Giants of Legend or Deathknell?

[Cthulhu's Librarian]

If I get 8 Nightwalkers, I doubt I'll want any more. If I get a boatload of Fiendish Tyranosaurs or Behirs (which, along with Formians make up the unholy trinity of garbage I do not need), then you'd got a deal.

If you get a Behir, I'll gladly swap some nightwalkers for it.

 

[TerraDave]

Behirs (which, along with Formians make up the unholy trinity of garbage I do not need), then you'd got a deal.

There is no accounting for taste

 

[Mercule]

There is no accounting for taste

I run a game that is mostly humans and humanoids (and not even all races of humanoids). When something else is thrown into the mix, it's usually something classic (like gryphons, dragons, and fey), undead, or extraplanar (fiends, especially). No beholders or aboleths exist on my world, as I honestly can't see how anyone could use either and keep a straight face.

I think that any campaign world that uses even all the monsters out of the core Monster Manual would have such an absurd ecology that it'd collapse in quick order. Either that, or it would be so large that three quarters of creation would be irrelivant to the game. Thus, MM2, MM3, and definitely the third party books don't even rate much consideration from me.

The behir isn't a bad critter, but I could never place much emphasis on a combat involving behirs. Nightwalkers are much cooler.

Edit: Not a rant. Just explaining why I'm more interested in Nightwalkers, when Behir seems to be a favorite of most people.

 

[TerraDave]

Ahh, a question of campaign and not the minis themselves...fair enough.

The formarian could be used for some sort of undead giant...and is classic in its way (Irish Mythology)

Actually both came from Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, which some consider classic. But there is no consensus.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Edit: Not a rant.

Of course not. Just a case of "I want my game to be realistic and everyone who uses magic is inferior".

If we're starting with that tone: I can't imagine how anyone would use any creatures other than humans, and those with the animal type (3.0 style animal type), or magic of any kind, and keep a straight face.

Oh, that's wrong: I can. They see that this is fantasy, that fun is the most important thing, and that realism has to stay out unless you want to play a human accountant who fights against the big office stallion or something.

And yes, this is a rant. Someone on the boards here - I don't recall who, if you read this, wave hello - has something in his signature that sums it up: Often, fun and realism are at odds. Luckily, this can be solved with by giving realism a savage kick in the head.

 

[Mercule]

Of course not. Just a case of "I want my game to be realistic and everyone who uses magic is inferior".

Make of it what you will. You obviously already have.

I didn't say "realistic". I like magic. Maybe not as much as others, but I do like magic. If I didn't, I wouldn't use undead, celestials, fiends, dragons, and fey. I also wouldn't be willing to trade for nightwalkers. Nor would my current campaign be set to culminate in a battle against a deity.

I also happen to like things based around cities and civilization, with an occasional foray into ruins and the likes. I like politics, which is much better served by focusing on humanoids. It also means that things like behir, remorhaz, bulettes, etc. don't see much action. They may exist, but are just "filler" encounters.

As far as beholders (and some other aberrations) go, my dislike of them doesn't have anything to do with "magic". They just plain look goofy. There is nothing fear inspiring about an eyeball with teeth. If I encountered one, I'd probably be disintegrated because I'd double over laughing. Beholders are a slap-stick monster that just happen to be fairly powerful.

 

[jgsugden]

I'm a bit late, but the answer is this: Choose whichever box gets you the most trade value per dollar spent. Because regardless of which set you buy, you're going to get figures you don't want and there will be hundreds of figures that you're not getting that you do want.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Are you still letting WotC off the hook? Do you have a problem with 3.5? Request official errata! The more requests they get on your issue, the more likely they will be to release errata on your issue. Send an email to custserv@wizards.com. The subject should be: ERRATA (Insert book name) (Insert Page Number). Your message should include the issue that seems unclear or contradictory (including all the different arguments you've seen on the issue) as well as a brief recap of how this issue has had an impact on your gaming life.

You'll have to update that signature: the custserv@wizards.com doesn't work. Now you have to use their crappy support system. Another strike in their ongoing crusade against customer feedback.

They just plain look goofy. There is nothing fear inspiring about an eyeball with teeth. If I encountered one, I'd probably be disintegrated because I'd double over laughing. Beholders are a slap-stick monster that just happen to be fairly powerful.

I disagree. They may look like slap-stick in crappy illustrations, but in the proper pictures, they look everything but "goofy".

 

[MadMaxim]

I disagree. They may look like slap-stick in crappy illustrations, but in the proper pictures, they look everything but "goofy".

I'd almost say that goes for any kind of monster. It all depends on the artist and the situation...

 

[Darth K'Trava]

Actually I got a lot of repeats in GoL, out of about 12 boxes I had 4 Treants adn 2 Behir. But then I also got Modenkinen.

I have had better luck with variety in Dethknell.

We had one guy who ended up with 6 treants!

I wouldn't mind a Behir as they are wickedly awesome! We get lots of use out of them for something of that relative size..