Search results

I'm wondering if I should have an industrial strength Diminutive version for advancement.

Urinal Guardianal Fine Construct Hit Dice: 1/16 d10 (1 hp) Initiative: -5 (-5 Dex) Speed: 0 ft. AC: 13 (+8 size, -5 Dex) Attacks: None Damage: None Face/Reach: 1/2 ft./0 ft. Special Attacks: None Special Qualities: Scent, construct qualities Saves: Fort +0, Ref -5, Will -5 Abilities: Str 1, Dex...

That's okay. I don't mind you being wrong. :D

I would hope they don't force every monster to have a feat. Extra feats could always be added as racial qualities, so it doesn't seem necessary.

And I really don't think anyone but K would be disturbed if Minotaurs and Ogre Magi were both Monstrous Humanoid (Giant) rather than Monstrous Humanoid and Giant, respectively. But it's a trivial distinction, anyway. I was just trying to second-guess the direction of future game changes.

If it were on the list, you can be assured it would say "NONE" on the righthand side.

You might find that at higher levels, the CRs will be inflated relative to the Monster Manual CRs. You can curve them down by applying a formula like if CR > x, then average x and CR = newCR if the newCR is greater than y, then average y and newCR where x is a number less than y. I use x=7...

Werekiwi?

I would steer clear of anything with a fungal butt attack, tiny or not.

Only definite if he's PC. As an NPC it doesn't matter. ;)

Something about seeing all the names we made up written together makes me think: Albacore, Chunked Champion of Tuna, DG (deliciously good)

Their ground speed seems high for a sloth/ape creature. Dwarfs spend all their time on the ground and only have 20.

They'd better be guarding something important at those prices.

All this talk about simplifying might seem off topic, but it really isn't, since that seems to be the direction D&D is taking in regards to monsters. Being a traditional monster class doesn't seem to be a valid argument for keeping "giant" as one, but I do see that as an argument for why it...

There could be a problem with over-reducing monster classes. BAB tables and Good Saves would probably have to be linked to subtypes rather than main types under this system, which might not reduce complexity. Giant could easily be absorbed by Humanoid because they have the same BAB and HD...

I agree on all points. In fact, so does the SRD. " A construct with the regeneration and fast healing special qualities still benefits from those qualities." " Undead with no Intelligence scores cannot heal damage on their own, though they can be healed. Negative energy (such as an inflict...

To each his own. Since deities are more apocrypha than canon, I suppose anyone could make up a homebrew system to simplify deity classification & design, or forget the stats and just make gods untouchable.

<<Yep I say make giants Humanoids...>> That's a better idea to reduce the clutter, and if you want to leave giants with the cleric BAB. Goblinoids don't have their own type. Giants don't need it either. for instance: Large Humanoid (Giant, Fire)

I doubt it, but thanks for the offer. I still don't think you get it. Not all monstrous humanoids would become giants, nor would the converse be true. Some would be simply humanoids, others aberrations, fey, or even magical beasts. Why a centaur is a monstrous humanoid and a lamia a magical...

Apologies to those who love doing complicated god-building, but one of the changes I'd like to see in 4e is a deity monster class, rather than multiple layers of player classes stacked on other monster classes.