Latest Legends and Lore article and poll: http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120416 .

I would prefer they go back to the 2e Monstrous Manual format, but it looks like they may prefer the 4e format.

Quote from: danbuter;531484I would prefer they go back to the 2e Monstrous Manual format

The 3-ring binder format?

Quote from: danbuter;531484Latest Legends and Lore article and poll: http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120416 .

I would prefer they go back to the 2e Monstrous Manual format, but it looks like they may prefer the 4e format.

The Monstrous Compendium format would be awesome, if they do it right this time around.  One monster per page, even if that means the back side is blank or almost blank.

Quote from: danbuter;531484Latest Legends and Lore article and poll: http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120416 .

I would prefer they go back to the 2e Monstrous Manual format, but it looks like they may prefer the 4e format.

Nice question ...I am conflicted on this.  I want something like Kenzerco did for HM but if it's Dnd only, a mix between 2e and 4e. Shoot me but one of the few things 4e did right is the MM and the MV and well the MC is the best MM made for Dnd, no question.

Though late cycle 3e stuff was very good, see conflicted.

Quote from: StormBringer;531492The Monstrous Compendium format would be awesome, if they do it right this time around.  One monster per page, even if that means the back side is blank or almost blank.

If they printed it on tougher than paper pages. (Something like the Marvel Index thing which had tough pages, and was meant to replace the Handbook, but sucked except for the material it was printed on.)

Quote from: Silverlion;531498If they printed it on tougher than paper pages. (Something like the Marvel Index thing which had tough pages, and was meant to replace the Handbook, but sucked except for the material it was printed on.)

Yeah, the 3lb paper they used was a pretty bad move.  I mean, they designed it to go in a 3-ring binder!  I got a bunch of re-inforcers so the pages wouldn't get ripped to shreds from normal use, but that was more than a bit of a hassle, really.  About half the pages were already damaged by the time I got them re-inforced.

At least the same weight as used in the rule books, WotC!  Speaking of, no high colour glossy any more please.

Quote from: ggroy;531486The 3-ring binder format?

No the Monsterous Compendium, hardbound almost always 1 monster per page.  It's Pathfinder Lite, good for knocking rules lawyers unconscious if they get uppitidity.

* reads survey, frowns *

The fuck is a "Catastrophic Dragon"? As opposed to all the other rescue dragons? That's a 4e thing isn't it.

Whatever they do, they gotta keep those cool 4e names.

Ankheg? Nah, farmerbane burrowmantis!

Quote from: Imp;531506* reads survey, frowns *

The fuck is a "Catastrophic Dragon"? As opposed to all the other rescue dragons? That's a 4e thing isn't it.

It's a dragon that's a catastrophe, duh. Or it's a dragon made out of cats arranged in a poem or song - like structure.

Quote from: Imp;531506* reads survey, frowns *

The fuck is a "Catastrophic Dragon"? As opposed to all the other rescue dragons? That's a 4e thing isn't it.

I thought it was a 3e epic level thing? If not, yeah 4e thing.

Quote from: ggroy;531486The 3-ring binder format?

You're thinking of the Monstrous Compendium. The Monstrous Compendium had the 3-ring binder. The Monstrous Manual, on the other hand, was in "normal" book form. The Monstrous Manual was pretty useful, because it possessed detailed ecology and background information.

I would prefer that it was formatted like the 1e AD&D Monster Manual or Fiend Folio; the Ramones albums of monster books.

My ideal monster book:

(1) One monster per page. And the entire monster should fit on that page. (For easy copying/printing/referencing during play.)

(2) Each monster should be illustrated and each illustration should contain a single monster. The monster shouldn't be standing in a neutral pose, but it also shouldn't have a lot of highly specific context cluttering it up. (In other words, the illustration should be one I can hold up, show to my players, and say, "This is what you see." without needing to qualify that statement.)

(3) For common monsters, give me a variety of stat blocks. (For example, when I'm statting up an orc village I'd like to be able to just pull stat blocks from the MM. I can't do that if the only thing you've given me is Generic Orc.)

(4) The descriptions of the monsters should be detailed and flavorful. (Good rule of thumb: By the time I finish reading the monster description, I should have three awesome ideas for how to include them in an adventure. If I don't, there's something wrong with the monster or there's something wrong with your write-up.)

Exceptions to some of these guidelines can be made for common animals. (Monstrous centipedes don't count as common animals, however. 3rd Edition, I'm looking at you.)

Quote from: StormBringer;531492The Monstrous Compendium format would be awesome, if they do it right this time around.  One monster per page, even if that means the back side is blank or almost blank.

Also this. But there should never be a need to leave the back blank: Either put stat block variants on the back side or throw down a mini-map and key detailing the creature's lair.

Quote from: Imp;531506* reads survey, frowns *

The fuck is a "Catastrophic Dragon"? As opposed to all the other rescue dragons? That's a 4e thing isn't it.

IIRC, someone on the WOTC boards once asked one of the designers WTF was going on with the AdjectiveNoun monster name format a bit before 4Es release, and they said it'd started with D&D Miniatures, but was a thing imposed by the legal team - it made the monsters more... Trademarkable? Copyrightable? Something like that.

I'm not sure if they'll be able to discontinue their proud tradition. Here's hoping, I guess.