Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Shemeska" data-source="post: 5028990" data-attributes="member: 11697">Admittedly, there's re-envisioning something but there's also a point where it ceases to be the original in much else but name and you'd be better served just calling the new monster by a new name. The 4e eladrin versus 2e/3e eladrin isn't the most extreme example, but it's nonetheless one where I think they would have been best served by not hijacking the name. There's a similar risk with gem dragons if you approach it in certain ways.For instance when I looked at Pathfinder's NE fiends, I had to re-envision a lot of stuff because yugoloths aren't open content. As much as I adore them I had to approach PF's NE daemons from a perspective of paying homage to what I liked about the 'loths, while also making them stand on their own. I feel a re-envisioning succeeds when people look at version 2.0 and say to themselves, "I recognize this creature's origin, but that's a really cool way to look at them in a different light. I want to use these guys in my campaign." I don't want people to look at version 2.0 and say, "What the heck are these? Why did they take X's name."Focus on what made them cool to you in the first place rather than coming at the issue from a position of "These made no sense before and I'm going to totally change them into something different that may have little to do with the original." At that point you're better served by having a new monster without ties to the original.And on a tangent, sapphire dragons are awesome, and I had a grand time with one of them in my last campaign.</blockquote>

Verification