Monster Manual II

[Nightfall]

Well if you want OLD monsters, I suggest the CC here on Enworld. They work for me.

 

[Nightfall]

Well if they add high gorgons and the hags, I'm MORE than reasonable sure 6+ plus will DEFINATELY be satifisted.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Well if you want OLD monsters, I suggest the CC here on Enworld. They work for me.

That's the way I feel. Give me new monsters!

 

[Nightfall]

Not to mention Charles, there will soon be a PRINT version of Creature Catalog/Collection from Necromancer Games. If they want it, I'd suggest they get that.

Still I'm curious if WotC will use any monsters from CC2. I think the Crown Naga would be a good choice along with the Night touched Controller.

 

[EOL]

I don't think they mean that the "high-level" monsters in MM2 would be suitable for epic-level campaigns (at least not all or even most of them). The thing is that the core MM is pretty inadequate when it comes to monsters at high CRs. If you look at the CR listing at the end of the book you can see that CR 0-5 takes up more than half the list, while 11-20 is less than one column (one eighth of the total) - perhaps a little over one column should you include the dragons in the normal table instead of a table of their own. There are only 11 monsters (plus dragons) at CR 16+. This is what I hope they are fixing with the "higher-level" monsters in MM2.

I completely agree, but fortunately with 3E at least you can advance monsters either by increasing their HD or giving them character levels. It doesn't completely solve the problem but it does mitigate it.

I recently ran an entire adventure for a 13th level party using nothing but Classed and Templated Bugbears.

 

[qstor]

I think the conversions in the Creature Catalog are fantastic!!! SUPER! GREAT!! WONDERFUL!!!

I just want a few monsters in the 3e Monster Manual II that were in the 1st ed MM and MM II

Mike

 

[Claude Raines]

From what I know:
6. It will include monsters originally published by other D20 companies, most notably from the Creature Collection I from Sword and Sorcery.

Actually, this is what I find disappointing if it is true. Despite the cuts that WotC has suffered they should be more than capable of converting old monsters and creating new ones by themselves. I don't really like the fact that they're going to grab monsters from other d20 monster books, especially popular ones that a lot of gamers own.

 

[reiella]

Wizards has done the same before with little mention however.

Chain Spell and Hide Spell were OGC first .

 

[Claude Raines]

Wizards has done the same before with little mention however.

Chain Spell and Hide Spell were OGC first .

True, but an extra feat or two takes up much less space than a whole monster which would at least be a page. Besides, I thought that WotC version of Chain spell was slightly different than the Relics & Rituals version and thus not a use of OGC. BTW, which book did WotC put Hide Spell in?

 

[Lizard]

Wizards has done the same before with little mention however.

Chain Spell and Hide Spell were OGC first .

Actually, no.

If they were, then, the books they were published in by WOTC would have had to conform to the OGL. Nothing (yet) publised by WOTC has been under the OGL.

There was quite a bit of discussion about this when Tome&Blood came out, and it was basically found that it was a case of pure spontaneous creation, not reuse of someone elses work.

If they are including CC monsters in MM2, then, this will be the first reuse of OGC by WOTC. It's a good thing.