Dog Soul Releases Cooper's Corrected Creature Codex: E - G

[Cathix]

Are Your Monsters...Correct?

[imager]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/litlbeast/ETHRUGbigthumb.png[/imager]
The third book in the series of "improved" d20 monsters by ENWorld staff reviewer John Cooper (known as "the nit-picky stat block guy") features all of the monsters beginning with "E" through "G" from the SRD.

Mr. Cooper has been invited by Dog Soul to comb through the core monsters and correct anything that seems amiss.

Fully bookmarked and easy to print, each pdf also includes "Cooper's Comments*" sidebars, which explain what John changed and why he made the changes that he did. "Cooper's Comments" also prompt the DM to check for possible synergy bonuses in instances where a given creature has a skill or skills that still need to be plugged in, like “Craft (any)” or “Knowledge (any three)”.

Cooper's Corrected Creature Codex - the definitive monster resource for GM's and d20 publishers.

*In many cases John has changed more than the major issues he addresses in Cooper's Comments, including punctuation and alphabetical organization.








For sale at Your Games Now, The ENWorld Download Store, RPGNow, and DriveThruRPG

 

[Garnfellow]

I bought the first volume of this series and, as a monster junkie, I thought it was pretty good. While these suggestions are probably much too late, I had several thoughts that I think would dramatically improve the utility of these products:

• Use the new statblock format. This one change would make this a "must have" product for many, many people who might otherwise pass these books by. Gods, I hate the old format and would pay good money for a product that had no corrections and just rearranged the statblocks into the new format. I know that there is some debate about whether the format is proprietary or not, but WotC has said it would entertain requests from OGL publishers to use the format, and maybe even more importantly, it sounds like Paizo has developed its own open format that keys off WotC official format -- that would be well worth investigating.
• Add open descriptions to each monster. I don't know why WotC didn't make the physical description line to the SRD, but it would be very useful to have an open version out there.
• For spellcasting creatures like the aboleth mage, add in the appropriate save DCs for the Typical Spells line.
• For selected creatures (generally, the more complicated or powerful ones), adding a new tactics round-by-round description would be fantastic.
• For selected creatures, add a "monster lore" table.
• For selected creatures (generally, humanoids whose organization line specifically describes several classed leaders), add a couple of new advanced examples. A Cooperized kobold sergeant, hobgoblin leader, or gnoll lieutenant would be awesomely helpful.
• For selected creatures, add in standard treasure descriptions or equipment.

I think your existing product is just great for the hard-core monster junkie, but probably won't offer enough juice for the casual monster user. I think adopting a few of these suggestions would greatly broaden the appeal beyond the hard-core.

P.S. I think the Challenge Rating for the aboleth mage is probably wrong. What constitutes an associated or non-associated class is almost always a judgment call, but based on the aboleth savant from Lords of Madness, it appears WotC has rethought the matter and concluded that wizard should probably be non-associated for an aboleth, which suggests that the aboleth mage's ought to be CR 13 instead of 17.

 

[Cathix]

Thank you for your feedback! I'm sure John's around here some place to perhaps address some of your points, but while I have a moment I can address two of them.

We actually don't like the new statblock, but I do appreciate that some people prefer it. Also, the CCCC series (or C4, as one creative ENWorlder has named it), is most useful I think for people seeking to create their own material, be they homebrew-building GM's or RPG publishers. When I read John's review of the Special Edition Monster Manual, I found myself thinking "wow. I wonder how much material I've taken from the SRD for my own books that isn't quite right." Hence the number one goal of the pdfs - but monster afficionados will certainly appreciate John's sharp eye, too.

Thanks again for your input; every opinion and extra set of eyes is invaluable.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

Is there a list of creatures? Or at least a number?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I echo Garn's comments: If this entire series were repackaged as an open source corrected Monster Manual, including core descriptions and the like, and made available through POD as a single volume, I'd snatch it up in a heartbeat and use it as my primary monster book. In fact, since this would be a different purpose than its intended one of being a good resource for publishers, I could go without Mr. Cooper's comments other than a general foreward explaining his process.

 

[Cathix]

Is there a list of creatures? Or at least a number?

All of the monsters from the SRD, letters E through G.

As far as core comments are concerned, all of the information attached to each monster as it exists in the SRD, such as physical description, combat, etc., is included in each pdf as well.

 

[John Cooper]

As Cathix mentioned, the Cooper's Corrected Creature Codex line is primarily intended for those wishing to use the SRD monsters (either professionally or just for their own home campaigns) and want to ensure the stat blocks aren't riddled with errors. Garnfellow makes some interesting suggestions, but I have to agree with Cathix on the old vs. new statblock layout: while I can see the utility in having the information grouped as it is in the new format, I really dislike that so much of it has been removed (mostly the "show your work" stuff, like hit point breakdowns, and, for awhile a least, the AC breakdowns - although I notice that WotC books using the new format have gone back to stating the AC breakdowns). Also, I've never had any problems finding information in the old format; I imagine it just takes getting used to it.

As I'm primarily a statblock "gearhead," many of Garnfellow's other suggestions fall somewhat out of my particular area of expertise. Also, I'm not sure on this, but I was under the belief that Wizards of the Coast didn't particularly want anybody else using their descriptions of their SRD monsters. I don't think my making up new descriptions for the monsters would serve those really just wanting fixed-up stats and who are perfectly happy with the monster descriptions as written (despite not being part of the SRD).

However, I do like the last of Garnfellow's suggestions. Who knows, after I finish up the SRD monsters (including the Animal and Vermin appendices), I might take a shot at adding different class levels onto specific SRD races. Another thought I had: it might be useful if I were to go through the summon monster spell lists and apply the celestial and fiendish templates to the creatures that can be summoned by those spells. I saw one attempt once in an Eberron product (the character sheets, if memory serves), but the results were less than satisfactory.

Also, Whizbang Dustyboots is absolutely correct in that the "Cooper's Comments" blocks wouldn't be needed in a compendium repackaged as he suggested. However, for now, in this format, I think they're serving a valuable purpose, especially for those looking for corrected statblocks but who have a better idea as to how they would fix the errors in the SRD. In that respect, the blocks at least point out the areas that require focus, even if my solution isn't the one that they end up going with.

I any case, thanks for the inputs, everybody, and I'm glad the PDFs thus far are seeing use.

 

[Alzrius]

Are there any plans to have this cover the other SRD monsters? The epic and psionic creatures (and the petitioner template, the sole monster in the divine section of the SRD) could certainly benefit from the same treatment.

 

[Garnfellow]

As Cathix mentioned, the Cooper's Corrected Creature Codex line is primarily intended for those wishing to use the SRD monsters (either professionally or just for their own home campaigns) and want to ensure the stat blocks aren't riddled with errors. Garnfellow makes some interesting suggestions, but I have to agree with Cathix on the old vs. new statblock layout: while I can see the utility in having the information grouped as it is in the new format, I really dislike that so much of it has been removed (mostly the "show your work" stuff, like hit point breakdowns, and, for awhile a least, the AC breakdowns - although I notice that WotC books using the new format have gone back to stating the AC breakdowns). Also, I've never had any problems finding information in the old format; I imagine it just takes getting used to it.

The strongest argument I've seen against using the new statblock is the lack of "show your work" information (and that's really only the AC and HD breakdown). But I think that's also easily addressed: it doesn't hurt anything to use a hybrid format that is essentially the new statblock plus those two pieces of missing data.

I would be curious to see what Paizo's format looks like, as well. That might be an even better one to use (Statblock science is clearly still evolving).

Here's where I am going with all of these ideas: my dream monster product is essentially an updated Monster Manual that takes into account the many innovations and advances made in monster book design over the last 7 years, particularly the emphasis on making it easier to run monsters out of the book.

It doesn't seem like Wizards is going to release a dramatically revised MM before 4th edition, which is too bad. But it would be great to see a OGC product that does this. And if this dream product included some of the more useful and interesting open monsters outside of the core SRD -- say. the best 30 monsters pulled from d20 Modern, the epic and psionic SRDs, the Advanced Bestiary, Book of Fiends, and Tome of Horrors -- well, at that point we would have a book that would not only be the canonical open source for monsters, it would also rival the Monster Manual itself.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Will any more Corrected Creature Codexes be forthcoming?