In which book is the yeti in 3e?

[Darkness]

Yet another case where the ToH fails to avoid duplicating already-existing 3e monsters, despite claims to the contrary.

Yes, I'm being curmudgeonly about it. I don't approve of padding.

"Yet another case?" Oh - I didn't know that there were others... Do you know which ones, BTW?

Heh. But at least the dread Salad Lord is completely unique to the ToH.

 

[Darkness]

Glad they can be of some help!

They indeed will be...

BTW, I quite like your 1e-style giants (i.e., less HD). If I need to scale down the adventure by a couple levels because my players' characters aren't strong enough, these will be very handy to have.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

"Yet another case?" Oh - I didn't know that there were others... Do you know which ones, BTW?

Okay, we digress from the topic of yeti, but off the top of my head:

Quite a few of the demon princes and devil lords were in the Book of Vile Darkness.

The stirge devil and the groaning spirit are just the chasme (BoVD) and banshee (MM2, albeit a lot more powerful since 1st edition) with the serial numbers filed off. Similarly, I don't see how the stegocentipede is really different from the array of different-sized monstrous centipedes we already have, except in name.

Tsathoggua has been done in Call of Cthulhu d20 (a technicality, I admit, but a previously-published WotC d20 product nonetheless).

The aurumvorax and lurker above are both in WotC's "Monster Mayhem" feature (in fact, the aurumvorax was one of the first monsters to appear there, back in 2000). Yeah, I know it will seem harsh of me to some to count WotC's website as a publication, but it is.

The huecuva and ice golem have both been in DUNGEON magazine, but are different enough that I'm inclined not to be as worried there (though some note of the different huecuva would have been nice, and I sure as heck don't need two ice golems).

Several of the monsters are represented by templates in 3e, and having different versions that are inconsistent with those templates does not make the situation better in my opinion (though WotC themselves have been guilty of this with several variant half-fiends such as the Durzagon, Fey'ri, and Tannaruk). In this category are the dracolisk, forlarren, and (as I recall) cambion and alu-demon. At the very least I want explanations for why these cases should be different from all other half-breeds. The fact that they were different in editions before the templates existed counts for nothing to me. Oh, add the gorgimera, given the chimeric template in the MM2.

To me that adds up to a fair amount of wasted space. I honestly would have been happier with a book that didn't include most or all of the creatures above. I also thought that some of the incorporeal undead would have been better done by simply introducing new powers for ghosts (now that there's so much more variety already expressible via ghosts), but I can concede that as a matter of taste.

 

[ninthcouncil]

But OA has been out for quite a while now, and they can't have been unaware of it if they were really trying. Whether Scott's version of the Yeti on the website existed first is, to me, beside the point.

OA isn't a core book. There will be plenty of people out there who would appreciate the Yeti being in ToH so they don't have to shell out for an OA they don't otherwise want.

Which were the duplications you alluded to?

EDIT - you posted while I was typing there!

 

[Darkness]

Okay, we digress from the topic of yeti, but off the top of my head:

Yeah, that's quite a few... Thanks for the info.
And I agree about incorporeal undead being best handled as ghosts (possibly including WotC's own banshee in the MM2).

(BTW, the huecuva also appeared somewhere else besides that "Rain Tiger" Dungeon adventure where it had its 3e debut - although the second appearance might have been in Dungeon, too; can't remember ATM...)

 

[Dr_Rictus]

OA isn't a core book. There will be plenty of people out there who would appreciate the Yeti being in ToH so they don't have to shell out for an OA they don't otherwise want.

There will always be people who would appreciate something being in one book when they don't happen to have another, naturally. But the question of whether it's a core book was never the issue: of course ToH could avoid the monsters in the core books (and mostly did, except for the issue of templates).

 

[Dr_Rictus]

Yeah, that's quite a few... Thanks for the info.

Part of my problem may be that I have so darn many books, so I'm actually aware of all of those.

(BTW, the huecuva also appeared somewhere else besides that "Rain Tiger" Dungeon adventure where it had its 3e debut - although the second appearance might have been in Dungeon, too; can't remember ATM...)

There have been two somewhat different versions in DUNGEON, the first of which being that adventure. The second one is recognizably an expanded version of the first. Neither is particularly consistent with the Fiend Folio (and hence the ToH), except for the concept of a monastically-robed figure.

 

[Larry Fitz]

If you like the Yeti, check out the Wendigo in the Twin Crowns campaign Sourcebook, kind of like "cannibal Yeti on steroids"

 

[coyote6]

FWIW, the huecuva's second Dungeon appearance was in "Bloodlines", in Dungeon #94.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

If you like the Yeti, check out the Wendigo in the Twin Crowns campaign Sourcebook, kind of like "cannibal Yeti on steroids"

Interesting comparison, though it's worth noting that the wendigo is an actual creature of northern native American mythology, representing (if we might get sociological for a moment) the fear of the hunger brought on by winter.