D&D 5E What should be in the 5e Monster Manual?

[delericho]

I think it's too hard...

Single corebook means probably max 500 pages,

500 page hardbacks are awful. Too big, too heavy, and too expensive. ~250 pages is much more reasonable.

IMO, if the game is so complex it won't fit in a single book of ~250 pages, it's too complex.

means high price for those who are only players, and way too small for the DM to have but a really small selection of stuff.

B/X manages with considerably less than that, despite the inefficiency of splitting the materials between the two sets. And, of course, there's the "Rules Cyclopedia".

Of course the DM can just buy more books (2x500 is the ~same as 3x320), but I think that if you need to squeeze monsters in with PC stuff (including spells!) and DM rules (including items!), then there is room for really too few monsters IMHO, to the point that if another book of monsters is very much needed within 2-3 months, then they can just go with the traditional 3 books arrangement.

Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2nd Ed manages with one book. As does Wheel of Time d20. And Star Wars Saga Edition, Mutants & Masterminds, Call of Cthulhu d20, Vampire: the Masquerade (2nd Ed and Revised)...

In moving from boxed sets and thin booklets to thick hardback books, D&D allowed itself to bloat up to a ridiculous degree. This was probably inevitable, as having all that space created a need to fill it. But it has led to what is a very simple game concept becoming an unholy mess of endless races, classes, powers, feats, themes, and other 'moving parts', probably to the point where it hampers player acquisition.

It's time D&D was put on a very restricted diet. IMO, of course.

 

[Li Shenron]

IMO, if the game is so complex it won't fit in a single book of ~250 pages, it's too complex.

...

It's time D&D was put on a very restricted diet. IMO, of course.

I suppose it is possible after all... but something needs to be sacrificed, and anything that gets the axe too much will cost a significant chunk of the gamers base. Shrinking everything a little bit is not enough to slim down 75% (from ~1000 pages to ~250). 4e tried it with the "everything is core!" multiple-PHBs approach, and many hated it (for publishing reasons, it means to wait a long time before starting to play things that people consider core).

But back to the topic, I wrote my list of MM "nominations". It's slimmed down compared to the 3ed MM, but certainly nearly not enough for merging the MM with another book. I mostly wrote monsters that have been in D&D since many editions, AFAIK, plus a bunch of personal favourites (still I guess that >90% of my entries were in 3ed MM).

The reason I don't want too many is rather that I would prefer a very nicely written MM, less stuff but very high quality content & format, which for me means:

- good stats layout, very readable, and possibly separating the combat stuff from non-combat (maybe further separating the exploration-phase and social-phase)
- good suggestions for how to tactically run the creature in combat and out of combat
- traditional solid fluff, but still generic enough to apply to many settings
- nicely sized artwork

I don't care for "new" monsters in the first MM. I don't even care if my favourite non-core monsters are promoted to core. I prefer less monsters, as long as the most iconic (i.e. have been there for most editions) are there.

 

[Li Shenron]

IMO, if the game is so complex it won't fit in a single book of ~250 pages, it's too complex.

...

It's time D&D was put on a very restricted diet. IMO, of course.

I suppose it is possible after all... but something needs to be sacrificed, and anything that gets the axe too much will cost a significant chunk of the gamers base. Shrinking everything a little bit is not enough to slim down 75% (from ~1000 pages to ~250). 4e tried it with the "everything is core!" multiple-PHBs approach, and many hated it (for publishing reasons, it means to wait a long time before starting to play things that people consider core).

But back to the topic, I wrote my list of MM "nominations". It's slimmed down compared to the 3ed MM, but certainly nearly not enough for merging the MM with another book. I mostly wrote monsters that have been in D&D since many editions, AFAIK, plus a bunch of personal favourites (still I guess that >90% of my entries were in 3ed MM).

The reason I don't want too many is rather that I would prefer a very nicely written MM, less stuff but very high quality content & format, which for me means:

- good stats layout, very readable, and possibly separating the combat stuff from non-combat (maybe further separating the exploration-phase and social-phase)
- good suggestions for how to tactically run the creature in combat and out of combat
- traditional solid fluff, but still generic enough to apply to many settings
- nicely sized artwork

I don't care for "new" monsters in the first MM. I don't even care if my favourite non-core monsters are promoted to core. I prefer less monsters, as long as the most iconic (i.e. have been there for most editions) are there. Still, they are too many to think they could be shrunk to a single book with everything else and still guarantee those quality parameters above.

 

[Hassassin]

Assuming about 275 pages of monsters are in the Monster Manual (by whatever name) of the new iteration of D&D, what should they be?

I'd like to see the Banshee. Only, it should be a more authentic bean sidhe, i.e. fey, and not the undead in e.g. 3.5 MM2.

 

[Aeolius]

I have no doubt we'll see the kuo-toa and sahuagin in the 5e MM, but that's hardly sufficient to fill the seas.

With a brief paragraph in select monster entries, we can add scrag (troll), merrow (ogre), koalinth (hobgoblin), kapoacinth (gargoyle), sea elf, and the like, which leaves a handful of unique aquatic races needed to round things out; merfolk, locathah, triton, etc.

Then, with the inclusion of an aquatic/amphibious template, we're in like Flynn.

 

[Glade Riven]

I'd say remove the multiple versions of a single creature from core MM. In fact, I'd be fine with a smaller selection of monsters overall with easy, stackable templates that could be added to any monster. Templates would be separate from the monsters instead of mixed in like how 3e had it.

Templates:
Aquatic
Brute
Celestial
Champion
Chieftan
Diminutive
Dire
Draconic
Elemental
Fiendish
Gigantic
Ghost
Lich
Lycanthrope
Shaman
Skeleton
Vampire
Zombie
etc.

So you take a Troll, add templates Dire and Draconic to it, and you have a nasty new monster for higher level foes. Or a Ghost Lich Hobgoblin, Elemental (icy) Pit Fiend, zombie werebadger, etc.

 

[Kaodi]

Here is that other thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/310279-beginners-monster-list.html .

I would probably still stick by the list I made in that thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/5661100-post41.html .