Rating: 
Summary: Least of the Three
Review: The Monster Manual is labelled a core rulebook, and it truly is. Without the description and rules within, a DM would be hard-pressed to create the creatures necessary to challenge her players at various levels. The book is beautiful and well-laid-out, as you would expect from the other core books. The rules section in the front is short and concise, as most of the rules have been explained in the previous two books.Therein, actually, is my biggest complaint about the book. I feel that, unlike the DMG, far too little explanation is given in the MM about how to create new monsters and balance them against each other. Even sketchy guidelines like the magic item creation rules in the DMG would have been a wonderful addition to the book. As it is, you can only create a monster, then compare it to all the other monsters of a comparable skill level, and guess whether yours is about right. It's a good metric, but it's cumbersome. The third core book, I feel, has too much in the way of tables and not enough in terms of flavor text and rules explanation. While still a great resource for what it is, I think it is lacking the flare that made the first two core books a pleasure to own.
Rating: 
Summary: great
Review: i dont accutully want to rite a revew, just to rate it
Rating:
Summary: Giving the Dragons their Due...
Review: After revising the rules (and doing it well), WotC had to then re-do all the monsters to suit the new rules. Had they done nothing else, this book would rate highly because, at last, the Dragons have the majesty they deserve. Even very young Dragons are now fearsome creatures, and the OLD ones... monstrously frightening. The design and layout is well done, and all the unusual terms and divisions are explained up-front in an easy reference section so that if a monster description confuses you, you can flip back to look up the details. Some of our old friends are missing, but I'll concede that those which went missing were for the most part the least-used (the Brownie, for instance). The "templates" at the end are also useful, as they show how you can apply a concept to an already extant monster (vampire dragons, anyone?) and, of course, since everything is now on the same basic scale, you can really use the monsters as characters -- either player or NPC -- in a way that was much more difficult in the earlier editions. Well worth the money.
Rating:
Summary: Worth Every Penny
Review: This book is worth every penny you spent on it. Not just because it is essential to running a third edition Dungeons and Dragons campaign, but also because it is a great book. I'll start with a little refresher course on the philosophical history of D&D. When Basic Dungeons and Dragons came out, the idea of the game was this: make a character, kill stuff, get money, get powerful. As the game took on new dimensions of complexity, the term "roleplaying" took shape. But the game was orignally a kill and get powerful game. And thus, when first edition, second edition, and now third edition were released, that was kept foremost in mind. However, some people have simply gone too far with the term "roleplaying." That is the reason for the pockets of dissatisfaction about this book. If you are a true D&D gamer, this book is a gift from the heavens. It gives you an easy-to-read stat block, and then some basic information on habitat, appearance, ecology, and culture. The combat section details tactics and describes their attacks, which is a bonus for DMs looking to be descriptive (If you want a mind flayer to lock on with Improved Grapple, you don't have to say "the mind flayer gets you with Improved Grapple." You can say "The Illithid's four slimy tentacles bore into your skull as it draws your head toward its dripping maw"). For the sentient and more or less civilized races, they also give a primer on society and sometimes classes. However, if you are one of the so-called "roleplayers" of D&D, you will not enjoy this book, as it does not give you a five-page essay on the culture and ecology for every single monster. The artwork is great. However, not every monster is drawn (this is most true for monsters like Devils, where there is a massive stat block detailing all the types, and info on all of them, but pictures of only one or two) which can be a slight hassle. Still, the descriptions should hold you over. Finally, the indexing and assignment of challenge ratings really aids the frustrated DM. Also, templates add a whole new dimension to altering monsters, and though the creature advancement is confusing, it is efficient and balanced. It is definitely one of the better D&D books out there, though I can't wait for the additions from other books like the Monster Compendium and the Monster Manual 2.
Rating: 
Summary: I Now Know
Review: I know why the Githzeri, the Leucrotta, and all the other monsters from the old Moster Manual weren't included here: WotC decided to place only the most common, the most simple monsters here and spread the other all-stars to the Psion's Handbook, Monsters of Faerun, the upcoming Monster manual 2, and various others (the dracolich appears in Pool of Radience adventure). I'm not so obtuse as to not grasp the notion that to play d&d you need opponents, and this is a nessesary evil. But the book's monsters are practically stat blocks with only a paragraph or two to decribe ecology, habitats, culture, motivations, etc. The whole effect is a only cosmetic difference between a goblin and a kobold. This is Cynicism at its worst: the book doesnt care about the monsters exept as punching bags and Piñatas. This is what any decent roleplayer like myself despises about these books.
Rating: 
Summary: Great addition to the DMG
Review: I realy like the full-color illustrations, although sometimes I wonder which illustration goes with which description. I like the index in the back and the index with levels.
If you know what creature you are looking for, the fact that the monsters are listed alphabeticaly, is a great help, no index needed then. The biggest problem I have with this book is the rules about the advancement of creatures. Maybe I should create some creatures first and try, but it is not as straightforward as some other stuff.
Rating:
Summary: Badly needing revision
Review: Good art and descriptions, hard as heck to find any creatures that you're familiar with. Could use a good index.
Rating:
Summary: A Useful Reference
Review: I have found this to be an easy to use reference and have had no complaints about it. Once again, it is extremely well presented and it is enjoyable just to flick through it.
Rating:
Summary: Great stats and decent extras, but the layout is horrible
Review: I want to make this simple. The stats are fine; it's awful hard to screw up a monster's stats. On the other hand, it is set up poorly(sometimes it's hard to see where one creature ends and another begins) and the artwork, in many places, just plain stinks. I'm really not sure why people are so in love with the new art; no, I'm not one of those people that hates something just because it's new(if that were the case I'd hate 3rd edition, and I personally really like it). It's just that some of the art is really silly. The troll is stupid-looking, and the minotaur looks more like a demon. Some things that are changed I don't like, and I think the reason is because many of the creatures look as if the artist was trying to make a 'hipper, cooler' version of classic creatures. I think this is what happened to the minotaur. The same fate befell the wight and several player races(the elves look a bit weird but not too bad; however, gnomes and halflings look really modern which doesn't work for me; just look at the gnome's beard!). Let me give it credit though. For every terrible-looking monster(the troll) there are some excellent drawings(the owlbear and the mind flayer are two examples of a modernizing of classic creatures that works quite well, perhaps because the race isn't completely changed like the trolls but simply updated stylistically). Some monsters, like the shambling mound, look totally different than the old editions but this change is successful. I must say I miss some of the monsters left out of the new edition, like Manscorpions, but I understand that some things had to be left out and some things had to be put in. I do not count this against the book at all. The Monster Manual has some nice information in the beginning and end; information helping you create new monsters(not much of this, but enough) and upgrade monsters already present(either by making them higher level or by making them bigger, like making a giant orc). The end of the book gives stats for animals large and small- you can find house-sized scorpions and giant-sized spiders. I think giant animals and insects have been overlooked by DMs in previous editions and these stats really help. Another nice touch are templates. No longer are vampires necessarily a pile of hit dice and a ...load of powers; now you can customize them a bit. A lawyer turned into a vampire is not that powerful and can be tackled by 1st level characters(although it will still be no easy task); a 15th level wizard-turned-vampire is a challenge for high-level characters. This is nice, because now you don't have to say "Gee, I'd like to have a vampire villian but the characters are way too weak." Ghosts, were-creatures, and more are handled the same way. Ghosts get a random assortment of powers such as keening(like a banshee), special damage attacks, etc. This means that you can use the stats to make 'classic' monsters like Ghosts(ala 1st and 2nd edition) and Banshees. It also means that, like vampires, they can be customized to various party levels and created from any creature(an ogre banshee? Excellent!). The main complaint here is that this means the MM does not give you a tradition ghost's or banshee's stats, but expects you to create them yourself. Although each 'Template' creature gives an example, I think there should have been two special pre-made Ghosts: both a banshee and a traditional Ghost. Considering all the space taken up including stats for 10 types of giant ant or whatever, it shouldn't have been a problem. The good basically outweighs the bad, and if you want to play 3e, you need this book. Still, my main problem is how hard it is to read the book. The setup is just really poor. This was done(I suppose) to save space and keep the book from being more expensive, and I'm glad the core books are only [money] apiece; however, I almost wonder if I would have been willing to part with an extra [money] for an easier-to-read book. I have trouble answering that question, but I think the answer is yes. All I can hope is that a 3rd edition "Fiend Folio" or "Monster Manual II" is released, with lots of new and(manscorpions please?) forgotten creatures. All in all I give the statistics **** 1/2*, the art **** and the layout *. Total equals ***(this was not done mathematically, in case you are wondering, since the art and layout are not as important as the stats).
Rating:
Summary: Could be better
Review: Well, lets get to the bad points first: Not enough creature info - meaning that you don't get much about the monsters ecology/society/character. Nice combat data, but if I want to know 'What the hell does a Greater Barghest use its 18 Charisma for?', I'm going to be frustrated. The text for those things isn't a paragraph long, and its that way for many creatures... They should have dropped some of the weirder ones and done more work on those aspects. Also, the book is confusing to read. Since a monster does not get at least one page for itself each, you have entries starting SOMEWHERE on the page, which is more irritating than it sounds. On the pro sides, we have very clear rules. One of the hallmarks of the 3rd Ed is its great clarity and the fact that you do not have to understand a new rule mechanism for every tiny ability. The art is pretty good, the overall presentation nice, and, well... any DM will have to buy one eventually, even if he often creates monsters on his own, like I do.
| 
