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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jester47" data-source="post: 62448" data-attributes="member: 2238">words from Mr. Cook.I threw this one by Monte Cook, and he explained why they did not make a Dire Template, and he has some other things to add too:jester47Registered User(2/18/02 7:59:14 pm)Reply | Edit  Monte- Question about templates in the MM-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some people have been wondering over at d20reviews.com what the reasoning was for not using a Dire template in the MM. The argument is such that they figure that the Dire and Legendary creatures should be based in a template. Also, why was there not a skeleton template? Aaron Webb   Monte CookezOP(2/19/02 1<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/13a.jpg"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":13:" title="13th Age    :13:" data-shortname=":13:" />52 am)Reply Community Supporter Re: Monte- Question about templates in the MM-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It was never our intention to make "dire" a template because it was never our intention for the list of dire creatures to grow appreciably. There is a point, I think, where modularity can go too far. (I wouldn't want to see, for example, dire pigeons or dire rabbits.) The whole purpose of "dire" was to get some animals into a higher CR range so that druid and ranger abilities didn't just suck after 6th level or so. The skeleton thing--I'm with you on that one. There should have been a skeleton and zombie template. Jonathan put one on the wizards' website. I myself put some different kinds of undead templates in an upcoming Wizards book (yes, THAT one). Monte<a href="http://www.montecook.com" target="_blank">http://www.montecook.com</a> So there you have it!  It was not Greed or stupidity, but rather they were simply making a design choice!happy boarding.</blockquote>

Verification