# What's The Best Monster Book?



## I'm A Banana (Oct 26, 2012)

So over in the "essential books" thread (which is an exceptionally awesome thread), there emerged a point of discussion around some different expectations for what makes a good monster book. I figured it'd be good to spin off that conversation, because it's a topic I've got some Opinions on.  

My own take is that so far the best D&D monster book is the 2e _Monstrous Manual_. Fellow Poster With Opinions, [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] , thinks that the 4e monster books rock so much harder. 

What do you think? Do they both suck in comparison to the 1e Fiend Folio? Are you olde skoole and think that gnolls being gnome/troll hybrids in OD&D is and forever will be the best idea? I bet we'll get some interesting discussion out of it!

FWIW, your favorite can still have flaws. I think the 2e MM rocks the hardest, but I do think it can be improved on. Just because it's the best ever doesn't mean there isn't even more awesomeness coming up in the future!


----------



## darjr (Oct 26, 2012)

Wow, I'm really torn on this one.

I REALLY like the fiend folio and am now convinced that I NEED the 2e Monstrous Manual, but I also think that some of the 4e stats are also flavorful and add something to the monsters much like what Neonchameleon said.


----------



## Obryn (Oct 26, 2012)

Ummm...  The problem is, I want different things at different times.

(1) Crunch-heavy...  The more stat blocks there are, the fewer I will need to invent down the road.  So, from this perspective, I want maximal stat blocks for the pagecount to minimize my workload as a DM.  This is awesome in many ways, but it's not exactly enjoyable reading much of the time.

(2) Fluff-heavy, because this is more fun to read and can provide more ideas and plot-hooks.  I don't so much care about ecological niches and the like, except insofar as they will help me craft interesting adventures, but that doesn't mean it's not an entertaining way to pass a lunch break.

So when it comes down to it, I guess I want a 600-page, $30 book crammed full of stat blocks and fluff text. 

-O

EDIT: Also, I do want the rules to support the fluff.  Although it wasn't as visible as it should have been to new players, you can get a lot of mileage out of characteristics like Shifty or Hobgoblins' formation fighting.  It's crunch that supports the fluff.  I don't think ecology and descriptors matter at all unless there's reasonable in-game crunch to back up the concepts in-play.  So, if gnolls are fierce and brutal, they should have abilities to represent that.

EDIT EDIT:  Basically take the 4e Monster Vault, expand it to a gigantic hardcover, give me a searchable database like DDI's Adventure Tools, and that's pretty much perfect for me.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Oct 26, 2012)

I'm going to go with 4e's Monster Vault for all the reasons in the other thread. Although I could be convinced that Threats to the Nentir Vale (a/k/a Monster Vault 2) is even better due to the implied setting.

4e is the first, and most likely only given where 5e is headed -- anyway... first and only edition of D&D to create a monster statblock that blends mechanical and flavorful details into a unified whole. A well designed, well realized 4e monster both tells and shows you how that monster behaves.

I am more than willing to give up the nit-picky simulationist details of previous editions (number appearing? percent in lair? who freakin' cares? I can make up those answers myself) for the elegance of the 4e monster approach.

Now, granted, they didn't really get grooving on this elegant monster design until MM3 and later. But with Monster Vault, they really knocked it out of the park.


----------



## Jeff Carlsen (Oct 26, 2012)

Iron Kingdoms Monsternomicon

I feel it had the right balance of fluff and crunch, giving most monsters a two page spread.


----------



## JeffB (Oct 26, 2012)

SAGA dragonlance bestiary. Best monster book presentation ever, AFAIC. I would like to see one for every campaign setting. But thats a very specific book obviously.

For D&D  I like every version, from every edition, they all have their strengths. I tend to prefer a moderate amount of generic fluff if its a generic volume of monsters.  3.0 is good in that respect.  

2E MM is the most useful for my ODD game  because it has so many monsters and its all in one book to refernce at the table, but the art leaves alot to be desired, and there are too many goofy critters in it. 

I like the 4e MM1/2 entries for coming up with exciting encounters, but I find it weak for coming up with exciting adventures, if that makes sense.  I understand the MV is a much better book, but I stopped running 4e before it came out, so IDK. 

If Ihad to choose one specific format, I think 3.0 strikes the best balance between fluff and crunch.


----------



## Treebore (Oct 26, 2012)

The 2E Monster Manual, with the Swords and Wizardry Tome of Horrors close behind. Why? Because they give me monsters at teh power level I want for my games.

I gave up on 4E within months of it coming out, so cannot speak to the 4E MM's.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 26, 2012)

Hm. Judging by what I actually use, and choose to use when I have alternatives, I'd say:

a) 1e AD&D Monster Manual. Especially for the demons & devils, Arch-Devils and Demon Princes included. Works well with all pre-3e D&D except AD&D using Unearthed Arcana - for that, the steroidal monsters of 1e Monster Manual 2 work better.

b) 4e Monster Vault, well designed monsters that make interesting combat opponents, with plenty of 'fluff'. Monster Vault: Threats to Nentir Vale also very good for NPC types.

Edit: I find the 2e Monstrous Manual art too ugly, and the lack of demons & devils greatly lessens utiility, so I got rid of that one 15 or 20 years ago.
For 3e stuff, never been a fan of 3e monsters, but the Pathfinder Bestiary is very pretty, a superior take on the 3e Monster Manual. The best 3e/PF monster stats though are in the Pathfinder Beginner Box's GM's book.


----------



## Obryn (Oct 26, 2012)

JeffB said:


> I understand the MV is a much better book, but I stopped running 4e before it came out, so IDK.



It's basically well-crafted and challenging 4e stat blocks that take the lessons learned over 4e's development seriously, combined with a nice spread of fluff text that both establishes a monster's place in the world and tells you what makes them special and interesting.  It pretty much deserves the hype it gets.

Also, it comes with hundreds of cardboard 1"-3" tokens which are simply marvelous for DMs on a budget.

Its sequel was also quite good, but not nearly as good a value and with a much lower range of levels.

-O


----------



## mach1.9pants (Oct 26, 2012)

If it counts, the latest Hacklopedia of beasts, by a country mile or eight!


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 26, 2012)

*Your tag was "All D&D"*

Since it is an officially licensed D&D derivative, my vote is for 4E Hackmaster's _Hacklopedia of Beasts_







It doesn't hold back monsters for later, doesn't try the space wasting "_1 monster per page_" shenanigans & doesn't put style over substance. It gives you monsters and LOTS of them.

If it was all RPGs, I might have gone with the 2E Warhammer Bestiary


----------



## JeffB (Oct 26, 2012)

Obryn said:


> It's basically well-crafted and challenging 4e stat blocks that take the lessons learned over 4e's development seriously, combined with a nice spread of fluff text that both establishes a monster's place in the world and tells you what makes them special and interesting.  It pretty much deserves the hype it gets.
> 
> Also, it comes with hundreds of cardboard 1"-3" tokens which are simply marvelous for DMs on a budget.
> 
> ...




Sounds like a great product. Too bad it came out two years later. Did it do a better job of incorporating iconic creatures into a single volume ( e,g, no frost giants in MM1)


----------



## SolitonMan (Oct 26, 2012)

I'm going to opine that Frog God Games' Tome of Horror Complete is the best monster book, not because of layout, stats, presentation or artwork, but because it's the only one I've ever seen that contains stats for itself.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 26, 2012)

Here's my response to Neonchameleon from the other thread (it's kind of long, but the basic takeaway is that stablocks aren't what make a monster book wonderful to me -- adventure ideas are). 

[sblock=full response]


Neonchameleon said:


> Kamikaze Midget said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




IMXP, the 4e stat blocks tell me one thing: how this thing kills my players' things. That feels a lot more narrow to me than telling me a whole lot about the creatures' place in the world. Again, a good statblock is a useful tool, and should absolutely reflect the critter's mind and behavior and organization. If I were to compare statblocks, I'd say 4e's are probably better than 2e's. But to me, a monster book needs to be much, much more than stat blocks. Statblocks alone don't make me want to use goblins. Notes like "a goblin tribe has an exact pecking order; each member knows who is above him and who is below him. They fight amongst themselves constantly to move up this social ladder." have me thinking about how a goblin turncoat might lead the adventurers to his old lair to destroy the leaders there, only to come take it over after they leave. Bits like "goblin tactics" don't bring me there. They bring me to what a fight with this guy looks like. Which is useful, but isn't enough for me to make an adventure out of.



> Comparing 2e and 4e goblin fluff/mechanics, 2e goblin fluff tells me how many goblins there are in a generic tribe.  4e goblins show me how they are expert ambushers and what the edge goblins have over most-non-goblins is at this.




I think part of this is the change in fluff between 2e and 4e, but 2e goblins aren't particularly good ambushers. They do it, they're just not any better at it than a human or a dwarf. Instead, they're organized -- you'll get hit by a dozen of them at once.

That tribe info isn't just what a tribe looks like. It's how you go from "I want there to be goblins at this point on the map" to an entire dungeon in a handful of die rolls. That's what I, as a very spontaneous DM, call *extremely useful*.

This works in combination with older D&D's method of random encounter creation. The reason you'd be looking the goblin up in the MM is because it popped up on your random monster chart (or you chose it). From there, the goblin entry gives you rules for a random encounter (4d6) and for an entire lair (4d10*10 + 1 leader and 4 assistants for every 40 goblis, + 25% chance of 10% of those with worgs + 1d4*10 worgs + 60% chance of 5d6 wolves + 20% chance of 2d6 bugbears + a shaman if you want + 160% noncombatant (60% females + 100% children)). 

If I didn't know 5 minutes ago that the party was going to encounter a goblin tonight, I now have an entire goblin tribe ready to go. That's useful information for me, either pre-prep or in the moment. Maybe it could be streamlined a little bit, but the idea of spontaneously generating a lair from a monster entry is _awesomely useful_ for me as a DM. 

The tribe's relationships (bugbears, wolves, worgs) also help me flesh out the world, develop factions, and spur further adventures. If I've got prep time, I can figure out how the worgs and bugbears might react to this goblin's little scheme to become king. If not, I at least have enough variety to keep the dungeon interesting. 



> And then there's the magic.  Good statblocks reflect the casters.  Goblin shamans hex and produce nasty clouds of pestilence.  Ogre shamans are storm shamans, using elemental thunder and lightning.  In neither case are the casters generic casters who happen to be ogres or goblins.




Sure, but that's still just more ways to murder PC's. That said, it is more useful to have all the rules for how they're going to murder the PC's in one place rather than spread out amongst different books. But the spheres listed in the 2e goblin entry for a shaman give me a broad start: they use Divination, Protection, and the reverse of Healing and Sun (so, pain and darkness). It'd be better to have an example spell or two, but it's a good start.



> A well designed 4e statblock literally shows me how a monster of that type moves and how they fight when the rubber meets the road.  And the monster entry with the multiple statblocks shows me how they organise naturally.  On their best day, the 2e Monstrous Manual will _tell_ me things like this.  But the 4e one _shows_ me and does it freely.




It shows you how it will fight.

It doesn't do anything else.

I see that as remarkably limited in comparison to what a 2e monster entry shows you. I mean, judging from 2e, goblin combat stats almost don't matter: their morale is 15, their tactics are "crude," and they run away from anything like a face-to-face fight. A goblin "fight" is likely to take all of two rounds: the first two rounds, the goblins test the mettle of the party, then one or two drop, and the rest run off to try an ambush (unless there's a gnome or a dwarf around). Fighting is one of the least interesting things that a goblin does. 



> On the other hand reading the 4e statblocks so that you can see the picture they are painting of the monsters is a skill and there should be more designers' notes on how the statblocks work.




You say skill I say chore.  I want to know more about how to use goblins in an adventure, not more about how to use them in a fight. Like I said in the other thread, making a bench without a good saw is tough, but making a bench without wanting to make a bench is impossible. A combat stat-block is a good saw, but it doesn't make me want to build a bench. The 2e monster entries are some old, rusty saws, but I can get a better toolset, and those entries make me wnat to build that bench! 



> I find the Monstrous Manual to be second rate fluff that ranks behind e.g. the 3.5 Iron Kingdoms Monsternomicon in terms of inspiring plots. And in terms of inspiring throwaway scenes, I can pick three random monsters from any 4e monster manual from the MM3 onwards, throw in a piece of terrain or two, and if I have an immediate motivation (something 4e MMs are IMO better at providing than 2e) then it'll take me less than a minute to create a good scene. That's inspiring.




Combat stat blocks don't make me want to make adventures because I'm not that interested in combat when I make adventures. Relationships between neighboring monsters? Motivations? Plots? Notes on lair-building? I can use that TONIGHT! And maybe for the next 3 months. 

4 different ways to murder a PC? *Yawn.*

That's me. And I absolutely think a good statblock is a good idea. It's never going to _replace_ the other information for me. In fact, the other information is more important to me, since I can kludge whatever rules I need, but I can't always kludge compelling adventures.



> And I don't need the monster manual to offer me the main plot of the story.  If I didn't have one I wouldn't be running the game.




Not the plot. The conflict.

I don't make up stories before I sit down and play. I want the game -- the players, the environment, the dice, the situation -- to tell me what to do. I want dramatic situations. Uppity goblins give me a dramatic situation. "Shifts" do not. 



> And fundamentally my belief that the 4e MMs are superior boil down to the fact that when I look at a humanoid monster in 2e I see a generic humanoid of a certain size.  4e I see a part of a team, moving and contributing in a certain way.




You're looking at a forest and only seeing a forest. If you drill down, you can see that each tree is unique. 

That is, goblins and orcs and githyanki are different creatures. But their difference isn't necessarily in how they kill things. The difference is in the kind of stories you can tell with them. 2e helps me tell stories with them. 4e helps me kill PC's with them. I only kill PC's within the context of a story. 



> And when I look at a 2e dragon I see a bag of hit points with claws and wings, and that can pull down a cloud of darkness.  When I look at the 4e Black Dragon below, I see something almost unstoppable that comes tearing in to the enemy from under the surface of a swamp and is inhumanly unstoppable.  It turns the lights out on the enemy, setting them up for its own attacks, and reacts to some attacks, twisting out of the way and bashing the enemy to the floor.  And its very blood is acidic and painful.




See, when I look at the 2e black dragon, I see that it hates humans, that it likes ambushes, that it can corrupt water, grow plants, spread darkness, summon insects, and tame reptiles. And suddenly I see it lurking in a town's water supply, poisoning it, sending snakes and plagues of mosquitoes up through the wells, waiting for the foolish humans to try and drive it away.

I don't see a _fight_, I see an _adventure_. I could throw my PC's into that tomorrow.

When I look at the 4e black dragon, I see something that is probably pretty good at killing things. But that doesn't tell me how to use it in my games. The 2e black dragon is a threat to all even without knowing her attack bonus or her HP total. The 4e black dragon, knowing all that, is no more than that.   



> I'm not sure what fluff other than the spells for higher level dragons (Corrupt Water, Plant Growth) there is in the 2e Monstrous Manual that isn't summarised in the statblock above or obvious from it (like Black Dragons liking to fly at night; they are black, they are lurkers, they have dark vision and they are trained in stealth - or Black Dragons liking to fight in water; they have the aquatic trait).




Do you see how the idea of the adventure I had relied on a lot of those abilities? Even those abilities don't kill people? Because killing people is perhaps the least interesting thing about a monster to me? Because stats are easy to fudge, but interesting conflict is not?

Those abilities that do not kill are important.



> So what am I missing from the 2e Monstrous Manual that makes it so good?




Mostly, you're missing that combat stats aren't the most important thing for everybody. Adventure ideas are much more useful in play to me than fightin' numbers. 

And the big reason is this: Fighting numbers are _easy to fudge_. 

But adventure ideas....man, you don't have those, and you don't have a game.
[/sblock]


----------



## Joshua Randall (Oct 26, 2012)

Your inability to derive adventure ideas from reading statblocks is your failing, not the statblocks'.


----------



## Obryn (Oct 26, 2012)

JeffB said:


> Sounds like a great product. Too bad it came out two years later. Did it do a better job of incorporating iconic creatures into a single volume ( e,g, no frost giants in MM1)



Overall, yep.  I will say they absolutely stuck with iconic monsters rather than putting in new ones.  But it's only one book, so there's also only so much space.  

List of Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition monsters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It also tends to hew towards the lower levels.  There are a few Epic-tier guys like Pit Fiends, Balors, and Ancient Dragons, but that's largely it.


----------



## DaveMage (Oct 26, 2012)

Tome of Horrors Complete is the best, IMO.

However, my all-time personal favorite remains Monster Manual II from 1E.


----------



## Jeff Carlsen (Oct 26, 2012)

Joshua Randall said:


> Your inability to derive adventure ideas from reading statblocks is your failing, not the statblocks'.




I'm dumbfounded by the absurdity and disrespect of that statement.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 26, 2012)

Joshua Randall said:


> Your inability to derive adventure ideas from reading statblocks is your failing, not the statblocks'.




Wait...whuh??


----------



## Blackbrrd (Oct 26, 2012)

The post kamikaze reposted was written very convincingly and I think it makes for much better adventure design. At the same time I have no problems seeing that 4e makes for much more varied (mechanically) encounter design. 

The question that springs to mind is: Why do I have to choose between the two? I want both! So far I am not impressed at all by the 5e monster design. In many ways it reminds me more of taking the worste from 2e and 4e and combining them. Boring stat blocks, uninteresting fluff. Instead I want a typical 4e stat block and fluff like this:


> Typically a Black Dragon will be lurking in a town's water supply, poisoning it, sending snakes and  plagues of mosquitoes up through the wells, lurking in below in the dark, waiting for it's prey to walk into it's trap.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 26, 2012)

Blackbrrd said:
			
		

> The question that springs to mind is: Why do I have to choose between the two? I want both!




Me too! I think it's possible. While I wouldn't want a stat block quite so tethered to the grid as 4e's, I think the basic lessons learned in 4e can be greatly useful in making 5e's MM something that has the best of both worlds.

To which I'd also add streamlining and making more sense of 1e and 2e's finer points of adventure generation (such as lairs, random monster tables, etc.).



			
				Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> Your inability to derive adventure ideas from reading statblocks is your failing, not the statblocks'.




I don't want to think too hard about my imaginary gumdrop elf world, guess I'm not allowed to play D&D.  

I'm not really convinced that a game about heroic adventure shouldn't include ideas for heroic adventure in its book of things that can cause you to undertake a heroic adventure. But I'm a well known lunatic and a blasphemer to boot, I'm sure, so my ideas are certainly to be burned in a pyre.


----------



## GreyICE (Oct 26, 2012)

*Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir Vale*

Starts out by describing the Nentir Vale (after the obligatory "how to use a stat block" section that so many monster manuals have forgotten about).  The design was PERFECT for inserting monsters into your campaign.  I'll just grab a short exerpt to demonstrate:

_Alien entities from a dead universe, plague demons have the
same chaotic and destructive nature as demons from the
Abyss deep within the Elemental Chaos. Unleashed upon the
natural world, they are a virulent irifection that spreads like
wildfire through a parched forest.
_
A ritual undertaken in ancient times released the
exarchs of the demon lord of a dead universe, a universe
where the demon lord succeeded in conquering
its Abyss but also inadvertently destroyed the planes
around it. Brought to the natural world, these exarchs
planned to establish the Abyssal plague, unleash hordes
of plague demons, and open the way for their demon
lord to step into this existence.

Heroes of the age stepped forward to disrupt the
ritual, and the threat of the plague demons seemed
to have been dealt with. Recently, however, one of the
exarchs escaped from its ancient prison, and the demon
lord found a host in the natural world.
Now the Abyssal plague has ignited a fever that
burns throughout the land. Plague demons of various
forms have begun to appear, threatening civilized
settlements across the Nentir Vale. The very touch of a
plague demon can pass along a debilitating disease that
can lead to death or even transformation in rare cases.
The alien disease is capable of turning humans and
other natural creatures into plague demons.

It's like, you read something like that, and you immediately have five ideas for a campaign involving the monsters.  What they do, what they are, how the heroes might stop the threat, all of that.  Right there.

The stat blocks are unbelievable.  Reading a 2E or 3E monster stat block, in retrospect, is uninspiring, and frequently an exercise in grabbing another book (Can cast Thornwall as a Druid of the 12th level, okay, lemme go grab the book that's in, oh, can cast this other spell, lemme go look that up too).  

The 4E stat block, on the other hand, perfectly captures the nature of the beast.  A simple trait that spices up combat.  A plague on their standard attack that can turn the players into a Chaos Beast if they don't cure it (And people say 4E is less lethal~) and a standardized Resistance trait for demons that represents their chaotic nature.  On top of that they have between 1-3 abilities to differentiate different strains of the beasts.  

It completely changed how I looked at monster manuals.  From bestiaries I could peruse to make encounters into adventure hooks and campaign themes built around a tight package that told the players, better than my narrative "these are all part of a central theme."


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 26, 2012)

For me personally, that MV fluff is kinda weak. I was kind of lost in the first six words there. It doesn't have a bad little adventure seed in there, but it's kind of over-the-top and overwrought. The 2e black dragon's suggestion of hating people and tainting water and prefering to wait in ambush are all things about the creature you can use to build with the creature. For the plague demons, the similar adventure hook is their diseased touch. Which can be good. But if I use plague demons, I've gotta accept a whole dead universe and the ability to cross from it to this one and some sort of exarch stirring in the elemental chaos? Man, all I have to do is planning for this one night, I don't want a whole _30-level campaign arc_, I just want a dungeon, some monsters, some NPC's, some adventure hooks, and some support for the three pillars.

It's sort of like they gave me "campaign arc," when what I wanted was "adventure ideas," y'know?

That's just me. It clearly works for you and that's awesome. Because it's awesome to include the adventure ideas with the monster stuff! And that's part of what makes 4e's MV the strongest 4e monster book IMO. I still think 2e's is better (the density and support for lairs psychology make it better in this respect for me), but the 4e MV is a stab in the right general direction.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 26, 2012)

Every monster is a story.

Correction.  Every monster is two stories.  The first story is the backstory.  Why the monster is there - which is a mix of its habitat and its motivations.  The second is the immediate story - what do they do when they meet the PCs, whether as adversaries or not.

In terms of immediate story, 4e monsters through their statblocks show you exactly what they will try and do in combat at a level of detail that kicks the arse of any previous monster manual so hard it goes flying over the goalposts.  (I said more about this in the post that prompted KM to create this thread).  In terms of confrontation, giving the monsters a few explicit skills is extremely useful, putting 3e and 4e ahead of previous editions for most mundane monsters.  On the other hand both lose ground in different ways; 3.X monsters have a nasty tendency to "Cast like an nth level wizard" which has the effect of making them wizards with prosthetic foreheads, whereas 4e is missing the monsters that behave like traps more than sentient beasts like the Lurker and Cloaker.  

I therefore give the 4e Monster Manuals _all_ a vast edge over anything in previous editions in inspiring for what to do when the monster meets the PCs.  I've been known to look at a monster stat block, almost cackle, and want to see what the PCs will do when facing _that_.  If that isn't inspiring, what is?





Then there's the backstory.  Two things are important here for inspiring stories.  Where a monster is, and what its motivation is (whether or not the motivation relates directly to the PCs).  Both Monstrous Manual and Monster vault entries are written to a fairly obvious structure; the Monstrous Manual is written with a section providing a basic overview then a school-textbook like account of Combat, of the Society, and of the Ecology.  The Monster Vault on the other hand is written to inspire.  It provides a couple of paragraphs of basic background, then normally three headed sections for each monster (standard PC races normally get two, and certain popular monsters get four).  So for example Giants get "*A Shattered Legacy*", "*Born from Furor*" and "*Titanic Leaders*", kobolds get "*Trap-Filled Warrens*", "*Creature Keepers*", "*Devious Thieves and Cunning Killers*", and "*Dragon Worshippers*" whereas Hydras get "*Born of Primordial Blood*", "*Predatory Water Dwellers*" and "*Deadly Pets*".  And always at least one of the sections deals with where you are likely to find the monsters and at least one deals with motivations.


To illustrate, here's the 2e Black Dragon entry.  4e on the other hand provides motivations and locations in the text for all the monsters.  And I believe that most people will find the following text excerpted from Monster Vault more inspiring than the 2e Monstrous Manual.Even among chromatic dragons, few share the cruelty of blacks.  A black dragon does not hunt out of a need to survive or to protect its territory.  Instead a black dragon chases and tortures prey for the pleasure it gains from inspiring fear and causing pain.  Black dragons are also among the most cowardly and cautious chromatic dragons.  A black dragon waits in ambush or attacks from concealment,  When a black dragon retreats, victims of its ambush sometimes mistake its departure for a genuine withdrawl, not realising until too late that the black is merely preparing for another assault.

[Four colours of dragon snipped]

*Driven by Greed and Ego:* The secret to understanding  chromatic dragons is comprehending their worldview. One trait unites and  informs their psychology: the belief that they are superior beings.  Dragons consider themselves more powerful, intelligent, important, and  worthy of being dominators than any other mortal creature. Chromatic  dragons are born with this sense of superiority, and it is a cornerstone  of their personalities and worldviews. Trying to humble any dragon is  like trying to convince the wind to stop blowing. To chromatic dragons,  humanoids are animals, fit to serve as prey or beasts of burden,  unworthy of respect or acknowledgment.

If one characteristic other than arrogance defines chromatic  dragons, it’s greed. Dragon hoards are the stuff of legend—enormous  piles of gold, gleaming gems, and magic items, enough wealth to buy a  kingdom. And yet dragons have no interest in commerce, despite the value  of their hoards. They amass wealth for no other reason than to have it.  A chromatic dragon’s desire to create a hoard is a psychological need,  or, arguably, a biological imperative. The source of this desire is a  mystery, but it probably lies somewhere in a dragon’s enjoyment of  possessing what others lack.

*Dangerous lairs:*  One things dragons and humanoids share is the desire to find permanent shelter.  Humanoids want a place that offers comfort and a little security.  A dragon, with its innate toughess, poor tactile senses, and tolerance for server conditions, instead chooses a home that is defensible, has multiple ways to enter and leave, and that provides the utmost security for its hoard.
Chronatuc dragons rarely construct lairs and instead find naturally occurring locations that can accommodate them
...
A chromatic dragon doesn't rely only on the natural defenses of its lair.  A dragon employs magical guardians, traps and subservient humanoids to protect its treasure.  A dragon that lacks such resources instead makes sure to place its lair in such a dangerous and remote location that none but the most audacious mortals could ever reach it.  A white dragon might lair in a cave within a massive icicle on a frozen mountainside.  A black dragon could hide wealth deep underwater in the hull of a sunken ship.​Where does an adult dragon sleep?  Wherever it likes!  And tell me that the very idea of a dragon making its lair in the hull of a sunken ship isn't inherently more inspiring than one that revels in the gloomy depths of swamps and bogs.

I picked the Black Dragon because it was a statblock I knew I could find online.  There are more.

The Monster Vault doppelganger has the section headings "*Sowers of Paranoia:"*, *"**Dedicated Impersonators:"* (including the lovely note "Some doppelgangers find this effort stressful and revert to their  natural forms when they believe that no one is looking. Still, their  ability to hold a form over time allows doppelgangers to live among  other races, developing relationships with neighbors and becoming a part  of the community without raising suspicion.") and *"**Wielders of Many Powers:"* whereas the 2e Doppelganger has information on how they were created "in the distant past", has more mechanical detail, and has the most anti-inspiring text I think I've seen.  "All dopplegangers belong to a single tribe. Although this is rare, groups of dopplegangers can be found anywhere at any time, and in unexpected locations."  (Well, that first sentence is anti-inspiring.  The second is just vapid).

Otyughs also make my point. Just looking at the combat fluff, 2e says "Otyughs lurk under piles of offal with only their eyes exposed. They usually attack if they feel threatened, or if they are hungry and there is fresh meat nearby. They attack with their two ridged tentacles, which either smash an opponent or grapple it.  [Half a dozen lines of early grab rules snipped]"  4e on the other hand is far more evocative "*Ambush Hunters:* An otyugh is a natural ambusher. Its massive bulk  and ungainly, three-legged form rule out speed-based attacks, but the  rest of its body reeks of predatory ability. The beast sinks into its  wallow. Its center tentacle, which is outfitted with two eyes and  nostrils, barely breaches the pit’s surface as it watches a creature  approach. Then it silently draws back and awaits the perfect moment to  strike. With a great splash, an otyugh’s other two tentacles, well  muscled and equipped with claws, whip out to smash into startled prey.  Even the creature’s scent aids it in battle, as disoriented and sickened  foes stumble around trying to settle their bellies long enough to  unsheathe their weapons."

So the 4e Monster Vault has more fluff, fluff that is almost pure hook and reason to use these monsters rather than being written textbook style and being about what the monsters eat and how they raise their kids.

So tell me, in what way is the 2e Monstrous Manual more inspiring than Monster Vault?


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 26, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> It's sort of like they gave me "campaign arc," when what I wanted was "adventure ideas," y'know?




Possibly for a plague demon.  But in what way is a black dragon hiding its treasure in the ruins of a sunken ship not an excellent adventure idea?

What would you say the 2e equivalent is?  Give me an example of what you actually _like_ from the 2e MM rather than just saying "That won't cut it".


----------



## GreyICE (Oct 26, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> For me personally, that MV fluff is kinda weak. I was kind of lost in the first six words there. It doesn't have a bad little adventure seed in there, but it's kind of over-the-top and overwrought. The 2e black dragon's suggestion of hating people and tainting water and prefering to wait in ambush are all things about the creature you can use to build with the creature. For the plague demons, the similar adventure hook is their diseased touch. Which can be good. But if I use plague demons, I've gotta accept a whole dead universe and the ability to cross from it to this one and some sort of exarch stirring in the elemental chaos? Man, all I have to do is planning for this one night, I don't want a whole _30-level campaign arc_, I just want a dungeon, some monsters, some NPC's, some adventure hooks, and some support for the three pillars.
> 
> It's sort of like they gave me "campaign arc," when what I wanted was "adventure ideas," y'know?



Well they are kind of geared to a long-running campaign, with one of their primary threats being a plague track that would never affect adventurers over the short term (disease rolls happen after every extended rest, so stage 3 and the threat of death can be weeks off).  So you're right, they're completely inappropriate for that.  You'd want something like a bloodfire ooze:

_When an evil ritual mixes sacrificial blood with the ichor of a
demon, the end result is often the birth of a slithering, spitting
horror known as a bloodfire ooze._

Bloodfire oozes are created through horrid rituals and
have no place in the natural world. Fanatical priests
loyal to Orcus or one of the other demon princes are
most often associated with creating the oozes for their
own dark purposes.
...
*Tormented Faces:* The amorphous blood fire ooze
looks like a slithering mass of seething, boiling blood,
which reeks of sulfur. It occasionally extrudes pseudopods
and manifests faces twisted in torment. These
faces are personifications of the creature's demonic
essence, often resembling those whose blood was sacrificed
to create the bloodfire ooze. The faces are quickly
absorbed into the creature's form, but not before they
disgorge clouds of poisonous sulfuric gas.

Also that 2 E link reminded me of everything I hate about old stat blocks:

Juvenile: darkness three times a day in a 10' radius per age category of the dragon. Adult: corrupt water once a day. For every age category a dragon attains, it can stagnate 10 cubic feet of water, making it become still, foul, inert, and unable to support animal life. When this ability is used against potions and elixirs, they become useless if they roll a 15 or better on 1d20. Old: plant growth once a day. Venerable: summon insects once a day. Great wyrm: charm reptiles three times a day. This operates as a charm mammals spell, but is applicable only to reptiles. 

God, I used to be able to tolerate this stuff (even if it annoyed me).  How?


----------



## JeffB (Oct 27, 2012)

GreyICE said:


> *Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir Vale*
> 
> Starts out by describing the Nentir Vale (after the obligatory "how to use a stat block" section that so many monster manuals have forgotten about).  The design was PERFECT for inserting monsters into your campaign.  I'll just grab a short exerpt to demonstrate:
> 
> ...




For my tastes that goes too far in assuming what has occurred in my setting, history wise. All fine and good for a campaign specific monster book (which this is from, apparently), but for a generic core "MM", no thanks.

One of the best damned things about 4E was the light framework when it came to the assumed "world of D&D". Much of the Lore from 30 years of AD&D was not  regurgitated and recycled for 4E. While not as free wheeling and loose as OD&D, it still was not as rigid as 3E, 2E, and latter day 1E. For me that was refreshing and reminded me of the LBB days of my youth... despite the fact I sill love the Great Wheel and a host of other lore related things that have since become "core" to the D&D Brand that were once setting specific.

The yellow fluff text is just more of the same assumptions, albeit new and not 30 years worth of regurgitation. This is the same kind of stuff that bugged me about NEXT's  Minotaur article. Bottom line, I don't want WOTC's story, cos 9 times out of 10 I do not like it, just like their adventures. If I want those kind of story details, I'll get it in a Campaign Setting book, like FR, GH, DS, Eberron, etc. In a core/generic Monster Manual type product,  I'll take the 2.0/3.0 dry "non invasive" fluff text any day of the week.


----------



## Blackbrrd (Oct 27, 2012)

I just compared the Goblin in the AD&D 2nd edition Monstrous Compendium to the one in the 4e monsters manual. They have their pro's and con's, but I must say that I liked the AD&D goblin better. 

Partially because all the information is presented on a single page instead of the 4e version which is spread over 6 pages of goblins, hobgoblins and bugbears. The other part is how the entry on the 2e goblin talks mostly about how to incorporate into into a campaign, not in an encounter. It talks about how many there will be, organization, non-combatants (females and children), slaves (shackled) and what they eat - mostly everything, probably including the slaves as it does mention humans.

What the 4e editon does well is create interesting mobs to throw into an encounter that will be and interesting fight, but it feels more like a board game where the encounter should be of an appropriate challenge.

I ran some random 4e stuff a good while back and it was mostly encounters. Fun ones with just about the right amount of challenge, but there was no continuity to it. I didn't put much thought into it and just pulled monsters that made the correct amount of xp according to the party level. I just skimmed the fluff text and mostly looked at the stats.

Looking at the 2e variant, I did the exact opposite - I looked at the fluff text and skimmed the stats. The Habitat/Society section was the part that got my attention. There is actual crunch for a complete society of goblins something which is completely lacking from the 4e entry.  At the same time, the 2e entry has an entry for "No. Appearing" and it just says 4-24 and really doesn't mention why you would meet them and what they are doing and what typical reactions and so on. Might be a tall order for a 1-page entry. 

Yeah, and I do mislike the whole "goblin family" (gobling, hobgoblin, bugbear) entry they did in 4e. I much prefer the seperate entries of 2e with completely different behaviour patterns and society. 

A little side note - I think the 2e combat cruch is AWFUL and the 4e crunch fun, the only positive thing to it is that is simple and combat is fast. Btw, I checked the Black Dragon entry in the monsters manual (the first one for 4e) and the entry there is nothing like the Monster Vault entry. It's as barren and bad as mentioned earlier. It's what I remembered as well, and probably what most people who stopped playing 4e thinks of the Monster manuals. Maybe the problem with 4e is that the first products produced where crap compared to the later ones? It really does feel like it.

Please don't pick apart my post, was really tired writing it and just wanted to give some input.


----------



## Jester David (Oct 27, 2012)

I love the two newest monster books, and _Monster Vaul_t is truly excellent but the information it provides can be scattered and unfocused: it's whatever the author thought was important in the order they thought was important. 

As such, the 2e _Monstrous Manual_ sets the bar. Lots of flavour and consistent entries. That's your benchmark.


----------



## GreyICE (Oct 27, 2012)

JeffB said:


> For my tastes that goes too far in assuming what has occurred in my setting, history wise. All fine and good for a campaign specific monster book (which this is from, apparently), but for a generic core "MM", no thanks.
> 
> One of the best damned things about 4E was the light framework when it came to the assumed "world of D&D". Much of the Lore from 30 years of AD&D was not  regurgitated and recycled for 4E. While not as free wheeling and loose as OD&D, it still was not as rigid as 3E, 2E, and latter day 1E. For me that was refreshing and reminded me of the LBB days of my youth... despite the fact I sill love the Great Wheel and a host of other lore related things that have since become "core" to the D&D Brand that were once setting specific.
> 
> The yellow fluff text is just more of the same assumptions, albeit new and not 30 years worth of regurgitation. This is the same kind of stuff that bugged me about NEXT's  Minotaur article. Bottom line, I don't want WOTC's story, cos 9 times out of 10 I do not like it, just like their adventures. If I want those kind of story details, I'll get it in a Campaign Setting book, like FR, GH, DS, Eberron, etc. In a core/generic Monster Manual type product,  I'll take the 2.0/3.0 dry "non invasive" fluff text any day of the week.




To me, it's amazing inspiration.  Plague demons are from a dead plane they devoured.  They were brought into this world with ritual.  Heroes managed to seal them, but now they're back.

Who are the heroes?  Why were they brought here in the first place?  Did someone get something out of bringing them back?  

These are all answers that I, the DM can provide.  

It gives me inspiration.  They become a part of my campaign world.  Do I need to care about their fluff?  Nah.  It inspires me.  It inspires me to make a campaign world.

What does the entry for a black dragon from 2E do?  It talks about the rewards in the lair.  Platinum and Gold pieces, yay.  

2E monster manual was aimed at players
4E monster vault was aimed at DMs


P.S. MM1/2/3 in 4E were miserable.  Okay, MM3 was passable, but the rest were terrible.  Just ignore them.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 27, 2012)

Blackbrrd said:


> Yeah, and I do mislike the whole "goblin family" (gobling, hobgoblin, bugbear) entry they did in 4e. I much prefer the seperate entries of 2e with completely different behaviour patterns and society.




This I'll definitely agree with.  Goblins, Hobgoblins, and Bugbears are different creatures.



> Btw, I checked the Black Dragon entry in the monsters manual (the first one for 4e) and the entry there is nothing like the Monster Vault entry. It's as barren and bad as mentioned earlier. It's what I remembered as well, and probably what most people who stopped playing 4e thinks of the Monster manuals. Maybe the problem with 4e is that the first products produced where crap compared to the later ones? It really does feel like it.




My view is it's quite simple.  They released 4e about a year too early; they'd planned a different game (codename Orcus) that they pulled for being terrible.  Every character class recharging with a different mechanic, and no extended recharges (nothing Daily), and about a dozen separate standard condition tracks.  The salvageable ruins of this game were turned into the Book of Nine Swords because they realised it was terrible and they had to save what they could.   The time allowed for the development of 4e was the two years from June 2005 to May 2007 - but they scrapped Orcus in April 2006.  4e was basically written and rushed straight into final playtest in a year rather than two.  And it shows.

And I've been talking about the difference betwen 4e (2008) and 4e (2012) for quite a while


----------



## GreyICE (Oct 27, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> My view is it's quite simple.  They released 4e about a year too early; they'd planned a different game (codename Orcus) that they pulled for being terrible.  Every character class recharging with a different mechanic, and no extended recharges (nothing Daily), and about a dozen separate standard condition tracks.  The salvageable ruins of this game were turned into the Book of Nine Swords because they realised it was terrible and they had to save what they could.   The time allowed for the development of 4e was the two years from June 2005 to May 2007 - but they scrapped Orcus in April 2006.  4e was basically written and rushed straight into final playtest in a year rather than two.  And it shows.
> 
> And I've been talking about the difference betwen 4e (2008) and 4e (2012) for quite a while




At least they scrapped that mess.  From the designers descriptions, at one point one of them had 8 different condition tracks or so in front of him, each with a different effect at each level of the track... yeah.  

4E releasing in 2009 or 2010 would have not have needed next until 2016-2020.  Note how much time they're taking on the playtest and stuff, at least they learned from THAT mistake.


----------



## Dog Moon (Oct 27, 2012)

mach1.9pants said:


> If it counts, the latest Hacklopedia of beasts, by a country mile or eight!




I really like this book too.  It's interesting, gives stats for parts of the animals that can be used in spells or items, if its edible and sometimes what it tastes like.  I LOVE some of the answers too.  Hilarious.

For dnd though, my favorite book(s) were always the Planescape Monstrous Compendiums.  Always a big fan of the Planescape Artwork and many of the monsters in those books were fascinating or amazing.  They are seriously probably my most beat up and used books in my entire set, with the possible exception of the 3e PHB.


----------



## Obryn (Oct 27, 2012)

Blackbrrd said:


> Maybe the problem with 4e is that the first products produced where crap compared to the later ones? It really does feel like it.



As Neonchameleon said ... yep.  That's a major problem.  Those of us who still had a blast despite its faults stuck around, and since then it's turned into a slick, high-quality RPG.  But the first books were more or less polished playtests.  I've said it a lot, but the designers didn't understand their own system, and things like V-shaped classes, soldier/brute stats, and the expertise gap were just amateurish oversights.

The PHB1 needed a lot of errata, the DMG had some good DM advice but godawful stuff for skill challenges, and MM1 ... well, I think it's pretty much garbage, to be honest.  The designers hit their class-designing stride with PHB2, their DMing systems with DMG2, but not their monsters until probably MM3 or even the Monster Vault.  There's a marked difference in quality between them.

-O


----------



## S'mon (Oct 27, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> It's sort of like they gave me "campaign arc," when what I wanted was "adventure ideas," y'know?




I agree strongly re the plague demons - a monster I would never use, for exactly the reasons you give. But none of the other monsters are like that, they tend to be designed for 1-6 session adventures, and unlike the plague demons they fit into an established ecology. Plus they tend to be generic enough to use outside of their assigned fluff text - the Bloodspear orcs or Daggerburg goblins or Raven's Roost Bandit etc stat blocks are very useable in a wide variety of contexts. In most cases fluff elements are easily portable also, if you find them inspiring - I based much of a 20-session campaign around the Gray Company, for instance. But the Gray Company stats are equally useable in completely different contexts, for veteran soldiers, allied war-wizards, battle-zombies etc.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 27, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> The time allowed for the development of 4e was the two years from June 2005 to May 2007 - but they scrapped Orcus in April 2006.  4e was basically written and rushed straight into final playtest in a year rather than two.  And it shows.
> 
> And I've been talking about the difference betwen 4e (2008) and 4e (2012) for quite a while




I'm annoyed that I waited a year to run 4e (2008-2009) and I *still* got an unfinished game!  So much GMing frustration. They only seem to have got a handle on it around mid-2010 with the Dark Sun and Monster Manual 3 stuff, leading into Essentials.


----------



## Hautamaki (Oct 27, 2012)

I think the 4e monster manual has the best designed (crunch-wise especially) and best illustrated monsters.  The only thing I didn't like about the og 4e MM was that the fluff was a little too limited in terms of putting the monsters into the context of the world; they made it a little difficult IMO for newbie DMs to be able to design their own adventures and insert appropriate monsters into appropriate settings/plots (though they did do a great job in the balance/encounter design aspect of the monsters) therefore specific setting books like the Nentir Vale one really are the cream of the crop so far imo.


----------



## Shemeska (Oct 27, 2012)

2e Monstrous Manual - it strikes the balance of crunch and flavor that I want, and only in a few instances since then have we really seen as well done of an integration of stat blocks and ecology.

Runner Up: Various setting specific 2e monster manuals such as the Planescape Monstrous Compendium I, II, and III. Amazing monster detail, still a source of inspiration years later, and still useful even when it uses a system that I've never actually played under.

Runner up 2: Pathfinder Bestiary 2 - awesome art, really interesting mix of monsters, and while it falls short of the detail bonanza of the book above, it's better than the 3e MM, much better than the 1e MM, and better than the 4e MM which was the complete nadir of monster fluff*. 

But I'm biased here just a bit, because it gives stats to a number of monsters I created (and didn't have space to give stats and full writeups to in earlier books).

Runner up 3: the bestiary sections in the various Pathfinder Adventure Paths. The balance of flavor text is awesome, actually approaching and occasionally sometimes exceeding the 2e Monstrous Manual ratio of stats/fluff. I'd go even further down the fluffy road myself, but it's a really good balance as it stands there.

*Consolation prize: After having earlier slammed the 4e MM, which had -under virtually any metric- the lowest amount of monster detail and flavor text of any monster book in the history of D&D, I should offer up some belated praise for the flavor text in 4e's Monster Vaults. They aren't bad in how they include flavor text, some in-character descriptive quotes, etc. It's actually quite good. For the balance of crunch to fluff it's a step in the right direction, especially after how the edition began. However, having said that, it does suffer from having all of the flavor text being based on the core Points of Light setting which I don't care for, in light of how it replaced lots of monsters and monster details from earlier editions' incarnations, and some of the early 4e design comments regarding flavor from past editions. For as well designed and written as the books are, I have a really hard time getting past my distaste towards the PoL material to fully appreciate it when it has a lot of stuff there to appreciate.


Final runner up: I'm very tempted to include 2e's 'Faces of Evil: The Fiends' here, except that it's entirely fluff, and being devoid of stats in the best way, it probably doesn't fit the intent of this thread.


----------



## Cadence (Oct 29, 2012)

Another vote for the 2e _Monstrous Manual_. *It even said how big the creatures were on the size line. Seriously, how hard is it to put: G (30' diameter) for the dragon turtle, instead of just G.* Like most of the posts above, I liked the layout and tons of information for each monster. I also love most of the Di Terlizzi artwork in it (wasn't a fan of the rest of the art), but took points off for not having the demons and devils.

For runner-ups, I have fond memories of the 1e MM ... but maybe its just because its the first time I saw pictures of most of those monsters (B&E didn't have many). Remember liking MM II as well, but don't remember why. Was not a big fan of the Fiend Folio (thought at the time a lot of the monsters were silly or not that useful).

I really like the layout and presentation in Pathfinder's _Bestiary_ (no unrelated monsters sharing a page, and not too packed in)... and think III has an exceptionally nice variety of things in it beyond what you usually get in a later monster book.

_Jade Dragons & Hungry Ghosts_ by Green Ronin for 3rd was a nice short monster book that had a nice layout, and several of the monsters had some really nice art.

Not so-much: Not a fan of the layout in 3e, 3.5, or 4e... just too busy, and I didn't find them pleasant to look at. And the information about the creatures in 4e seemed very scatter-shot.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 30, 2012)

GreyICE said:


> MM1/2/3 in 4E were miserable.  Okay, MM3 was passable, but the rest were terrible.  Just ignore them.





Obryn said:


> MM1 ... well, I think it's pretty much garbage, to be honest.



I agree that the stats in MM3 and the MVs are clearly better than the original MM. But I don't agree that the MM was garbage - once you correct for its damage problem, and for brute to-hit, it's got some mechanically interesting monsters. And at low levels you don't even need to correct the damage. The Deathlock Wight, for example, is in my view the best low-level undead creature ever published for D&D. And the goblins and hobgoblins are great!

I also prefer the MM flavour text to that in the MM3 and MV (MV2 is a different matter - it's flavour text is excellent). The MM3 and MV flavour text is wordy and ponderous, in my view, whereas the MM is generally tight and to the point.



Blackbrrd said:


> I just compared the Goblin in the AD&D 2nd edition Monstrous Compendium to the one in the 4e monsters manual. They have their pro's and con's, but I must say that I liked the AD&D goblin better.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



Here are some of the highlights of the 4e MM entry on goblins:

* Goblins are as prolific as humankind, but are less creative and more prone to warlike
behavior. Goblins’ bellicose nature can be traced, in part, to their reverence for the god Bane, whom they see as the mightiest hobgoblin warchief in the cosmos.

* Goblins are cowardly and tend to retreat or surrender when outmatched. They are fond of taking slaves and often become slaves themselves.

* Goblins form tribes, each ruled by a chieftain. The chieftain is usually the strongest member of the tribe, though some chieftains rely on guile more than martial strength.

* Goblins live in the wild places of the world, often underground, but they stay close enough to other humanoid settlements to prey on trade caravans and unwary travelers. A
goblin lair is stinking and soiled, though easily defensible and often riddled with simple traps. Goblins sleep, eat, and spend leisure time in shared living areas. Only a leader has private chambers.

* Hobgoblins rule the most civilized goblin tribes, sometimes building small settlements and fortresses that rival those of human construction.

* Hobgoblins once had an empire in which bugbears and goblins were their servants. This empire fell to internal strife and interference from otherworldly forces—perhaps the fey, whom many goblins hate.

* Hobgoblins developed mundane and magical methods for taming and breeding beasts as guards, laborers, and soldiers. They have a knack for working with wolves and worgs, and some drake breeds owe their existence directly to hobgoblin meddling. Given their brutal magical traditions, hobgoblins might have created their cousins in ancient times: Bugbears
served as elite warriors, and goblins worked as scouts and infiltrators. The disintegration of hobgoblin power led to widespread and diverse sorts of goblin tribes.​
Here is the habitat/society information on goblins I found here, which seems to be a cut-and-paste of the AD&D 2nd ed MM:

* Goblins live only 50 years or so. They do not need to eat much, but will kill just for the pleasure of it. They eat any creature from rats and snakes to humans. In lean times they will eat carrion. Goblins usually spoil their habitat, driving game from it and depleting the area of all resources. They are decent miners.

* Humans would consider the caves and underground dwellings of goblins to be dank and dismal. Those few tribes that live above ground are found in ruins, and are only active at night or on very dark, cloudy days. They use no form of sanitation, and their lairs have a foul stench. Goblins seem to be somewhat resistant to the diseases that breed in such filth.

* Goblins live a communal life, sharing large common areas for eating and sleeping. Only leaders have separate living spaces. All their possessions are carried with them. Property of the tribe is kept with the chief and sub-chiefs. Most of their goods are stolen, although they do manufacture their own garments and leather goods. The concept of privacy is largely foreign to goblins.

* Goblins often take slaves for both food and labor. The tribe will have slaves of several races numbering 10-40% of the size of the tribe. Slaves are always kept shackled, and are staked to a common chain when sleeping. 

* A goblin tribe has an exact pecking order; each member knows who is above him and who is below him. They fight amongst themselves constantly to move up this social ladder.

* Goblins hate most other humanoids, gnomes and dwarves in particular, and work to exterminate them whenever possible. 

* A typical goblin tribe has 40-400 (4d10 x 10) adult male warriors. In addition to the males, there will be adult females equal to 60% of their number and children equal to the total number of adults in the lair. Neither will fight in battles. [There are also rules for placing tougher goblins in the tribe. In 4e, these rules are found in the encounter and adventure design guidelines in the DMG.]​
I don't see any significant contrast here between "incorporating goblins into a campaign" and "feeling like a board game". The 2nd ed entry has more precise demography. The 4e entry has more history (both mythic and more recent). I personally prefer a game in which mythic history is more significant than demography, and so prefer the 4e flavour text.



Shemeska said:


> the 4e MM which was the complete nadir of monster fluff
> 
> <snip>
> 
> the 4e MM, which had -under virtually any metric- the lowest amount of monster detail and flavor text of any monster book in the history of D&D



I'm not familiar with all the 2nd ed Monster Books. But I have a MM, MM2 and FF for AD&D, and know them pretty well. And I also have a 3E MM. I simply don't accept that the 4e MM has less detail in its flavour text than those books.

I've given the goblin example already. Other highlights of the 4e MM include the entry on spiders (which tells me that Lolth was once a goddess of fate, and learned the art of weaving from spiders), the entries on demons and devils (which have far more detail on their mythic histories, and their planar setups, than either the 1st ed MM - or even the MM2 - or the 3E MM), the entry on dragons (which has more detailed mythic history than AD&D or 3E, and comparable further flavour) and the entry on hydras (which once again has a mythic history not found in Gygax's MM or in 3E).

Plus there is the implicit flavour. For example, the 4e MM gives Azer and Galeb Duhr a backstory that links them to the backstory for dwarves (found predominantly in the PHB), and thereby a place in the world, which they did not have in the AD&D MM2 or in the 3E MM.

Here is the 4e MM flavour text for Azer:

Long ago, all dwarves were slaves to the giants and titans. Today’s dwarves are the descendants of those who freed themselves. Azers are dwarves that did not escape captivity before they were corrupted and transformed into fiery beings by their overlords. Although a few have escaped captivity since, most azers remain bound to their fire giant masters to this day. . .

In fire giant strongholds, azers perform menial tasks better suited to smaller hands, and they act as a front line in defense.​
How is that in anyway inadequate as flavour text? It tells you how the monster came to be. It tells you where it can be found and what it will be doing. And most importantly, it gives the monster a narrative place in the game - a servant of a greater evil; a creature that came into its servitude unwillingly, via a fall or corruption; a creature that the player of the dwarf PC can experience as sympathetic ("There but for the grace of Moradin  . . . ")  or as repulsive ("Those snivelling Azer who could not free themselves - a shame to dwarves everywherer!") or in other, more subtle ways.

Here is the flavour text for Galeb Duhr:

Remorseless creatures of living stone, galeb duhrs often serve hill giants or earth titans, and their nature is similarly harsh and unrelenting. . .

Long ago, all dwarves were slaves to the giants and titans. More than one variety of dwarf failed to escape during the initial revolution, including the galeb duhrs. However, unlike the azers that continue to serve their masters in the Elemental Chaos, many galeb duhrs have slipped away from their brutish masters into the world. On the other hand, some still serve their hill giant and earth titan overlords, both in the Elemental Chaos and in the natural world.​
Compare that to the flavour text from the 2nd ed Monster Manual:

*Galeb duhr, thought to be native to the elemental plane of Earth, are sometimes encountered in small family groups in mountainous regions of the Prime Material plane. They live in rocky or mountainous areas where they can feel the earth power and control the rocks around them. Galeb duhr have no natural enemies, other than those who crave the gems they collect. In some strange way, galeb duhr feel responsible for the smaller rocks and boulders around them, in much the same way that a treant feels responsible for trees in its neighborhood. A traveler who disturbs the area near a galeb duhr does so at his own peril.

* Galeb duhr eat rock, preferring granite to other types, and disdaining any sedimentary type. The rocks they eat become part of the huge creatures; such a meal need take place only once every two or three months. It is not known how (or whether) galeb duhr reproduce, but "young" galeb duhr have occasionally been reported

* The “music” of the galeb duhr often provides the first evidence that these creatures are near -- and usually the only evidence, as the unsociable galeb duhr are quick to pass into the ground when they feel the vibrations of approaching visitors. Sitting together in groups, the galeb duhr harmonize their gravelly voices into eldritch tunes; some sages speculate that these melodies can cause or prevent earthquakes. Others argue that the low rumbling produced by these creatures is a form of warning to others in the group, but there is no conclusive evidence either way.

* While galeb duhr seem to have no visible culture above ground, they are known to collect gems, which they find through their passwall ability. They sometimes have small magical items in their possession, evidently taken from those who attacked them to take their gems. Besides the gems that they carry with them, galeb duhr are likely to know where many other gems are, as well as veins of precious metals, such as gold, silver, and platinum, though galeb duhr seem to have no interest in these minerals for themselves. A few powerful mages have been able to bargain with the galeb duhr for this information. This is a difficult agreement to consummate, for the galeb duhr are valiant fighters, and usually have no difficulty in escaping from any harm if they are inclined to do so. Further, the galeb duhr are territorial, and would be irritated at any attempt to make use of this knowledge in their vicinity.​
Under what metric is this superior? Putting to one side the seeming contradictions (they feel responsible for the rocks and boulders in their neighbourhoods, but also eat them; they have no visible culture, but collect gems and create vocal music together), the only part of this entry that motivates the PCs to interact with a galeb duhr is the lust for gems and precious metal. The only part of that flavour text that makes me not judge it obviously weaker than the 4e text is the reference to the "music" of the galeb duhr preventing or causing earthquakes - this could actually be incorporated into the 4e flavour very nicely, because of the obvious link to the notorious dwarven fondness for the stentorian chanting of dirges.


----------



## Cadence (Oct 30, 2012)

pemerton said:


> The 2nd ed entry has more precise demography. The 4e entry has more history (both mythic and more recent). I personally prefer a game in which mythic history is more significant than demography, and so prefer the 4e flavour text.




What I really want is both  "generic mythic history" and "stereotypical demographics" as part of the background.  One of the things that annoyed me a bit about 4e is that it seemed like its mythic history was both very pervasive in the PH and MM, and very at odds with the default setting in the previous editions.    (It's very possible I'm just so used to ignoring the history I don't like in the earlier editions that I'm just seeing through pre-4 colored glasses).    It seems easier to me to add mythic flavor to make something fit my particular campaign than it is to disentangle a creature from its mythic baggage.  And I'd like to be offered some stereo-typical demographics rather than have to infer them.

And I want the typical height/length range on the size line! 



> I'm not familiar with all the 2nd ed Monster Books. But I have a MM, MM2 and FF for AD&D, and know them pretty well. And I also have a 3E MM. I simply don't accept that the 4e MM has less detail in its flavour text than those books.



In 2e, just about every monster has an entire page devoted to it, which means about a bit more than half a page of flavor text, all organized in a similar way, and all on the same part of the page.   In 4e the background is certainly there for the monsters you've given excerpts from, but aren't there quite a few with much less detail?   

The excerpt about the zombie on Wizards.com has a lot of varieties... but it doesn't strike me as a lot of information about each one -- https://www.wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/217207200 .  The stat block and text leave me with a lot of questions and maybe a contradiction or two: How do these Int 1 creatures figure out that exactly one will grab?  Are chillborn created in a different way than normal zombie's?  What gets turned into a zombie hulk?   Why would zombies be working with living things that aren't its creator like skirmisher were-rats?




> Putting to one side the seeming contradictions (they feel responsible for the rocks and boulders in their neighbourhoods, but also eat them; they have no visible culture, but collect gems and create vocal music together).



Like farmers and birds?


----------



## Ahnehnois (Oct 30, 2012)

I learned D&D by reading the 3.0 Monster Manual, so I'm rather partial to it, but I have to say the 3.5 revision, in terms of format and content, is the best I've ever seen.

By comparison, the late 3.5 monster manuals with the new format and more encounter-focused design seem dumbed down, the 3.0 versions with funky statblock generation methods and limited information seem quaint, never mind any of the monster books I've ever seen from other editions. The 3.5 version is the one that comes the closest to achieving the titular goal of a Monster Manual: a book that gives you instructions on how to make monsters, whereas the 2e and 4e approaches feel more like lists of completed statblocks to me. Each 3.5 monster feels almost like a class, with a variety of permutations. Would that the core races were developed as well! There's still plenty of room for improvement, and several other books released under that format are excellent, but at the moment, the 3.5 MM is king.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 30, 2012)

Cadence said:


> What I really want is both  "generic mythic history" and "stereotypical demographics" as part of the background.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It seems easier to me to add mythic flavor to make something fit my particular campaign than it is to disentangle a creature from its mythic baggage.  And I'd like to be offered some stereo-typical demographics rather than have to infer them.



Whereas I find demographics pretty easy to handle - I'll combine my own working knowledge of human demographics with my memories of Tolkien with my encounter- and scenario-building needs - but am very happy to have someone else lay out the basics of the mythic history for me. (And I find 4e to be a nice compromise between the relative silence of earlier editions, and the extrememe intricacies and complexities of Glorantha.)



Cadence said:


> Like farmers and birds?



They're compared to treants, not farmers - and treants don't cut down, burn or eat the trees they shepherd. And unlike birds they have INT Very (11-12). I did say "seeming contradictions" - maybe in the author's mind this all made sense - but to me it reads more like sloppy writing.



Cadence said:


> In 2e, just about every monster has an entire page devoted to it, which means about a bit more than half a page of flavor text, all organized in a similar way, and all on the same part of the page.   In 4e the background is certainly there for the monsters you've given excerpts from, but aren't there quite a few with much less detail?
> 
> The excerpt about the zombie on Wizards.com has a lot of varieties... but it doesn't strike me as a lot of information about each one



Quite a bit of that 2nd ed "flavour text" is actually mechanical information (especially in the Combat section). For example, the Galeb Duhr entry tells me that:

Galeb duhr can cast the following spells as 20th-level mages, once per day: move earth, stone shape, passwall, transmute rock to mud, and wall of stone. They can cast stone shape at will.

They can animate 1-2 boulders within 60 yards of them (AC 0; MV 3; HD 9; Dam 4d6) as a treant controls trees.

Galeb duhr suffer double damage from cold-based attacks and save with a -4 penalty against these attacks. They are not harmed by lightning or normal fire, but suffer full damage from magical fire (though they save with a +4 bonus against fire attacks).​In 4e this information would all be in the statblock, and in my view much easier to read and process because of that.

As to whether I've cherry-picked my 4e examples - well, I have mentioned some of the ones that I'm particularly fond of, but in a discussion about Hook Horrors a couple of months ago, after Mearls discussed them in his Legends and Lore column, I established that basically all the flavour that he provided, derived from the 2nd ed entry, was present in the 4e MM:

These pack omnivores scour the Underdark in search of live prey, foraging when necessary. Hook horrors drag victims to their deaths using their powerful hooked arms.

Hook horrors are omnivorous but prefer meat to plants. Rumor has it that they prefer the flesh of drow over any other. Not surprisingly, drow slay wild hook horrors and take young and eggs to raise as slaves.

Hook horrors live in total darkness. They can see in lit environments, but in the dark of the deep earth they navigate using echolocation. Hook horrors communicate with one another using a complex series of clicking noises they make with their mouths and carapace. The eerie clicks echo in the Underdark, warning prey that death is near. An Underdark explorer might become aware of nearby hook horrors by these noises.

Although they hunt in small packs, hook horrors also gather in larger groups called clans. A particular clan, ruled by its strongest egg-laying female, ranges over a wide area in the Underdark. Its members defend clan territory fiercely from any intruder, including unrelated hook horrors.​
I agree that the info on zombie is less - a lot of cultural knowledge is presupposed by the designers, I think. But here are the flavour highlights of the 2nd ed entry on zombies:

Zombies are mindless, animated corpses controlled by their creators, usually evil wizards or priests.

Zombies are typically found near graveyards, dungeons, and similar charnel places. They follow the spoken commands of their creator, as given on the spot or previously, of limited length and uncomplicated meaning (a dozen simple words or so).

Zombies cannot talk, being mindless, but have been known to utter a low moan when unable to complete an assigned task.​
How do these non-intelligent creatures figure out who to grab? The text is as silent, in that respect, as the 4e text. In both cases, all we are told is that they follow the commands of their creators.



Cadence said:


> And I want the typical height/length range on the size line!



I have nothing against that. I may be running a purple worm encounter soon, and I'm not yet sure how I plan to handle the apparent tensions between its body shape (tubular), it deployment of the tunnelling rules (it leaves tunnels behind it that other creatures can move through) and its square shape on the battle grid.


----------



## Cadence (Oct 31, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Whereas I find demographics pretty easy to handle - <snip> - but am very happy to have someone else lay out the basics of the mythic history for me.




Given that tastes vary, and that 2e shows its possible to put lots of text on a page and still get in pictures and stat blocks, how about both suggested mythic content for people who like that and demographics and other stuff for people who like that part?



> I agree that the info on zombie is less - a lot of cultural knowledge is presupposed by the designers, I think.



Beyond the base zombie, 4e provides 5 additional types of zombies... with nothing about the origin of any (just a blurb on tactics).  2e explains the origins of its three alternate and provides descriptions of them, in addition to the stuff you don't find useful. 

Turning to gnolls in 4e, they are "feral, demon-woshipping marauders that kill, pillage, and destroy.  They attack without warning and slaughter without mercy all in the name of the demon lord Yeenoghu".  There is nothing anywhere that describes what exactly they are though beyond "medium natural humanoid" and a picture that looks like the hyena members of the Lion King musical were going on a rampage.   The first sentence of the description of 2e explictly says they are "large, evil, hyena-like humanoids"  (and then gives four more sentences of painfully drawn out description that I completely agree with you on).    

Leaving the entire description to the picture seems to be common throughout the 4e MM, such as with the Basilisk and its number of legs.  For the beholder, is the one you can't count the stalks of the "Eye of flame" in the picture (looks like more than 3 stalks to me).  And apparently there is no way to disable the eye-stalks individually?   What exactly does a dark one look-like (I guess its a small humanoid with a big nose who apparently always wears blue capes in-spite of the written description saying they wear black?)   The pictures of the various devils are on entirely different pages (with no descriptions of their appearance by the stat blocks).    How big is a Roc in 4e ... is a horse the biggest thing it can carry off?   I thought the myths said an elephant.  2e makes it abundantly clear (and yes, I'll agree 2e errs on the side of beating points into the ground instead of giving more points.) 

In contrast there are the nice ones in 4e... Rakshasa stands out with a concise appearance description.  But is that only because they don't trust the picture to make it clear the hands are reversed? 




> I may be running a purple worm encounter soon, and I'm not yet sure how I plan to handle the apparent tensions between its body shape (tubular), it deployment of the tunnelling rules (it leaves tunnels behind it that other creatures can move through) and its square shape on the battle grid.



Which brings up a Pathfinder question, if by RAW two creatures can't occupy the same space, does that mean the purple worm can't swallow anyone alive?


----------



## pemerton (Oct 31, 2012)

Cadence said:


> Beyond the base zombie, 4e provides 5 additional types of zombies... with nothing about the origin of any (just a blurb on tactics).



Well, we are told that

Most zombies are created using a foul ritual. Once roused, a zombie obeys its creator and wants nothing more than to kill and consume the living.

Corpses left in places corrupted by supernatural energy from the Shadowfell sometimes rise as zombies on their own. These zombies have no master and generally attack all living creatures they encounter.​
So I think this is the origin of all zombies, including hulks (presumably they come from bigger bodies, given their size) and gravehounds (which presumably come from dogs or wolves, given their name, their attacks and their pictuer). Chillborn have a cold aura, do cold damage, are shrouded in a mist (according to the picture - and I think we can infer it's an icy mist) and explode in a burst of cold when killed. Given their name, I would guess that they might arise from corpses corrupted in cold places; or just that they are zombies particularly expressive of the "chill of the grave".

I'll agree that we are not told how rotwing zombies get their batwings. I personally didn't find that that impeded my desire or ability to use rotwing zombies in my game, but I may be an outlier in this respect.



Cadence said:


> Turning to gnolls in 4e, they are "feral, demon-woshipping marauders that kill, pillage, and destroy.  They attack without warning and slaughter without mercy all in the name of the demon lord Yeenoghu".  There is nothing anywhere that describes what exactly they are though beyond "medium natural humanoid" and a picture that looks like the hyena members of the Lion King musical were going on a rampage.



There is also all of this (MM p 133):

Gnolls are nomadic and rarely stay in one place for long. When gnolls attack and pillage a settlement, they leave nothing behind except razed buildings and gnawed corpses.

Gnolls often decorate their armor and encampments with the bones of their victims. Impatient and unskilled artisans, they wear patchwork armor and wield weapons stolen from their victims.

Gnolls detest physical labor and often use slaves to perform menial chores. The life of a slave in a gnoll camp is brutal and short. That said, slaves who show strength and
savagery might be indoctrinated into the gnoll vanguard. Such creatures are usually broken in mind and spirit, having become as cruel and ruthless as their captors.

Gnolls are often encountered with hyenas, which they keep as pets and hunting animals. They also work with demons. As the mortal instruments of the demon lord Yeenoghu, who is called the Beast of Butchery and Ruler of Ruin, gnolls constantly perform atrocities. When not scouring the land in Yeenoghu’s name, gnolls fight among themselves and participate in rituals that involve acts of depravity and self-mutilation.

Gnolls don’t bargain or parley, and they can’t be bribed or reasoned with.​
Here is what the 2nd ed MM has to offer:

Gnolls are large, evil, hyena-like humanoids that roam about in loosely organized bands. Gnolls seek to overwhelm their opponents by sheer numbers, using horde tactics.

Gnolls are most often encountered underground or inside abandoned ruins. When above ground they operate primarily at night. Gnoll society is ruled by the strongest, using fear and intimidation.

Gnolls eat anything warm blooded, favoring intelligent creatures over animals because they scream better. They will completely hunt out an area before moving on. It may take several years for the game to return.​
There is also the obligatory demographic information. Taken in total, I don't see how this is more flavour than the 4e MM, or even really comparable flavour.



Cadence said:


> Given that tastes vary, and that 2e shows its possible to put lots of text on a page and still get in pictures and stat blocks, how about both suggested mythic content for people who like that and demographics and other stuff for people who like that part?



If the designers want to stick in demography that's their prerogative, though I would prefer that it be called out in a discrete part of the entry so I don't have to wade through it to find the interesting stuff.

The point of my post upthread wasn't to dispute the inclusion of demography. It was to deny the claim made by  [MENTION=11697]Shemeska[/MENTION] (but also very frequently by very many others) that, in contrast to the 2nd ed MM which "strikes the balance of crunch and flavor that I want, and only in a few instances since then have we really seen as well done of an integration of stat blocks and ecology . . . the 4e MM . . . had -under virtually any metric- the lowest amount of monster detail and flavor text of any monster book in the history of D&D".

So far I've compared the entries for goblins, gnolls, galeb duhr and zombies and established that this is not true. Nor is it true for hook horrors. I cited the 4e text upthread; here is the 2nd ed text:

Hook horrors do not have a smell to humans and demihumans, but an animal would detect a dry musty odor. They communicate in a series of clicks and clacks made by the exoskeleton at their throats. In a cave, this eerie sound can echo a long way. They can use this to estimate cavern sizes and distances, much like the sonic radar of a bat. 

The eyesight of the hook horrors is very poor. They are blinded in normal light. They use their extremely acute hearing to track and locate prey.

A clan of hook horrors most often lives in caves and underground warrens. The entrance is usually up a vertical or steeply sloped rock wall. Each family unit in the clan has its own small cavern off a central cave area. The clan's eggs are kept in the safest, most defensible place. The clan is ruled by the eldest female, who never participates in combat. The eldest male, frequently the mate of the clan ruler, takes charge of all hunting or other combat situations and is considered the war chieftain. Members of a clan rarely fight each other. They may quarrel or not cooperate, but they rarely come to blows. Clans sometimes fight each other, but only when there is a bone of contention, such as territorial disputes. It is rare for a clan of hook horrors to want to rule large areas or to conquer other clans.

Hook horrors have poor relationships with other races. Although they do not foolishly attack strong parties, generally other creatures are considered to be meat. They retreat when faced with a stronger group. Hook horrors do not recognize indebtedness or gratitude. Their simple language does not even have a term for these concepts. Just because a player character saves the life of a hook horror does not mean that it will feel grateful and return the favor. 

Although hook horrors are basically omnivores, they prefer meat. They can eat just about any cave-dwelling fungus, plants, lichens, or animals. Hook horrors are well acclimated to cave life. They have few natural predators, although anything that managed to catch one would try to eat it.​Compared to the 4e info, I learn a little more about their cave layout, their smell, and that things that catch them will eat them (though that may not be a uniquely defining property of hook horrors). But the 4e info tells me about their preference for drow flesh. This is another example that fails to persuade me of the greater detail of flavour text in the 2nd ed MM.

If people don't _like_ the 4e flavour text - for example, because they dislike the mythical history it presupposes - that's their prerogative. But to assert that, "by any metric", it has "the lowest amount of monster detail and flavor text of any monster book in the history of D&D" is simply false. As the examples I've posted illustrate.


----------



## Steely_Dan (Oct 31, 2012)

1st Ed Monster Manual, still the best (the cornerstone of AD&D).

It transcends numbers into core lore of D&D (and the art and vibe, it just drips).

Also, no silly number bloat: AC 43 and 6d12 + 21 damage and all that malarkey.


----------



## Cadence (Oct 31, 2012)

> If people don't _like_ the 4e flavour text - for example, because they dislike the mythical history it presupposes - that's their prerogative. But to assert that, "by any metric", it has "the lowest amount of monster detail and flavor text of any monster book in the history of D&D" is simply false. As the examples I've posted illustrate.




I'm definitely convinced that some of the monster descriptions in 4e are at least comparable in content to the descriptions in 2e (I'm hoping that was all just cutting and pasting and not retyping!!).   And I'm willing to grant that 2e should lose points for the way it errs on the side of beating points to death instead of providing additional information, and on how its stat blocks should be more informative.  I'm only willing to concede a few points on the lack of mythos if you'd be happy if the ones provided were for a campaign world you weren't using.

But I don't think selected good examples from 4e can argue away how 4e fails some of my personal criteria below.  Nor will showing that 2e has these flaws more than I recall add any points to 4e's tally.  At best (?) it would show I should dislike them both  

I think a good description should at least briefly describe the creature's appearance - e.g. a gnoll is a humanoid hyena - without having to rely on the picture (especially since all of the monster books seem hit and miss on the art).  This is missing for a sizable number of creatures in 4e (and sometimes the picture either unlabeled or pages away), and I don't know if its missing for any in 2e except the animals.

I think a good description shouldn't leave the creature's general origin or the nature of their attacks up to inference of possibly inexperienced DMs, when a few sentences would make it clear - e.g. how the various zombies are created... some of the ones in 2e, for example, are not created in the usual way.  This is completely missing for a sizable number of creatures in 4e, and 2e makes an attempt at it for virtually all of them except the animals.

I think a good description shouldn't leave out vital game aspects of iconic monsters, like dealing with the eyestalks of a beholder.

I think a good description should do what you want done with all the demographics in 2e -- have information of one type all in one place.  All of 2e is organized in a standard format.  In 4e the text is all over the page intermixed with stat blocks, sometimes literally pages away from the stat blocks.

:::shrugs::

But I guess "good description", like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder... even if we don't know how many eyes that is.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 1, 2012)

Cadence said:


> I think a good description should at least briefly describe the creature's appearance - e.g. a gnoll is a humanoid hyena - without having to rely on the picture (especially since all of the monster books seem hit and miss on the art).



This I don't agree with - I'm happy for the art to speak for itself.



Cadence said:


> I think a good description shouldn't leave the creature's general origin or the nature of their attacks up to inference of possibly inexperienced DMs, when a few sentences would make it clear



This I don't really agree with either, as far as attacks are concerned. In 4e the keywords carry the burden of conveying the nature of attacks (eg an aura that does cold damage means the creature is shrouded in cold - the picture clarifies that it is an icy mist). There is no need for extra text.

Origin is a bit different, and relates to the mythic history aspect. I think 4e does give me the origins of zombies - they are animated either by necromancers or by the Shadowfell leeching over planar boundaries - but doesn't get any more specific than that. For me, that fits well with the general tone of the 4e mythic history. Whereas being told that a juju zombie comes from an energy drain spell is, for me, the wrong sort of detail - apart from anything else, it has strong implications about the presence of 18th level wizards in the gameworld.

For those who like the demography because it enriches there sense of the "objectivity" of the gameworld, then I can see how causal details like those for the juju zombie might play a comparable role. But the converse consequence can be that a GM refrains from using juju zombies when they would make excellent opponents for the PCs because s/he doesn't want to imply that an 18th level magic-user is active in the campaign world. That would be a pity, in my view. Whereas the lighter touch of 4e seems to me to give zombies a context while permitting the GM greater latitude in using them.

(To me there's also something weird about zombie lords being easier to create than juju zombies - 5th level vs 9th level magic - but tougher. But that's more a point of detail.)



Cadence said:


> I think a good description shouldn't leave out vital game aspects of iconic monsters, like dealing with the eyestalks of a beholder.



4e deals with hydra heads OK (though I like the MV method better than the MM method) but doesn't have special rules for roper tentacles, beholder eyestalks etc. These all fall under the jurisdiction of p 42. In the beholder case, I would adjudicate it as making an attack that is weakened (ie half damage), and with a Hard Dungeoneering check, or a Moderate Perception check if you've actually seen the eye ray used, you succeed in hitting and disabling (save ends) the eyestalk you were aiming for.



Cadence said:


> I think a good description should do what you want done with all the demographics in 2e -- have information of one type all in one place.  All of 2e is organized in a standard format.  In 4e the text is all over the page intermixed with stat blocks, sometimes literally pages away from the stat blocks.



I agree that the way information is broken up in the 4e MM, between intro text and lore entries, is not always ideal. My impression is that some of those who say that 4e has, by any metric, the least monster flavour text of any D&D monster book, haven't actually noticed the lore entries!


----------



## Cadence (Nov 1, 2012)

So, sounds like whoever makes the design choices for the next one should have an easy time making everyone happy!


----------



## Steely_Dan (Nov 1, 2012)

pemerton said:


> This I don't agree with - I'm happy for the art to speak for itself.





Not me, I want a written description of each creature.

And some peoples eyes aren't so good.

The 4th Ed MMs are dry (though some great mechanical goodies), there's really no comparison.


----------



## GreyICE (Nov 9, 2012)

4E takes the mythic approach to lore.  The descriptions are written as if an explorer or adventurer was taking notes, or occasionally as if a historian was writing after the fact.  

Therefore, a lot of details are indeed left vague.  They're generally left as descriptive, rather than prescriptive.  Let me use an example.


Weapons of Primordial Power: Some scholars believe that elementals,
belying their chaotic nature, act under the guidance of higher powers. These
sages assert that the primordials, the undisputed masters of elemental power,
use elementals as tools in the world because they are unable to act from their
prisons. An elemental attack on a distant outpost might seem like an isolated
occurrence until someone realizes that each outpost along the border has suffered
a similar attack. Perhaps the realm contains an ancient secret to help
free one of the primordials, or perhaps it is a beacon of light and order in an
otherwise dark and chaotic world. Alternatively, a spellcaster might find the
summoning and binding of many powerful elementals to be a simple task,
only to later discover that the elementals allowed themselves to be bound in
order to later escape and sabotage a planar ritual, throwing open a portal to the
Elemental Chaos. Regardless of whether the speculation of scholars holds true,
elementals seem built to be weapons and tools. They lack intelligence and ambition,
making them the perfect servants of those who want to act in secrecy and
without fear of betrayal.

Were 2E or 3E to attempt to write this, they'd, well... they'd flub it.  2E and 3E monster manuals had no mystery.  They had no adventure.  Each was prescriptive, describing how things worked.  It was left entirely up to the DM to write the hooks.  "It takes a wizard of at least 13th level and 1d4 weeks to open a portal to the elemental chaos.  The wizard must chant for at least 8 hours per day.  Five Diamonds each worth at least 6,000 GP must be destroyed during the ritual." etc.

Maybe I just don't like D&D (I certainly never did before 4E) because I hate that approach.  But I've literally never understood the advantages of it.  

What's wrong with mythic history?  Mythic history is MYTH.  Does the existence of King Arthur myths imply that he existed?  Gilgamesh?  The Trojan Horse?  Hercules?  

A fantasy world will have MORE myths than ours, not less.  Most of them are wrong, or distortions, or just misunderstandings.  In some, there's a grain of truth.  That's myth.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Nov 9, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> The 3.5 version is the one that comes the closest to achieving the titular goal of a Monster Manual: a book that gives you instructions on how to make monsters, whereas the 2e and 4e approaches feel more like lists of completed statblocks to me. Each 3.5 monster feels almost like a class, with a variety of permutations. Would that the core races were developed as well! There's still plenty of room for improvement, and several other books released under that format are excellent, but at the moment, the 3.5 MM is king.




And your tastes are extremely ... eclectic.  Most people want to be able to pull monsters straight out of the Monster Manual and use them as is rather than have classes and need to customise the monsters to make them useable.  Your praise has just described why the 3.5 MM is IMO the _least_ satisfactory monster manual.  You get crap like "Casts as an nth level caster" far more in 3.5 than anywhere else - if that's king, I'm a proud republican with my 4e "Can use straight out of the book to create a compelling environment both mechanically and fluff wise".  The last thing I want to be doing is messing around with a variety of non-preset permutations _at the table_.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Nov 9, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> And your tastes are extremely ... eclectic.  Most people want to be able to pull monsters straight out of the Monster Manual and use them as is rather than have classes and need to customise the monsters to make them useable.



Ah, I see. Who am I to argue with "most people"?

It's not that I reject the notion of usable monster stat blocks. For people who want to buy published adventures or even just books of stat blocks, that's fine. But the monster manual is a core rulebook; its purpose is to show you how to play, not provide material for you. PHBs don't have finished stats. DMGs don't have finished worlds. Monster manuals have been an aberration in this regard, one which the 3.5 version came the closest to rectifying.


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 9, 2012)

GreyICE said:


> 4E takes the mythic approach to lore.  The descriptions are written as if an explorer or adventurer was taking notes, or occasionally as if a historian was writing after the fact.
> 
> Therefore, a lot of details are indeed left vague.  They're generally left as descriptive, rather than prescriptive.  Let me use an example.
> 
> ...




Then I suggest you go read a whole heck of a lot of 2e material, because unreliable narration, myth, and ambiguity has a gigantic presence (I'm thinking a lot of Planescape material here, but other campaign settings as well, with the Volo series of guides for FR coming to mind).

I've seen this truly bizarre thing pop up in various places lately that 4e was "mythic" and no D&D edition ever prior to 4e had or used any real world mythology or mythological archetypes. I'm not sure if it's people who never played earlier editions, or edition warring, or just bitter grapes with 5e on the way, but it's neither a new thing or anything particularly major in 4e compared to other editions IMO.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Nov 9, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> 1st Ed Monster Manual, still the best (the cornerstone of AD&D).
> 
> It transcends numbers into core lore of D&D (and the art and vibe, it just drips).
> 
> Also, no silly number bloat: AC 43 and 6d12 + 21 damage and all that malarkey.




OK.  Let's reality check here.  I just opened my 1e DMG to a random page.

Seven  monsters between pages 94 and 95.  Thought Eaters, Ticks (Giant),   Tigers, Titans, Titanothere, Toad (Giant), and Trappers (which go over   onto the next page).  Start with the most mythological.  Titans.  Epic monsters out of Greek mythology that both birthed the Gods and that the Gods went to war against.Titans   normally dwell on a plane somwehere above the material, but   occasionally they will visit the lattter plane for various periods of   time.  Those dwelling on the Prime Material Plane for an extended period   will acquire treasure as indicated above.

To determine the armour class and hit dice or any given titan simply roll a 6-sided die [Snip three lines of mechanics on hit dice and AC]

Titans can become _invisible_ at will.  They can also _levitate_   and/or become etherial twice per day.  All titans are able to employ   both magic-user and clerical spells of 4th, 5th, 6th, or even 7th   level.  To determine how many levels of spell use [Snip eight more lines of mechanics just telling you how many spells Titans get]

All titans posess 8 or more pisionic abilities of the type possible for clerics.  [Snip four and a half lines of mechanics on exact psionic powers]

In  addition to their own language, titans are able to speak the six   dialects of the races of the giants.  All titans are also conversant in   the common tongue as well as that of chaotic good.

Because of  their particular predisposition, titans deal with storm  giants on highly  amicable terms.  It is 20% probable that a storm giant  will be with any  single titan encountered.

_Description:_Titans  appear very much as humans do, but they are  all very muscular, handsome,  and wear no facial hair.  Their dress and  armour appears Grecian.​Now I don't know about you, but I've read books on computer  programming  and maths text books that were more interesting than that.   It certainly  drips something - but the vibe it drips to me is  "Mechanics are all  that matters and we don't need no stinking lore or  flavour."  And I  think even most detractors of the 4e Monster Manual 1  would say that  it's better than that; after reading that I can't think  of a single  reason to use a Titan - and "appear very much as humans do"  is not a  workable description."

Think that was unfair?  Let's try  another.  A Titanothere.  From the  numerical block we can tell they are  "Size: L (8')".  Which is,  admittedly, better than 4e does.  But we  don't have a clue what colour  it is - and the picture appears to be a  coross between a rhino and some  sort of wooly cow.These  huge and fearless plant-eaters  roam the temperate plains of the  Pleistocene era in herds.  If more  than 6 total are encountered 1-4 of  those numbering over one-half the  possible total [What does this even mean?] will be young, from 10% to 80% grown.

If  any creature threatens the herd, the largest animals (males) will   charge.  If the charge strikes home, damage inflicted is double the   amount shown on the dice (4-32). Titanotheres will trample (2-12 per   foot) any opponent low enough for them to step on. [Pity they are only 8' long and not very tall]​And that is _it_.  That is the sum total of text presented for the Titanothere if we don't count things like the % in lair (nil).

This is your shining example of the best monster manual ever?  Seriously? 



Steely_Dan said:


> Not me, I want a written description of each creature.




And here I thought you were praising the 1e Monster Manual.



> And some peoples eyes aren't so good.



Once more the 1e Monster Manual is the worst of all.



> The 4th Ed MMs are dry (though some great mechanical goodies),  there's really no comparison.



The 4e Monster Manual 1 is a hell  of a lot _less_ dry than the  passages I've quoted from the 1e  monster manual.  And as for Monster  Vault, there really is no  comparison; I believe that @pmerton thinks  there's obnoxiously much  fluff there.

And to round things out,  I'm going to quote the entire fluff text for    Zombies from the 1e Monster  Manual as @Pmerton has already linked the 2e zombie and   @Cadence  has already linked the 4e Monster Manual ZombieZombies     are magically animated corpse, undead creatures under the command of     the evil magic users or clerics who animated them.  These creatures     follow commands - as spoken on the spot or as given previously - of     limited length and complication (a dozen words or so).  Zombies are     typically found ear graveyards, in dugeons, and in similar charnel     places.

Zombies are slow, always striking last, but always doing  1-8 hit points    of damage when they hit.  They always fight until  destroyed and    nothing short of a cleric can turn them back.

_Sleep, charm, hold, _and _cold-_based spells do not affect zombies.  Holy water vials socre 2-8 hit points fo damage for each one that strikes.​I think as normal the 1e Monster Manual gets left in the dust.

And  for something genuinely evocative and that gives a lot of    information  we have Monster Vault. I'm just going to quote the    introductory blurb  and the first three sentences of each section    because I can't be  bothered to type too much more.*Zombie
*_These mindless, shambling corpses murder anyone not swift enough to get away.

_From  somewhere in the darkness comes a thump and a scuffle.  As the    noise  comes again, drawing closer, a gurgling moan can be heard -  the   rattling  wheeze of rotten lungs pressing air out.  A form lurches   into  view,  dragging one foot as it raises bloated arms and broken   hands like  a  child seeking an embrace.  This creature is a zombie and   it blindly   seeks to crush life.

*Many Hideous Forms:* Fuelled by dark  magic, malevolent forces,    dire curses, or angry spirits, zombies are  animate corpses.  Any corpse    with flesh suffices to make a zombie. [Paragraph and a half of ideas for zombie appearance snipped]

*Shadows of Life:*  Zombies posess a semblance    of life.  Sludgelike blood trickles through  their veins, and cold,   rank  breath gusts from their lungs.  And yet  death has rendered   zombies  immune to pain, disease, and poison.  [Paragraph and a half on zombie metabolism and feeding habits snipped]

*Soulless, Fearless, and Stupid:*     For a zombie to be animated, a body's spark must have departed.   What    remains in the corpse is an animus, a vital spark that drives  the  body   without thought or consicence.  Without a soul or memories, a   zombie  has  no more intelligence than a simple animal.  As a result  it  also  lacks a  sense of sel-preservation.  Unless a zombie is  properly   commanded, a  zombie might beat at the door of a home while  ite   residents escape out  of a nearby window. [OK, so I  overran that   one.  The second half  of this section is about zombies  resilience -   and how that combines  with their stupidity.]

*A Terrifying Plague:*     In most cases, a zombie serves its creator or rises in response to   the   defilement of a sacred location.  At rare times zombies arise in   the   hundreds.  These zombie plagues are proved by cosmic, magical, or   divine   events. [Snip description of a Zombie Apocalypse plot]
​Game, set, and match, I think.      I believe that matches all your criteria  @Cadence ? Except how the     zombies attack, which is in their various stat blocks as a Hulking     Zombie (large, slow, smashes opponents) attacks very differently from a     Romero-style Flesh-Crazed Zombie or the grabby Grasping Zombie.  And     then there are the legions of Zombie Shamblers.


----------



## Cadence (Nov 10, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> And  for something genuinely evocative and that gives a lot of    information  we have Monster Vault. I'm just going to quote the    introductory blurb  and the first three sentences of each section    because I can't be  bothered to type too much more.*Zombie
> *_These mindless, shambling corpses murder anyone not swift enough to get away.
> 
> _<snip>
> ​Game, set, and match, I think.      I believe that matches all your criteria  @Cadence ?




On first blush that certainly seems pretty good!  Thanks for the excerpt, I'll check it out next time I'm at a store that has one... I hadn't had a reason to flip through it before.     How's the art?   Still have to take a point off for not putting the size in feet (or whatnot) next to the size descriptor though. (Seriously, how hard is that to do!)




> I think as normal the 1e Monster Manual gets left in the dust.



When I think of monsters, there are always a few pictures of the ones from 1e MM and DMG and Basic that I always remember, followed by one of the artists in 2e, and then we get to 3e and 4e and none jump up in my mind.  Its probably because of what I used first and for so long... and I'm surprised looking back how little of the art is that good.   It would be interesting to see what people thought were, say, the five best monster  pictures in each edition's core books (including PF), and then see how they compared to the same monster in the other versions.   (Does 2e MM have a better succubus than 4e?  )


----------



## Neonchameleon (Nov 10, 2012)

Cadence said:


> On first blush that certainly seems pretty good!  Thanks for the excerpt, I'll check it out next time I'm at a store that has one... I hadn't had a reason to flip through it before.     How's the art?   Still have to take a point off for not putting the size in feet (or whatnot) next to the size descriptor though.




I'd say pretty good (it's thumbnails only if you're not a subscriber) - most of the shots show the personality of the monster and the whole thing comes with a collection of pogs for if you don't have a painted mini handy.



> When I think of monster books, there are always a few of the ones from 1e MM and Basic that I always remember, followed by one of the artists in 2e, and then we get to 3e and 4e and none jump up in my mind.  Its probably because of what I used first and for so long, but it would be interesting to see what people thought were, say, the five or ten best pictures in each edition's core monster books (including PF), and then see how they compared to the same monster in the other versions. (Does 2e have a better succubus than 4e?  )




I can't actually find the 2e Succubus... I think they were on a no-occultism kick at the time.  As for comparing the art, it's in a different league.  I can't think of any outstanding 4e artwork - mostly because the baseline is high.  In the Monstrous Manual the Aquatic Elf just looks silly, and the Goblin is ... interesting.  But the 4e art is almost all in the same style and looks professional - the Art in Monster Vault is better than the art in the Monster Manual 1 but that's mostly because they kept the best of the art in the MM1 unchanged and recommissioned the worst pieces; the style is exactly the same and consistent (I don't know if it's your thing or not).


----------



## Cadence (Nov 10, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> I can't actually find the 2e Succubus... I think they were on a no-occultism kick at the time.  As for comparing the art, it's in a different league.  I can't think of any outstanding 4e artwork - mostly because the baseline is high.  In the Monstrous Manual the Aquatic Elf just looks silly, and the Goblin is ... interesting.




Succubus isn't in 2e's at all, but the 4e one seems like a throw away the book would be better without.  I agree with your opinion on most of 2e though and I only really like one of the artists (the one who did the bugbear and a bunch of the fae). Not that they're masterpieces, but they stick in my memory. Glancing over 4e it does have a high percent of what I think are good pictures... and maybe that just makes some of the medicore stuff seem more even worse (elementals, goblins, minotaur).



> the Art in Monster Vault is better than the art in the Monster Manual 1 but that's mostly because they kept the best of the art in the MM1 unchanged and recommissioned the worst pieces; the style is exactly the same and consistent (I don't know if it's your thing or not).




The PF bestiary strikes me as having quite a few that would fit with the the 4e style, and I think its page layout shows them off a bit better.  (Not a fan of the PF dragons though).  I'd like to see a monster book where they had the high quality art on everything combined with the clean page layout.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 10, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> But the monster manual is a core rulebook; its purpose is to show you how to play, not provide material for you.



Says who? In 4e, at least, the monster building rules are in the DMG. Since the MM was the first book published for AD&D, it's function has been to provide story elements - monsters - just like the DMG (and, in 4e, the PHB) has magic item lists and the PHB has spell and ability lists.

D&D has always assumed that the GM's primary function is not to build monsters, but to take monsters built by the game designers and use them to build encounters. Just as players aren't expected to build their own class elements, spells, items etc.



Ahnehnois said:


> PHBs don't have finished stats.



Yes they do - for both equipment and spells.


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 10, 2012)

Cadence said:


> Succubus isn't in 2e's at all




It wasn't in the initial 2e Monster book, but it appears in both the Monstrous Manual: Outer Planes Appendix, and the Planescape Monstrous Compendium (under Tanar'ri - lesser, succubus).

I rather like the artwork that DiTerlizzi did for the succubus there.


----------



## Pour (Nov 10, 2012)

Shemeska said:


> Then I suggest you go read a whole heck of a lot of 2e material, because unreliable narration, myth, and ambiguity has a gigantic presence (I'm thinking a lot of Planescape material here, but other campaign settings as well, with the Volo series of guides for FR coming to mind).
> 
> I've seen this truly bizarre thing pop up in various places lately that 4e was "mythic" and no D&D edition ever prior to 4e had or used any real world mythology or mythological archetypes. I'm not sure if it's people who never played earlier editions, or edition warring, or just bitter grapes with 5e on the way, but it's neither a new thing or anything particularly major in 4e compared to other editions IMO.




I certainly agree to a point, but I have to question your 4e knowledge here at least a bit, as many previous posts place you firmly outside of that realm. The mythic did have a considerable place in 4e and could be argued more so than in previous incarnations. The Dawn War, for instance, and the major presence of the Primordials and Primal Spirits both were so pivotal, settings conformed around their myth (to many's great lament, others' joy, and still others' ambivalence). I'm not refuting past editions borrowed from the mythic (they did HEAVILY, and often literally), but the case isn't as ludicrous as implied. 

I can't help feeling as if, whenever there is a chance to 'affirm' the dominance of the past over 4e or 4e's apparent mundanity or tarnish, you're sure to get a jab in. Maybe it's just me seeing things over the last few years. *shrugs*


----------



## Cadence (Nov 10, 2012)

Shemeska said:


> It wasn't in the initial 2e Monster book, but it appears in both the Monstrous Manual: Outer Planes Appendix, and the Planescape Monstrous Compendium (under Tanar'ri - lesser, succubus).
> 
> I rather like the artwork that DiTerlizzi did for the succubus there.




Thanks!  I hadn't seen that one.  He's by far my favorite artist from the base 2e monster book.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 10, 2012)

Shemeska said:


> Then I suggest you go read a whole heck of a lot of 2e material, because unreliable narration, myth, and ambiguity has a gigantic presence
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I've seen this truly bizarre thing pop up in various places lately that 4e was "mythic" and no D&D edition ever prior to 4e had or used any real world mythology or mythological archetypes. I'm not sure if it's people who never played earlier editions, or edition warring, or just bitter grapes with 5e on the way, but it's neither a new thing or anything particularly major in 4e compared to other editions IMO.



I find the difference fairly clear. Pre-4e material treats the mythic component as a subject matter to be explored. In Planescape, there is a lot of metaplot around that.

4e treats the mythic component as a source of conflict. The PCs - via race, class, paragon  path or epic destiny - are located in the middle of it. It's not about discovery. It's about transformation.


----------



## GreyICE (Nov 10, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I find the difference fairly clear. Pre-4e material treats the mythic component as a subject matter to be explored. In Planescape, there is a lot of metaplot around that.
> 
> 4e treats the mythic component as a source of conflict. The PCs - via race, class, paragon  path or epic destiny - are located in the middle of it. It's not about discovery. It's about transformation.




I think this summarizes a lot of the difference.  Also, I'd like to link to the 2E entry on elementals for a second:

http://mmadnd.chat.ru/MM00086.htm

Elementals are sentient beings that can possess bodies made of one of the four basic elements that make up the Prime Material plane -- air, earth, fire, or water. They normally reside on an elemental Inner Plane and will only be encountered on the Prime Material plane if they are summoned by magical means. (See Manual of the Planes for more information on the nature of the various elemental planes.) Each elemental must adopt a shell in the Prime Material composed of the basic element it represents. and once this shell is destroyed, the elemental will return to its native plane. While there are many more powerful and more intelligent residents of the elemental planes, the common elemental is the easiest to contact, and therefore the most frequently summoned. 
Their magical nature gives elementals great protection from attacks on the Prime Material plane. Elementals are not harmed by any nonmagical weapons or magical weapons of less than +2 bonus. Creatures with under four Hit Dice and without any magical abilities cannot harm an elemental either. (Magical abilities include such characteristics as breath weapons, poisons, paralysis, or even being immune to normal weapon attacks.) Orcs, for example, are powerless against a conjured elemental unless one happens to possess a weapon with +2 or better bonus to hit. 
Though elementals do enjoy protection from many nonmagical attacks in the Prime Material plane, like all extraplanar and conjured creatures, elementals are affected by protection from evil spells. An elemental cannot strike a creature protected by this spell and must recoil from the spell's boundaries. However, the elemental can attack creatures protected by the spell as long as it doesn't touch them. For example, a fire elemental could set the ground on fire around the creature and wait for the blaze to spread. 
Each of the four types of common elemental has its own particular strengths and weaknesses, attack modes and method of movement, depending on its plane of origin. These will be covered individually, by elemental type, in the next few pages. All common elementals share one major characteristic, however. They are basically stupid. This low intelligence makes it difficult for the elemental to resist a magical summons. But even the common elemental is bright enough to know it does not like being taken off of its home plane and held in the Prime Material plane. 


It's just so... dry.  It's not 1E dry, but it's pretty matter of fact and blase.  Here's this amazing thing.  It's... uh... kinda stupid.  And it's elemental so it acts like its element.  

The 4E description is much cleaner and much more exciting.  It makes me want to include elementals in my campaign, not make me want to skip to the next page.  

Here's 2E being mythic.  Perhaps you can grasp my problems with this:

Habitat/Society: Titans are livers of life, creators of fate. These benevolent giants are closer to the well springs of life than mere mortals and, as such, revel in their gigantic existences. Titans are wild and chaotic. They are prone to more pronounced emotions that humans and can experience godlike fits of rage. They are, however, basically good and benevolent, so they tend not to take life. They are very powerful creatures and will fight with ferocity when necessary. 
To some, titans seem like gods. With their powers they can cause things to happen that, surely, only a god could. They are fiery and passionate, displaying emotions with greater purity and less reservation than mortal beings. Titans are quick to anger, but quicker still to forgive. In fits of rage they destroy mountains and in moments of passion will create empires. They are in all ways godlike and in all ways larger than life. 
And yet is should be noted that titans are not gods. They are beings that make their home in Olympus and walk among the gods. Yet they are not omnipotent, omniscient rulers of the planes. Sometimes their godlike passions and godlike rages make them seem like deities, however, and it is common for whole civilizations to mistake them for deities. 
In one society, Jeuron, a titan with dominion over knowledge, was revered as a god for centuries. Those mortals built their whole civilization around him and Jeuron revelled in the worship. He even walked among them occasionally to see their love and admiration. But Odin, of the Norse mythos, discovered his deception and punished Jeuron by shackling him to the bottom of the deepest sea for 100 years. 
Titans have a natural affinity for storm giants. Those giants are the closest beings the titans have found to peers and they will readily befriend them. In any group of titans, there is a 35% chance that they will be accompanied by one or more storm giants. Although titans can sometimes be condescending by nature, they never treat the storm giants as subordinates or inferiors. 
On Olympus, titans have developed a culture similar to what they found there. They wear similar clothing, eat similar foods, play similar music, etc. It is unclear why this has occurred. Perhaps the titans, in a godlike whim, adopted their favorite mortal lifestyle. Such would not be unusual for these great beings. 
Titans primarily dwell in great palaces and mansions in Olympus where they live their lives whimsically. There they will dance, sing, study, debate and engage in all other manner of activities with titanic proportion. If a titan finds something that interests him, it would not be unusual for him to study it in great detail for many weeks, only to leave it when his interest has waned. They may also engage in debates or arguments that last literally for weeks at a time. These debates might end in a jovial laughter and good spirits or in thunder and rage. Such are the whims of titans. 



Maybe X.  But maybe Y.  35% chance of Z (why are there percentages in my mythology?  QQ).  They sing they dance, but what do they do in a campaign?  No idea.  


It's just uninspiring.


----------



## Steely_Dan (Nov 10, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> This is your shining example of the best monster manual ever?  Seriously?
> 
> And here I thought you were praising the 1e Monster Manual.
> 
> Once more the 1e Monster Manual is the worst of all.





The best, total, you can still throw up your protestations, does not make it so.


----------



## Steely_Dan (Nov 10, 2012)

So, to sum up (IMO), the 1st Ed Monster Manual and the 2nd Ed Monstrous Manual rule, everything after was a bit lacklustre.


----------



## Steely_Dan (Nov 10, 2012)

pemerton said:


> In Planescape, there is a lot of metaplot around that.




And that's wonderful, exploring a rich meta-plot is good (IME).


----------



## Neonchameleon (Nov 10, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I find the difference fairly clear. Pre-4e material treats the mythic component as a subject matter to be explored. In Planescape, there is a lot of metaplot around that.
> 
> 4e treats the mythic component as a source of conflict. The PCs - via race, class, paragon  path or epic destiny - are located in the middle of it. It's not about discovery. It's about transformation.




Thank you.  I'd wondered how to express this (and would XP you if I could).  Because although it's true that older editions have the mythological, if I want to play someone from Celtic Myth like Cu Chulainn or one of the heroes of the Water Margin in pre-4e I might as well go whistle with very few exceptions.  AD&D high level fighters may be quantitatively better than lower level ones but other than quite ridiculous endurance there is nothing they can do that lower level ones can't do in theory.

In 4e you are playing a character that is part of those myths.  You probably won't be able to play Cu Chulainn before epic, but I wouldn't consider the way he approaches the world to be out of synch with a 4e character.

When pre-4e is mythic it normally means "We have stats for Odin, for Zeus, for Osiris, and for a vast range of other mythologican figures".  Where 4e is mythic it normally means "The stories generated in 4e are very like those in myth with the main players being the PCs."  Very different approaches to mythology.



GreyICE said:


> I think this summarizes a lot of the difference.  Also, I'd like to link to the 2E entry on elementals for a second:
> 
> http://mmadnd.chat.ru/MM00086.htm
> 
> ...




To underline this, here are some selected sections from the 4e Monster Vault text (the MM1 doesn't have elementals mostly because previous versions of elementals were dull.)

Description:It appears as a shard of raw elemental energy that threatens to break apart at any moment.​Now I don't know about you, but to me that line alone tells me everything the picture does not.  It ells me how they move.

Motivation:*Creatures of Destruction:* With nothing to goven their actions, elementals act randomly, burning tearing, or smashing whatever they come across.
...
Elementals are sometimes captured and bound into service, allowing a spellcaster to funnel their elemental energy into spells or devices.  Attempts to control elementals ofen end in disaster when the binder loses control allowing the elemental to run amok.

*Invaders from the Elemental Chaos:* An elemental that is not summoned might enter the world through a planar event ... If a settlement is near the location of such an event, [things are going to get messy with a description of how]
...
*Weapons of Primordial Power:*
...
Regardlessof whether the speculation of scholars true, elementals seem built to be weapons and tools.  They lack intelligence and ambition making thm the perfect servants of those who want to act without secrecy and without fear of betrayal.​Well, that's how and why to use them - wandering monsters and bound servants.  Beats the hell out of anything 2e offered above.  But what if we want to kick it up a gear?*Weapons of Primordial Power:* Some scholars believe that elementals, belying their chaotic nature, act under the guidance of higher powersw.  These sages assert that the primordials, the undisputed masters of elemental power, use elementals as tools in the world because they are unable to act from their prsions.  Aln elemental attack on a distant outpost might seem like an isolated occurrance until someone realises that each outpost along the border has suffered a simmilar attack.  Perhaps the realm contains an ancient secret to help free one of the primorials, or perhaps it is a baeacon of light and order in an otherwise dark and chaotic world.  Alternatively, a spellcaster might find the summoning and binding of many powerful elementals to be a simple task, only to discover that the elementals allowed themselves to be bound in order to escape and sabotage a planar ritual, throwing open a portal to the Elemental Chaos.​And there's our campaign if we want it.  It doesn't have to be true.  But those earth elementals?  Pointers to Ogremoch.  Or the fire elementals?  Signs Imix is getting restless.  Want to mix and match?  Both Ogremoch and Imix believe they serve the first Primordial, the Elder Elemental Eye - which is, in fact, the Chained God Tharizdun.  And there you have your metaplot if you want it (this is all 4e canon cosmology).  If you don't, it can still be happening anyway.  Or not.

Anyone still prepared to claim that the 2e fluff is more inspiring? 



> Here's 2E being mythic.  Perhaps you can grasp my problems with this:
> 
> Habitat/Society: Titans are livers of life, creators of fate. These benevolent giants are closer to the well springs of life than mere mortals and, as such, revel in their gigantic existences. Titans are wild and chaotic. They are prone to more pronounced emotions that humans and can experience godlike fits of rage. They are, however, basically good and benevolent, so they tend not to take life. They are very powerful creatures and will fight with ferocity when necessary.
> To some, titans seem like gods. With their powers they can cause things to happen that, surely, only a god could. They are fiery and passionate, displaying emotions with greater purity and less reservation than mortal beings. Titans are quick to anger, but quicker still to forgive. In fits of rage they destroy mountains and in moments of passion will create empires. They are in all ways godlike and in all ways larger than life.
> ...




Now let's kick it up a notch.  4e Monster Vault.*Giant*
_These massive humaoids once ruled the world beside the primordials.  Now they dominate petty kingdoms and crusy any who oppose their tyrannical reign_.

Shortly after the world emerged from the smoldering forges of the primordials, titans stepped forth to help explore and shape the new creation.  They walked atop the world's still-cooling crust and swam through its churning seas, yet even in their immensity, the titans were too few to explore the vast world.  They created giants as a servant race, modeling them to resemble the titans' own elemental natures.  With the aid of the giants, the titans spread out across the world.  In time the giants enslaved some of the neascent races of the gods, most notably the dwarves.  Under the giants' steady gazes and heavy hands, these industrious slaves brought beauty and refinement to the world.

*A Shattered Legacy:
*...
The blow that finally crippled the giants came from a source the creatures never predicted.  The dwarves, who had maintained their secret devotion to Moradin for many years, rose up agianst their masters, unleashing the fury of a hundred generations of repression.
The giants and titans still covet the power they once posessed, and they have never forgiven the dwarves' betrayal.

*Born from Furor:* Giants stride about the planes, crafting castles in the highest cloouds and building citadels in the darkest stretches of the Underdark.  The most common types of giants in the world are hill giants, fire giants, and frost giants.
...
*Titanic Leaders:* Titans believe themselves to be the firstborn of creation, and they seek to emulate their primordial creators.  They shape imitations of the world from the raw pieces of the Elemental Chaos.  Unlike efreets they do not try to impose order on the regions they control.  Instead the titans revel in the entropic jumble of elemental forces.
A titan realm might contain places where the Elemental Chaos erupts into the world, spilling into the heart of an active volcano, into the midst of a permanent storm, or into the deepest reaches of a frozen wasteland.  In the world, these areas are usually populated by giants.  Through these natural planar connections, giants and titans can wreak havoc upon nearby realms, conquering vast tracts of land until someone stops them by closing the portal or slaying their chief.​Now that's mythic.  And it's mythic in a way that says the myths are still being written. Both myths of Ragnarok and myths like Jack and the Beanstalk.


Steely_Dan said:


> The best, total, you can still throw up your protestations, does not make it so.




And throwing up absolutely nothing to support yours doesn't even come close to making it so.


----------



## GreyICE (Nov 11, 2012)

You must spread some experience around before giving it to Neonchameleon again.


----------



## Mark Morrison (Nov 16, 2012)

At the risk of playing the grognard card, I'd have to say that original Fiend Folio is the book which most fired up my imagination; all of that wonderfully dark art by Russ Nicholson, and the whole enterprise bursting with the creativity of every writer in the UK ready to make their mark. Warlock of Firetop Mountain followed soon after, and 2000 AD was in its heyday; must have been something in the water. Or the Channel, rather.

That, and it had a flying vampire head trailing her guts below her.

M.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Nov 16, 2012)

Mark Morrison said:


> At the risk of playing the grognard card, I'd have to say that original Fiend Folio is the book which most fired up my imagination; all of that wonderfully dark art by Russ Nicholson, and the whole enterprise bursting with the creativity of every writer in the UK ready to make their mark. Warlock of Firetop Mountain followed soon after, and 2000 AD was in its heyday; must have been something in the water. Or the Channel, rather.
> 
> That, and it had a flying vampire head trailing her guts below her.
> 
> M.




Oh, I have no doubt that it fired your imagination - and from that perspective (which is possibly the most important) was a huge success.  And I don't mean to denigrate that.  Also the Fiend Folio is a very nice book (there's a reason I have a copy) and really stood out from the other 1e monster books.

But I really think that a lot of the liking for older monster books is rose tinted spectacles.  The 2e Monstrous Manual was (contrary to Steely Dan's assertions) _massively _better than the 1e Monster Manual and, as such, stood out like a diamond in the rough.  It was almost a revelation.  Monster Vault, as I believe several of us have demonstrated, has more and better fluff than the 2e Monstrous Manual.  But while the Monstrous Manual left the 1e Monster Manual in the dust, Monster Vault is only a bit better than the Monstrous Manual - and it's a lot harder to inspire a 33 year old adult than the same person as a 13 year old kid.

As far as monster books being revalations go, the only one in the same league as the 2e Monstrous Manual (or even the 1e Fiend Folio) that I'm aware of is the 4e Monster Manual 1.  And it was a revelation by D&D standards not because the fluff was inspiring, but because the _statblocks_ were. @pmerton thinks that the fluff was good - and honestly I don't find it bad.  But it's the representations where the rubber meets the road (i.e. in play) that leave any previous offerings in the dust or at least promise to.  The 4e MM1 isn't bedside reading in the way the Monstrous Manual is - but it's incredibly inspiring to most people with a tactically oriented mind in my opinion and many kinaesthetic learners - this dichotomy is why it is so controversial.  (I happen to fit both 'kinaesthetic learner' and 'tactician').  4e Monster Vault offers both superb bedside reading fluff and statblocks that are what the MM1 promises but with more polish and that almost invariably deliver, but the bedside reading isn't the revalation the 2e Monstrous Manual was and the statblocks are mostly polished versions of the 4e Monster Manual 1.


----------



## darjr (Nov 16, 2012)

I agree that the 4e MM1 had statblocks that were a revelation and very inspiring and contained a kind of wonderful flavor/fluff when I originally looked at, but then I was invested in the 4e ruleset. Now when I look at it there isn't quite the same feeling. Mostly I just ignore the stat block. I imagine that lack of impact of the stat block is the same for folks who were never invested in 4e.


----------



## Steely_Dan (Nov 16, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> The 2e Monstrous Manual was (contrary to Steely Dan's assertions) _massively _better than the 1e Monster Manual and




It's an opinion, please don't be rude, and I still disagree with your opinion (about pretty much everything, always).

The 2nd Ed Monstrous Manual is a great book, though.


----------



## gdmcbride (Nov 16, 2012)

We are a long way into this discussion without mentioning the Malleus Monstrorum for Call of Cthulhu, a simply epic monster book. Yes, it is focused on mythos monsters but it is still very adaptable for fantasy RPGs of every stripe. What I love about that book, is the handouts. Almost every monster is depicted in some historical relic, art piece, or so forth. Each monster is a plot hook. Great work.

You can read a 16 page publisher generated excerpt here. You can probably skip to the last few pages to really get a feel for the book.

I understand that there is a second edition in German that has not yet been translated into English. Criminal, my friends. Criminal.

Gary McBride


----------



## Steely_Dan (Nov 16, 2012)

gdmcbride said:


> We are a long way into this discussion without mentioning the Malleus Monstrorum for Call of Cthulhu





I do like the size comparison of monsters in CoC.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 16, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> The 2e Monstrous Manual was (contrary to Steely Dan's assertions) _massively _better than the 1e Monster Manual and, as such, stood out like a diamond in the rough.  It was almost a revelation.  Monster Vault, as I believe several of us have demonstrated, has more and better fluff than the 2e Monstrous Manual.  But while the Monstrous Manual left the 1e Monster Manual in the dust, Monster Vault is only a bit better than the Monstrous Manual



Based on the 2nd ed MM entries that I and others have linked to in this thread, I think this is quite a generous assessment of the Monstrous Manual.



Neonchameleon said:


> As far as monster books being revalations go, the only one in the same league as the 2e Monstrous Manual (or even the 1e Fiend Folio) that I'm aware of is the 4e Monster Manual 1.  And it was a revelation by D&D standards not because the fluff was inspiring, but because the _statblocks_ were. @pmerton thinks that the fluff was good - and honestly I don't find it bad.  But it's the representations where the rubber meets the road (i.e. in play) that leave any previous offerings in the dust or at least promise to.  The 4e MM1 isn't bedside reading in the way the Monstrous Manual is - but it's incredibly inspiring to most people with a tactically oriented mind in my opinion and many kinaesthetic learners - this dichotomy is why it is so controversial.



I agree that the 4e MM was a revelation - in play, but also in pre-reading, because of the play that it promised.

I do read 4e monster books as bedtime reading, but not because they're stories - but because of the play implict in them.

In contrast to pre-4e monster books, I found Rolemaster's Creatures & Treasures very good, mostly because it showed a very clear alternative to the D&D norm: concise stat blocks, dozens of monsters on a page, and also a strong integration of monster and PC-building rules: C&T uses Rolemaster's spell list systems to express the supernatural abilities of monsters, which does have the "need multiple books" headache but, for a strongly simulationist system, helps reinforce the sense of the spell lists as expressing the underlying workings of magic in that world.



darjr said:


> I agree that the 4e MM1 had statblocks that were a revelation and very inspiring and contained a kind of wonderful flavor/fluff when I originally looked at, but then I was invested in the 4e ruleset. Now when I look at it there isn't quite the same feeling. Mostly I just ignore the stat block. I imagine that lack of impact of the stat block is the same for folks who were never invested in 4e.



That makes sense. An appreciation for the stat blocks is certainly a key part of reading the 4e MM. They're not an appendix to the monster descriptions - they express the monsters as game elements.


----------



## griffonwing (Nov 17, 2012)

I would have to go with the new Hacklopedia of Beasts.  Not just because I am a fan of the new system (which is a perfect blend of several different mechanics used in other systems, rebuilt to work seamlessly) but also because of the innovation of the book layout.

You have iconic monsters.  The pig-faced Orc, Cyclops, Ogres, the dog-faced Kobolds (not dragonkin), the canine Gnoles, Troglodytes and Trolls. You also have the unique and bizarre like the Tarantubat, a fist-sized spider with bat-webbing between the first 3 pairs of legs, Giant Ticks, Flesh-Eating Slime, Giant Goat, and Swamp Death (similar to a Shambling Mound).

Then you have the extraneous information regarding these beasts.  
GENERAL INFORMATION
1) Activity Cycle (diurnal, nocturnal, always active, etc)
2) No. Appearing (3-5, 1-20, or even 1, 2-10 (band), 11-20 (war band) depending on how you want the combat)
3) % Chance in Lair (infrequent, Frequent, Sporadic, etc)
4) Alignment (duh)
5) Vision Type (n/a, standard, low light, undead sight, etc)
6) Awareness/Senses (standard, 10% Listening/Observation, etc)
7) Habitat (Caves, Plains, Open Grasslands, Tombs or Dungeons, etc)
8) Diet (Omnivorous, Carnivorous, Sanguivorous, etc)
9) Organization (Solitary to Tribal, Individual-Family-Clan, etc)
10) Climate/Terrain (Any, Tropical, Termperate Wilderness, etc)

YIELD
1) Medicinal (nil, elephant brains are said to cure senility, ettin kidneys are thought to cure allergies) Do they?  Who knows. This is a field guide, not a fact book)
2) Spell Components (ground ghoul bone can be used to offset the listed spell components for example)
3) Hide/Trophy (Gorgon head is a valuable trophy-up to 250 sp)
4) Treasure (hag homes are replete with potions (guessing, perhaps, 2d10 random potions?), hapries are fond of jewelry and object d'art (random rolls for these as well)
5) Edible (harpy-yes, medusa-toxic (as per snake bite), etc)
6) Other (all spider types-webbing has many uses, elephant-tusks are a source of ivory)
7) Experient Point Value

Also, you are given Sign/Tracks for all creatures, the range/locations on Tellene of the majority of the creatures, Size comparison vs a 6ft Human.  You have the Combat/Tactics write up, their Habitat/Society section, and every monster entry starts out with a first-hand account by 1 of six noted professionals: Greytar the sage; El Ravager the fighter; Larzon Bayz, the bounty hunter; Dorran Randril, a master herbologist; Helena Vitira, cleric of the Eternal Lantern; and Dealaan Daarmae, a canny Reanaarian master thief. Each account is written in their own style of speech, be it unlearned, dignified, or pompous (using large words).

Last, but not least, are the extra touches you find in the book, along with masterful miscellaneous rules.  One that stands out are the Dog Pack Mauling rules. There is a 4-page account by Larzon entitles The Beast in the Rocks, recounting his confrontation with an Owlbeast lair, which would be the basis of a great one-off or side adventure.

Even if you never play HackMaster, the details in this book would be very beneficial for any GM. Simply use the HoB fluff and insert your systems combat information (HP, saves, attack/def, etc).


----------



## Neonchameleon (Nov 17, 2012)

griffonwing said:


> I would have to go with the new Hacklopedia of Beasts.  Not just because I am a fan of the new system (which is a perfect blend of several different mechanics used in other systems, rebuilt to work seamlessly) but also because of the innovation of the book layout.
> 
> You have iconic monsters.  The pig-faced Orc, Cyclops, Ogres, the dog-faced Kobolds (not dragonkin), the canine Gnoles, Troglodytes and Trolls. You also have the unique and bizarre like the Tarantubat, a fist-sized spider with bat-webbing between the first 3 pairs of legs, Giant Ticks, Flesh-Eating Slime, Giant Goat, and Swamp Death (similar to a Shambling Mound).
> 
> ...




And this brings me onto a pet rant.

The lair probabilities are all very well for wild animals - but if we're dealing with humans, orcs, goblins, and the like, they are useless if not worse.  I want to find out what _that particular _society is doing - generic humans do not all have the same %lair chance.  And Number Appearing: "Dictated by Owner" is about right - this is wasted space.  And I don't need seven pages of text on owlbears - at that point I start thinking the designers are paid by the word and have decided to pad everything out.  Not that I dislike everything about the Hacklopaedia - the size comparison, the weight, and for a setting-specific monster, the map are all very good.

And that's a lot of fluff.  Four pages for dogs - with the Dog Pack Mauling Rules copied and pasted below.*Dog Pack Mauling Rules:*
Any attack by a dog that exceeds the defender’s roll by
5 or more indicates that the dog has not only injured its
victim for standard damage, but that it also grabbed one
of the defender’s limbs. Roll randomly to determine
which arm or leg the dog latched onto. However, the following
caveat applies: if the shield arm is indicated, reroll
the result. A second consecutive result of this limb
indicates that the shield arm has indeed been grabbed
and it is, along with and defensive benefits provided by
the shield, useless until freed.
Once having grabbed on to an opponent, the canine
will pull and tug inflicting d4p damage every 10 seconds
(no Defense roll allowed nor Attack roll required though
armor DR applies). Further, the defender suffers a 2-
point penalty to all rolls and cannot use the ensnared
limb for any action other than spending 5 seconds attempting
to free it of the canine’s hold (requiring a Feat
of Strength vs. d20p+8). If a leg has been grabbed, the
victim cannot move at more than a crawling pace while
he drags the dog behind him. If the dog’s jaws hold a
weapon arm, attack is impossible and any defensive
bonuses gained from weapon skill are forfeited. (Note
though that the weapon is rarely dropped – a successful
Feat of Strength vs. d20p+3 retains control of any held
weapon). A dog that has grabbed a character may also be
compelled to loosen its grip via a successful knock-back or
by inflicting sufficient damage to cause a Threshold of
Pain check.
A single dog provides little more than a nuisance, particularly
to armored characters, either slowing down an
intruder (when the leg is grabbed) or hindering his attacks
or defense (an arm grab). Far more frightening,
however, is when a pack of dogs works in concert to pull
down a victim. A second dog that successfully grabs the
same defender saddles the victim with a 6-point penalty
to all rolls and two limbs are now incapacitated. Thereafter,
any successful attack by an additional dog will
knock Small creatures prone, an attack of 5 or more in excess
of that required to hit will knock a Medium creature
prone and 10 or more will knock a Large creature prone.
Even if its quarry is not knocked prone, a successful attack
by a third dog will automatically grab hold. When
held by three dogs, an attack by a fourth reduces the defender’s
effective size by one category if a fourth dog attacks,
and so on.
Any prey knocked prone will be viciously mauled by all
nearby dogs, who bite with bonuses of +2 to Speed and
+6 to Attack, although it is 50% likely that each limb will
be freed as the dogs will be more concerned with mauling
than tugging.​Gurgle.  By my count that literally took fifty lines of almost solid text (I counted) in the Hacklopaedia for a complex effect that takes several times to read through.  This isn't a case of "masterful miscellaneous rules" - by the standard of the 4e monster manuals calling them "amateurish miscallaneous rules" would be flattering.

For comparison, taken from the Dire Wolf statblock in MV:*Traits
Pack Harrier
*The wolf has combat advantage against any enemy that is adjacent to two or more of the wolf's allies
...
*Bite * At Will
*Attack: Melee 1 (one creature): +10 vs AC
Hit: 2d8+4 damage, or 3d8+4 against a prone target.  The target falls prone if the wolf has combat advantage against it.​The end result is that like those dogs you praise, 4e dire wolves team up in groups of three or more, bring the enemy to the ground, and then tear them apart once they have fallen.  This takes no additional rolls, no complex modifiers, and has the wolves behaving properly.  And took four lines added*, including a header - or a tenth of the space.  We could get the grab (as an encounter power) in in another three lines (again, including another line) if we really want to - and ongoing damage is a standard effect in 4e.

Simple, clean, effective, and takes around a tenth of the space of what you consider "masterful mechanical touches".  And it doesn't stand out because literally _all_ 4e monsters have this sort of deft touch to encourage them to behave the way they should. 

From the look of it, the Hacklopaedia is effectively a deluxe version of the 2e Monstrous Manual - it does everything done by 2e, but moreso.  And that Kenzer themselves choose to highlight the 'innovative dog pack mauling rules' has just completely unsold me on getting a system I'd been considering taking a look at.

* Three lines of Pack Harrier including the header, and a line's worth of text added to their normal Bite attack to get the prone and extra damage


----------



## griffonwing (Nov 17, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> And this brings me onto a pet rant.
> ...
> ...
> ...



There is more to a game than simple boiled down rules.  A game shouldnt be "see how much we can boil this system down" textwise.

Sure, They could replace the section on Dog Mauling Rules with a very simple algorithm.  Sure they could.  But why?

You read Math books to learn Math Formulae.  If you wish to read player manuals and monster books, solely for the hard math crunch, that's all good and well.  As for me, I want to read stories.  I want to delve into a book and read adventures about adventures.  

This monster book does that.  It starts off each monster with a first-hand account, then adds in the crunchy math for you.  Yeah, they also include stories into the math as well.  That's what KenzerCo are.  Storytellers.

Naturally, you have your opinion, as I have mine. Neither of us are wrong.


----------



## Treebore (Nov 18, 2012)

griffonwing said:


> There is more to a game than simple boiled down rules.  A game shouldnt be "see how much we can boil this system down" textwise.
> 
> Sure, They could replace the section on Dog Mauling Rules with a very simple algorithm.  Sure they could.  But why?
> 
> ...




The HoB is a fine book. I'd love to see others adopt its presentation.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Nov 18, 2012)

griffonwing said:


> There is more to a game than simple boiled down rules.  A game shouldnt be "see how much we can boil this system down" textwise.
> 
> Sure, They could replace the section on Dog Mauling Rules with a very simple algorithm.  Sure they could.  But why?
> 
> ...




And this is a perfect example of a major difference in how we read books.  I have an entire bookshelf full of good fiction books.  Compared to most of them, Kenzer and Co (or WotC or just about any other game company) are half-baked.   And the stories I'm interested in at the table are the stories we are telling as we play; I don't want to have to read through fifty lines of Kenzer & Co's fiction and obfuscated rules so I can work out what the dog does next.  I want things to resolve at the tabletop so we can play our game, not read Kenzer's fiction and spend a minute or two distracted from the game in front of us.

If the purpose of a rulebook is to sit on the shelf and be read as bedtime reading, I've better.  Booker winners.  Hugo winners.  If it's to be played, I want to be able to figure out the mechanics at a glance.

If the fiction gets in the way of actually playing the game _then it shouldn't be there_.  Fifty lines to do what should be done in five does get in the way of actually playing the game.

That's why.  The "fluff" in this case gets in the way of playing the game and telling the actually important story at the tabletop - i.e. that concerning the PCs.

Finally you seem to have not been reading the thread.  In terms of fiction, fluff, and inspiration, many of us have been demonstrating how Monster Vault blows away the competition from the 2e Monstrous Manual and is far more inspiring.  It does this _in addtion to_ making rules like the dog pack mauling rules look like childish finger paintings.  So talking about "solely for the hard math crunch" is irrelevant, and shows you haven't been reading the thread.


----------



## griffonwing (Nov 18, 2012)

Hrmm.  I actually have been reading the thread.  But, as you say, we have our own differences.  You seem to like tell me what I am doing wrong, or what I'm not doing at all, or what I am not reading.  Ive not said the same about you.  

I am letting this drop.


----------



## Evenglare (Nov 18, 2012)

What is the best monster book?

Easily Tomb of Horrors compilation hands down.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Nov 18, 2012)

griffonwing said:


> Hrmm.  I actually have been reading the thread.  But, as you say, we have our own differences.  You seem to like tell me what I am doing wrong, or what I'm not doing at all, or what I am not reading.  Ive not said the same about you.




"If you wish to read player manuals and monster books, solely for the hard math crunch, that's all good and well." - either you were saying what I am doing or that sentence was an intentional strawman.  If you were to have said that you like a different style of story and narrative from the one I've been advocating that would have been a different matter.

And I'm not telling you what _you_ are doing wrong in most of my posts.  I'm saying what _Kenzer & Co._ are doing wrong in their writing.  The only times I've said something about what you are doing are about reading monster manuals for the story - something you have said you are doing and where you have made a claim about what I do that is objectively refuted by the thread.



> I am letting this drop.




Probably wise.


----------



## Starfox (Nov 18, 2012)

Midpoint between 3E and 4E monster books. The game should not be so complex that you really need more than a quarter-page even for a complex monster. One quarter of a page is a picture. The rest of the page gets to be background and fluff. More than one page per monster, and it risks becoming a wall of text and restrictive rather than inspirational. Important monsters get as much as a 2-page spread. with a stat block of perhaps half a page.

I used to be less fluff-oriented, and then more fluff-oriented, but as I matured I realized this is the balance I like best.

About half the 1E stat block was superfluous; I agree % in lair was not very interesting. The 3E stat block (as well as Pathfinder) really is too complex for my liking - because the rules they are used with are too complex. I kind of liked the 4E monster format, but the fluff got pushed too far into a corner. A complex monster needs minor abilities and fluff beside its heavy-hitter combat powers to make it interesting, even if these minor abilities are only hinted at.


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 19, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> Finally you seem to have not been reading the thread.  In terms of fiction, fluff, and inspiration, many of us have been demonstrating how Monster Vault blows away the competition from the 2e Monstrous Manual and is far more inspiring.




It demonstrates it for you perhaps. But different people are obviously finding inspiration and appreciation in different approaches.

I've read both and I find the 2e MM the best overall, though I'm sure that by cherry-picking and comparing you could advocate any of the various editions' MM to be better than another on one element or another. The 4e Monster Vault is pretty good in amount of flavor text (a massive improvement from the original 4e MM) but lot of the 4e flavor simply doesn't speak to me compared to previous editions' takes*, and the initial 4e MM had in general IMO a horrific lack of descriptive text and flavor (buried in the mechanics text may work for others, but it's not how I would favor it).

*I would probably appreciate various bits of its flavor and monsters much much more if it hadn't attempted to rewrite or retcon various things en masse, use classic names for completely different monsters, etc.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 19, 2012)

griffonwing said:


> If you wish to read player manuals and monster books, solely for the hard math crunch, that's all good and well.  As for me, I want to read stories.  I want to delve into a book and read adventures about adventures.



I don't understand what the "story" is in the dog pack mauling rules that you lauded and [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] quoted. To me, they just look like clunky mechanics.

I also noticed this bit in the rules:

Further, the defender suffers a 2-point penalty to all rolls and cannot use the ensnared
limb for any action other than spending 5 seconds attempting to free it of the canine’s hold​
What happens if the half-ogre fighter who has a dog latched onto his/her arm wants to start using the dog as a battering ram? Or to fling it through the air as a missile weapon? These look to me like not just clunky but bad, because overly prescriptive, mechanics.



Shemeska said:


> I find the 2e MM the best overall, though I'm sure that by cherry-picking and comparing you could advocate any of the various editions' MM to be better than another on one element or another. The 4e Monster Vault is pretty good in amount of flavor text (a massive improvement from the original 4e MM) but lot of the 4e flavor simply doesn't speak to me compared to previous editions' takes*, and the initial 4e MM had in general IMO a horrific lack of descriptive text and flavor (buried in the mechanics text may work for others, but it's not how I would favor it).



You didn't reply to my post 40 upthread. Can you please provide an example from the 2nd ed Monstrous Manual which has more flavour text than the same monster in the 4e MM?

I discussed goblins, spiders, azers, galeb duhr and zombies upthread. I also pointed out the entries for Demons and Devils, which have more information than any comparable entry in a 1st ed AD&D MM (I believe these monsters are not present in the Monstrous Manual).

I may well have been cherry-picking examples - which ones should I be looking at?


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 19, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Can you please provide an example from the 2nd ed Monstrous Manual which has more flavour text than the same monster in the 4e MM?




It's going to be hard, given that I don't own a 4e MM.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 19, 2012)

Shemeska said:


> It's going to be hard, given that I don't own a 4e MM.



Ah, I'd assumed that you were familiar with it, given that you have posted extensively about its contents.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Nov 19, 2012)

Shemeska said:


> It's going to be hard, given that I don't own a 4e MM.




OK.  Care to name three highlights from the 2e Monstrous Manual then? 

For what it's worth, the examples I've made haven't been cherry picked - although opening a book randomly may get to a commonly used page.


----------



## Iosue (Nov 19, 2012)

Which is the best Monster book depends on what I'm playing and what I want out of it.

I love the Classic D&D/RC monster descriptions, and to a certain extent the 1e MM.  Entries are short and pithy, without overly detailed statblocks or descriptions.  Because when I'm playing Classic D&D, I'm playing a dungeon/wilderness exploration game, and I don't want a lot of fluff, or pages and pages of monsters.  I want something I can find and note on the fly, and with plenty of wiggle-room to fluff as I want, as needed.  The Classic D&D monster entries match well with a Wandering Monster style of play.  Combat is fast and abstract, so I don't need or want a bunch of monster abilities.

But now 2e's forte is World Building, and the MC/MM single-page entries are great for that.  Lots of ecological/sociological info, and the relatively dry fluff is a feature, not a bug.  It allows the monsters to nicely fit into any kind of homebrew.

Now when I'm playing 4e, I'm looking forward to encounters with maps n' minis combat.  Combat is more granular, and is going to take some time, so I want the monsters to have variety and different powers.  And in particular I like the Monster Vault, for its great artwork and vivid tokens.  One of the frustrating things when I first purchased the Core books was having all the different monsters, but no minis or tokens.  So I fell totally in love with the MV, since it had all the goodies of the 4e MM, plus tons of great tokens.

I've never played 3e, but I daresay it's great for those folks who are not just world building, but world simulating, and want to see the bare bones of how these monsters are created, in the same vein as PCs.

But when I'm playing Red Box, the MV isn't what I want.  Nor are the Red Box monsters what I want when I'm playing 4e.  Each Monster book was lovingly designed to be the best book for the demands of the game it belonged to.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 19, 2012)

Iosue said:


> Which is the best Monster book depends on what I'm playing and what I want out of it.
> 
> I love the Classic D&D/RC monster descriptions, and to a certain extent the 1e MM. Entries are short and pithy, without overly detailed statblocks or descriptions. Because when I'm playing Classic D&D, I'm playing a dungeon/wilderness exploration game, and I don't want a lot of fluff, or pages and pages of monsters. I want something I can find and note on the fly, and with plenty of wiggle-room to fluff as I want, as needed. The Classic D&D monster entries match well with a Wandering Monster style of play. Combat is fast and abstract, so I don't need or want a bunch of monster abilities.
> 
> ...




I can't XP you right now... but this was a really great answer.


----------



## Stormonu (Nov 19, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> OK.  Care to name three highlights from the 2e Monstrous Manual then?
> 
> For what it's worth, the examples I've made haven't been cherry picked - although opening a book randomly may get to a commonly used page.




Derro (Dwarf, Derro) was a 2E that stood out in my mind - primarily the section in habitat on the Uniting War.  I'm not sure Derro are in MV, however.

Randomly picking a page, I'd also like to see you compare, say Vampire, Imp/Quasit and Fungus (Shrieker, Violet Fungi, Gas Spore, Ascimoid/Phycamoid) [Are these guys even in 4E?!?) .  As an alternate, Beholder/Beholder-kin (ALL of 'em).


----------



## Neonchameleon (Nov 20, 2012)

Imaro said:


> I can't XP you right now... but this was a really great answer.




Apparently there's soemthing we can agree on right down to the being unable to XP.



Stormonu said:


> Derro (Dwarf, Derro) was a 2E that stood out in my mind - primarily the section in habitat on the Uniting War.  I'm not sure Derro are in MV, however.




Depends.  Will you accept Duegar?  Which are in MV - and the MM2 (but not the MM1).  Same page as Derro (and it's the Duegar not the Derro who launch the Uniting War).  I agree that the Uniting War is a nice touch - and not one that made it as far as 4e. 

For that matter 4e Duegar are slightly silly; they fling beard-quills at people.  (No, I don't know either).   But then the 2e Duegar entry seems utterly pointless.

4e Duegar vs 2e Derro.*Duegar
*_The duegar are slavers that dwell in the volcanic regions of the Underdark.  They were once the thralls of mind flayers, but they turned to devils to help escape bondage.  Now they aquire their own slaves by making raids into the surface world._​That sets their place in the world far better than "Derro live in large underground complexes, nearer the surface than the kuo-toans and drow, but deeper than goblins and trolls."  And further "Other Underdark denizens also call on duegar to build keeps, castles, and other structures of stone."  Or "Many of the fortresslike cities that duegar inhabit have places that serve as embassies for devils.  Throughout these cities, devils travel openly in the streets."  Monster Vault has sections on how Duegar pick slaves, how they treat slaves, how they raid for them, where the Duegar live, and what their cities look like.  Much as I like the Uniting War, that is the _only_ point in the entire page I find remotely inspiring.  As opposed to the evil dwarves who've rejected Moradin for demons and make cities where demons can walk freely "on islands in the middle of underground seas, in caverns surrounded by moats of lava, or on the edge of deep chasms."

I think the 4e Duegar win here even if the 2e Derro have a very cool way to hook them in.



> Randomly picking a page, I'd also like to see you compare, say Vampire,



In the preview.  Compare with 2e.  Over half the 2e text is combat - and that goes in the statblock; a section I find long winded and thoroughly tedious.  Also a 2e Vampire is straight from the Hammer Horror Studios - whereas a 4e Vampire is much more post-White Wolf.  I definitely know which I prefer; the decadence of a 4e vampire lends them an allure - and coming with Vampire Spawn (a.k.a. Buffy level Vampires) makes them social if you want them to be.  But Vampires are an odd one as they are deep rooted enough in popular culture that almost no one is going to read the text that hard as we all know what vampires are.



> Imp/Quasit



Imp/Quasit.  Quasits don't exist in 4e; demons just want to watch the world burn.  The tempters are all devils.  This puts clear water between the two and makes them distinct rather than groups that fight over how to be evil.

Imps get all the awesome 4e Devil fluff - I'm not sure whether you want to count "Fallen Servants of the Gods" as good fluff or not.  But honestly I'll match*Tempters of Mortals: *The follower of Asmodeus are, like their masters, nothing if not cunning.  Many devils prefer to capture the souls of mortals through non-violent means, even convincing mortals to give up their own free will.  For example, imps (small, red-skinned devils with leathery wings and stinger-tipped tails) whisper promises of power in mortals' ears, corrupting them with unholy contracts that divulge the secrets of arcane and divine magic.  [Sentence on succubi snipped].  Both of these types of devils are capable of fulfilling their promises, but everything comes with a price.  A wizard who agrees to a contract with an imp might learn spells beyond imagination, but he is likely to sink slowly into madness as the dark magic erodes his sanity.​I will take that for inspiring _any day_ over "Their main purpose on the Prime Material plane is to spread evil by assisting lawful evil wizards and priests. When such a person is judged worthy of an imp's service, the imp comes in answer to a _find familiar_ spell.  Once they have contacted their new "master", imps begin at once to take control of his actions. Although imps maintain the illusion that the summoner is in charge, the actual relationship is closer to that of a workman (the imp) and his tools (the master)."

2E imps find evil people and work for them and empower them.  4E imps find corruptable people and tempt them to evil by offering them promises _that they can and will fulfill_.  A 2e Imp will leave a neutral but book hungry caster alone.  A 4e one won't.



> and Fungus (Shrieker, Violet Fungi, Gas Spore, Ascimoid/Phycamoid) [Are these guys even in 4E?!?) .



Not all of them.  4e doesn't run to Gas Spores - but has its own take on Myconids although those are in the MM2.



> As an alternate, Beholder/Beholder-kin (ALL of 'em).



Oof!  That's twelve types.  But it's fluff we're interested in.  What do they do?  4e gets only three in Monster Vault - the Gauth, the Beholder, and the Eye Tyrant.

But where do Beholders fit?  Where do they come from (other than bad puns)?  And where do they go?

Let's take one of the Beholder Kin semi-at random (mostly because I remember reading books by that name).
*Lensman** (abomination) *
 A lensman has one eye set in the chest of its five-limbed, starfish-shaped, simian body. Beneath the eye is a leering, toothy maw. Four of the five limbs end in three-fingered, two-thumbed, clawed hands. The fifth limb, atop the body, is a prehensile, whip-like tentacle. Its chitin is soft and there are many short, fly-like hairs. Lensmen are the only kin to wear any sort of garb -- a webbing that is used to hold tools and weapons. Their preferred weapons are double-headed pole arms. 
 Lensmen are semi-mindless drones that don't question their lot in life. The eye of each lensman possesses only one of the following six special powers (all at the 6th level of ability). 
1. _Emotion _
2. _Heal _
3. _Dispel Magic _
4. _Tongues _
5. _Phantasmal Force _
6. _Protections_ (as scrolls, any type, but only one at a time) ​That's not a description.  That's a statblock and description of a faceless mook.  Other than a slightly freakish appearance, I can't see _anything_ that really makes me want to use them.  In fact far the most interesting of the Beholder Kin is one with no statblock at all.
*Beholder Mage *
 Shunned by other beholders, this is a beholder which has purposely blinded its central eye, so that it might cast spells. It does so by channeling spell energy through an eyestalk, replacing the normal effect with that of a spell of its choice. ​  Now that's an interesting idea.  Pity it wasn't developed - and equally a pity about the shunning contradicting with "Beholders and beholder-kin are usually solitary creatures".  It's shunned ... by other solitary creatures.  Wait, what?

That said, I _do_ like the death tyrant.

So why do I want to use 2e Beholders?  Other than the appearance and the pun?  And let's face it, the 2e beholder (the second one below) looks very goofy.  The 4e one is _scary_.  Do I want a giant floating eyeball full of hate with a goofy expression on a silly looking face?  Possibly.  Do I want a giant eldritch bundle of tentacles raining death down on the PCs?  Hell, yeah!







And why do Beholders look so weird?  4e has an answer.

*Beholder
*_Creatures of abohorrent shape and alien mind, beholders seek dominance over all they survey.  The floating horrors enforce their will by firing rays of magic from their eyestalks.

_When the unwholesome plane known as the Far Realm comes into tenuous contact with reality, terrible things boil across the boundary.  Nightmares form the thunderhead of psychic storms that presage the arrival of warped beings and forces undreamt of by the maddest dmon or the vilest devil.  Many aberrant creatures stumble upon the world by accident, pushed in like a chill wind through a door suddenly opened.  Others crash into reality because it is as loathsome to them as their surreal homeworld is to all sane natives of the rational planes.  Beholders, however, come as conquerers.  Each one seeks to claim all in its sight, and Beholders see much indeed.

Beholders do not belong in the world or in any of the planes inhabited by immortal or elemental, primordial or god.  Their home, the Far Realm, is so antithetical to rational thought that most hwo glimpse the plane go mad.  Like other unsettling inhabitants of that place, beholders have forms unlike those of natural creatures.​Or to sum up, 4e Beholders are half Conquistador, half Shoggoth.  Means, motive, and explanation - and an explanation that can either make them a single entity looking to hold what it can or a vanguard to an incursion ending up with Dread Cthulu himself (or itself, or whatever is applicable).  "When beholders work togeter or do the bidding of a more powerful master, the world is in peril."

Does that, strong theme, motivation, metaplot, and reason for looking the way they do, make up for not having the Lensman, the Overseer, the Watcher, and even the awesome Death Tyrant.  In my view, Hell Yes!

To me that's a clear win for the 4e Imp (not even a contest), and a comfortable win on each of the other categories assuming you allow the Derro/Duegar substitution - the 2e Beholders might even scramble a draw due to the numbers, the variety, the Undead Beholder, and the Mage.  (The 2e Duegar doesn't even make it to the starting blocks).


----------



## Mark Morrison (Nov 20, 2012)

I definitely agree that the 4e stat blocks are marvelous. Monsters are so easy to run now; not having to look up another rule has been a great boon at the table.

I forgot to mention another complete favourite: The Book of Fiends by Chris Pramas (Green Ronin). That book was great fuel for my 17th century demon-hunting campaign.

M.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 20, 2012)

Stormonu said:


> Randomly picking a page, I'd also like to see you compare, say Vampire, Imp/Quasit and Fungus (Shrieker, Violet Fungi, Gas Spore, Ascimoid/Phycamoid) [Are these guys even in 4E?!?) .  As an alternate, Beholder/Beholder-kin (ALL of 'em).



I'm doing imps and vampires (with reference to the MM, whereas [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] has referenced the MV).

*Imps*
Here is the flavour text on imps from the Monstrous Manual:

Imps are diminutive creatures of an evil nature who roam the world and act as familiars for lawful evil wizards and priests. . . Imps are beings of a very evil nature who originate on the darkest of evil planes. Their main purpose on the Prime Material plane is to spread evil by assisting lawful evil wizards and priests. When such a person is judged worthy of an imp's service, the imp comes in answer to a _find familiar _spell.

Once they have contacted their new "master", imps begin at once to take control of his actions. Although imps maintain the illusion that the summoner is in charge, the actual relationship is closer to that of a workman (the imp) and his tools (the master).

Although an imp's body can be destroyed on the Prime Material plane, it is not so easily slain. When its physical form is lost, its corrupt spirit instantly returns to its home plane where it is reformed and, after a time, returned to our world to resume its work.

While they are technically in the service of their master, imps retain a basic independence and ambition to become more powerful someday. . .

Imps are the errand boys of the powerful evil beings who command the darkest planes. They often act as emissaries and agents, but their primary task is to enhance the spread of evil in our world.​
There's a lot of repetition there, but the gist is pretty clear.

In the 4e MM, imps are under the "devil" entry, which has a 1000+ word history of, and guide to, the Nine Hells. It talks about the devils' betrayal of their former divine master, their use of bargains to secure mortal souls, etc. Here is the flavour text from the 4e MM that is additional to that background, and particular to imps:

Imps act as spies and emissaries for more powerful devils. Mortals often make bargains with imps, thinking that the weak devils are easy to control. Ultimately, most imps prove their loyalties lie with the Lords of the Nine and not any mortal master.

Imps are devious and deadly mischief-makers. They take pleasure in tricking mortals into harming one another. . .

Imps partner with mortals who seek magical power. By helping their “masters” attain new spells or locate magic items, imps foster a madness for power that leads their masters to perform evil acts. . .

Imps possess impressive knowledge about magical subjects. They gain most of their information from other devils, from past experience, or from spying efforts of their own.​I think that conveys as much information as, if not more than, the 2nd ed entry. In particular, it explains _how it is_ that imps take control of their "masters", namely, by feeding them information about magical secrets and thereby engendering a lust for power that they can in turn satisfy, by urging to greater and greater evil.

What 4e doesn't have is the _find familiar_ spell - the recruitment of imps by mortals (and vice versa) is a matter primarily of free roleplay. Whether that's an improvement or a detriment is, I think, a matter of taste.

*Vampires*
From the 2nd ed Monstrous Manual:

Of all the chaotic evil undead creatures that stalk the world, none is more dreadful than the vampire. Moving silently through the night, vampires prey upon the living without mercy or compassion. Unless deep underground, they must return to the coffins in which they pass the daylight hours, and even in the former case they must occasionally return to such to rest, for their power is renewed by contact with soil from their graves.

One aspect that makes the vampire far more fearful than many of its undead kindred is its appearance. Unlike other undead creatures, the vampire can easily pass among normal men without drawing attention to itself for, although its facial features are sharp and feral, they do not seem inhuman. In many cases, a vampire's true nature is revealed only when it attacks. . .

Any human or humanoid creature slain by the life energy drain of a vampire is doomed to become a vampire himself. Thus, those who would hunt these lords of the undead must be very careful lest they find themselves condemned to a fate far worse than death. The transformation takes place one day after the burial of the creature. Those who are not actually buried, however, do not become undead and it is thus traditional that the bodies of a vampire's victims be burned or similarly destroyed. Once they become undead, the new vampire is under the complete control of its killer. If that vampire is destroyed, the controlled undead are freed from its power and become self-willed creatures. . .

Vampires live in areas of death and desolation where they will not be reminded of the lives they have left behind. Ruined castles or chapels and large cemeteries are popular lairs for them, as are sites of great tragedies or battles. Vampires often feel a strong attachment to specific areas with some morbid significance, like the grave of a suicide or the site of a murder.

When deciding on a course of action or planning a campaign, vampires move very slowly and meticulously. It is not uncommon for a vampire to undertake some scheme which may take decades or even centuries to reach its conclusion. Because of the curse of immortality that has fallen upon them, they feel that time is always on their side and will often defeat foes who might otherwise overcome them; the vampire can simply go into hiding for a few decades until the passing of the years brings down its enemies.

Vampires are normally solitary creatures. When they are found in the company of others of their kind, the group will certainly consist of a single vampire lord and a small group of vampires which it has created to do its bidding. In this way, the vampire can exert its power over a greater range without running the risk of exposing itself to attack by would-be heroes.

In general, vampires feel only contempt for the world and its inhabitants. Denied the pleasures of a true life, they have become dark and twisted creatures bent on revenge and terror. When a vampire creates another of its kind, it considers the new creature a mere tool. The minion will be sent on missions which the vampire feels may be too dangerous or unimportant for its personal attention. If the need arises, these pawns will gladly be sacrificed to protect or further the ends of their master. . .

The vampire has no place in the world of living creatures. It is a thing of darkness that exists only to bring about evil and chaos. Almost without exception, the vampire is feared and hated by those who dwell in the regions in which it chooses to make its home. The vampire's unnatural presence is all-pervasive and will cause dogs and similar animals to raise a cry of alarm at the presence of the creature.

Vampires sustain themselves by draining the life force from living creatures. Unless they have a specific need to create additional minions, however, they are careful to avoid killing those they attack. In cases where the death of a victim is desired, the vampire will take care to see that the body is destroyed and thus will not rise as an undead.​
From the 4e MM:

Sustained by a terrible curse and a thirst for mortal blood, vampires dream of a world in which they live in decadence and luxury, ruling over kingdoms of mortals who exist
only to sate their darkest appetites. . .

Gifted and cursed with undead immortality, vampire lords trade many of the abilities they had in life for dark powers, including the power to create broods of vampire spawn. . .

Living humanoids slain by a vampire lord’s _blood drain_ are condemned to rise again as vampire spawn—relatively weak vampires under the dominion of the vampire lord that created them. . .

A living humanoid slain by a vampire lord’s _blood drain_ power rises as a vampire spawn of its level at sunset on the following day. This rise can be prevented by burning the body or severing its head.

A living humanoid reduced to 0 hit points or fewer—but not killed—by a vampire lord can’t be healed and remains in a deep, deathlike coma. He or she dies at sunset of the next day, rising as a vampire spawn. A Remove Affliction ritual cast before the afflicted creature dies prevents death and makes normal healing possible. . .

A vampire lord can make others of its kind by performing a dark ritual (see the Dark Gift of the Undying sidebar). Performing the ritual leaves the caster weakened, so a vampire lord does not perform the ritual often.​
In this case, the Monstrous Manual has more than the MM - especially the stuff about (i) vampire lurking among the living, (ii) their penchant for ruined castles and chapels (though that is pretty stock standard stuff) and (iii) their meticulous planning. That's the first 2nd ed/4e comparison I've done where I feel the 2nd ed Monstrous Manual actually has more interesting material than the 4e MM (Galeb Duhr's in 2nd ed, as I noted upthread, had one interesting titbit that 4e could usefully borrow, but I still felt 4e was better overall).


----------



## Sonny (Nov 20, 2012)

If we're talking D&D only, then the Monstrous Manual (2e).

For any RPG game? The Hackmaster (5e, not the 4e parody system) Hacklopedia (hands down is my favorite. Beautiful and well written. The only complaint I have is the lack of dragons in it.


----------



## Stormonu (Nov 20, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> (and it's the Duegar not the Derro who launch the Uniting War)




Sorry, that's quite wrong.



			
				2E Monstrous Manual said:
			
		

> Every 20 years or so, the *derro* mount an all-out war against the other creatures of the Underdark. This is known as the Uniting War, and no savant really expects it to be won.




Derro has a lot more info than most of the other entries in the book too, somewhat surprisingly:



			
				2E Monstrous Manual said:
			
		

> Derro are a degenerate race of dwarven stature. They have been skulking in the Underdark for ages, but they were discovered by the mind flayers only five centuries ago, and by the drow but shortly before that. The derro have made a name for themselves by their marked cruelty. It is said that a derro lives for just two things: to witness the slow, humiliating death of surface demihumans, and especially humans; and the perversion of knowledge to their own dark ends.
> 
> Derro are short, with skin the color of an iced over lake (white, with bluish undertones), siddy, pqle yellow or tan hair (always straight), and staring eyes that have no pupils. Their features remind dwarves of humans, and vice versa. Derro have rough skin, spotted with short coarse tufts of hair. Most derro wear a loose costume woven from the hair of underground creatures and dyed deep red or brown. Their armor is leather, studded in copper and brass. Leaders wear tougher, kather armors, made from
> the hides of beasts far more rugged than cattle.
> ...




(I think derro and duergar may have been combined in 4E; but firing beard-quills?)

* This is _deliberate_ misinformation.  The derro have two gods that are twin brothers (Diirinka and Diinkarazan).  One has been captured and driven mad by the mind flayer god Ilsensine (hence the "found only recently by Mind Flayers" mention); this info had been published _years_ ago in Monster Mythology, but is supposed be on secret level of knowledge on par with that of knowing about Tharizdun.

--------------------

Also as a side note, the beholder entry in the 2E book also mentions _"Beholders and beholder-kin are usually solitary creatures, but there are reports of large communities of them surviving deep beneath the earth and in the *void between the stars*, under the dominion of hive mothers."_

Now, that can be taken as a Lovecraft "Far Realms" reference, but back in the time it was meant as a Spelljammer reference.  In a sense, like 2E's highly mutable beholder appearance (which I agree the 2E MM picture is rather dreadful), beholder origin doesn't have one absolute place they can come from - they could be from the Deepearth, Far Realms or space; they're done up with a bit of mystery for the DM to fill in (note the mention no one knows how they reproduce, despite the presence of hive mothers).

On vampires I think your dead on the money - 2E's were based on the fading Hammer Bro. depiction, while 4E's took the Anne Rice road (I prefer Anne Rice vampires, except when it comes to Strahd).

Likewise it's pretty clear 4E's got the one-up on the Imp.  Part of 2E's sorry info on the may well have been from it's recent reclamation of demons and devils via Planescape - not the best example I could have chosen, but not a good excuse to let 2E off either.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Nov 20, 2012)

Stormonu said:


> Sorry, that's quite wrong.




Doh!  I even found that out when re-reading the entry but my fault, sorry.  And yes, I think 4e combined the Duegar and Derro.  And as I said, don't ask me about the beard-quills.  It's goofy, silly, and not even in a good way.



> Derro has a lot more info than most of the other entries in the book too, somewhat surprisingly:




My big problem with the 2e Derro is my common problem with the 2e Monstrous Manual.  It implies a lot more strongly than 4e that all Derro are alike - this is particularly brought out by the Number Appearing of Duegar; "2-9 or 201-300".  Wait, what?  What happens when I have a couple of dozen Duegar?  They have to split into three groups?  (It gets worse when it says "If a band of nine are encountered outside a lair, there will be a tenth".)

The Derro Lair entry is just as bad "Derro lairs always have 3d4+30 normal derro, plus leaders."  Really?  So there are always between 33 and 42 Derro based in a lair?  Is this something mystical?  What happens when Mind Flayers or even adventurers have attacked the Derro?  "Help, we're down to 32 of us.  Give birth fast or we have to abandon the lair?"  And Duegar never form societies that would be anything bigger than a hamlet even when you count the 15-40 human slaves?  Makes me wonder how they have their wars in the underdark.

Planets of the hats (TVTropes link) have nothing on the 2e Monstrous Manual.  And this is why I find the habitat/society section of the 2e Monstrous Manual has an actively negative value much of the time and the Number Appearing is worse.  Drow - Number appearing: 50.  (On the nail).  So Drow never send small scouting parties?  Or spies?  And Drow can't ever mass an army of a thousand or more?  Bwuh?

Yes, I know you should ignore all the bad fluff in the 2e Monstrous Manual.  But it's hardly a good reflection on that book that you almost have to ignore chunks of fluff to make it useable.  Like the Kuo-toan gem "If more than 20 kuo-toa are encountered, it is 50% likely that they are within 1d6 miles of their lair." - I'm pretty sure causation doesn't work that way round.

For that matter, every Kuo-Toan lair could have come from Central Casting.
If a kuo-toan lair is found, it contains 4d10 x 10 2nd-level males. In addition, there are higher level fighters in the same ratio as noted for wandering groups. The leader of the group is one of the following, depending on the lair's population: 

A priest/thief king of 12/14th level, if 350 or more normal kuo-toa are present, or 
A priest/thief prince of 11/13th level, if 275-349 normal kuo-toa are present, or 
A priest/thief duke of 10/12th level, if fewer than 275 normal kuo-toa are present 

There are also the following additional kuo-toa in the lair: 

Eight Eyes of the priest leader -- 6th- to 8th-level priest/thieves 
One Chief Whip -- 6th/6th-level fighter/thief 
Two Whips of 4th/4th or 5th/5th level (see whip description) 
One Monitor per 20 2nd-level kuo-toa 
Females equal to 20% of the male population 
Young (noncombatant) equal to 20% of the total kuo-toa 
Slaves equal to 50% of the total male population  ​So let me get this straight.  Every Kuo-toa settlement is structured exactly the same way.  For that matter every Kuo-toa raiding party is structured exactly the same way no matter whether they are going to hunt slaves or going to war.


----------



## Stormonu (Nov 20, 2012)

Um...



			
				2E Monstrous Manual said:
			
		

> NO. APPEARING indicates an average encounter size for a wilderness encounter. The DM should alter this to fit the circumstances as the need arises. *This should not be used for dungeon encounters. *Note that some solitary creatures are found in small groups; this means they are found in very small family units, or that several may happen to be found together, but do not cooperate with one another.




So, no, that strawman doesn't fly.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Nov 20, 2012)

Stormonu said:


> Um...
> 
> 
> 
> So, no, that strawman doesn't fly.




You've a point there.  But the part on tribal organisation does still.  And the cities all being structured the same way.  The point is that it's negatively useful fluff rather than even neutral.


----------



## CM (Nov 20, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> And yes, I think 4e combined the Duegar and Derro.  And as I said, don't ask me about the beard-quills.  It's goofy, silly, and not even in a good way.




Derro appear in 4e in MM3 and Dungeon #201.

When I ran Thunderspire Labyrinth, I too rolled my eyes at the poison beard quills. Instead I just made them master poisoners and gave their weapon attacks ongoing poison.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 21, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> I think 4e combined the Duegar and Derro.





Stormonu said:


> I think derro and duergar may have been combined in 4E; but firing beard-quills?



In 4e, duergar are found in a H2 (as Heroic tier antagonists) and then are slightly errata-ed and reproduced in MM2 (like it's first edition counterpart, it has the module monsters!), along with some paragon-tier versions.

MV reproduces some of the MM2 entries plus adds some new ones.

(I know all this because in my campaign the PCs spent the last session hanging out with duergar in their stronghold.)

Derro, on the other hand, are in MM3. They are statted up for paragon tier.

Here is the intro to the MM3 entry on derros:

Derros are warped descendants of a mad, power hungry civilization that nearly ripped apart the planes when the world was still young. Craving primordial power but unwilling to bend their knees to any master, the derros created portals to the Far Realm in hopes of harnessing its power. The madness and horror they unleashed caused the World Serpent to drag their lands beneath the surface to halt their machinations.​
So they are not dwarves (size Small, not Medium), which is a departure from earlier editions.

As for duergar beard quills, the PCs in my game haven't fought any duergar yet but may do so next session. If that happens I'll be using the quills, and so (if this thread is still active) will report back on whether or not these were experienced as goofy and/or silly. (The devilish inclinations of the duergar have been a big part of how I've been running them, and I will be keeping that up if I have to narrate the quills.)


----------

