Dungeons & Dragons Monster Manual: Roleplaying Game Core Rules, 4th Edition Reviews

• A re-imagined cast of characters

  
  By A3P4HLUL8F81JY on 2008-06-09
  Like all previous editions of the Monster Manual - this book contains the list of creatures and their statistics that DMs need to create opponents for their players.
  
  Before 3rd edition, this was all this book tried to do. While a 2nd edition DM could choose to buy the Fiend Folio instead of the Monster Manual, the 3rd edition (and 3.5) DM did not have this option. 3.0/3.5 added monster-specific rules that truly turned the Monster Manual into a core rulebook.
  
  Monster feats, exotic attacks, Templates, and rules for PC monsters - all were natural extensions of the monster concept: You have monsters - and now you want to alter them for your specific needs. In my opinion, this was a good thing.
  
  The 4th edition Manual follows this model - although there are some differences worth mentioning.
  
  First - the easy stuff:
  The laundry list of monsters includes the bulk of classic D&D bad guys: Orcs, Unicorns, & Worgs (Oh my!). A straight book-to-book comparison will reveal many differences in this edition's inventory (e.g. 4th ed. has only chromatic Dragons).
  
  Many will be surprised by which creatures got included - but it's worth remembering that every edition of D&D has had multiple versions of the Monster Manual (3.5 was up to volume 5). If your favorite bad guy didn't make the cut - they're not gone - they'll just be in a future product.
  
  The creature entries seem abbreviated at first. Much as in 3.0/3.5 you will not see wordy paragraphs about a creature's back-story or preferred environment. As a DM, when I need a creature I need their stats, not their life story. Wordy write-ups take up space that could be filled by more monsters. Besides, adding thematic information like back stories is *my* job.
  
  Big changes in creature powers will come as a jolt. Negative levels are gone. 3rd edition negative levels seemed like a good idea - but were more hassle than they were worth. They had a high maintenance tail (keep track of your minuses AND then track a save the following day - for each negative level), and they threatened the primary goal of all players: level advancement. Good riddance.
  
  Undead now drain healing reserves - something that that is depleting (in keeping with the "drain life energy" motif of undead) and does not have a long term maintenance issue. When you are hit, you lose a reserve. Zero maintenance. This is good.
  
  Vampires - actually Vampire Lords - still create spawns but now ignore garlic, running water, and wooden stakes and have detailed rules for how they must rest. Jettisoning garlic may bother some players - but traits like that work better in novels than they do in RPGs (Bram Stoker never had to deal with PCs wearing plate mail festooned with garlic cloves).
  
  Werewolves don't spawn lycanthropy - they infect you a disease that makes you berserk. This change is likely due to the same calculation of maintenance hassle vs. gaming value. The first time you face werewolves - lycanthropy is a fun risk. When you face an army of lycanthropes, the disease adds more logistics than drama.
  
  There are a lot of monster abilities that will translate into the new rules in ways that surprise and confound. With 4th edition changing the DNA of spells and powers - this was unavoidable and does not pose any barrier to DMs adjusting the power of their chosen monster up or down.
  
  The rules for customizing monsters is where I would be most critical of this volume.
  
  The back of the book contains a subset of monsters that can be used for NPCs or PCs. This is essential, since 3.0/3.5 opened the doors for PCs to be whatever they want. The rules provided for playing a PC orc (for example) seem very light. There are a host of issues that playing monsters brought up in 3.5 - and I don't expect 4th edition to be any different. This section looked a lot like an add on (and that's fine if it is), but if DMs should expect an expanded set of rules covering this - it'd be nice if the book came out and said it.
  3.5's Monster Manual had "[this monster] as a PC" entries within the monster's description which I feel is a superior model. I want to be an orc, I pick up my Monster Manual and find the listing for - Orc. Putting them in the appendix helps the player who wants to see the full menu of choices - but you could do that with an index and still put all of a monster's data in one place. I'm a big believer in one stop shopping - and having the rules for a specific task stored in multiple places just slows things down.
  
  Scaling monsters/Adding templates.
  Adding class levels and templates to 3.5 monsters ensured that no monster had to be boring (three words: Vampire Kobold Sorcerer) and from all appearances this will carry forward in 4th edition. These rules in 4th edition are in the DMG and I would question this.
  
  If the Monster Manual is truly a core book (the core set of monsters + monster rules) why not have all the template/advancement/ monster specific abilities rules in that volume?
  
  I can see that having these rules in a central book like the DMG is appealing - but when the rules for monsters evolve, we are more likely to get another Monster Manual than we are an updated DMG. The rules in the DMG are may be adequate, but they look rather thin. I would expect more rules and clarifications to be a virtual certainty. Plus, there's the appeal of having all my monster rules in one book.
  
  The changes in the 4th edition Monster Manual are extensions of the changes to the core rules - so it's hard to have stand-alone praise or criticism of it. For the most part, it remains what it always was: a menu of monsters that is essential for DMs.
  
  

• So sad

  
  By A3QFB618LIEFF8 on 2008-06-14
  OK....... I really REALLY REALLY wanted to love this game. To be honest I've been a sucker for every incarnation of DnD that's come out. I liked all of em in their own way. I prebought this one and every 'pre-book' they've put out... We were all so eager for this new incarnation. It read so well. I can't believe this, but this game has actually managed to depress me!! I HAVE played it. Just spent three hours playing, in fact.
  
  When we finished the party reported that they had the distinct feeling that we had just played a board game version of WOW. Now we all LOVE WOW in our gaming group.. but that's NOT what we sat down to play around a table. We saw nothing 'quick' or 'streamlined' about the gaming experience. We moved pieces around a board adhereing to movement rules and 'squares' for this and that in a fashion that reminded me way too much of the old 'Heroes Quest', albeit a complicated version! Were the game mechanics good? Yes. Why did I give it a 'one star'? Because whilst the game is a good miniature warfare game it seemed to rob the flavor of DnD. The character creation was extrememly confined and the selections were limited. Gone was the ability to customize your character to the point that you actually felt like you had something unique. You will feel as if WOC is controlling the direction your character takes. The game DEMANDED a board and game pieces.. I've always felt that DnD's flavor relied on the 'minds eye', which is so much more colorful in my head than staring at plastic pieces on a piece of cardboard. I do realize that the 'original' DnD was just that, a wargame with a fantasy element. But I feel it evolved into so much more... I guess we've 'returned to our roots'... so why do I feel like we climbed back into the primordial ooze?!
  
  A great deal of the time the magic users felt like they were 'hitting the hot button key'. They had one or two actions that they relied on every round to cause the maximum amount of damage. No inovation or imagination. Everything was geared towards 'how does this directly effect combat'.
  
  The DM's guide isn't that bad. Reminds me a LOT of the first edition book. Information on how to be an effective dm, traps, dungeons, and artifacts. Not what 'thirders' would expect, but not bad.
  
  The Monster Manual is awful. A third of the pictures are just rehashed from all the previous Monster Manuals. The book is concerned with stats so you can play your miniature game effectively. Again.... great if your into miniature gaming. The ecology and culture information is virtually non-existant. Make all the arguments you want about this now being in the pervue of the DM.. the honest answer is that WOC is being lazy. You have a vast variety of stats to place against your carefully created stats, but very little flavor to guide you in roleplaying the encounters.
  
  I have read that the streamlined combat will enhance the rolplaying as you'll have more time available.... that was really exciting.. too bad this wasn't the case. Going to miniatures and a combat board, whilst carefully figuring out where your party and the encounter is, everytime combat arose was time consuming. You'll also notice that you'll have to change the map everytime, of course, which is also time consuming.
  
  If you LOVE miniature wargaming. If Warhammer is something you daydream about.... this is the game for you! As a miniature game experience it ranks a three or four...
  
  If you love games that take place in your head fired by limitless imagination then your probably going to be disappointed.
  
  I really feel like power gamers are going to LOVE this game and probably flame me for my remarks. The game is geared towards being 'godlike'. I'm not knocking this. If you love powergaming and twinking then this is DEFFINITLEY the game for you. To each his or her own. You should buy it immediately... and keep DnD fiscally sound enough to perhaps manage an inevitable rewrite that might restore my faith.
  
  Ironically I'll be keeping my set... I think it'll make a great board game for those rare nights when I just wanna run through dungeons killings things and working off frustrations. According to the DMG I don't even need a DM to do this..... Sound like any RPG you ever heard of???? No story teller... no RPG. Just another board wargame.. albeit a pretty good one.
  
  Good day!
  
  
  

• Loses the Flavor of D&D

  
  By A1BPCX5TX2HNRQ on 2008-06-15
  Ok, so I'm reviewing the Monster Manual book more than the way the creatures work. They're just a bunch of worthless stat blocks, so they work just fine, but that's what they are: working stat blocks.
  
  First, let me say that I don't like the artwork. In old monster manuals, there were a lot of monsters that you might fight just because you were at odds with them, or you might not even fight them at all. They could be allies. Take giants for example, the art was of some giant people that looked pretty cool, and some pre-made 3.5 campaigns included them as allies. But in this book, they look ridiculously evil. In fact, everything looks evil. It just looks like they filled the book with things to fight, not think about, which I think it less imaginative and therefore more boring. Even the treant is evil.
  
  
  MORE IMPORTANTLY...There is no flavor.
  
  Take the Shambling Mound.
  
  In version three, it has Four Paragraphs of description. In version four it has 1 sentence. A single sentence. And then listen to the description of its ability.
  
  
  This is a direct quote of version 4:
  
  "The shambling mound makes two basic attacks. If both attacks hit the same Medium or smaller target, the shambling mound makes a secondary attack against the target. Secondary Attack: +12 vs. Fortitude; the target is pulled into the shambling mound's space and restrained (save ends). While the target is restrained, no creature has line of sight or line of effect to it. At the start of the shambling mound's turn each round, the enveloped target takes 10 damage and the shambling mound regains 10 hit points. The shambling mound can envelop up to 2 creatures at a time. When the target makes its save, it reappears in a square of its choice adjacent to the shambling mound."
  
  It's so dull. It just gives you all the tactical information to play out the game. It's just rules without anything interesting or imaginative. Monsters have lost tons of cool abilities like swallow whole that require some really imaginative thinking. And Lycanthropes just give you a disease. I feel like 4th edition reduces everything to statistics. The game takes place on a board in stead of in your imagination.
  
  
  I just can't believe that the Monster Manual took all the fun out of monsters. They all seem evil, and there's pretty much no description of them anymore. I just used to have so much fun learning about monsters and their abilities. It's just sort of sad to see them reduced to mere enemies as opposed to interested creatures with backstories and cool characteristics.
  
  I suppose the book doesn't deserve a 1, but I miss the way things used to be. It's a perfectly acceptable book that does everything it needs to, but it doesn't delve further into things like before, and that's what I thought D&D was about.
  
  

• A Step Backwards

  
  By A1SK0PEHRA2D2W on 2008-06-06
  not exactly the next step in the evolution of the game. touted as a "steamlined" and "improved" re-imagining of the classic game that has been around in several incarnations over the past 30-some-odd-years; what it truly amounts to is an advanced tactical board game.
  
  much of what made the game great is stripped away in an effort to emulate mmo (massive multiplayer online) games like world of warcraft; intentionally dumbing down the game in an effort to market it to a wider demographic. elements of game play that focused on actual role-play and story telling are minimized in favor of combat.
  
  instead of taking what was good in both types of games and creating a higher, more elegant game that becomes greater than the sum of its parts, it instead is a souped up throwback to the chainmal days of d&d with mmo hidebound adhearance to mmo sensabilities.
  
  while i can appreciate that hasbro may have had the best of intentions in crafting this version of the game, it fails in the eyes of this and many other fans who have played for so many years. it plays more like other sword & sorcery genre board games (descent, runebound, world of warcraft), and may in fact be the best and finest board game in the genre. but, sadly, it is no true rpg and those who seek that out in this game will be sorely disatisfied.
  
  

• A huge leap backwards for true role playing

  
  By A1KO9O5M3AUNBQ on 2008-06-06
  I have been playing DND since good ole first edition and every one since up to nad including 3.5...so there was some excitement about the new system. In terms of pure roleplaying this new edition was going to either rock or blow chunks as it was quite different. I am reviewing the system in the terms of the roleplaying aspect(What DND is supposed to be) and not as any other game type. The end result....yup you guessed it...a huge step backwards.
  
  Gone is the incredible detail of characters that is the trademark of DND and in place is now AT WILL POWERS...or more simply...DND for Dummies. The true flavor of being a character is gone and now there are powers that remind you of playing a video game or an even better comparison...a Miniatures game! The Monster Manual shows the creature(The artwork is the one huge plus in this edition, but I dont buy games just for art) and the stats...which have symbols....very much like the minis game. The feel is hack and slash and the idea that you add half your level to attack...crazy no matter the class. I do like that there are 30 levels now, but to breadk them up into 3 tiers...no need.
  
  All in all our gaming group is staying with 3.5 and we will be fine with that...sad really....this is the first DND system we will not switch to. Different can be good, not just this edition. Too bad WOC listened to the online gamers instead of the true source of money (The Pure PRGers).
  
  As a side note, If I were going to rate this system as part of a minis game with the touch of roleplaying thrown on top of it....I think it is quite good. Similar to Battletech minis and adding the Mechwarrior RPG on top of it. It is simple and has clear and limited choices for advancement...all good for minis games....not RPGs.
  
  Any hope of a real RPG...say 4.5?
  
  
• Worst Edition of the Game To Date
  By ALESTXKG8P576 on 2008-06-10
  If you're a longtime fan of Dungeons & Dragons, this isn't the game for you.
  
  Much of the game's rich history and iconic elements have been sacrificed in an effort to simplify the game to attract new gamers. The game is far less flexible than 3rd Edition.
  
  Many of the iconic monsters have been drastically altered to fit into a new, unnecessary cosmology and core setting. Succubi are now devils, despite always being demons, and demons as a whole are now related to elementals. Angels are no longer exemplars of good. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
  
  Most of the iconic monsters have had their abilities stripped down to just a handful of powers, and nearly all non-combat abilities are gone.
  
  The names of many of the new creatures and variants are bland. The flavor text is nearly nonexistant.
  
  Monsters can only improve in a few cookie-cutter roles, such as "skirmisher", rather than truly advanced to become better at what makes them unique.
  
  Worst of all, many iconic monsters (for example, frost giants) have been left out of the first Monster Manual and reserved for later books.
  
  If you're a fan of the past editions of the game, save your money and wait until next year for Paizo's Pathfinder RPG, which looks more like the heir apparent to the D&D throne.
  
  
• Like the death of a friend...
  By A1E1W14895YVVY on 2008-07-07
  I purchased my first DnD product about 30 years ago (the blue boxed set). I was a strong supporter of the 2nd, 3rd and 3.5 editions. I thought all were improvements upon what came before. I can hardly believe it, but 4th edition will be my last DnD purchase, ever. The game has been oversimplified to the point that the life has been sucked out of it. What follows is what I wish I read before I made my purchase: Here is what it will be like to play a 4th edition character.
  
  All characters (and most monsters) will have 3 once/day powers, 3 once/encounter powers and 3 once/round powers, even if you are 20th level. Some may have 2 or 4 powers, but it really does not matter, because all the powers do basically the same thing: simple damage. No more petrification, or antimagic rays, or haste or slow, just damage. Your once/day powers will do 40 points, your once/encounter powers will do 20 and your once/round powers will do 10. If you are a wizard, your once/round attack will be called a "magic missle", if you are a fighter, it will be called a "longbow". Both require a "to hit", and do the same damage, so the only difference is the name. Strategy has been reduced to "should I close with the monster, or not". For all important battles, you will start out with your "40 point attack" until they are gone, then your "20 point attack", and then use your "10 point attack" until either you or the monster falls down. Repeat this until you level up, at which point your new once/day power will do 50 points, your new once/encounter power will do 25, and your new 1/round power will do 15. Continue until 20th level, then buy a new book. Fast-paced and easy to run? Yes! DnD? No! Just the makings of a Bad MMO. For me, the appeal of DnD was always in the imagination. Just think of the terrors that filled your imagination as your party desended those stone stairs into the lair of a Lich. No one in their right mind would ever try to take one on alone.
  Now, in 4th edition, you know the lich will just do 80,80,80,50,50,50, then 20 points/round. If you are high enough level to do 85,85,85,55,55,55, and then 25 points/round, then just go down the stairs and kill it, yourself. No real risk. No real fun, either. DnD is dead.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• Monsters: The Cliff Notes
  By A3II49RH52IAHI on 2008-06-10
  This book is lacking in everything but pictures and stats. There is zero flavor. Monster descriptions are terse at best, many monster variants are simply not described. Of pure description text the illithid has two short paragraphs. It reads more like a bestiary that one would find in an MMO walkthrough. What happened? Where is my D&D? When did I start playing WoW the tabletop game? Please read through this book in a local store before purchasing; you may like it, others have, but I think many will not.
  
  
• Come on guys!! Just drag out your old books!! We've been had!!
  By A2QSM5H2DGKEQ9 on 2008-06-14
  Just a flat book of stats for the new board game they've created. No ecology, no culture, no real details except how they fight. Nothing that really helps with ROLE PLAYING. ANNNNNNND...... my FAVORITE part.... they rehashed art from all the previous editions for at least 40% of the book!! How dog gone lazy is that? The emperor has no clothes folks!!!! OPEN YOUR EYES!!!
  
  
• Finally!
  By A2WTL32MCGU2PY on 2008-06-07
  After many years and hard spent money on a broken system, which they relased an errata update to nearly every month if not every other week, and lets not forget they completely overhauled the polymorph spell because in late 2007 they finally figured out it was way too powerful (after wizards and sorcerers were changing into dragons and destroying many a DM's plot).
  
  Now we have a more streamlined, more thought provoking game!
  I do get where the 2nd ed and 3.0/3.5 ed people who don't like 4th ed are coming from, after all, I learned D&D via 3.0/3.5 so I know of no other system to play it. However, I also know 3.5 is a system that has a lot of flaws, mostly due to every new sourcebook released adding so many new rules that they finally had to release a sourcebook with just rules in it (as if three core rulebooks weren't enough, which turns out they weren't).
  
  Yes, I admit, I don't like they turned Gnomes into Monsters, but in the end, the vast majorty of players didn't play Gnomes, they would pick the odder races (like my favoret, the Dragonborn, which I am totally excited to see as a standard race now).
  
  I can't wait, I ordered all three books and will be getting them this Monday, so 48 hours from now, I'll be running 4th Ed. D&D games from Monday on. ^_^ My 3.0/3.5 books will still be put to use as I haven't ended my still young 3.5 campaign yet....
  
  
• D&D for Dummies
  By ACYM0C7KL2MO3 on 2008-06-17
  This edition of Dungeons and Dragons has been "simplified" to where it's basically nothing more than a slightly expanded version of the D&D Miniatures game.
  
  The new rules are focused ONLY on running boardgame-style combat with miniature figures. After running three of four test sessions my players became VERY bored and insisted on going back and playing "real D&D."
  
  If you want to play this kind of tabletop miniatures combat, you'd be better of just getting the D&D miniatures game. Or the game "Heroscape."
  
  But if you REALLY want to play 4E, I suggest that you wait a month or two. The books will cost a lot less when they're on clearance.
  
  
• On the subject of the Monster Manual
  By AQDEU442XDKAL on 2008-06-14
  Ok guys, I just got finished reading most of the reviews on the MM, and are you people who give it 5 stars serious. Lets see what the left out of the first MM from 3.0: Celestials, Metalic Dragons, and much more important creatures. Oh, and did I mention the lazy photoshoped artwork. Oh, and that angels are no longer alligned, that they can even serve evil gods, uh, hello, is anyone in there, that is what demons and devils are for guys, angels are the good guys, plus in this book did anyone else notice that they looked strangely like the comic book incarnation of ArchAngel after Apocolips got ahold of him in X-Men. Metal Wings is what im talking about. This book and this game is an afront to my sences, and if I could, I would give it a zero stars. Thanks Hasbro, and P.S., please try and find some other way to syphon money out of me.
  
  
• Good ideas stuck in a bad game.
  By A1BN0D0C5B1BU6 on 2008-06-21
  The new edition of D&D is headed for some problems, in my opinion. The Monster Manual is not the worst of the three core rulebooks - that honor goes to the Player's Handbook, without a doubt. The MM and the Dungeon Master's Guide are duking it out for second place.
  
  I rated this book at 2 stars, so there must be something good about it, right? Well, yes. Actually many of the individual monster entries have interesting features that could be mined for use in other games. The art is mostly very good, and the monster stat blocks are clear and easy to read. Unfortunately this book has the bad luck to be part of the 4th Edition rules, which are broken in many fundamental ways.
  
  The goal with 4E was simplify, simplify, simplify. Regrettably Wizards of the Coast seems to interpret "simplify" to mean "eliminate options for players and DMs," and that shows here as it does throughout the new rules. There's little or no cultural information given on most monsters. In fact generally there is not even a physical description. If the DM can't come up with a good one based on the art, he's out of luck. Everything has been cut out except for combat abilities - because 4E has almost no support for anything that happens outside combat.
  
  For most monsters, of course, combat information is all you absolutely need - the bare minimum. However 4E takes this to extremes, and it is really glaring in the case of monsters that used to be oriented toward non-combat. Subtlety is gone from the 4E Monster Manual. Mastermind and manipulator monsters are either gone or revised into combat opponents now.
  
  A shining example is the succubus. Those who remember earlier editions (or even basic mythology) will recall that the succubus was never really a combat monster. She was a string-puller who worked behind the scenes. A big part of an adventure involving a succubus used to be just figuring out who your opponent was, because her powers were all about deception, seduction, and temptation. She controlled other NPCs and made life tough for the player characters from afar. No longer. The 4E succubus has few if any abilities that are useful outside combat. Even her "charming kiss" (which used to be a charm monster effect in 3.5) now has one and only one effect: it causes her victim to step in front of an attack directed at the succubus and take the damage that was meant for her. It has no non-combat uses at all, and can't even do any more than that in combat. As for seduction and temptation, the 4E succubus is literally no better at that than a pretty barmaid.
  
  This has happened to the succubus, the vampire, the lich, the mind flayer, all demons and devils, djinns, even those old schemers, the Drow. A DM who wants to build an adventure around a devious mastermind who avoids combat will have to make it up himself - and at that point why pay for this book?
  
  Also gone from the rules is any pretense at internal logic or verisimilitude. Monster abiities often work by completely different rules than PC abilities. For example an "encounter" power works only once per encounter for a PC, but many monster "encounter" powers can "recharge" on a successful die roll. PCs don't get this ability. Even if a monster happens to be of a PC race (such as an elf or dwarf) it still gets abiities that player characters do not get even with feats. No explanation is given for these differences; the game simply treats monsters as collections of powers for PCs to fight, and their connection to the larger universe is never considered.
  
  Players and DMs who like the World of Warcraft experience may not be bothered by this and similar rules issues in the game, but those who like an immersive experience that makes sense internally will likely find it jarring.
  
  My advice is to skip 4th Edition. Perhaps pick this book up second-hand, or download the PDF from a torrent site, and mine it for ideas for your 3.5 game, but save yourself some money.
  
  
• And now they're telling us what to do with our monsters!
  By A24DZJPUXK8SD2 on 2008-06-21
  First of all, I have very little to add based on all the other responses. If you want to know how this version of D&D is bad, they'll tell you. What we need to look at now are the implications of this new era of gaming. This edition does not allow for the flexibility necessary to tell fun, unique stories. Not really. Not if you think about the limits imposed by the system and the archetypal themes the designers have abandoned in favor of playability or, rather, simplicity. The kind of role-playing I like to do focuses on the story, and I have always had an ear toward writing when I'm gaming. It's not like that for everyone, and some people may like the "game" elements of this edition. I don't like what I've seen and read because I don't feel like I can tell a good story with this rules set. This edition is more about powers and miniatures and those other elements of D&D. It's less about a generic fantasy system where everything is possible and more about combat and what story the designers have set forth. Role-playing should be less about what tropes the system demands and more about your own imagination. Just look through the books and see how the designers are telling you how to play. What races do what. What classes work this way. What powers this type of character should have. How you should interact with the rest of the party. The list goes on.
  
  
• What?
  By A1ZNJYMCCZ2O6H on 2008-06-09
  How can they even call this D&D anymore? It's like some new game based on online computer games like WoW or EQ. So disappointing if you are an old fan.
  
  
• Terrible
  By ATVUDKV87U7H0 on 2008-06-18
  If you like WoW, go play WoW. Don't waste 100$ and another 100$ on the all important miniatures and on these craptastic books just so you can play world of warcraft on paper!
  
  
• World of Warcraft Refit
  By A1EZ3CNJBY443E on 2008-06-23
  D&D has been around in one form or another for 31+ years, which is about as long as I've been playing. The advantage of D&D and the D20 game system in general is that everybody knows it. There's no huge learning curve needed to just start playing the game. Every previous edition of D&D has understood this basic strength.
  
  Fourth Edition, plain and simple, is not D&D, and is not the D20 system. It's an entirely new game. Wizards of the Coast has made a huge mistake with this. They're trying to attract video game players by turning D&D into a pen and paper version of World of Warcraft. That tactic is simply not going to work. Current World of Warcraft players are not going to stop playing World of Warcraft to play this. Current D&D enthusiasts simply are not going to bother learning this new system, not when third party vendors are still supporting edition 3.5, and not while better RPG systems already exist (Note: This based on my discussions with customers from game stores in the fifth largest city in the US).
  
  Bottom line, fourth edition is going to go over for Wizards of the Coast the same way that "New Coke" went over for Coca Cola. My advice would be to save your money, and stick with an older edition of D&D. At its best, fourth edition is simply not an improvement over what has come before it. It's just something different.
  
  
• WTF?
  By AIED1TNURGDHT on 2008-06-12
  Worst D&D version ever. It is but a shell of what D&D once was and is now the shattered remnants of something that was grand. Rest in peace D&D. Quite possibly the worst rpg I have ever played.
  
  
• A Review from Someone Who Actually Played It: The Monster Manual
  By A1C2W1AS1C1LPA on 2008-06-12
  The new monster manual (MM) is a vast improvement over the 3.5 MM. The new system of minions and standard monsters MAKES SENSE, not all monsters know how to take punishment. The new monster stat blocks are so much easier to read and use, you no longer have to look through 3 books to use a monster. When I ran my game, I found it so much easier to use then the 3.5 manual.The art work is also fantastic, and there are several new monsters that are very cool and innovative.
  
  Yes, there is less description of the monster in this MM then in 3.5. BUT THAT'S GOOD. It's the DM's job to fit a monster into his campaign, and I find that all too often the stereotypes portrayed in the 3.5 MM don't fit with the way I want that monster to in my campaign. All the time I find myself telling my players that, "Hey, in my world, this monster is different..." And it is so hard to break the stereotype that player get about monsters. This books gives the DM leeway to reinvent monsters for their particular campaign. The 4th edition MM doesn't attempt to define every monster. Overall this new MM is a great tool for DMs, and a superb edition to the already superb 4th edition of D&D.
  
  
  
• wow the haters are out in full
  By A1T8N18XKDLJO4 on 2008-06-16
  I've already reviewed the core rules book set and it recieved my and my players mark of approval. The game plays great. So now I've decided to look at each book individually and judge them. I was surprised to log onto amazon and see that this edition of the MM has garnered only a two star rating. The only reason i can see for this is the fact that so many people are rating the book badly because they haven't even attempted to play with the new 4th edition rules. People tend to hate change as they did when 3rd edition came out. In other words despite my skepticism when the edition was announced i played it and loved the new ruleset. Is it 3.5? nope and it shouldn't be its a new edition afterall. 3.5 is still there for everyone to play and Paizo publishing will still put out new stuff for it for awhile at least. That being said, what do i think of the Monster Manual for the newest edition? It works great. Its not as bare bones as most of the reviewers on here will lead you to believe. However, it doesn't feature the extensive writeups of the previous edition. Although most of those said writeups had a few paragraphs of background info then abilities and tactics for the monsters made up the rest. This is a new format and you can still get just as much info out of it and it is easier to read. Now does it go into complete depth on every entry about the species origin and societies? It has DC for knowledge checks to learn the important details of each species so I would say yes sorta. Its a Monsters manual not a book on species afterall. It has enough info to use the monsters effectively in your game and roleplay them effectively. Each entry also has several different types as well as encounter groups you can drop into your campaign. In other words the Monster Manual does just what its supposed to do. It gives the dm monsters to use in their campaigns and makes it easier for them to do so. So I ask, Why all the hate for 4th edition. Sheesh, give it a shot guys don't blast it without playing it.
  
  My only real complaint is the section on using monster races as characters. Not enough rules or info here to make them viable races. Some of their monster powers are overpowered compared to other racial abilities and there are no racial feats listed so its really a haphazard attempt to add more pc races. However, with a little tweaking they are still usable.
  
  
  
  
• How sad to watch a company commit "brand" suicide.
  By A39P45KTJCI7NW on 2008-07-01
  A successful company will identify what about it's product is 1) recognizable by the consumer, 2) successful and generated positive image and sales and, 3) needing improvement.
  
  The new MM follows in the same flawed footsteps of the other core 4th books. Instead of trying to improve on their "brand" product (which generally agreed had it's main success in the 3.5 rule set) they attempt an entire rules/style revision and become an entirely different product. Most successful companies will tell you that will kill your "brand".
  
  "Examine your company's history and figure out how it was branded in the past. Then revitalize the original message, putting your own twist on it. Reemphasizing the message that inspired and unified your firm's original customers won't alienate them." If we go by this...what WoTC is telling me is that they want to abandon it's original fanbase who made the D&D a success up to the 3.5 edition, in an attempt to strike out in an entirely new direction, hoping that an entirely redesigned brand product will tap into the MMO market's larger fanbase as potential new customers.
  
  It seems a decision made simply to satisfy the shareholders, and not one at all made for the RPG community. The same mindset has been carried over into the new MM. Gone are the great descriptions, gone are the non-combat critters who used deception and trickery in favor of a big club, and gone are any other concerns other than stats/powers...it reads more like a recipe book serving up lists of ingredients that went into making the dish, but with no description as to which order to mix them, what temperature to use and how long to bake them. People can claim "it's up to the GM's imagination to make the critter his own"....but if the critter lacks even the most basic of visual description I wonder what the GM paid for. If the book emits the lush descriptions, reduces the critters all to basic combat obstacles and yet the books are still priced in the same manner as previous editions - then yes you guess it - you've been had.
  
  IN regards to the MM and to the 4th edition as a whole - WoTC, get your head out of your *** and start trying to repair your brand right now. Classic RPG fans require a game made by RPG fans, for RPG fans...not by a new generation of MMO player who has no idea what a pencil n paper RPG system should be. The target 13 yr old audience will soon realize' as they get older, they want something more thought out and engaging than the 4th edition serves up.
  
  I applaud the initiative of wanting to completely redfine your product brand..but when it is done with apparently no feedback taken from your current consumer base in development, then you reap what you sow. I smell manure.
  
  
• Wish the PHB was as good
  By A3BNS7R4ZD9G17 on 2008-06-08
  This product (as is all the artwork in all three books) is beautiful. I love the new system for monsters. It is a shame that I believe too much of the game was limited so that they could accomodate D&D Insider's Game Table application. That being said, I wish I could take this Monster Manual and use it in 3.5e......hmmmm
  
  
• Saying it's not the same isn't a review
  By A37AWDLAKI4FMP on 2008-06-15
  I wrote an extremely lengthy review for the Players Handbook, so I will try to avoid that here. I just want to comment on a lot of the reviews I have seen for this book (yes bad reviewer I know, I will try to make this up to you gentle-reader in the next paragraph). Basing your ENTIRE review on the fact that the book is not the same as the previous version of the book IS NOT A REVIEW. That is like saying that the modern version of a car looks different than a previous version, and therefore it must suck. Yes it is okay to have opinions, and yes if you like 3rd Edition better you can point that out. But saying monster blah is not the same as the same monster in a previous version, and thus it sucks, is dumb. You are not reviewing a product based on it's own merit. Now I'm guilty of this as well, see my review I wrote almost a decade ago about GURPS Mage the Ascension where I basically argue the same thing. But seriously people, don't come here and complain that the game is different and thus bad. Read it, argue your point, and give me some examples. Why is it bad that the "angels" are elemental creatures not tied to good anymore? Why is it bad that the metallic dragons are not in the Monster Manual. When you argue that change is bad, you sound like a withered old guy, standing on a street corner, shaking his cane at the sky damning the modern world because things were so much better back in the day. You know what people who are driving by that guy on the corner think of him? They think he is crazy, foolish, stupid, or all of the above. Don't be that guy!
  
  Now back to to the regularly scheduled review.
  
  The Good
  I have never been a fan of Monster books to be honest. While having one or two is nice, at some point it just gets a little pointless. But Dungeons and Dragons Fourth Edition (D&D4E) is brand spankin new so you gotta start somewhere. As a book the Monster Manual does it's job, and almost does it well. You get stats for creatures that your party can fight at level 1, and stats for a big bad boss your party can fight at level 30. Yes some of the monster fluff has changed from the previous edition, and some of the classic monsters are missing such as metallic dragons. The focus of the new monster manual seems to be giving you creatures that the party has a high chance of fighting. Which means that the classic Metallic Dragons, which are "good" and far more inclined to talk to a party than eat them, are not there. Because seriously, how fun could sitting around having tea with a dragon be. "I rolled 28 on my diplomacy check, did I make my tea to the dragons liking?" "Yes he seemed very happy, good application of Earl Gray and cream." This is because the new D&D assumes that the party will be heroic, and slaying good dragons and creatures is not on your parties list of things to do. What more is there to say, I haven't actually played a game of D&D from level 1 to 30 so I have only used a small portion of this book thus far. But from what I read, good stuff so far, I like it.
  
  The Bad
  There are some creatures that are missing that I really cannot fathom. Like they have wolves, bear, and hyena, but where are my Lions and Tigers? Seriously Hyena beat out the great cats? Also where are the giant bugs? I was personally a huge fan of the 3rd Edition monster manual for the last two chapters of the book. Lots of normal animals and then giant bugs. Maybe I just like creepy crawlies, but I have found my players have a far greater reaction to a giant beetle or ant attacking them, than some fantastic creature. I wish that the Monster Manual had a little more room for less fantastic threats.
  
  Also the most innovative thing in 3rd edition monster wise is missing from the Monster Manual. Namely template creatures. In 3rd Edition you could do crazy things like think to yourself what if a dragon and a wolf had a date and made little baby dragon-wolf things. It was a lot of fun, and could add a little fluff to a creature. Now they have some rules for templates in the 4th Edition Dungeon Masters guide. But there are no rules for adding a little demonic, angelic, dragon, or any other taint to a creature in either book. Considering the new rules for experience you think they could add this in, and say "making a creature half-dragon adds 500xp to the creature." However, with a little work, and what is in the Dungeon Masters guide, I can probably cobble something together. So it's not a huge loss.
  
  Yes I know "the bad" is complaining about what was in the previous edition and not in the current one. But honestly that is all I can think off that I wish I had. Also I hope I shared why I think this is brings the product down a little bit, instead of saying "1 star, no tigers and giant ants, it is the suxor."
  
  Overall
  
  Overall it does what a monster book is supposed to do. It gives you critters your adventurers can blow up from when they are wee level 1's, to mighty level 30's. While the book is focused on more fantastic threats, a good party will likely face. Overall I cannot complain, the slight short comings I saw will either be resolved with future releases, or are things I can add on my own.
  
  
• worse than a video game manual
  By AYMFEY30AL48T on 2008-06-21
  1. Monster powers are simplistic. Pitfiends used to grant wishes, Phanes could summon duplicates of party members from alternate time streams to fight against you. These cool, imaginative ideas have been replaced by monsters that belong in Diablo I.
  
  2. Computer Games have cooler baddies than the ones found here. Actually, this is an expensive video game manual for a table top video game.
  
  
• Playtest review
  By A3L44BN5WE4958 on 2008-07-08
  First off, I have played a session with the new 4E rules, unlike a lot of the other reviewers here.
  
  I must admit my reviews of the DMG and PHB were made before I played the game, but sadly, my playtest did not improve my thoughts of either book or the game as a whole. And to add to my general displeasure with 4E, the Monster Manual is even worse than I thought during my first read through.
  
  To its credit the Monster Manual provides players every stat that they will need to run a combat encounter. The book is an excellent resource of statistical data. The bad side of the book is that the monsters contained within have been boiled down to just that, statistics. Gone are many of the imaginative characteristics, attacks and background information on societies/ecologies of the various monsters. Yes, this does leave it up to the DM to create unique backgrounds for his own campaign, but it doesn't do much as far as providing a starting point, or just making the book itself more interesting.
  
  In the end I would say that the Monster Manual reminds me of a video game manual, all stats, no flavor.
  
  I would recommend this book only if you were going to write your own adventures for a 4E campaign. If you are going with only published adventures there is little to no need for this book, or the DMG for that matter.
  
  
• Monster Manual or Diablo II Strategy Guide???
  By A3ID5KAROZAJO on 2008-07-01
  I've been an absolutely RABID fan of Dungeons and Dragons in all of its incarnations since about 1980. I had all of the 1st edition and 2nd edition books, 3.0 represented a big change for me, but I grew to like it - and then 3.5 really fixed some of the bugs in 3.0 making it one of the most modular systems I'd ever seen.
  
  When the 4th edition of D&D was announced, it seemed premature. When the video of the presentations about 4th edition hit YouTube, I was intrigued - a lot of what I seeing sounded very promising. I began to let myself get excited about the new edition, then I read one of the preview books - and began to get nervous, but I figured, hey, this is just a preview - they'll work out the bugs. After all, version 3.0/3.5 had a few clunky spots, but if you worked through those, BAM, you had an amazingly well oiled machine, right? Then I get the 4th edition rulebooks. Wow, talking about a head shot. We have "new Coke" in game form.
  
  The Monster Manual is absolutely a train wreck. Monsters read like they're simply enemies to be killed - like in a computer game. I felt like I was reading the WOW or Diablo II strategy guide, not the Monster Manual. There is no sense of a larger fantasy world - as that appears to have been "streamlined" away from the process. Steve Jackson has to be doing a double take because D&D is now more Munchkin than Munchkin. Same thing for the Dungeon Crawl guys, WotC seems to have taken the success of the Dungeon Crawl Classics modules a bit too literally.
  
  I sincerely hope that 4th edition is improved as additional supplements are released, but I'm not holding my breath (and I AM holding my dollars until I see evidence of improvement). At this point I see 4th Edition as an interesting game of below average depth and quality. I fear Gary Gygax is rolling over in his grave to see the "Dungeons and Dragons" name on it.
  
  
  
• Don't waste you money - this is not hate - it's good business
  By A1SORZL733985Z on 2008-07-09
  You can read all the bad decisions Hasbro made on this dog in other reviews, but to be susinct: DON'T WASTE YOUR MONEY. I have never pre-judged any of the D&D editions, loved 3.5 despite the wave of initial anger over it, but this time the critics are right. This is a video game, not an RPG, not even a good wargame. It is dumbed down D&D and really, really, silly. It reads alomst as a parody of the game - it plays like a shadow of it.
  
  
• Finally
  By A19OUUT4SWU7GH on 2008-06-20
  I've already put my two cents in on the set.
  
  But here's my specific take on the monster manual.
  
  For a start, all the monsters that are in there have a reason and make sense to be there. Anyone that says this is a knock off really doesn't know what they are talking about.
  
  Metallic Dragons? Come on. Really when is the last time you had your pcs go up against them?
  
  Celestials? Yeah they are angels now. They aren't dancing around the issue anymore. Call it what it is and they do.
  
  As for them being unaligned, let's see. Why would a god rely on unpredictable demons and devils? Why would a god not make something say... loyal to his or her cause? Guess what fits the bill.
  
  The monsters themselves are actually well designed and appropriately leveled for a change. No more wonky cr system which failed to work even one tenth of the time, now you simply take the monster of the appropriate level figure it into the xp budget and go from there.
  
  I love the monster roles. It's a great way for a new and old dm alike to quickly determine if they need a monster in an encounter. You don't have to sit there and really think "do I need this" without having to go through the entire monster's statline anymore. This makes it incredibly easy on the dm.
  
  I notice how some haters here, are like "this destroys roleplaying" and it is the freakin monster manual. Just what exactly would players have a use for this? None. Not if they are role players and not simply powergaming idiots.
  
  The minions. Oh thank god for the minions. In the past if you wanted pcs to be slowed down by monsters you threw lower cr monsters at them.. which quite frankly often times would not hold a prayer to hit the party anyway so their presence was irrelevant. Now you simply add minions in. Minions for those of you just now joining the party are monsters that can hurt the party, tie up resources and actions and -can kill the party- if they ignore them. Their job is there to not simply die, but to tie up resources and actions. A well played out encounter with minions is truly a challenging and worthy fight of the heroic pcs. You add minions into an encounter to make it more challenging. I would not say minions are on their own a true encounter unless you want your pcs to slaughter a small army.
  
  The dragons were done a good justice here unlike the last game where they either sucked or were entirely too good for their own benefit (like never being used at all)
  
  They also tend to give you in this multiple examples of a monster (usually different levels or role types) so that you can use the monster again at a later time and the experience with it will be different.
  
  Orcs by the way now are something to be feared. FINALLY in past editions if an orc showed up even a level 1 wizard could laugh them off the table. Now.. nasty... how's a level NINE encounter sound?
  
  Even the lowly kobold is finally worth mentioning.
  
  If you are a Dm you are probably going to buy the monster manual, and it is definitely worth investing in this time around.
  
  Putting monsters into a game, was never so easy or this fun. I also find it humorous that the haters that think this destroys role playing, hate how monsters have flavor text describing things about them.. which encourage roleplaying...
  
  As for it feeling like a mini game most people missed the memo but D&D started as a mini game. D&D has -always- played better as a mini game. The reason they have the little emblems is not just for mini game purposes but also for a quick reference to know if an attack is ranged or not. The game does not do anything to hurt role playing, it actually encourages it especially compared to the last edition.
  
  I have to say as a 10 year veteran that really the monsters feel more dynamic and alive now than they have been since I started playing.
  
  
• Creativity
  By AJOMCAU2J3SSS on 2008-06-20
  Let me begin by saying that I have not yet played 4E, but I greatly look forward to it. I have thoroughly scaled through all the books and, overall, have liked what I see. I have been playing D&D for about 3 and a half years. I began playing AD&D, which I loved, to playing 3.5 on occasion, which I liked.
  
  The new rules may seem guided towards a boardgame setting, but I think the real issue here is creativity. Imagination people. These books are, and always have been, meant as GUIDES. They offer you stats and rules that help the DM create and manage campaign. The thing about a guide is that it's there to aid a game, not run it. That's up to the DM.
  
  Yes, angels don't have alignments. So says the book. Everything that is needed is there. Stats, special abilities, etc. A good DM recognizes this and says "angels are good." period. Just because the book doesn't state this doesn't mean the DM can't simply override it. Yes, there are some aspects missing such as the good dragons. They may not be needed as foes, but a it's always fun to grant a high level party the use of a dragon, in which case stats are needed. I feel that this, along with the highly recommended use of miniatures, is WotC's way of marketing other products, such as future books and miniatures. Unfortunately, there is nothiing to be done about this.
  
  As far as the lack of roleplaying, again that's up to the DM. Nothing in these books takes away from the roleplaying aspect. Just because there isn't a detailed instruction set on how to run a non-combat encounter, such as the dragon tea party, doesn't mean that it can't be done. Perhaps the 4E books should be referred to as the "combat" aspect of the game. Any DM with some imagination and creativity can come up with the rest.
  
  The monster manual looks to do exactly what it is supposed to: Offer stats, special abilities, and a brief description of monsters. Everything else is up to the DM.
  
  
• Not only "lots of monsters", but also "lots of easily tweakable monsters"
  By A29GY7QZXHVP5L on 2008-06-21
  The Good: The new monster manual helps the DM where he needs it most, giving hundreds of easily read and usable monster statblocks. These statblocks seem to be evenly distributed along all 3 tiers and all 30 levels. Additionally, the new rules for creating and modifying monsters mean that you can alter many of these on the fly.
  
  The Bad: Some of the extra "crunchy" content comes at the expense of "fluff", meaning that sometimes you only have a picture and a couple of sentences describing each monster. Some claim its an advantage (because that allows you to better integrate a given monster to your campaign), but I kinda miss the more detailed descriptions of old.
  
  The Ugly: Some art was reused from 3.5 books... very likely a result of the art director disliking some new commissioned pieces.
  
  

• Dungeons & Dragons Dungeon Master's Guide: Roleplaying Game Core Rules, 4th Edition
• Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook: Roleplaying Game Core Rules, 4th Edition
• Keep on the Shadowfell (Dungeons & Dragons, Adventure H1)
• Adventurer's Vault: A 4th Edition D&D Supplement
• Dungeons & Dragons Dungeon Master's Screen