Mike Mearls' Monster Makeover Suggestions HERE

[Christian]

why would anyone cut a hydra's head?

stooooopid

Herakles is so going to kick your butt.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

why would anyone cut a hydra's head?

stooooopid

Exactly! Even with the Improved Sunder feat that is supposedly so important for the creature it's stoooooopid!

If the designers want Improved Sunder to be a big deal, use of it should prevent a head from regrowing as well. Also mixing Improved Sunder with Cleaves should get more heads, however Cleave by itself should gets heads but those heads would regrow.

 

[Barak]

Here's a seconding for the harpy. As it stands, as written, the harpy is either a TPK or a total walkover monster during which walkover half the party does nothing but leer at the naked boobs. Weeee.

 

[TroyXavier]

Harpy would be good. I'd also like to see a redo of the Dark naga.

 

[zoroaster100]

I'd like to see Mike's redesign of the vampire.

I'd also like to see his redesign of the ice devil and of a vrock or hezrou. I like using fiends in my campaigns, but although the revisions for 3.5 made major improvements, there are still quiet a bit of apparently random or nonthematic immunities, resistances and abilities for most fiends.

 

[Hussar]

Thanks guys for the bit on the source of the Gorgon. Always wondered where the heck that thing came from.

Some really groovy ideas in here. I hope people are listening.

 

[Pants]

The Balor - Okay, so it's wreathed in flames, but as per the rules, punching it doesn't burn you? You only get burned when it gives a big, hug and a sloppy kiss? Bwah?

Bodaks - They're either big wusses or giant, tpk machines. Change their death gaze to something that can STILL potentially be lethal (like automatically dropping a target to -1 and dying or something) or up their CR and make them less glass canon-y.

Vampire - As has been previously discussed.

Golems - Immunity to magic = nonsensically stupid.

Some of the fey, which have some incredibally nasty SLA's, but... have too few hp to actually take a direct hit from anything other than a starving, exhausted, STR drained kobold.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

I'd make gnolls Monstrous Humanoids. I'd also get rid of the "giants" type, but I suppose that goes beyond just a single monster makeover.

 

[Hussar]

Why lose the Giant type? Never thought that that particular one was a problem.

I'm dying to know what the beholder makeover looks like though. I think in all my years of gaming I've seen a beholder in use twice. Considering how iconic it is, that's kinda a shame, but they're just too much of a PITA to use.

 

[Nyaricus]

Good call, with the exception of the wee few (nightshades, hullathoins, etc.) that don't seem to be based off any particular base creature.

Yeah, I was thinking that too, but I left it more open... lazy typer

Oh, and Nyarcius, to you original, more homebrew-y complaint... I give bugbears Powerful Build, as half-giants and goliaths. They're seven feet tall - that's not Large, that's just Medium +. Also helps justify their level adjustment, in my eyes.

Not a bad idea - yoinked!

It certainly works for 3.x, anyways

Actually, the catoblepas was in the original 1e Monster Manual, as was the gorgon. Both were separate monsters. The catoblepas as you describe it was in the 1e MM.

Gygax has said, right in one of his Q&A threads on this board, that the D&D gorgon is based on a critter from medieval heraldry:

That's what my post was impling - that the Catobleapas eventually (de?)evolved from it's original form into the gorgon as it was known to Topsell as was, for all purpases, two seperate creatures.

Take for example the Basilisk, another creature which was eventually known in many different forms. 'Basilisk' means "King of Snakes" in greek, and it was originally a Huge-ish sized snake with a aura of poison about it, and poisonous eyes. It eventually formed into the cockatrice and the Shakespearian Basilisk - the former being a chicken-like creature similar to what in is the MM, and the latter being an eight-legged critter similar to the MM version. The original, in this case was completely lost.

There there was the Christianization of other monsters, like the unicorn. Usually it is portrayed as being a cream-white, beautiful creature, but it used to be a multicolored mess, with a purple face and a red and black horn, etc (or somethign like that).

Point is, many creatures have been "bastardized" (and bear with me, I use that term loosely) over the centuries - and D&D does a good job on it's own

Well, Topsell was mentioned, so it's probably from here.

Not quite as impressive as the 1e illustration, is it?

(Oh, and apparently, that was used as a reference text for another 17th century text on the exact difference between a basilisk and a cockatrice ...)

Cool, thanks for the link