Excerpt: Archons (merged)

Frost Giant in three steps:

1. Take a fire giant.
2. Replace "fire" descriptor with "cold" and "ongoing X fire damage" with "slow". (Sorry GoodKingJayIII, I had to point out the "schtick" that each element seems to have.)
3. Enjoy one or two pages of new and exciting monster that wasn't wasted on writing up a third giant.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Hellzon said:
2. Replace "fire" descriptor with "cold" and "ongoing X fire damage" with "slow". (Sorry GoodKingJayIII, I had to point out the "schtick" that each element seems to have.)

Hey, no apology necessary.

While I could easily see myself doing the same thing (the Rimehammer's Maul is perfect for Frosties), I also have no problem with Cold attacks dealing ongoing damage.

Basically, if I am at the game table, and I need frost giants right now, no one's going to know the difference if I take some Fire Giants and make all the orange bits blue.

Not to say this couldn't be done in previous editions, I just don't consider the loss of frost giants in the MM1 to be a big deal.
 

GoodKingJayIII said:
Basically, if I am at the game table, and I need frost giants right now, no one's going to know the difference if I take some Fire Giants and make all the orange bits blue.

Or just lighten them to yellow... Now it's not only a frost giant... but it's disgusting too!
 

Scribble said:
According to? Your religion? Your imagination? Science?

I'm referring to most stories about angels, as Wolv0rine was referencing when he brought up the topic, because, as I mentioned, I happen to agree- most material on angels has them as them a Beings of Power, tied directly to a god, not as soldiers that stab people in the face with fire or lightning or whatever. Now, do you have something to discuss in that regard...?
 

Voss said:
I'm referring to most stories about angels, as Wolv0rine was referencing when he brought up the topic, because, as I mentioned, I happen to agree- most material on angels has them as them a Beings of Power, tied directly to a god, not as soldiers that stab people in the face with fire or lightning or whatever. Now, do you have something to discuss in that regard...?

Yes, I do. I'm stating it appears your view on angels is colored by a particular view on angels. But what should that have to do with anything D&D related. Sure, you can have an opinion, but that dioesn't invalidate the story they chose to go with in D&D.

There are HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of different ideas about angels, what they are, and how they are. For instance, in Hinduism, they're pretty much just viewed as dead people waiting to move on. Not ULTRASUPERPOWERFUL god servants.

In ealier Jewish works they're just messengers of god.

In D&D they are soldiers embodying a specific ideal, or action that the PCs can encounter and sometimes fight.
 

Ah. Good to know. But you can see why some people might be dissatisfied with
angels= troops who stab people in the face with lightning.
 


ProfessorCirno said:
As for "useless symmetry," that's just a big fluff word that really doesn't mean anything. You could easily take ANYTHING and argue it as being "useless symmetry." Nobody says or uses it seriously*

*Now watch me be proven wrong!
Well, just because some folks use a term incorrectly, that's not a valid indictment against the term iteself.

Certainly the developers use the term deliberately. Throwing in "daemons" just to have a NE analogue to demons and devils was useless symmetry (even detrimental symmetry, since the implication is that guys like Asmodeus and Orcus are diluted incarnations of evil). Setting the ranger up to use a divine power source just to provide the three power sources with equal PHB representation would have been useless symmetry. It's not a hard term to understand.
 


Voss said:
Ah. Good to know. But you can see why some people might be dissatisfied with
angels= troops who stab people in the face with lightning.

Yes, I can, hence the part about you being allowed your own opinion.

I just like to jump in when people seem to be stating that certain type of fluff can't be valid because their own opinion on the fluff differs.
 

Remove ads

Top