Was going to give it a solid 3, but switched to 2. I liked the idea of the update monster stats to better guide monster action economy, was ambivalent about the PC race updates as I've never had a strong position in the whole floating +2/+1 wars. In those two regards it did what it says it was going to do, I don't think it was essential, and also sorta "meh" as far as a peak at the future of D&D (that may have been over-hype on D&D marketing's side and I sensed there was some disappointment in that regard since the box set release).
Then I looked at the Hobgoblin Devastator. A hobgoblin devastator works in the context of the MToF lore with the war bands and the College of Devastation (I would totally get that sweatshirt if anyone ever opens up a CoD school spirit shop, I'm sure they routinely trounce Strixhaven in whatever league they're in). Its rewrite for the Fey goblin origin rewrite, just seems frankly half-arsed. Ok, I get it, magically talented Hobgoblins are trained in magic to defend their people ... calling them devastators doesn't gel with the premise, or the general hospitality and stalwart friendliness being endeavored in the Hobgoblin lore loosening. Iron Shadow rewrite does a little bit better, but that name just seems to clash with everything unlearned and newly learned about hobgoblins. It makes me wonder if there are similar MToF rewrites that also hit an off tone in the rewritings because of name retention and what not. That said, my favorite demon lord got his language punched up a bit, and that was good to see. But that Devastator just ... it's sorta like looking at two walls painted the same color but from two cans of paint they didn't bother to mix (those who paint know this is a thing). There's something just off.
I actually wanted to like this book too, and I actually do like the principle behind it, I'm frankly a bit surprised what hurt my assessment of it was its production/editing flow evidently. It's a book trying to make a "big leap" for D&D at least per marketing; but it seems sorta broad brushed and on the cheap and not really nuanced or thoughtful. Like something you'd stick into a boxed set when you had two good books and wanted to throw a third into the slipcase, ahem.
I don't think this is a deathknell for D&D as some on this thread are proclaiming. I really liked Fizban's. I'm not a Dragonlance guy but am intrigued with some of the character options they're introducing/testing in the UA (maybe those were lessons learned from Strixhaven), and I'm looking forward to Spelljammer and thought the bonus content DDB put on here for Spelljammer pretty much rocked (and its UA races were pretty neat too). This book just didn't hit the mark for what I'd expect from a strong release, which is a shame because it is replacing two books that I thought were very good books as well.
May revisit my rating when I do a fuller read through and/or skim a hardcopy. I did like the Changeling artwork, but I'm guessing it's lifted from an Eberron book?
EDIT: Still holding a two, but as I noted later in this thread, the loss of the Tiefling variety loses some variety and RP hooks.
The changes to the playable races are a mixed bag to be sure. Things like movement speed and minor tweaks make sense. The deeper changes are very hit or miss. No set logic seems to have been used for what was changed and why. Some races have been affected more than others. It's kinda a mess.
The changes to the monster stat blocks are a travesty. Everyone agrees that monster blocks needed to be updated. Creating balanced encounters can be difficult, particularly if you're a new DM. The way they're trying to address this in MotM, however, is very disjointed from the game as it currently stands. Again, no logic or guide was given to explain the changes, or what makes a particular creature a certain CR. The changes made in MotM are supposed to simplify things and make CR more reliable for creating combat encounters. The changes are abject failures to reach either goal.
In terms of the reliability of CR, there are still a lot of monsters that now seem out of place for their supposed CR. They have totally-not-a-spell attacks that either hit above expected damage for CR or below it. Monsters who were casters seem particularly nerfed as damage was never what made them a challenge and a lot of their control options have been removed. There is also a trend for melee attacks to have been revised with force or psychic damage. This has, in particular, played merry havoc with Barbarian features.
As for simplicity? In the short term, there will be confusion due to the changes. That some monster attacks look and act like spells but aren't, mean players have no idea if counterspell or dispel magic will work. Expect a good level of frustration at the table until people figure out the new changes.
Long term? Well, there are now more limited options for combat. I supposed you could call that simple, except there are too many violations of the system they're pioneering. Monster blocks are reinvented with abilities split into 'attacks' and 'spells'. The problem is that some monsters occasionally have 'attacks' that are noted down as spells. So why call it an attack if it's a spell? How does this differ mechanically between the other two? Too many exceptions for this to be straightforward. If a DM wants to tweak a monster with a different spell/attack, how do they go about it? There is also no guidance as to how anti-magic affects any of these abilities, particularly melee attacks with not physical damage riders.
Instead, the changes have just dumbed-down play. Monsters, particularly casters, become boring and repetitive with this emphasis on damage, as they can do less to change how encounters play out. This makes combat all the more of a slog. Counterspell and dispel magic aren't obsolete but they're of less use, reducing options players can use. Players instead have to eat damage from monsters, rather than think tactically.
Overall there is less support and reward for creative play.
MotM probably won't be making an appearance at my table.
I'm thinking after TheManyNamed's post that ok, I get excising the lore, and maybe in its place, since they're going for setting agnosticism and utility, I dunno, include some revisiting of the CR system with maybe some walkthroughs of the monsters in the book to gain readers trust that they are "balanced" indeed this time. Of course, I say this as someone who "wings it" a lot and uses the CR system for the rough index I believe it's designed to be, but if CR was a rationale for this revision, naming CR as something this book is supposed to reconcile would have been a good move.
Maybe they'll have another go at stat blocks and CR one more try before revising the MM in 2024, just a hunch; then again two years, that book may already be in the conception stage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
It's a reprint of existing material that leaves out some of the most interesting parts of the existing material. They got rid of some very fun orc variants from Volos for no discernible reason, and they decided not to group creatures by type for ease of use in the book (demons, devils, etc). The new lore and abilities (or lack thereof) on some of the races is really disappointing. Kobolds and Lizardfolk stood out to me in this regard... but there are many others.
It's a reprint of existing material that leaves out some of the most interesting parts of the existing material. They got rid of some very fun orc variants from Volos for no discernible reason, and they decided not to group creatures by type for ease of use in the book (demons, devils, etc). The new lore and abilities (or lack thereof) on some of the races is really disappointing. Kobolds and Lizardfolk stood out to me in this regard... but there are many others.
I think the reason for leaving out the orc Volo variants is that they were related to members of the pantheon of orcish progenitor gods. Based on the flavor text of the MotM orc race, it sounds like they're trying to revise Gruumsh and the other orc deities into something more noble and less "problematic," and the variants don't fit that new image as they were very potent expressions of the evil these gods represented.
This is the first publication in 5E I have not and will not buy. Reprint of material that is honestly way better in the original prints. With the revisions, 6E is just around the corner and it makes me wonder why they even bother trying to make 5E something it wasn’t intended to be. That’s a rhetorical question because the answer is obviously money and corporate greed. But, it definitely makes me more hesitant to drop in for the preorders on the next two books like I usually do. I might be done with any new content....it just keeps getting worse.
I rated it a 2. My main issue is the lack of lore for the races. Most of them have a couple of short paragraphs, and that's it. It just seems like a really dumbed down version. I don't own Volo's, but I have Theros, so I compared the triton between the two books. Theros has way more useful information about tritons than MotM. I'm also not a fan of WotC removing things like height and age. Not that you have to follow those things, but they're nice guidelines to have.
Honestly, CR was always more a loose guide than a rule for 5e and most of the past editions. 4e was an exception but its system was also very different. Some of the CR issues aren't even the fault of the designers. There is just a huge degree of swing in terms of player's optimization and style of play. A perfectly balanced encounter for one party may annihilate another. I don't think you could make a block that is perfectly accurate with CR every time. That said, there was room for improvement. This mess that is MotM? It just doesn't do what it's supposed to and causes more problems.
Like many DMs, I make alterations to monsters to make combat more varied and fun. Sometimes it's off the cuff like you said. With this new system? It's a mess. What can I swap out without causing issues? Replacing one spell with another was pretty easy. This not-spell system makes it harder because some spells are stronger/weaker if they can't be counterspelled. Most spell lists in MotM are awful, anyway, so changing them may have an even greater effect on CR. Also, some attacks are created whole cloth with no indication of how balance is derived and how changing it might cause imbalance. When there are so few other abilities in the stat block, I'm locked in to using something even if it's too much/little. The margin for error is much finer, which is the opposite of simple. Also, how do I balance the already wonky abilities?
I've got plenty of DM experience but other people? You know, the whole target audience the book was supposed to cater for, who supposedly need things simplified rather than explained, would have a hard time doing all the above.
Ugh, it's just better to not even start with MotM.
I think a large part of the negativity for this book comes from confusion about what it is supposed to be, on both WotC's and the player base's part.
The player base is expecting a full replacement of Volo's and Mort's, but it isn't that. It is a revamp of races and monsters from those books, yes, but it is also meant to make those races and monsters fit into any setting. I have mixed feelings on how well that was accomplished, but that does seem to be the goal.
WotC put the book out there and then pulled the books that provided the Lore because it was mostly Realms specific lore without saying how or if that lore was going to be republished or replaced, creating anger and confusion about what is going on. AND they did it on short notice.
Good morning. We are at 111 votes with an average of 2.5 stars. Not much change over night.
There’s a lot of response bias in this post, so I’m not sure it’s fair to say it is “not good”. The majority of folks posting on Beyond are going to be established players, mainly with the other content already owned, so it doesn’t do much for them. But newer players and DMs? This is my new go-to recommendation for purchase outside of the core books.
I gave it a 4 - it’s probably a 3 to me personally, but the utility for new players bumped it up a point in my evaluation. I took a point off due to it not being quite as revolutionary and useful to existing DMs as I think it was lauded to be, but still think it is a fairly solid product overall.
Good morning. We are at 111 votes with an average of 2.5 stars. Not much change over night.
There’s a lot of response bias in this post, so I’m not sure it’s fair to say it is “not good”. The majority of folks posting on Beyond are going to be established players, mainly with the other content already owned, so it doesn’t do much for them. But newer players and DMs? This is my new go-to recommendation for purchase outside of the core books.
I gave it a 4 - it’s probably a 3 to me personally, but the utility for new players bumped it up a point in my evaluation. I took a point off due to it not being quite as revolutionary and useful to existing DMs as I think it was lauded to be, but still think it is a fairly solid product overall.
I get that, but this poll is meant to be a measure of this community and that includes new and veteran players. I also rated it as a 4 for the same reasons you did.
There are also some who dislike it for the changes it introduced and don't own any of the older content.
The lack of lore, power creep and general homogenization of playable classes is not my speed. Then again, I haven't been especially keen on WOTC books since Tasha's came out. And while there are a few innovations in MMM I like on the DM side (I'm a fan of turning monster spells into abilities), I'd much prefer to shell out more money for detailed, richer content than settle for what MMM offers. Even if I don't use lore in my games, I gain a lot of inspiration from reading it. I don't want my sourcebooks and adventure books to skimp on it.
There are also some who dislike it for the changes it introduced and don't own any of the older content.
The lack of lore, power creep and general homogenization of playable classes is not my speed. Then again, I haven't been especially keen on WOTC books since Tasha's came out. And while there are a few innovations in MMM I like on the DM side (I'm a fan of turning monster spells into abilities), I'd much prefer to shell out more money for detailed, richer content than settle for what MMM offers. Even if I don't use lore in my games, I gain a lot of inspiration from reading it. I don't want my sourcebooks and adventure books to skimp on it.
Exactly which lore do you think should be used in ALL settings? They could never make this book with the lore for every current or future setting. It isn't possible.
The other aspects I feel are valid complaints (whether I agree or not), but the lack of lore in this book is a feature, not a bug. I do admit that I am very interested to see how WotC handles lore in future setting books and if they will have the details people are looking for.
There should really be a distinction between "I already have MToF and VGM" and "I don't have them".
If you already have MToF and VGM... you're getting slightly tweaked reprints, which doesn't seem worth the price.
If you don't have MToF and VGM... you're getting a lot more monsters for your money, because MMM is $30 and those two combined were something like $50-60 (I don't remember their prices).
Yeah - If you are a new player just starting out and don't own any of the older content, which includes some stuff from some of the adventure and setting books as well, then I'd say this is a good buy. If I were new - my only valid complaint really would be the way they chose to not sort monsters by category (fiends... good lord what were they thinking).
There should really be a distinction between "I already have MToF and VGM" and "I don't have them".
If you already have MToF and VGM... you're getting slightly tweaked reprints, which doesn't seem worth the price.
If you don't have MToF and VGM... you're getting a lot more monsters for your money, because MMM is $30 and those two combined were something like $50-60 (I don't remember their prices).
Yeah - If you are a new player just starting out and don't own any of the older content, which includes some stuff from some of the adventure and setting books as well, then I'd say this is a good buy. If I were new - my only valid complaint really would be the way they chose to not sort monsters by category (fiends... good lord what were they thinking).
I agree with you. I don't care for the way things were sorted. I could be wrong, but I believe they still teach people how to use an index in school. If people don't know that x creature is a demon, the index will tell them where to find the creature in the book.
@Golaryn - racial flavor, primarily. I personally liked the quotes, suggested names, and multi-paragraph dives on cultural features (such as info on aasimar guides, for example). I hardly ever used it as canonical material for the game I run, but I've played with people who build their characters off of that stuff and, as a worldbuilder, I miss it. Sure, it's more streamlined now and setting-agnostic, but I always viewed the flavor text and culture stuff as optional anyway.
The way races are presented in MMM takes away the reader's ability to choose whether those creative sparks work for them or not. Instead, they've just been removed entirely. Which is fine if you have access to the older content, but WOTC is making it harder by pulling Volo's and MToF.
There's a lot of doom and gloom in these comments, but I'm stoked with MMM!
As someone who just started 5e this year, MMM is a great book! I debated purchasing ToF and Volo's during the sale but decided on pre-ordering M3 instead.
It gives me all the stat blocks for playing the monsters as a DM and the updated races for my PCs. I have plenty of background in fantasy to determine how I want their backgrounds, cultures, and temperament to be.
I feel like that information is so available between wikis and books and video games, that most people would feel like it's taking up space that could have mechanics in it! Is lore in a book nice to have? Sure. Do I need it to be there? No.
Honestly, Im just happy to have the majority of my non-PHB race options in one place. There are still some outliers in other books like the Tiefling subraces or the Gothic Lineages. I mostly use physical books instead of the tools on D&D beyond, so its nice to only have one extra book to pull out or bring to someone else's house for making characters rather than two or three or four. Not to mention it includes a handful of options I did not have access to because I did not own the module/setting they were originally printed in (namely the haregon and fairy from WBtW or the Satyr/Minotaur from Theros).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Was going to give it a solid 3, but switched to 2. I liked the idea of the update monster stats to better guide monster action economy, was ambivalent about the PC race updates as I've never had a strong position in the whole floating +2/+1 wars. In those two regards it did what it says it was going to do, I don't think it was essential, and also sorta "meh" as far as a peak at the future of D&D (that may have been over-hype on D&D marketing's side and I sensed there was some disappointment in that regard since the box set release).
Then I looked at the Hobgoblin Devastator. A hobgoblin devastator works in the context of the MToF lore with the war bands and the College of Devastation (I would totally get that sweatshirt if anyone ever opens up a CoD school spirit shop, I'm sure they routinely trounce Strixhaven in whatever league they're in). Its rewrite for the Fey goblin origin rewrite, just seems frankly half-arsed. Ok, I get it, magically talented Hobgoblins are trained in magic to defend their people ... calling them devastators doesn't gel with the premise, or the general hospitality and stalwart friendliness being endeavored in the Hobgoblin lore loosening. Iron Shadow rewrite does a little bit better, but that name just seems to clash with everything unlearned and newly learned about hobgoblins. It makes me wonder if there are similar MToF rewrites that also hit an off tone in the rewritings because of name retention and what not. That said, my favorite demon lord got his language punched up a bit, and that was good to see. But that Devastator just ... it's sorta like looking at two walls painted the same color but from two cans of paint they didn't bother to mix (those who paint know this is a thing). There's something just off.
I actually wanted to like this book too, and I actually do like the principle behind it, I'm frankly a bit surprised what hurt my assessment of it was its production/editing flow evidently. It's a book trying to make a "big leap" for D&D at least per marketing; but it seems sorta broad brushed and on the cheap and not really nuanced or thoughtful. Like something you'd stick into a boxed set when you had two good books and wanted to throw a third into the slipcase, ahem.
I don't think this is a deathknell for D&D as some on this thread are proclaiming. I really liked Fizban's. I'm not a Dragonlance guy but am intrigued with some of the character options they're introducing/testing in the UA (maybe those were lessons learned from Strixhaven), and I'm looking forward to Spelljammer and thought the bonus content DDB put on here for Spelljammer pretty much rocked (and its UA races were pretty neat too). This book just didn't hit the mark for what I'd expect from a strong release, which is a shame because it is replacing two books that I thought were very good books as well.
May revisit my rating when I do a fuller read through and/or skim a hardcopy. I did like the Changeling artwork, but I'm guessing it's lifted from an Eberron book?
EDIT: Still holding a two, but as I noted later in this thread, the loss of the Tiefling variety loses some variety and RP hooks.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I am incredibly unimpressed with MotM.
The changes to the playable races are a mixed bag to be sure. Things like movement speed and minor tweaks make sense. The deeper changes are very hit or miss. No set logic seems to have been used for what was changed and why. Some races have been affected more than others. It's kinda a mess.
The changes to the monster stat blocks are a travesty. Everyone agrees that monster blocks needed to be updated. Creating balanced encounters can be difficult, particularly if you're a new DM. The way they're trying to address this in MotM, however, is very disjointed from the game as it currently stands. Again, no logic or guide was given to explain the changes, or what makes a particular creature a certain CR. The changes made in MotM are supposed to simplify things and make CR more reliable for creating combat encounters. The changes are abject failures to reach either goal.
In terms of the reliability of CR, there are still a lot of monsters that now seem out of place for their supposed CR. They have totally-not-a-spell attacks that either hit above expected damage for CR or below it. Monsters who were casters seem particularly nerfed as damage was never what made them a challenge and a lot of their control options have been removed. There is also a trend for melee attacks to have been revised with force or psychic damage. This has, in particular, played merry havoc with Barbarian features.
As for simplicity? In the short term, there will be confusion due to the changes. That some monster attacks look and act like spells but aren't, mean players have no idea if counterspell or dispel magic will work. Expect a good level of frustration at the table until people figure out the new changes.
Long term? Well, there are now more limited options for combat. I supposed you could call that simple, except there are too many violations of the system they're pioneering. Monster blocks are reinvented with abilities split into 'attacks' and 'spells'. The problem is that some monsters occasionally have 'attacks' that are noted down as spells. So why call it an attack if it's a spell? How does this differ mechanically between the other two? Too many exceptions for this to be straightforward. If a DM wants to tweak a monster with a different spell/attack, how do they go about it? There is also no guidance as to how anti-magic affects any of these abilities, particularly melee attacks with not physical damage riders.
Instead, the changes have just dumbed-down play. Monsters, particularly casters, become boring and repetitive with this emphasis on damage, as they can do less to change how encounters play out. This makes combat all the more of a slog. Counterspell and dispel magic aren't obsolete but they're of less use, reducing options players can use. Players instead have to eat damage from monsters, rather than think tactically.
Overall there is less support and reward for creative play.
MotM probably won't be making an appearance at my table.
I'm thinking after TheManyNamed's post that ok, I get excising the lore, and maybe in its place, since they're going for setting agnosticism and utility, I dunno, include some revisiting of the CR system with maybe some walkthroughs of the monsters in the book to gain readers trust that they are "balanced" indeed this time. Of course, I say this as someone who "wings it" a lot and uses the CR system for the rough index I believe it's designed to be, but if CR was a rationale for this revision, naming CR as something this book is supposed to reconcile would have been a good move.
Maybe they'll have another go at stat blocks and CR one more try before revising the MM in 2024, just a hunch; then again two years, that book may already be in the conception stage.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
It's a reprint of existing material that leaves out some of the most interesting parts of the existing material. They got rid of some very fun orc variants from Volos for no discernible reason, and they decided not to group creatures by type for ease of use in the book (demons, devils, etc). The new lore and abilities (or lack thereof) on some of the races is really disappointing. Kobolds and Lizardfolk stood out to me in this regard... but there are many others.
I think the reason for leaving out the orc Volo variants is that they were related to members of the pantheon of orcish progenitor gods. Based on the flavor text of the MotM orc race, it sounds like they're trying to revise Gruumsh and the other orc deities into something more noble and less "problematic," and the variants don't fit that new image as they were very potent expressions of the evil these gods represented.
Insert interesting signature here.
This is the first publication in 5E I have not and will not buy. Reprint of material that is honestly way better in the original prints. With the revisions, 6E is just around the corner and it makes me wonder why they even bother trying to make 5E something it wasn’t intended to be. That’s a rhetorical question because the answer is obviously money and corporate greed. But, it definitely makes me more hesitant to drop in for the preorders on the next two books like I usually do. I might be done with any new content....it just keeps getting worse.
I rated it a 2. My main issue is the lack of lore for the races. Most of them have a couple of short paragraphs, and that's it. It just seems like a really dumbed down version. I don't own Volo's, but I have Theros, so I compared the triton between the two books. Theros has way more useful information about tritons than MotM. I'm also not a fan of WotC removing things like height and age. Not that you have to follow those things, but they're nice guidelines to have.
Honestly, CR was always more a loose guide than a rule for 5e and most of the past editions. 4e was an exception but its system was also very different. Some of the CR issues aren't even the fault of the designers. There is just a huge degree of swing in terms of player's optimization and style of play. A perfectly balanced encounter for one party may annihilate another. I don't think you could make a block that is perfectly accurate with CR every time. That said, there was room for improvement. This mess that is MotM? It just doesn't do what it's supposed to and causes more problems.
Like many DMs, I make alterations to monsters to make combat more varied and fun. Sometimes it's off the cuff like you said. With this new system? It's a mess. What can I swap out without causing issues? Replacing one spell with another was pretty easy. This not-spell system makes it harder because some spells are stronger/weaker if they can't be counterspelled. Most spell lists in MotM are awful, anyway, so changing them may have an even greater effect on CR. Also, some attacks are created whole cloth with no indication of how balance is derived and how changing it might cause imbalance. When there are so few other abilities in the stat block, I'm locked in to using something even if it's too much/little. The margin for error is much finer, which is the opposite of simple. Also, how do I balance the already wonky abilities?
I've got plenty of DM experience but other people? You know, the whole target audience the book was supposed to cater for, who supposedly need things simplified rather than explained, would have a hard time doing all the above.
Ugh, it's just better to not even start with MotM.
I think a large part of the negativity for this book comes from confusion about what it is supposed to be, on both WotC's and the player base's part.
The player base is expecting a full replacement of Volo's and Mort's, but it isn't that. It is a revamp of races and monsters from those books, yes, but it is also meant to make those races and monsters fit into any setting. I have mixed feelings on how well that was accomplished, but that does seem to be the goal.
WotC put the book out there and then pulled the books that provided the Lore because it was mostly Realms specific lore without saying how or if that lore was going to be republished or replaced, creating anger and confusion about what is going on. AND they did it on short notice.
Kind of a cluster f#$k of a release for all.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
At 99 votes, that leaves the book at an average of 2.5 stars. Not good
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Good morning. We are at 111 votes with an average of 2.5 stars. Not much change over night.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
There’s a lot of response bias in this post, so I’m not sure it’s fair to say it is “not good”. The majority of folks posting on Beyond are going to be established players, mainly with the other content already owned, so it doesn’t do much for them. But newer players and DMs? This is my new go-to recommendation for purchase outside of the core books.
I gave it a 4 - it’s probably a 3 to me personally, but the utility for new players bumped it up a point in my evaluation. I took a point off due to it not being quite as revolutionary and useful to existing DMs as I think it was lauded to be, but still think it is a fairly solid product overall.
I get that, but this poll is meant to be a measure of this community and that includes new and veteran players. I also rated it as a 4 for the same reasons you did.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
There are also some who dislike it for the changes it introduced and don't own any of the older content.
The lack of lore, power creep and general homogenization of playable classes is not my speed. Then again, I haven't been especially keen on WOTC books since Tasha's came out. And while there are a few innovations in MMM I like on the DM side (I'm a fan of turning monster spells into abilities), I'd much prefer to shell out more money for detailed, richer content than settle for what MMM offers. Even if I don't use lore in my games, I gain a lot of inspiration from reading it. I don't want my sourcebooks and adventure books to skimp on it.
Exactly which lore do you think should be used in ALL settings? They could never make this book with the lore for every current or future setting. It isn't possible.
The other aspects I feel are valid complaints (whether I agree or not), but the lack of lore in this book is a feature, not a bug. I do admit that I am very interested to see how WotC handles lore in future setting books and if they will have the details people are looking for.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Yeah - If you are a new player just starting out and don't own any of the older content, which includes some stuff from some of the adventure and setting books as well, then I'd say this is a good buy. If I were new - my only valid complaint really would be the way they chose to not sort monsters by category (fiends... good lord what were they thinking).
I agree with you. I don't care for the way things were sorted. I could be wrong, but I believe they still teach people how to use an index in school. If people don't know that x creature is a demon, the index will tell them where to find the creature in the book.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
@Golaryn - racial flavor, primarily. I personally liked the quotes, suggested names, and multi-paragraph dives on cultural features (such as info on aasimar guides, for example). I hardly ever used it as canonical material for the game I run, but I've played with people who build their characters off of that stuff and, as a worldbuilder, I miss it. Sure, it's more streamlined now and setting-agnostic, but I always viewed the flavor text and culture stuff as optional anyway.
The way races are presented in MMM takes away the reader's ability to choose whether those creative sparks work for them or not. Instead, they've just been removed entirely. Which is fine if you have access to the older content, but WOTC is making it harder by pulling Volo's and MToF.
There's a lot of doom and gloom in these comments, but I'm stoked with MMM!
As someone who just started 5e this year, MMM is a great book! I debated purchasing ToF and Volo's during the sale but decided on pre-ordering M3 instead.
It gives me all the stat blocks for playing the monsters as a DM and the updated races for my PCs. I have plenty of background in fantasy to determine how I want their backgrounds, cultures, and temperament to be.
I feel like that information is so available between wikis and books and video games, that most people would feel like it's taking up space that could have mechanics in it! Is lore in a book nice to have? Sure. Do I need it to be there? No.
Honestly, Im just happy to have the majority of my non-PHB race options in one place. There are still some outliers in other books like the Tiefling subraces or the Gothic Lineages. I mostly use physical books instead of the tools on D&D beyond, so its nice to only have one extra book to pull out or bring to someone else's house for making characters rather than two or three or four. Not to mention it includes a handful of options I did not have access to because I did not own the module/setting they were originally printed in (namely the haregon and fairy from WBtW or the Satyr/Minotaur from Theros).
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!