Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mouseferatu" data-source="post: 2152842" data-attributes="member: 1288">In skimming this book last night, I came to a rather odd conclusion. Strange as it is, however, everything I see simply reinforces it. Note that I make this observation as neither a good judgment nor bad, but merely something I've noticed.While this is a book about a monster type, it is a much closer cousin to the &quot;Races of&quot; books than Draconomicon or Libris Mortis.Look at the way it's set up. They take a handful of the most prominant aberrations, and devout a chapter to each, covering ecology, culture, etc. The do the same for one or two new races never before seen. They then have sections on new aberrations, feats, PrCs, etc. Compare that set-up to the other two monster books, and they don't look that much alike. Now compare it to Races of the Wild.Again, I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing. It's just something I was intrigued to note.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mouseferatu, post: 2152842, member: 1288"] In skimming this book last night, I came to a rather odd conclusion. Strange as it is, however, everything I see simply reinforces it. Note that I make this observation as neither a good judgment nor bad, but merely something I've noticed. While this is a book about a monster type, it is a much closer cousin to the "Races of" books than [i]Draconomicon[/i] or [i]Libris Mortis[/i]. Look at the way it's set up. They take a handful of the most prominant aberrations, and devout a chapter to each, covering ecology, culture, etc. The do the same for one or two new races never before seen. They then have sections on new aberrations, feats, PrCs, etc. Compare that set-up to the other two monster books, and they don't look that much alike. Now compare it to [i]Races of the Wild[/i]. Again, I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing. It's just something I was intrigued to note. [/QUOTE]

Verification