On Even More 5th Edition Monster Manual Comments

I've had some time to read over this book and there are even more thoughts that I have. (WARNING, This post contains some adult content!)


  • Why don't the angels have halos?
  • The book has both piercers and dark mantles, their 3.x replacement that supposedly made more sense. That has to be awkward at the christmas party.
  • Here is a list of monsters with ken doll parts that should have visible dongs. I'm leaving demons and angels off this list because they might have ken doll parts.
    •  what Ettin will wear pants? 
    • Fomorian says they wear scraps of cloth or less. The one in the picture has a swank belt!
    • Aarakocra
    • Azer (sculpted from bronze but wears a skirt)
    • Cyclopes
    • Werebear (all these lycanthropies have so many pants and clothes!)
    • Ogre
    • Nothic
      • It's totes important to note here that this is a game targeted at 12 year olds. I mean, I understand the lack of visible dongs. I'm not particularly into visible dongs. I'm just saying that visible dongs are a pretty monsterous thing. I mean, I hate pants and I'm all civilized. If I lived in the monster filled wilderness and I was a giant monster, I wouldn't start my day by looking for my pants.
  • They seriously went overboard with the anthropomorphization. Why does a cloaker or a chasme have a human head? Monsters very rarely seem like alien creatures. You can always locate their eyes and head. Is that intentional? Is it because of this research about locating eyes on creatures? Most of these monsters could be cosplayed by people in suits. Deliberate?
  • Digital motion blur. Uggghhhhhhhh. *stomps foot*
  • The lemur picture is the best
  • A tyrannosaurs is the same CR (8) as a young green dragon, and although it does slightly more damage in melee, it's considerably weaker than the dragon. Conclusion? Dragons are (again) under-rated for their CR.
  • Props to whoever painted the dinosaur pictures, I'm sad they are blocked out.
  • Monte Cook designs a female succubus, and the world loses its mind, Dopplegangers are rapists to reproduce, no one makes a peep. (And they shouldn't)
  • The dryad is stiff and underworked and bland for an impressionistic piece.
  • Two spells a level is still a lot of options for a spellcasting monster.
  • The empyrean and the Ettercap are examples of digital illustration gone wrong (you see that skirt on the Empyrean). Apologies to the artist(s) but you know you'll never see anything like that in a LotFP book.
  • The lycanthropy page runner is excellent.
  • Hags can inspire a whole witch hunting campaign themselves.
  • My, how well dressed are you, you hedonistic reveling Satyr. You look like you're going to a mid-level marketing seminar.
  • Lowering stats from an attack is still a terrible mechanic due to recalculation. (Yes, shadows still drain strength). I thought this was a solved problem with things like negative levels, or even doing things like having weakness points or something.
  • Maybe it's just the fact that my 6 person, level 2.8 party killed Venomfang in two rounds, but all of these monsters seem weak, unless there are a lot of them. The power level seems pretty similar, problems only come in when facing a lot of opponents.
  • A lot of these creatures are weirdly monochromatic. E.g. Wyvern, wraith, stirge, et. al.

I think the art here is more erratic than the art in the Player's Handbook. But it is a large full color book. It's clear (from the art reuse and stuff) that Wizards/Hasbro is looking to control cost. I'd imagine that although large to us, the art budget on this book was more limited than in the past. 

There are a lot of spectacular drawings, and some special recognition is due Christopher Burdett who just is constantly knocking these illustrations out of the park. He can, uh, illustrate my monster manual anytime.

I like more rawness and nudity in my art. Obviously this game for children isn't the place for it, but I don't like pictures of monsters that just look like people in rubber suits. I dislike that most all "monstrous" creatures in the manual are mostly handsome men and women, and the monstrous ones are still basically human shaped. I'm going to post some of my own illustrations to, ahem, illustrate what I mean. 

See? Dongs?
Interesting Female Nudity
Cultists are anti-pants
Don't you know dudes that look like this in real life?

6 comments:

  1. The "CR 25" Tarrasque has no way to stop a party of level 6 adventurers with a carpet of flying and some arrows, let alone a party of actual 25th level characters. The CRs in this book past like, 4 make absolutely no sense to me and feel more like they were derived from some mathematical formula than from actual playtesting

    ReplyDelete
  2. I like the cultist, he is SO happy to see you, and you so just want to run the other way.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for the shout out! Glad to hear you are digging my work on the 5E MM. :D

    ReplyDelete
  4. Aarakocra at least are birds, so cloaca, not dongs, makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What is wrong with the Empyrean's skirt? I'm not a trained artist so could you be a bit more specific as to what is wrong?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Empyrean Image.

      The folds are not done well, that is not how fabric or material falls on the human body. It's not stylistic—the strokes look plain and rushed. The entire exterior is shaded darker like it's covering something shaped like a cube with rounded edges.

      Compare with what a battle skirt should look like.

      Delete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...