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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MissHappen" data-source="post: 3424381" data-attributes="member: 7210">Well, Garnfellow, you are clearly a monster-junky after my own heart. I would also be considered a 'classicist', by your accounting.I hadn't expected nearly such a thorough reply. For myself, I am very much a 'flavor' person when it comes to stats. I want the statistics to reflect the feel of the monster and its part in the story it is providing. In general, those games I enjoy most are the ones where the mechanics reinforce the themes of the game, as opposed to providing a mere resolution system. So, the 'plug n play' sorts of stat work that 3.5 seems to lean towards has its advantages, but all too often, I look at a stat block in a supplement, and I find it flavorless. "Oh, look," I think. "Ogres with ability x." One thing I miss about the earlier days of DnD is the innovation, the fearless stride towards deep weirdness in monster design. You still see it on occasion today (some notable worthies on these boards, for example), but it just doesn't seem as common as it used to be, in my opinion. It is one reason I have an interest in these old WD articles. It is like history that needs preserving! However, as I've pointed out, I thrive on the weird stuff.Your insights on conversions were very interesting to read, and I thank you for it. Generally, I have 2 versions of critters when I run a conversion; one is the 'pure form', which is as close to the original in game 'feel' to the original as I can translate it (barring some minor tweaks, like poison as you'd mentioned), and the 'balanced version', which prevents a CR 2 monster from slaughtering parties with save or die effects, say (or worse, a CR 10 critter who can't possibly challenge anyone of 6th level, much less 10th). Thank you also for input on the acquisition of the magazines. Keep the conversions rolling.-MsM</blockquote>

Verification