'm in the process of reading through the Monster Manual. It's great. I have a few concerns--for example, I don't think sahuagin or other aquatic monsters should be low level threats, because low level players almost never have underwater adventures. Those typically happen mid-levels. So that seems out of whack to me. In fact, many of the Challenge Ratings are kind of head scratching. The bugbear seems deadlier than an ogre, so why is it only CR 1 and the ogre is CR 2? That said, I haven't played tested any of this, so my opinion isn't worth much. And CR is meant to be guideline for encounter building. It's ultimately superfluous. Those quibbles aside, the writing and the art are both top notch. I literally could not believe the quality of the book when I opened it up and starting flipping through it. An amazing accomplishment by the team at WotC.
ORC_Cricket wrote:
abs1nth, I read your post before it was deleted... there was reason to delete it.
Sorry that you feel silenced by that happening, but perhaps the issue is one of you having not read the code of conduct yet and so not realizing that what you said was in violation of said code?
Also, it is kind of frowned upon to discuss forum moderation as you are doing in a post that I haven't quoted because it will probably be deleted too.
THEMNGMNT wrote:
I'm not so quick to give this MM an easy pass. Sure if you compare it to the last two editions it kills them. The 5e MM also has a great selection of monsters, but it does have its points of failure.
For example, I think the demons and devils still suffer from the white wash that 4e gave them. The Pit fiend is a meat bag and nothing to be feared anymore by high level characters. They took away his Wish power and several of his other innate powers. The teleport nerf is worse than a dimension door. There is also no mention of the Dark Eight. Demons and Devils lack their innate spell powers and they don't even bother to provide variant spell casting options like they did for the dragons.
It's obvious to me that some monsters got worked on more than others. The undead are great. Heck I even like the Shadow's strength drain. Energy drain isn't bad, but I'll certainly make it permanant in my game until a restoration spell is cast.
In terms of story and traditional D&D lore it ranks second behind the 2e MM.
Llenlleawg wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
abs1nth wrote: