Knights & Knaves Alehouse

I was looking through it the other day and it occurred to me that there was only one monster from it* that I ever used - the vilstrak. Did/do you guys use many monsters from this book? If so, which ones? Looking though it now, I might use the demons & devils, the giants - and the vilstrak. Just curious how much use is made of the Kech or Korred (for example).

* not counting those that were in the D modules.

I feel like I've used a lot of stuff from the MM2 -- various demons, devils, and daemons, kampfults, scum creepers, juju & monster zombies, hangman trees & black willows, carnivorous flying squirrels, ordinary rats & crows, shadow & faerie dragons, firbolg & fomorian giants, wild elves, ordinary cats (which are like Lovecratian super-cats and will totally kill a low-level characters DEAD!), large & huge scorpions -- not even counting all the stuff from modules (S3 & 4, I1, etc.). I probably use the MM2 almost as much as the MM1, and definitely a hell of a lot more than FF.

There's been some talk in some of the other threads about having "all unique monsters" because jaded players know everything about every monster in the MM. I find the MM II a perfect foil to this, for despite it being about 28 years old, there are a surprising amount of beasties virtually unknown to my veteran player group. So, yes, I use it and I like it.

I use it too.

I have long thought highly of the MM II, which I think, on average, has far more generally useful monsters than the Fiend Folio. I think it's an unfairly maligned AD&D book.

I use all 3 of the monster books. The one thing that annoys me about the MMII are the modrons...

"You come down the hall and encounter...a cube...with arms...and legs"

...so I never use those. The other is the fact that most of the MMII monsters have a SEE BELOW attack/defense. This is annoying when using stat blocks for written adventures. You almost always have to pull out the MMII and look up the monsters to "see below". Other than that, I like the book.

- Djeryv

Grab my Old School Statblocks book for rather more complete in-line stats. It's designed for cut-and-paste into a module writeup or reference sheet for in-game use.Grab my Old School Statblocks book for rather more complete in-line stats. It's designed for cut-and-paste into a module writeup or reference sheet for in-game use.

Kellri wrote:Grab my Old School Statblocks book for rather more complete in-line stats. It's designed for cut-and-paste into a module writeup or reference sheet for in-game use.Grab my Old School Statblocks book for rather more complete in-line stats. It's designed for cut-and-paste into a module writeup or reference sheet for in-game use.

I have already seen your stuff. I printed out the spell listing "you" made...because of how comprehensive it is. For me though...I generate monster lists from my tools at my site. These create random lists of monsters where some come from the MMII. My database just has the normal stat blocks entered so that is all I see on my generated lists. The one extra thing I have shown is "what book" the monster is in and the "page number" so I can find them quickly...when I need to.

Other than that...your idea is good and I have written a couple of articles pointing to your stuff. I made an effort to write about your stuff because I feel you don't have enough exposure. I found your stuff by accident and I think many people don't know the documents you assembled even exist...especially the spell listing you have. It saves players from searching through the PH and UA for their spells.

- Djeryv

I already have it - it is awesome!I already have it - it is awesome!I already have it - it is awesome!I already have it - it is awesome!I already have it - it is awesome!I already have it - it is awesome!

Yeah - there is some depth in the MMII that I passed over back in the day.

djeryv wrote:I use all 3 of the monster books. The one thing that annoys me about the MMII are the modrons...

I'm weird, I guess, because the modrons never bothered me. Granted, I've never actually used them in any adventure, so maybe that's why they don't bother me

T. Foster wrote:...ordinary cats (which are like Lovecratian super-cats and will totally kill a low-level characters DEAD!)....

Awesome! Makes me think of some horror movie I haven't seen where the cat protects it's family from goblin like creep.

I do something similar with the "War Dogs"; 2+2 HD, bite for 2-8 damage; obviously some kind of Rottweiler/Mastiff sized super-Pit Bull!

Also, I too think the MMII has a lot going for it: Dimetrodons, Fly Demons, FROGHEMOTHS!, Carnivorous Flying Squirrels, Stegocentipedes, Transposer, etc.

It's just a shame the artwork is so uninspiring.

Planet Algol wrote:It's just a shame the artwork is so uninspiring.

Now, that's a very fair criticism of the book. I'm actually a fan of Jim Holloway's artwork, but so much of his stuff in the MMII is unremarkable that I think it contributes to the sense that the content itself isn't all that special.

I've used the Monster Manual and the Fiend Folio extensively. I can't remember ever using the Monster Manual II. Something didn't click for me when TSR started putting orange spines on the AD&D hardbacks.

James Maliszewski wrote:

Planet Algol wrote:It's just a shame the artwork is so uninspiring.

Now, that's a very fair criticism of the book. I'm actually a fan of Jim Holloway's artwork, but so much of his stuff in the MMII is unremarkable that I think it contributes to the sense that the content itself isn't all that special.

I think what stands out in Holloway's MM2 art is that so much of it is partially silhouetted/shadowed/blacked out: I'm assuming that the art order was very rushed, or that someone chose that as a style/approach, but regardless the end result was, in general, very bland.

And that's a shame, since Jim was doing great work at the time, and since. Another "what might have been" if TSR wasn't cutting corners already by 1983....