Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Whizbang Dustyboots" data-source="post: 2982746" data-attributes="member: 11760">You specifically decried creating new monsters for purely mechanical reasons. Slapping a coat of paint on a dragon and changing its damage type is creating a new monster for a purely mechanical reason.Now, it's either not a big issue to you when the resulting monster is cool enough -- say so, if this is it -- or it's not really an issue to you at all.You did specifically exempt other monsters due to the grandfather clause. The athach gets in under it, if one exists. I think it actually was a monster created for 3E. I seem to recall Monte or someone discussing it on the WotC site. It's the archetypal monster created for mechanical reasons: They wanted to give players a chance to deal with invisibility at a low level without dealing with the other complications of an invisible caster.Well, I'd never put one in my mouth, personally, but so long as you're a consenting adult and a consenting aberration, have at it.Me, I think they fit in just fine into a world with beholders and mind flayers. Indeed, they feel like they were designed to fit in that same pseudonatural ecology.Except, it's not a terrible example. I can whip up 100 fire-based creatures in 100 minutes now. Gone are the days where things like "fire bats" are new creatures just because someone wanted a flying fire elemental. Templates are insanely useful, for all that the morons that you (and I) hopefully don't play with anyway abuse them.</blockquote>

Verification