Bogus Monsters ?

[Gez]

Hello all.

I think that the CC is overall high quality, (as prooved by the Modron enhancement to the Manual of the Planes) but having downloaded the PDF and looked at the creature types, I had some surprises...

Let's take the Nereid. I know it was, in 2e, among the Elemental-kin creatures, but in these times there was no creature types. Nereids are fey. They just scream to be fey. Same comment for their equivalent (sylph, pech...). They could be fey with an elemental subtype, but they are not elementals IMHO.

Another example is the Ubue. How could such a thing be a humanoid, rather than an aberration (like the athach, who is far more humanoid than the ubue) ?

Also, sometimes, the creature was too "2e" and not enough 3e. Let's take the Enhanced Dire Ape. His "resistance" capacity is a pain. Why not giving it a normal resistance, like Fire, Cold, Electricity Resistance 5 ? Or a non-standard, but quick to compute one like halved damage, I could tolerate. But removing '1' per damage die is not something I want in 3e.

Finally, be warry of 2e reflexes, like saying "that or that giant can never have this class" or "is always fighting this way". Nevers and always are best avoided, I think, in a fantasy realm...

 

[Grazzt]

Hello all.

I think that the CC is overall high quality, (as prooved by the Modron enhancement to the Manual of the Planes) but having downloaded the PDF and looked at the creature types, I had some surprises...

Thanks Gez.

Let's take the Nereid. I know it was, in 2e, among the Elemental-kin creatures, but in these times there was no creature types. Nereids are fey. They just scream to be fey. Same comment for their equivalent (sylph, pech...). They could be fey with an elemental subtype, but they are not elementals IMHO.

I tend to agree with you. Also- I have been talking to some of the design guys at WotC and they told me the best way to do elementals was if the creature is made of the stuff (fire, earth, etc) then it is an elemental. If it just hails from the plane (salamander for example) it is an outsider....otherwise it is a creature of another type with...ta da....a subtype modifier. So, you are correct. They should be fey and are currently being "fine tuned" as we speak.

Another example is the Ubue. How could such a thing be a humanoid, rather than an aberration (like the athach, who is far more humanoid than the ubue) ?

I concur...you are most correct about this one, but I believe Erica did this conversion, so we need to ask her what possessed her

Also, sometimes, the creature was too "2e" and not enough 3e. Let's take the Enhanced Dire Ape. His "resistance" capacity is a pain. Why not giving it a normal resistance, like Fire, Cold, Electricity Resistance 5 ? Or a non-standard, but quick to compute one like halved damage, I could tolerate. But removing '1' per damage die is not something I want in 3e.

Well- the reason it was done the way it is...is because I had a brainfart the day I did it. I meant to alter it to make it more "3eish" and somehow apparently forgot to do so.

 

[Gish Makai]

Re: Re: Bogus Monsters ?

Well- the reason it was done the way it is...is because I had a brainfart the day I did it. I meant to alter it to make it more "3eish" and somehow apparently forgot to do so.

Well you seem to get alot of those lately don't you

 

[Grazzt]

Re: Re: Re: Bogus Monsters ?

Well you seem to get alot of those lately don't you

This is in reference to that silly quasi-elemental thing, isn't it?

 

[Gish Makai]

hmm...Quasi, Demilich, creature types.....need I go on LOL

Just razzing ya

 

[DnDChick]

IMHO the Athach should be a Giant, or at the very least a Monstrous Humanoid...

To me, an 'aberration' is something you might see in Cthulhu mythos...totally whacked-out, slimy, alien-looking thing, most likely with tentacles and/or bat wings.

I have an altered athach that I use in my homebrew games thats a Giant race.

Anyway, minor rant over, Id feel ok re-doin the ubue as a monstrous humanoid, but not as an aberration. If Scott feels its an aberration, then he can re-do it as such.

*cough*catoblepas*cough*

Also..I did the conversion of the "enhanced dire ape" as well as the Oonga from Isle of the Ape, and I agree with you that I didnt think its resistances through well enough. Thanks for callin me on that one.

 

[DnDChick]

To paraphrase Han Solo, "Determining monster type aint like dustin crops!" lol

To further muddle the waters...

An ettin has two heads...why is that not an aberration when all that makes an athach an aberration is a third arm?

Why on earth isnt the mish-mash monster known as the chimera an aberration? Its got three heads, one of which can breathe fire!

What about the displacer beast? A hairles, purple, panther-like creature with two long tentacles coming off its shoulder blades sounds like an aberration to me...but its a magical beast...

Ahh the debate over what is and what is not an aberration rages on...

But I stick to my guns....aberration = Lovecraftian horror. Anyone else wanna further the debate?

 

[Grazzt]

One man's aberration is another man's magical beast, I guess.

 

[BOZ]

personally, i only class something as an aberration if i just don't feel right putting it somewhere else. obviously, relatives to commonly known aberrations such as beholders and mind flayers are almost certainly going to be aberrations themselves. if the creature type is obvious, great, or if it's similar enough to a creature of one type, then it's easier to classify. aberration winds up being a catch-all for the odd things that don't go anywhere else.

 

[Gez]

OK. It's true "Aberration" is a grab-bag for what we don't know where to put a monster. I think the reason the Athach is one is to have a giant-like monster that could hit dwarves and gnomes.

For the Ettin and Chimera issue... There are lots of mythical creatures with multiple heads (the hydra being an embodiement of this concept).

It's true monster types are sometimes hard to make -- just compare five similar creatures, the centaur, wemic, lamia, hybsil and bariaur. One is fey, one is outsider, one is magical beast, and the two other are monstrous humanoid. Also, I never understood why the sahuagin was a normal humanoid, not a monstrous one. And finally, I disagree with WotC's decision that psionic animals (like su-monsters or brain moles) are animals, not magical beasts. It isn't consistent with the default rule that psionic is a kind of magic, and it is even less consistent with the rules that animals don't have innate spell-like or supernatural abilities.