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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GQuail" data-source="post: 3047642" data-attributes="member: 30709">If I can't utilize the classed creatures in the book out of the box as a representative cross section of the opposition, then it seems to me that the MMIV has lost its major selling point on distributing creatures in that format.</blockquote>There is some merit in that: just like, for example, a commonor 14 Kobold wouldn't be useful to me, and otehrs might find a Wizard 12/Archmage 2 Dwarf pointless, you might find a Fighter/Wizard Githyanki useless because it differs too far from a typical Githyanki.  Though considering the core Githyanki's favoured class is, IIRC, fighter, I don't think it's surprising that Stat blocks featuring them have that occur, you know, on occasion.  ;-)The "part core, part not, depends on version" nature of Psionics is the problem here, methinks: enough history about the beasts mentions their intrinsic psionicness, but in this edition Psionic classes are a plug-in to the game and so core creatures avoid that system.  We can't blame the MMIV authors for inheriting a broke system on this front, and I hope the 4th ed authors finally make a more decisive decision on this front.It's not "mischaracterisation", it's a comparison, though if you find it invalid that might prove useful to the discussion if you explain so.  My point was that the presence of a psionic race but absence of XPH stats made those creatures odd to some people, going as far as useless to others: I bring up examples where a similar situation applies outside the MMIV.  I genuinely want to know if you think it's different or not, because I can't see myself why it would be, which is why we're butting heads online.  ;-)[/QUOTE]

Verification