Dragonomicon: Dracolich Mongrel

[Cadfan]

I mean...mongrel and lich? Who comes up with these names? It seems like some sort of random word program was used to string together different unassociated words to come up with new creature names or something.

This is from Merriam Webster Online.
mongrel

One entry found.
Main Entry:
mon·grel Pronunciation: \ˈmäŋ-grəl, ˈməŋ-\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, probably from mong mixture, short for ymong, from Old English gemong crowd — more at among Date: 15th century 1: an individual resulting from the interbreeding of diverse breeds or strains ; especially : one of unknown ancestry2: a cross between types of persons or things
— mongrel adjective
— mon·grel·i·za·tion \ˌmäŋ-grə-lə-ˈzā-shən, ˌməŋ-\ noun
— mon·grel·ize \ˈmäŋ-grə-ˌlīz, ˈməŋ-\ transitive verb


English. Learn it. Love it.

 

[jensun]

No, the CoD created willing dracoliches, they just didn't mention that they could control them (which they didn't do often).

While my memory may not be what it used to be I do recall mention of the Cult forcibly creating Dracolihes or creating them from Dragons which had died, ergo, unwilling Dracoliches.

no matter that it doesn't make any sense.

Roleplaying, serious busniess...

Also, fanstasy and thinking too hard spring to mind. Where is Hong when you need him.

Finally, Wolves in Sheeps Clothing, Flumphs, Nilbog's, Oozes, Cubes and Puddings. D&D has a long and glorious tradition of ridiculous monsters which make no sense.

 

[Protagonist]

This is really the bottom line, well said sir.

The lich draco or not was always a terrifying and powerful creature now the term lich has been devalued to include this poop. Lame!

This creature IS NO LICH. Nor is it a dracolich. It's a mongrel created from various dead dragons. It looks rather similiar to a dracolich, but isn't a real one. A mockery of a dracolich if you will. No one is shouting at the French (and some Germans/Austrians) for referring to potatoes as "apples of the earth" (pomme de terre / Erdapfel).

As it was said: D&D = serious business, we can't allow imprecise or silly terms. The flumph would complain.

 

[garyh]

No, this monster would be fine a golem or mindless undead, but true to the 4E ideology, it was made a lich because lich sounds cooler than golem, no matter that it doesn't make any sense.

If this being a lich truly ruins your experience that much, then it can be a golem in your games. WotC won't seize your 4e material.

And yes, I know "You can change it" is sometimes a flimsy justification for what's in a book, but in this case, I really think "You can change it" would solve your problem and should not be discounted.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Just once - just once - I wish we could talk about 4e without falling into "Just houserule it, that changes the problem" or "Just stop thinking about it! If you ignore flaws, they aren't there anymore!"

 

[garyh]

Just once - just once - I wish we could talk about 4e without falling into "Just houserule it, that changes the problem" or "Just stop thinking about it! If you ignore flaws, they aren't there anymore!"

Just once - just once - I wish we could talk about 4e without you finding fault with everything.

You don't like 4e? Fine. That's no reason to threadcrap every 4e conversation that comes along. I wish you much enjoyment with whatever game you choose to play.

 

[Derren]

Just once - just once - I wish we could talk about 4e without you finding fault with everything.

You don't like 4e? Fine. That's no reason to threadcrap every 4e conversation that comes along. I wish you much enjoyment with whatever game you choose to play.

Except that Cirno is correct. That we can change whatever we want is no excuse for bad content.

 

[garyh]

Except that Cirno is correct. That we can change whatever we want is no excuse for bad content.

This isn't "bad content." This is "content you and Cirno don't like." "You don't like it" /= "universally agreed upon and scientifically-proven bad content." I like it just fine. You not liking is perfectly acceptable, but it gets awfully tiring seeing the same people jump into every thread about 4e and make the same complaints.

I don't like the Red Sox. But I don't make a point of going on Red Sox message boards and saying they suck. Life's too short.

 

[RefinedBean]

I fail to see any bad content here. There's a fun new monster that's workable into many angles of a campaign, as well as expanding on the idea of what a "lich" truly represents. Or NOT, if you want to change the fluff.

But it's a logical fallacy to claim error in that which is observed, when it might be an error in the expectations of the observer.

EDIT: Pretty much ninja'd by garyh. (shakes fist)

 

[jensun]

This isn't "bad content." This is "content you and Cirno don't like." "You don't like it" /= "universally agreed upon and scientifically-proven bad content." I like it just fine. You not liking is perfectly acceptable, but it gets awfully tiring seeing the same people jump into every thread about 4e and make the same complaints.

This.

A million times this.