Forums: Monster Manual V - Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Monster Manual V

#1 User is offline   Raven Bloodmoon 

  • The Grammar Nazi
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Sages
  • Posts: 2,449
  • Joined: 02-May 05
  • Location:I don't really remember where I left myself, actaully
  • Interests:Music, Guitar, Bass, Running, Fencing, Boxing, Politics, Asian Horror Cinema
  • Playing D&D Since:1998

Posted 05 August 2007 - 09:16 AM

Monster Manual V fell short of the mark. While it did introduce some interesting creatures, including some high level fey, and it did introduce an intriguing mechanic, it was largely just a rehash of old monsters.

Perhaps the most frustrating thing about the book was not the book itself, but rather two artcles WotC published on its website leadign up to the release of the MMV. These articles outlined their thought process regarding the new book and why they put what they did in it. Straight out, they mention that they receieved a lot of criticism for including monsters with class levels in previous books. So what do they do? They include several entries that consist solely of previously released monsters with a few class levels tacked on. Way to ignore your customers, guys.

More than just that, they initially had receieved complaints about the main entry in the MMIV (spawn of tiamat) being too long, so they made the main entry in MMV 8 pages longer. And just to add insult to injury, where the spawn of tiamat were new creatures we hadn't seen before, the massive, 22-page long centerpiece to the MMV is about mindflayers. Because WotC hasn't released them in every addition of Dungeons and Dragons, expanded upon them in Forgotten Realms, and let's not fail to mention a quarter of an entire book dedicated to them in Lords of Madness.

While some of the original monsters aren't horrible, I really fail to see the point in purchasing a book with 4 entries dedicated to hobgoblins (original release: MMI, 4 entries dedicated to koa-toa (original release: MMI), 22 pages dedicatd to more crap about mindflayers (original release: MMI, FR, Lords of Madness), and two entries dedicated to vampires (original release: MMI). So out of 97 entries, 20 were rehashes on old books. That is to say, over 20% of this book was recycled garbage.

I give this book two fingers way up, and they're not thumbs.
This technique of RPG playing has been passed down the Bloodmooon line for generations!

Method Actor 83% Storyteller 83% Butt-Kicker 75% Power Gamer 67% Specialist 67% Tactician 58% Casual Gamer 25%
Elyria Campaign Setting

`\ o _,
...)
.< .\.
0

#2 User is offline   Dthclaw 

  • Mutant Chameleon of Doom
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Sages
  • Posts: 2,762
  • Joined: 07-February 05
  • Location:Mars University... Knowledge Brings Fear
  • Interests:DnD. Writing. Sleep. Video games. Tuba. DnD. Shiny objects.
  • Playing D&D Since:2000

Posted 05 August 2007 - 04:53 PM

Yeah, a lot of V was disappointing... even though it was better than IV. Some of the monsters are intriguing/useful, but like Raven said - a lot of it's recycled.

Probably the last MM I'm going to get...
Level 5 Nebraskan

Check out my art!
Dthclaw's Art!

Some people are like Slinkies. They're really good for nothing. But they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.

Dell: We're pleased to inform you that your order was shipped on 06/06/2006!
Me: Great, so now I have Satan in my computer. Like XP wasn't problematic enough.

"It was terrible. It had these big, pointy teeth."
--The Vault Dweller

The ALLCALMA Act

Mein Blog-o
0

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users