Alzrius
The EN World kitten
Hm, that's definitely not what's in mine:
I suppose they must have fixed it in a later printing, much like with the infamous "dawizard" entry in the Encyclopedia Magica.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 2E Looking back at the Monstrous Compendia: the MC appendices, Monstrous Manual, and more!
- Thread starter Alzrius
- Start date
I suppose they must have fixed it in a later printing, much like with the infamous "dawizard" entry in the Encyclopedia Magica.
David Howery
Hero
I remember that, and that at Gencon that year, TSR had several huge boxes of corrected pages that they were giving out free to one and all...
I've been going thru these lately, along with old Dragon PDFs.....and, wow, so many more words than anyone could rightly use.....While 5e can annoy me with natural language at times, 2e and 3e are, well, I must have not read 2/3 of what was in most of the class and monster write ups.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
I am, regardless, very happy to have all that material there. More reference material is an unalloyed good in my opinion. There's a reason 2e monster books are by far my favorite.
Last edited:
It's not just that. Some spells run a page long.....a page, or more, for one spell.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Some spells are complicated, and some descriptions deal with the creation and use of the spell in question. It all adds to the setting.
Voadam
Legend
If you want concise I'd check out B/X. Most monster descriptions are just one paragraph and the stat block is shorter than in AD&D.
For an ant swarm the insect swarm entry is one of the longer descriptions in the Moldvay Basic Set at four paragraphs but it is still only about a quarter of a page compared to the 2e entries.
Alzrius
The EN World kitten
Before I get into talking about MC2 Monstrous Boogaloo MC2 Monstrous Compendium Volume Two, I'm going to bend my usual rule for these retrospectives and briefly talk about the series as a whole before talking about this volume in particular.
More specifically, between re-reading these first two MCs and the excellent discussion(s) that have been had in this thread, I've come to a realization: that (in my opinion, at least) TSR's loose-leaf experiment was something which ultimately benefited Dungeons & Dragons as a whole. For all that we like to talk about the inconveniences of this format – the way most pages have two monsters throws off the "customize and alphabetize" strategy, the way it invites used copies to be missing pages, the chances of tearing the holes, etc. – it introduced a change that worked to increase the overall quality in a way that I feel eclipses all of these drawbacks.
Namely, the loose-leaf pages required that every monster be given an expanded presentation.
That's because, as far as I can tell, this is the very first time in the history of the game that monsters were given an entire page, sometimes two, to themselves. That's notwithstanding any variant monsters that were also present in a given entry, but really that speaks to the point: sometimes those variations had to be there in order to make sure the space was adequately filled.
Most of the time, however, that space was filled with an amount of content that even to this day remains jam-packed compared to not just any edition of D&D, but quite possibly any other RPG out there. Not only did we get the stat block and an art piece, but we then had four(!) sections of text expounding on the monster! The first (which had no header) gave us a supplementary description, usually including things like their attitudes, languages spoken, notable features, etc. Then we had a "Combat" section that was usually several paragraphs long, followed by a "Habitat/Society" listing of roughly equal length, and then an "Ecology" section which was usually much shorter (and so always seemed kind of like an afterthought to me, especially since a lot of monsters – particularly constructs and the undead, among others – had some variation on "this creature doesn't really interact with the local environment in any appreciable way," but sometimes it would mention what magic items you could make out of a creature).
That's a heaping helping of material! AD&D 1E didn't allocate so much space per monster, and so had less overall description, while D&D 3E and later had heavily inflated stat blocks (and combat listings), so they likewise had to tone back the flavor text. It was here, in AD&D 2E, where the monsters were given serious examination not just of what they could do in a fight, but how they fit into a fantasy world.
The "implied setting" flourished under this paradigm, and to me it hasn't lost its allure. This, more than a reduction of math or making the art more inviting, is what I think draws players into the game. Those "Habitat/Society" entries in particular are like catnip to me, and I can't understand anyone who thinks that this level of description is a straitjacket rather than fuel for the imagination. I already know that I can change any aspect of an RPG as I please, so the content that I'm paying for should give me more to work with, not less!
Whew!
So having said all of that, what's there to note about MC2 specifically?
Well, for the most part it's second verse, same as the first. Though I can't help but note that this (mostly) the last time we'll see a Monstrous Compendium that isn't an appendix. Yeah, the Annuals don't call themselves that, and there's at least one monster book (i.e. Birthright's Blood Spawn) that eschews the MC label altogether, but even so, it's notable that this is considered to be the last of the "main" part of the line. The rest of it is apparently all just RPG DLC for particular campaign settings.
Of course, this being the second book in no way implies that it's lesser than the first one...which is mostly because I strongly suspect that the designers deliberately held back some of the more popular monsters for this volume instead of putting them in MC1. Remember how I previously remarked that it was odd how the prior book had the "monster" entries for elves, halflings, gnomes, and men, but not dwarves? Well, that's because the dwarves are here. And so are the drow. And the missing marid and jann genies, along with ankhegs, griffons, hell hounds, lamias, mimics, rust monsters, and of course, the Tarrasque. So yeah, you probably could have gotten away with just using the MC1 on its own, but there were just enough classic D&D monsters in its counterpart volume that you would have noticed their absence.
Though even if it was obvious, the developers at least knew not to say the quiet part loud the way they did when Fourth Edition came out.
They're not all like that, though. There are a lot of monsters here that could be called "silver medalists" in terms of how iconic/popular/useful they are (and for many of these, giving them the silver is exceptionally generous). I mean, does anyone even remember, let alone use, galeb duhrs? Or killmoulis? Or osquips? Not to mention muckdwellers, sandlings, taslois, urds, and a bunch of other monsters who honestly seem to be there because it was guaranteed your players weren't going to have bothered to memorize what those guys can do.
Oh, and we can't forget the various real-world creatures, because we absolutely needed two different entries for carnivorous apes and baboons, along with entries for giant fish, giant crustaceans, beetles, dolphins, eagles (though the giant ones are here too, and look like they were changed just enough for Gwaihir to not be able to sue for unauthorized use of his likeness), frogs (although the killer frogs are pretty cool), hawks, leeches, piranhas, urchins, and several others. And while several, as mentioned, have twists to them, those aren't always enough to make them feel worthwhile...did we really need an entire page of "minimal mammals," which are half the size of their regular counterparts? Because I just can't see anyone being excited about fighting a tiger the size of a border collie.
Also, forgive me Jim Holloway and Daniel Horne, but I can't help but think that this volume bears the lion's share of the reason why so much of the art was changed when MC1 and MC2 were combined into the Monstrous Manual. I can't draw stick figures on a good day, so I'm no one to criticize, but a lot of the artwork here looks less "iconic" and more "rejected from the set of Ghostbusters."
Normally, I'd post several pictures to highlight just how "er, what?" a lot of these pictures are...and so that's what I'll do now. Consider, for instance, how the aarakocra looks like he's about to burst into tears for not having been cast in Jim Henson's The Dark Crystal:
Or the ettercap, who could be Count Orlok's hillbilly uncle:
Or how the leprechaun looks scarier than the monster from the movie Leprechaun:
I've heard it said that the British Royal Family are secretly lizard-people, but it turns out they're actually salamanders:
I could go on, but you get my point: a lot of this art is...I won't say "bad," so much as "striking, but for the wrong reasons."
All of which is to say that MC2 serves as a very uneven companion to its predecessor. This is very much the little brother of the first Monstrous Compendium, being unmistakable in that it's a sibling volume that's never going to be the designated heir. There's a lot to like here, but at the same time it feels like the ratio of "huh?" to "awesome!" hasn't moved in the latter's favor.
Please note my use of affiliate links in this post.
More specifically, between re-reading these first two MCs and the excellent discussion(s) that have been had in this thread, I've come to a realization: that (in my opinion, at least) TSR's loose-leaf experiment was something which ultimately benefited Dungeons & Dragons as a whole. For all that we like to talk about the inconveniences of this format – the way most pages have two monsters throws off the "customize and alphabetize" strategy, the way it invites used copies to be missing pages, the chances of tearing the holes, etc. – it introduced a change that worked to increase the overall quality in a way that I feel eclipses all of these drawbacks.
Namely, the loose-leaf pages required that every monster be given an expanded presentation.
That's because, as far as I can tell, this is the very first time in the history of the game that monsters were given an entire page, sometimes two, to themselves. That's notwithstanding any variant monsters that were also present in a given entry, but really that speaks to the point: sometimes those variations had to be there in order to make sure the space was adequately filled.
Most of the time, however, that space was filled with an amount of content that even to this day remains jam-packed compared to not just any edition of D&D, but quite possibly any other RPG out there. Not only did we get the stat block and an art piece, but we then had four(!) sections of text expounding on the monster! The first (which had no header) gave us a supplementary description, usually including things like their attitudes, languages spoken, notable features, etc. Then we had a "Combat" section that was usually several paragraphs long, followed by a "Habitat/Society" listing of roughly equal length, and then an "Ecology" section which was usually much shorter (and so always seemed kind of like an afterthought to me, especially since a lot of monsters – particularly constructs and the undead, among others – had some variation on "this creature doesn't really interact with the local environment in any appreciable way," but sometimes it would mention what magic items you could make out of a creature).
That's a heaping helping of material! AD&D 1E didn't allocate so much space per monster, and so had less overall description, while D&D 3E and later had heavily inflated stat blocks (and combat listings), so they likewise had to tone back the flavor text. It was here, in AD&D 2E, where the monsters were given serious examination not just of what they could do in a fight, but how they fit into a fantasy world.
The "implied setting" flourished under this paradigm, and to me it hasn't lost its allure. This, more than a reduction of math or making the art more inviting, is what I think draws players into the game. Those "Habitat/Society" entries in particular are like catnip to me, and I can't understand anyone who thinks that this level of description is a straitjacket rather than fuel for the imagination. I already know that I can change any aspect of an RPG as I please, so the content that I'm paying for should give me more to work with, not less!
Whew!
So having said all of that, what's there to note about MC2 specifically?
Well, for the most part it's second verse, same as the first. Though I can't help but note that this (mostly) the last time we'll see a Monstrous Compendium that isn't an appendix. Yeah, the Annuals don't call themselves that, and there's at least one monster book (i.e. Birthright's Blood Spawn) that eschews the MC label altogether, but even so, it's notable that this is considered to be the last of the "main" part of the line. The rest of it is apparently all just RPG DLC for particular campaign settings.
Of course, this being the second book in no way implies that it's lesser than the first one...which is mostly because I strongly suspect that the designers deliberately held back some of the more popular monsters for this volume instead of putting them in MC1. Remember how I previously remarked that it was odd how the prior book had the "monster" entries for elves, halflings, gnomes, and men, but not dwarves? Well, that's because the dwarves are here. And so are the drow. And the missing marid and jann genies, along with ankhegs, griffons, hell hounds, lamias, mimics, rust monsters, and of course, the Tarrasque. So yeah, you probably could have gotten away with just using the MC1 on its own, but there were just enough classic D&D monsters in its counterpart volume that you would have noticed their absence.
Though even if it was obvious, the developers at least knew not to say the quiet part loud the way they did when Fourth Edition came out.
They're not all like that, though. There are a lot of monsters here that could be called "silver medalists" in terms of how iconic/popular/useful they are (and for many of these, giving them the silver is exceptionally generous). I mean, does anyone even remember, let alone use, galeb duhrs? Or killmoulis? Or osquips? Not to mention muckdwellers, sandlings, taslois, urds, and a bunch of other monsters who honestly seem to be there because it was guaranteed your players weren't going to have bothered to memorize what those guys can do.
Oh, and we can't forget the various real-world creatures, because we absolutely needed two different entries for carnivorous apes and baboons, along with entries for giant fish, giant crustaceans, beetles, dolphins, eagles (though the giant ones are here too, and look like they were changed just enough for Gwaihir to not be able to sue for unauthorized use of his likeness), frogs (although the killer frogs are pretty cool), hawks, leeches, piranhas, urchins, and several others. And while several, as mentioned, have twists to them, those aren't always enough to make them feel worthwhile...did we really need an entire page of "minimal mammals," which are half the size of their regular counterparts? Because I just can't see anyone being excited about fighting a tiger the size of a border collie.
Also, forgive me Jim Holloway and Daniel Horne, but I can't help but think that this volume bears the lion's share of the reason why so much of the art was changed when MC1 and MC2 were combined into the Monstrous Manual. I can't draw stick figures on a good day, so I'm no one to criticize, but a lot of the artwork here looks less "iconic" and more "rejected from the set of Ghostbusters."
Normally, I'd post several pictures to highlight just how "er, what?" a lot of these pictures are...and so that's what I'll do now. Consider, for instance, how the aarakocra looks like he's about to burst into tears for not having been cast in Jim Henson's The Dark Crystal:
Or the ettercap, who could be Count Orlok's hillbilly uncle:
Or how the leprechaun looks scarier than the monster from the movie Leprechaun:
I've heard it said that the British Royal Family are secretly lizard-people, but it turns out they're actually salamanders:
I could go on, but you get my point: a lot of this art is...I won't say "bad," so much as "striking, but for the wrong reasons."
All of which is to say that MC2 serves as a very uneven companion to its predecessor. This is very much the little brother of the first Monstrous Compendium, being unmistakable in that it's a sibling volume that's never going to be the designated heir. There's a lot to like here, but at the same time it feels like the ratio of "huh?" to "awesome!" hasn't moved in the latter's favor.
Please note my use of affiliate links in this post.
Last edited:
Voadam
Legend
I was excited for the expanded monster entries since I saw them in the 1e/2e Greyhawk Adventures which preceded the 2e core books. Physical Appearance, Combat, Habitat/Society, and Niche.
They made each of them about a page long but started on the second column so none of them were on one page alone but each straddled two which was annoying to use at the table. I much preferred the later one per page (or two full pages) format.
They made each of them about a page long but started on the second column so none of them were on one page alone but each straddled two which was annoying to use at the table. I much preferred the later one per page (or two full pages) format.
Orius
Legend
I'll be honest, I think the full-page format of the MCs was kind of a mixed bag. Some monsters were served well by it. Others, not so much. With the real world animals, including extinct ones (but IIRC those didn't get covered until the next one), a lot of it is filler. The MM here was an improvement with the condensed tables, except where they put in unusual creatures that really should have had their own entries. Some monsters, like the swordwraith that Voadam posted above don't have any habitat or ecology. Look at how it says the swordwraith produces nothing and consumes nothing, which is pretty close to the MC5 write up. There are a good number of monsters like that, or monsters where the Habitat/Society and Ecology entries are noticably thin. One good thing though is that the single page entry does mean less page flipping.
MC2 generally seems to a bit heavier on later monsters that appeared in MMII or in some cases the FF. Also, it has another encounter table. MC1's tables IIRC look like a conversion of the 1e tables, where MC2 looks likes it's more constructed for 2e based on guidelines originally published in MMII. I'd use MC2's tables myself as the 2e default.
Overall though, I'd still recommend the MM over MC1/2.
MC2 generally seems to a bit heavier on later monsters that appeared in MMII or in some cases the FF. Also, it has another encounter table. MC1's tables IIRC look like a conversion of the 1e tables, where MC2 looks likes it's more constructed for 2e based on guidelines originally published in MMII. I'd use MC2's tables myself as the 2e default.
Overall though, I'd still recommend the MM over MC1/2.
Similar Threads
