Creature Crypt

[Big Mac]

Hmm, good point - I guess I hadn't considered that it might still be in print! Maybe want to leave those conversions alone then... we pretty much have 3.0 versions of all of those anyway (because, if you didn't know, the ToH versions are just reworkings of stuff from the CC website!), and if we wanted to, we could just update those to 3.5 versions (making sure they are different enough from the ToH revised).

I did know about the Tome of Horrors, but only because I read it on your website.

I just read that Necromancer Games are going over to 4th edition. So the GSL will stop them selling Tome of Horrors. I'll have to grab a copy quick. I can't find any information from Sword and Sorcery Studios. They have no new products in the pipeline, so maybe they are being mothballed while the White Wolf group works out if they need to retain a brand that can still sell 3rd edition.

If/when the rest of the monsters are finished, I would love to see them published in the "Encyclopedia Britannica of Monster Manuals" (i.e. a bunch of books that come as a set and have a common index).

If Necromancer Games/Sword and Sorcery Studio can't do it, I hope that someone else can. And if nobody else can wants to publish 3rd edition stuff by then, I'd love to see the full Creature Catalogue available as both a free PDF and a print on demand hardback.

don't get me wrong - i'm still playing D&D 3.5 and plan to continue as long as my group stays with it. i just haven't had the time or interest in doing monster conversions to 3.5 in several months, and don't see that changing any time soon. i never say never though (except there, where i said it twice). meanwhile, i'm sure Shade and the crew will gladly keep going until they get the remaining 1200 monsters or so converted, right?

I get you. If you don't have time, then by the time you return to a monster the conversion is already finished. Either that or there are a lot of posts saying "What do you think, Boz?" and "Are you still there?".

But if you have a look, you will see that there are some settings that only have a few monsters left. Maybe it would be possible to temporarily pop back for the last one unconverted monster from every setting. That way you could still be here for the end!

if i ever had the time and energy to put it together, one thing i would do would be to create my own 3.5ish setting that would incorporate as much old school content as possible. don't count on this happening before i retire, though.

I love the old school stuff. I'm hoping that all the old school fans of the TSR campaign settings can take the monsters from the Creature Catalogue and use them to get their 3rd edition conversions completed.

Thanks for all the hard work you did do when you did have more time to be here.

As for a campaign setting that is in old school style, if you don't have time to make your own you could do worse than checking out Adlatum Campaign Setting from Dragonlance Nexus. I anticipate it winning an ENnie...

...or me eating my hat!

 

[Garnfellow]

I just read that Necromancer Games are going over to 4th edition. So the GSL will stop them selling Tome of Horrors.

No, this is wrong.

The current plan is this: Necro is going 4e, but because of the GSL they will not be doing a ToH4e.

They will be doing a 4e monster book, but it won't be a ToH.

Clark has talked about doing a full color ToH for Pathfinder.

 

[Big Mac]

No, this is wrong.

The current plan is this: Necro is going 4e, but because of the GSL they will not be doing a ToH4e.

They will be doing a 4e monster book, but it won't be a ToH.

Clark has talked about doing a full color ToH for Pathfinder.

Hmm. Do you mean that individual books get bound by the GSL, instead of product lines?

 

[freyar]

Hmm. Do you mean that individual books get bound by the GSL, instead of product lines?

The wording of the GSL is that works with similar titles and/or content as 4e GSL works can't still be sold under the OGL. So Necro needs a new title (which they've chosen apparently: Folio of Fiends) and to keep away from the same monsters, and they're ok as far as anyone can tell. (Of course, the GSL can be revised unilaterally at any time, so who really knows?)

 

[Grazzt]

No, this is wrong.

The current plan is this: Necro is going 4e, but because of the GSL they will not be doing a ToH4e.

They will be doing a 4e monster book, but it won't be a ToH.

Clark has talked about doing a full color ToH for Pathfinder.

Correct. We talked about Tome 4e. No desire to do it as the GSL currently stands. Clark isn't willing to "sacrifice" the Tome line to 4e because we'd have to stop selling all previous incarnations of it, and should WotC ever yank the GSL for any reason, the clause forbidding the sale of OGL for that product still remains. Meaning...if the GSL goes away, we would NEVER be able to do another Tome book at all.

There will likely be a 4e monster book from Necro-. Won't be Tome of Horrors though, unless things with the GSL change.

 

[Grazzt]

I don't think you have to worry Rev. I doubt that the CC will be going anywhere. Shade is really against the monster design philosophy for 4e, and I have to agree with him.

KF72

See. This is one of the things I actually think 4e got right. Monster and NPC design (not talking about the at-will, encounter, daily stuff). Monsters are easy as hell to whip up for 4e since they don't play by the same rules as PCs. No fiddling with skills, feats, etc.

 

[freyar]

See. This is one of the things I actually think 4e got right. Monster and NPC design (not talking about the at-will, encounter, daily stuff). Monsters are easy as hell to whip up for 4e since they don't play by the same rules as PCs. No fiddling with skills, feats, etc.

You know, I haven't found that skills and feats are usually the most time consuming part of conversions, at least. Typically, it seems to be understanding the special abilities (esp the weird ones we've done recently). You're the pro, though, so I'd love to hear more of your thoughts. Any chance you're starting an EN blog?

One thing I found interesting from some of the early 4e previews was the idea of monsters being designed more by role than type. It got me thinking that it might be neat to type define traits and a class define features (using those terms as in 3.x). Really, if humanoids get different HD based on class, why not monsters? But it would be way too much work to redesign the whole system.

 

[Grazzt]

You know, I haven't found that skills and feats are usually the most time consuming part of conversions, at least. Typically, it seems to be understanding the special abilities (esp the weird ones we've done recently).

Skills, rather skill points, and the number of feats got to be a pain (at least for me) after a while...especially for the really high level monsters. It just seemed kinda pointless after a while to be trying to spend that many skill points for skills a monster is likely never going to use. (Like- does it really matter how many skill points the Black Beast of Arrrrghhh has in Craft? )

Yeah- some of the special abilities, especially for conversions, were a bit difficult at times to get a handle on...but those could be reworked into the system with some tinkering.

Honestly- for me, it was just the skill points, synergy bonuses, number of feats (again, really at high levels), and all the other fiddly parts of the math (size bonuses to grapple, etc) that eventually just got to make it more like a math exercise.

One thing I found interesting from some of the early 4e previews was the idea of monsters being designed more by role than type. It got me thinking that it might be neat to type define traits and a class define features (using those terms as in 3.x). Really, if humanoids get different HD based on class, why not monsters? But it would be way too much work to redesign the whole system.

Yeah- monsters by role is interesting. I'm ok with it I guess. I just really like the speed with which you can whip up monsters in 4e, and the fact that just like the pre 3.x days you can design monsters and give them powers/special abiilites that #1 do not have to replicate spell effects, and #2 the PCs don't have access to.

 

[freyar]

Oh, you got me on the synergy bonuses. Most of the time I forget those exist (luckily for the CC, Shade takes care of those ).

As for the exception-based stuff, I think I'm just too much of a simulationist or something.

But I'll also admit that I just haven't played enough 3e yet to feel like making a switch.

 

[Shroomy]

On a personal notes, as a 4e convert, I hope you guys will change your mind and eventually do some stuff for 4e.