Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 5725091" data-attributes="member: 2205">I'm not quite sure what you mean by core.  That word became a bit of a loaded word when 4e declared that everything was core.  By the same token, is an older edition (or Pathfinder) basic Monster Manual or Bestiary 1 core but 2 (or higher) not?  I think that's a problematic designation.Personally, I get the most use out of the SRD.  Even though I prefer to use d20 Past as my rulebase rather than 3.5, I turn to the 3.5 SRD (or Monster Manual) more often than I turn to the d20 Modern or Menace Manual books.Most used aside, my favorite monster books are the two Monsternomicons by Privateer Press.  There are a few guys in there that are Iron Kingdoms specific, but not many.  And frankly, even those that are are really cool.  I find these books incredibly fun just to read, and I think their take on the concept of some of the humanoids is just plain better than anything D&D has done officially.  In fact, I've pretty much decided a long time ago that the description of the Skorne empire is what hobgoblins should be, and for that matter, I'm really starting to lean towards using either the tharn or the trollkin (or both) as what the concept of orcs should be.  I also completely love the idea of dragons in the Monsternomicons.For those of the rest of you who are fans; I never updated my first Monsternomicon from the 3e version to the 3.5 version.  Is there any value in me doing so, or does it just change a few stats and CRs and otherwise provide all the same content?  I don't have any problem using them as is, though.  I can convert skill on the fly, and I only ever used CR as a very rough gauge of challenge anyway.That's curious.  I found that they mostly further entrenched the already pretty bog-standard D&D interpretation of the monsters and rarely put fresh or weird twists on much of anything.  In fact, I had hoped that they would put more of a fresh twist on these monsters, thus justifying the "revisited" notion implied by the title, but was rather disappointed to find them rarely actually revisisted and rather simply restated and reprinted in mostly the same format and conception that we've always had.  Not that they're not a decent series of books, but it really wasn't what it was advertised to be, at least not in my opinion.  The best of the bunch, IMO, is Classic Horrors Revisited, but that may be because I just like horror tropes quite a bit.  The classic horrors were presented very classically--not exactly revisisted.Other monster books that I've really enjoyed reading weren't the typical monster catalog books; stuff like the 3.5 era Drow of the Underdark or Lords of Madness.  The Draconomicon was quite good, but sadly always makes me wish that it was as cool as the relatively much briefer description of dragons in Monsternomicon.  Liber Mortis, on the other hand, I found quite disappointing.  Fiendish Codex I: Hordes of the Abyss was probably my favorite of this series.  Brilliant and classic at the same time.  The other Fiendish Codex II: Tyrants of the Nine Hells had some interesting material, but the extended in-joke or metaphor (I'm not sure which) of hell as fantasy Office Space didn't really work for me after a while.The monster book after that which is most likely to be used and read here and there in my house is Green Ronin's Book of Fiends.  There's a lot of really nasty critters in there, and a lot of stuff that's just kind of fun to read about and then cackle while petting my cat in an evil GM Overlord kind of fashion.</blockquote>

Verification