[RPG]: Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition Monster Manual, reviewed by James Gillen (4/3)

[RPGnet Reviews]

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/14/14057.phtml

James Gillen's Summary:

The final book of the D&D corebook trilogy, and some final thoughts on the new game.


Go to the full review for more information.

[Beckett]

Nice review, and thoughtful thoughts (some of which had me starting to think "Oh, hell no," before reading further and seeing you had thought things through.)

I do disagree with you on this line from the end: "Undead are all over the place while other monsters are in specific category lists, and it has fewer actual dragons than any other edition, for one thing."

Undead are only all over the place as much as humanoids are. We don't expect kobolds, hobgoblins, and orcs to all be under one heading, so I'm not sure why skeletons, wights, and zombies should all fit under one.

As for dragons, there are fewer types of dragons, but there are a lot more stats than in 3E. If I need a young white or an adult red, it's right there in the book, as opposed to 3E, where I'd need to check a couple charts and pick out feats whenever I wanted to use a dragon.

[Aeonite]

Originally Posted by Beckett

We don't expect kobolds, hobgoblins, and orcs to all be under one heading, so I'm not sure why skeletons, wights, and zombies should all fit under one.

Bugbears are alphabetically under G. And that is all I need to know about the Monster Manual to tell me that it was designed under the influence of illicit substances.

[ghost-angel]

Originally Posted by Aeonite

Bugbears are alphabetically under G. And that is all I need to know about the Monster Manual to tell me that it was designed under the influence of illicit substances.

The "g" in GBugbears is silent?

[James Gillen]

Well, what he's talking about is where Bugbears (as a Goblin species) are under "G". I was just questioning how they can be so clear in the organization on some areas (Goblins, Oozes, etc.) and not so much otherwise. Like putting Orcus in his own category. I know WHY they did it, but it still doesn't make sense to me. And again, it shows the evil dragons but doesn't stat the metallic ones even though it mentions them. So again in some respects it has LESS than the previous MM corebook, so I gave it a lower mark than everything else.

JG

[Gilbetron]

Just to state, once again, that Warlocks were not "stolen" from WoW. They were published the same month WoW was launched.

[Smeazel]

Originally Posted by the review

There is a new category called Abominations, which are basically primordial, evil beings at an epic power level, somewhat like Typhon or the Titans in Greek myth.

Just for the record, the Abominations aren't exactly new. They're actually taken from the 3E Epic Level Handbook. (Well, the only two Abominations from the 4E Monster Manual that were listed as Abominations in the ELH are the atropal and the phane, but the category of Abominations comes from the ELH, anyway--and the ELH contains seven more varieties of Abomination that didn't make it into the 4E MM (maybe some of them will be in the MM2), but the category of Abominations was in the ELH, anyway). The Abominations aren't the only monster from the 4E MM to be taken from the ELH, either... I don't have either book in front of me right now, but off the top of my head, there's the black slaad, the gibbering orb, and the larva mage (in the ELH, it was called a "worm that walks", but it's pretty clearly the same monster by a different name).

Possibly you already knew all this and I misinterpreted what you meant by calling the Abominations a "new category", in which case I apologize...

[Andrew Montgomery]

I thought these were three solid, unbiased, middle-of-the-road reviews. Good work.

I have mixed feelings about 4e as well. While I think it is the best incarnation of D&D I have seen in a long while, it is still--when the day is done--D&D. I am in the middle of running a 4e campaign right now (the first time I've DM'd a lengthy campaign in 20 years)and what strikes me is how little the game has really changed. The mechanics have altered, but it still plays pretty much the same as it always did. The core of the game is and always has been kicking down doors, killing things, and getting treasure. This isn't to say 4e is less roleplaying focused than its predecessors (its not), nor is it impossible to get some deep roleplaying in; you can (and my group does). It's just that while the system has become increasing streamlined and cohesive, the game still holds the same habits.

Of course, I'm not sure that's a bad thing. After all, it has the same name as earlier editions and thus should be expected to maintain some continuity with them.

I am enjoying my campaign, but D&D is never going to be my cup of tea. But laying my personal likes and dislikes aside, I do honest believe this is the best edition yet.

[James Gillen]

And no, I obviously didn't get to keep up on the later 3.5 material re: warlocks and stuff, so that explains my confusion there. But again, it explains why 4E would *seem* similar to WoW to the casual observer.

JG

[ghost-angel]

Originally Posted by Gilbetron

Just to state, once again, that Warlocks were not "stolen" from WoW. They were published the same month WoW was launched.

While you are completely correct - the problem is that the WoW Warlocks are the ones that are in the popular mind, they're the ones that everyone are going to compare them to. And in the popular mind it's going to look like 4E "stole" the Warlock from WoW. Regardless of what the actual truth of the matter is.

Market and Perception count more than the truth.
If truth mattered we'd all be watching BetaMax Tapes instead of inferior VHS tapes.