Rating the Monster Manuals

[tedcahill2]

I through V, which monster manuals are the best and are any not even worth owning?

[Beheld]

I is best, but honestly the specific monster books like draconomicon or fiendish codexes, or lords of madness, or libris mortis are usually better than the other monster manuals.

Fiend Folio might be the second best MM just without the name.

After that:

III, II, IV, V?

[Venger]

almost all the content from I is available on the srd, so treat it as low priority.

best to worst is: 3, 2, 5, 4

3 has a lot of exciting, well designed monsters with a lot of cool tactical options.

2 is notoriously poorly edited and only half-updated from 3.0. the crs swing wildly but there are a lot of cool and very imaginative monsters in it

5 has a lot of monsters with new, exciting abilities and have the mind flayers of thoon, an extremely exciting faction.

4 has a couple of gems, but if you're not interested in the various degenerate dragons of tiamat, you're gonna have a bad time, as 60% of the book is padded with x-spawn y-verber

[Fizban]

More important I think is rating them in terms of power level:
MM 1 is the closest thing you'll find to a definition of game balance, all is in comparison to this.
MM 2 is 3.0 and notoriously swingy, with plenty of stuff that clearly has no combat power and other stuff loaded with spells way above their CR.
Fiend Folio is closer to 3.5, and I can't actually think of any particularly screwy monsters in it. Some are under and some probably a bit over, you want to look at things individually but they won't be a crazy as MM2.

MM3 is a straight upgrade in power level compared to MM1. The monsters are stronger to start off with, then more optimized on top of that, and can usually be optimized even further. This is great for groups that demand optimization, but for groups that do just fine with stock MM1 it's a shock. Take a look at the Nycaloth: more HD, more special abilities, more magic items than the Manual of the Planes original version, for less CR, it outclasses almost everything at the same CR.

MM4 is lower power than MM3. It has more themed/related groups of monsters and pre-statted rather low optimization NPCs with formula CR and there's just not many that stand out aside from enemies with "endgame" written on their face and a couple weirdos. They start using some gamey mechanics here.

MM5 is lower power than MM4 I think. Even more monster families and poorly optimized NPCs, basically the same as MM4 but moreso. More "video game monsters" with varied results.

The environment books Frostburn, Sandstorm, and Stormwrack, are pretty tame, maybe a bit stronger than MM1 but still not usually matching 3, same goes for most books that aren't swingy.

Lords of Madness has some solid monsters, probably on par with the middle ground of MM3, while Libris Mortis has a number of "screw you just die now" tier swarms that probably put it higher up.

The Fiendish Codicies feature more upgrades of old monsters like the Nycaloth from MM3, as well as new monsters that can be even stronger at their levels, easily on par with that book.

Basically the monster manuals get more powerful as you go, until there's a drop off when the designers realize they shouldn't just keep ramping up the power to satisfy the internet and start working on ideas they'd carry into 4 and even 5e.

[Karl Aegis]

Bestiaries are normally pretty bad. Plenty of people really do not like bestiaries. All the monsters generally look the same with no real difference between them. When bestiaries can be summed up as, "This worm spits acid, this worm has a stinger and THIS worm makes a mean omelette!" sum up what the differences between monsters are things get pretty boring really fast.

[AslanCross]

MM3 was the best of the 3.5 Monster Manuals. The monsters are quite cool and provide interesting challenges. Along with it are LoM, LM, and the Fiendish Codices.
MM5 is next, because


Ṱ̣̗̼̥̱̗h̠͔͔͓͈ͧͪ͆͌̑o̲o̖͈͖̓̾ͥn͈̪͎̩̝͙͔͗́̑͊̄ ̈́̈̆ͭi̳͔͍̳ṡ͍̪͔ͧ͊̒̏ ͕̮̰͕̿̊ͤT̲̞̍̽͆h͒̏o̗ͬ̚o̥̲̳͐̀̓̒͒n͎̹̑ͭͮ

̻̦͕̱̤̗̉͗ͅTͭͯ͛͂ͅh̳̖̥̟͖̉̐̿̓̓̚o̲̳͉̅̏̒oͭ͌n̽ ̩ï̫̖̹͎̊̾s͚ͭͫ̽̀̀ ̗͇̭͓̉̑̄̄ͥͅẢ̘̭̞͔ͣͤ͌L̰̻̼̱̘L̤̗͎̗̪̫̝ͤͮ̀̑ͩ

̭̯̭̆̅̋̑̀ͭA̟̰̠ͬͫ̏ͪ̆Ḷ̻̽͋ͨ̉L͎̩̬̥̇͆ͣ͋ͥ͂ ̍H̒̈ͮͦ̃Aͨ̄I̮̗̬̞̳ͫͨL̮̗͉͕͖̗̃ͮ̓ͯ ̻͗͗̑̐͋T̻̭H̗̞̩̦͚̏ͫͤͬͣ͐O͓̙ͅÖ̪̮̯̮͗Ṋͦ͛̆ͦͅ


MM4 was almost entirely Spawn of Tiamat, and that should have just been put into Draconomicon.

MM2 was really weird. As has been mentioned, swingy, with a lot of monsters that are either too strong for their CR or too weak. Not to mention the 3.0 conversion problems.

[emeraldstreak]

1 and 3 are the key ones. Mind you, 3's monsters punch harder.

[CharonsHelper]

Bestiaries are normally pretty bad. Plenty of people really do not like bestiaries. All the monsters generally look the same with no real difference between them. When bestiaries can be summed up as, "This worm spits acid, this worm has a stinger and THIS worm makes a mean omelette!" sum up what the differences between monsters are things get pretty boring really fast.

I feel the opposite. I'd argue that Monster Manuals are the secret to the success of D&D and Pathfinder over the years. (not that everything in them is good - just all of the GM legwork other systems require and bunches of adventure ideas inherent to the monsters)

For the players they add inherent variety to the game as you fight different monsters throughout the game, needing to use different tactics against them. etc.

[Malimar]

5 > 4 > 3 > 1 > 2

[Grod_The_Giant]

I feel the opposite. I'd argue that Monster Manuals are the secret to the success of D&D and Pathfinder over the years. (not that everything in them is good - just all of the GM legwork other systems require and bunches of adventure ideas inherent to the monsters)

For the players they add inherent variety to the game as you fight different monsters throughout the game, needing to use different tactics against them. etc.

Yeah. Going back to running D&D after doing Mutants and Masterminds and Fate for a while, where I had to stat out all the enemies myself? Like a cool drink of water on a hot summer day.

[Starbuck_II]

In General, I like the Odd's better than the evens.
However, I favor 3.0 Monster Manual over 3.5 for the SRD.
I mean, they messed up the Roper in the conversion: instant regeneration of Strands, Higher SR/Resistances, bite is 1.5 Str now, etc. Mind you, this is same CR.

I love the ToB Monster like the Reth Dekala, so cool, too bad no new content for them.

[unseenmage]

As an aside, the Monstrous Compendium: Monsters of Faerun splat has the best monsters for use with the Effigy template because it has the most broken HD to size ratio monsters with the most natural attacks and Ex abilities.

It's basically even more swingy and odd than the MM2 even after one applies the 3.5 update booklet.

[Beheld]

I feel the opposite. I'd argue that Monster Manuals are the secret to the success of D&D and Pathfinder over the years. (not that everything in them is good - just all of the GM legwork other systems require and bunches of adventure ideas inherent to the monsters)

For the players they add inherent variety to the game as you fight different monsters throughout the game, needing to use different tactics against them. etc.

Yeah this. MM are literally the most important and best books for your game, and good MM are essential to the game.

[CharonsHelper]

Yeah. Going back to running D&D after doing Mutants and Masterminds and Fate for a while, where I had to stat out all the enemies myself? Like a cool drink of water on a hot summer day.

Yeah this. MM are literally the most important and best books for your game, and good MM are essential to the game.

On that front - why do you guys think that so few systems have a Monster Manual or its equivalent for the system? Heck - Pathfinder even had an NPC handbook. (the only other system I can think of off the top of my head which does so is Star Wars Saga Edition) Is it because it itself likely won't sell super well because it's basically GM only? (sorry for the tangent)

[Cosi]

MM1 is probably the best. Has a bunch of iconic monsters like Dragons, Beholder, Mind Flayers and what have you.

MM3 or FF next. I don't remember anything specifically great off the top of my head, but they don't have the bloat of 4 and 5 or the CR wackiness of 2.

After that, it gets more complicated. The MM2 has some cool stuff in it, but also a bunch of screwed up CRs. MM4 and MM5 are bloated, and have long sections dedicated to signature monsters that are hit or miss.

I recall the "all about X" monster books being pretty good if you wanted to do stuff with that particular monster. For example, the Dragon one has stats for all the core dragons, which is useful. But if you don't particularly care about dragons, it's not super great.

I feel the opposite. I'd argue that Monster Manuals are the secret to the success of D&D and Pathfinder over the years. (not that everything in them is good - just all of the GM legwork other systems require and bunches of adventure ideas inherent to the monsters).

Exactly. I don't understand how you can hate bestiaries. The ability to just pick up a book and play the game makes D&D vastly more accessible than it would be otherwise.

5 > 4 > 3 > 1 > 2

This is pretty close to exactly backwards. The MM4 and MM5 fall victim to the same bloat problems that most later books faced, and as such are much less valuable than the earlier MMs.

On that front - why do you guys think that so few systems have a Monster Manual or its equivalent for the system? Heck - Pathfinder even had an NPC handbook. (the only other system I can think of off the top of my head which does so is Star Wars Saga Edition) Is it because it itself likely won't sell super well because it's basically GM only? (sorry for the tangent)

It's not just that it's a DM book rather than a player book* (there are player options in various monster books, more so for the type ones than the straight MMs). It's that it's another book you need to play the game, and if your game isn't Dungeons and Dragons, it may be difficult to convince people to shell out them money. Games like Shadowrun and Earthdawn do have monster sections, they're just chapters rather than a whole book -- it's not like the notion of providing monsters is totally foreign to the rest of the industry.

Also, various game designers probably think (rightly or wrongly) that they "don't need" a MM equivalent for whatever reason. If you're White Wolf, and you're making a game that's supposed to be about politics and Real Roleplaying for Real Roleplayers, you probably don't think that a big list of enemies is something you need. Or if you're making a rules light game.

*: Incidentally, I don't think there's any particular reason to think monster books don't sell to players. Monster books are cool, and lots of people will just buy cool crap.

[CharonsHelper]

Also, various game designers probably think (rightly or wrongly) that they "don't need" a MM equivalent for whatever reason. If you're White Wolf, and you're making a game that's supposed to be about politics and Real Roleplaying for Real Roleplayers, you probably don't think that a big list of enemies is something you need.

A different game's MM equivalent wouldn't have to be just combat foes. It could be a variety of social challenges etc.

But - it sounds like I'm preaching to the choir.

[Beheld]

On that front - why do you guys think that so few systems have a Monster Manual or its equivalent for the system? Heck - Pathfinder even had an NPC handbook. (the only other system I can think of off the top of my head which does so is Star Wars Saga Edition) Is it because it itself likely won't sell super well because it's basically GM only? (sorry for the tangent)

While Cosi is correct about why, and your hypothesis is probably a contributed however true or false that belief is, I think another important reason is that they are just harder to make per content. I think that's also why the various libris mortis, lords of madness fiendish codi happened too. It is easier to write 10 new dragon types, some templates for dragons, some dragonlike monsters, feats for dragons and feats and prcs for dragon hunters or buddies, and then a bunch of fluff and tactics sections and 'm advice for placement than it is to churn out 150-200 new diverse monsters that are all balanced to the same standard.

Probably also why mm 4 and 5 had a big section for one type of monster. To direct more of the writing.

[Troacctid]

MM1 is the most important because it has the base monsters you need in order to run the game. All the other ones assume you already have it. It's also the worst value because almost all of it is free in the SRD.

MM5 is my favorite. It​ has a lot of well-designed monsters that make for interesting encounters. It came late in 3.5's development cycle and the designers had a better handle on how to craft interesting creatures. It also adopted some of the better points of the fledgling 4e design philosophy, like designing each monster with a particular role in mind.

MM2 is the most skippable one. The balance in it is very poor, and it's 3.0, so a lot of stuff requires you to spend extra effort converting it​.