Monsters, Minions, and Marauders: Opinions?

[FenrisUlf]

Just how good is the book for a Turakian campaign? And what does it cover? Just generic monsters, or does it also show what more dangerous individuals would be like? And just how does it do with the universe-specific and original critters, as compared to the old reliables?

I know Steve's work is always great, but I'm just testing the waters here before I commit to anything.

[L. Marcus]

Testing the waters . . . ?! Testing the water is for sissies! Jump straight in, I tell ya!

No, but even without TA (it should be in the mail as we speak) I fount the MM&M very useful, shock-full of strange and fun monsters. I'm GMing my brother in a fantasy solo-campaign, and I'm giving him the Grand Tour of the book!

[Gunrunner]

Just how good is the book for a Turakian campaign? And what does it cover? Just generic monsters, or does it also show what more dangerous individuals would be like? And just how does it do with the universe-specific and original critters, as compared to the old reliables?

I know Steve's work is always great, but I'm just testing the waters here before I commit to anything.

I've found that the book is more tailored to a Turakian Age campaign as well. They provide balanced foes to match up against heroic-level characters. It covers all types of fantasy creatures as well as generic NPC templates. While some of the creatures here are more powerful than others (such as liches, giants and dragons), they are not quite as powerful as the demon princes and dragons in the Hero Bestiary.

I'm not sure what you're asking in your last question, but there are universe-specific creatures in MMM such as the migdalar and mycetons.

[Hierax]

MMM is pretty generic. Sure, there are some Turakian Age references but no big deal, much of it can be used "as is" and the rest are easily adaptable as nothing seems too setting specific.

I love monster books and the main Fantasy Hero book spoiled us so my biggest complaint is that the book is too damn short. I was hoping for 256 pages or so but it is only 1/2 that.

Hopefully there will be another one sometime down the road... but Fantasy doesn't look like it gets anything else until 2006 :(

[Curufea]

I'd say - generic to high fantasy settings. If you're doing a non-high fantasy, then there is less variety of monsters encountered and MMM won't be as useful.

Unless you have a setting where summoning or monster creation is common.

[Trencher]

It is one of the best monster books out there and much better illustrated than normal hero products, the monsters works well for both high fantasy and sword and sorcery.

[Trencher]

It is well worth the money.

[tm80401]

It is definitely worth the money. It has a good variety of creatures, good art, and some good ideas for the critters use. I don't have the beastiary, so I can't compare it to that, but I found MM&M to be useful.

[Vanguard00]

I found the TA references to be just that--references. I didn't think it was too TA-centric, and the monsters/creatures are easily adaptable for a variety of campaign genres and needs.

Add my recommendation for "worth it".

[TheTemplar]

It's definitely not Turakian Age centric.. the creatures in it would fit perfectly in most standard fantasy campaign settings. If anything, the majority of the creatures referred to in TTA are MMM centered (aside from specific human subraces and what not.) So, it makes a great companion. As does HSB. Personally, I can't imagine running a FH game without either of those books.

On a side - if you ever run anything from FHB, the creatures used there specifically reference creatures found in both MMM and HSB, with page numbers and all. Very handy.

[Hierax]

Turakian Age is pretty generic.

Sure, If you've got a custom setting you're gonna have to customize things.

[Trencher]

I don't know what you are talking about. MMM is very focused toward a high fantasy setting, and is not so generic in scope. Certain assumptions made in the flavor text -- the nature of hobgoblins comes to mind most readily -- are only applicable to a very specific world, namely the Turakian Age setting.

What??
That does not suit the monsters minions and maruder book I have!

:mad:
(mumble... mumble.... gurps.. mumble..)

[Yamo]

It's a great resource for HERO stats, but I wish that it had more Turakian Age lore and sample NPCs, not to mention more offbeat races and monsters. A lot of it is just statting D&D staples in HERO and changing the names ("Okay, here's the kuo-toa, except call them uthosa.")

I was expecting more. It's a very thin tome.

Great for stats, though.

[Labrat]

I found that MMM has a lot of 'real world' cultural monsters (most notably Aztec) as well as a good extension of some old standbys that I would have expected in HSB. For example, Dark Dwarves and Dark Elves are staple 'monsters' IMO as are, Djinni, Liches, Wights and Wraiths, I don't see why they were excluded from the HSB. (I wasn't too happy when I found out that liches weren't covered in the HSB).

There are some dragon variants and a large section of 'human encounters' like bandits and pirates in the back. I really don't see it as TA centric other than what's written in the ecology section. The coolest part about MMM, and the reason that it's worth the investment, is that there are sample named-baddies that one can build a scenario or even a campaign around. Me likes that.

My $0.02...

[Seraphym]

Just how good is the book for a Turakian campaign? And what does it cover? Just generic monsters, or does it also show what more dangerous individuals would be like? And just how does it do with the universe-specific and original critters, as compared to the old reliables?

I know Steve's work is always great, but I'm just testing the waters here before I commit to anything.

MMM has some great monsters and some real stinkers (Ahuiztotl). But even with the Ahuizotl if you change the tail with a human hand (yes its tail has a literal human hand on it) to a prehensile tail, it can work.

The best picture in my book is that of the common troll. Worst picture is the Ahuizotl.

For the six adventures I have written, all have MMM monsters in them. All also have monsters from the Hero Bestiary. I think it is worth the buy. The templates for bandits, barbarians, etc. add more value to the book.

Two monsters (the ratling and the rootling) I modified drastically.

[Greg]

MMM has some great monsters and some real stinkers (Ahuiztotl). But even with the Ahuizotl if you change the tail with a human hand (yes its tail has a literal human hand on it) to a prehensile tail, it can work.


I think Steve is just trying to be true to the source material.
http://webhome.idirect.com/~donlong/monsters/Html/Ahuizotl.htm
and
http://www.godchecker.com/pantheon/aztec-mythology.php?deity=AHUIZOTL
both comfirm the hand on the tail thing.

That'd be like an Indian complaining about how they like unicorns except for the the single horn (yes they literally only have one).

[Nightshade]

I love that book. It has lots of good creatures, including giants, which aren't in the Bestiary. While I like the Bestiary better (more critters), I can't complain about the quality of the ones they have in there.

Nightshade

[Seraphym]

I think Steve is just trying to be true to the source material.
http://webhome.idirect.com/~donlong/monsters/Html/Ahuizotl.htm
and
http://www.godchecker.com/pantheon/aztec-mythology.php?deity=AHUIZOTL
both comfirm the hand on the tail thing.

That'd be like an Indian complaining about how they like unicorns except for the the single horn (yes they literally only have one).

You can be true to the source material and still create a silly monster, IMO. And I was aware that the Ahuizotl that was depicted that way. But source material or not, its still silly in my book.

Tolkien did not give hobbits wings, even though the "little people" often had wings in ancient celtic lore. Ursual Le Guin did not give her shadow horns, even though in mythology demons often had horns. I think they made good judgement calls.