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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aegeri" data-source="post: 5237366" data-attributes="member: 78116">They are described in the Eberron Campaign Guide IIRC. They are Brelish cavalry units that use bears instead of a regular mount for the terrain they are from (hence the get up). The bears I think might be magebred as well but I'm not 100% sure off the top of my head, but it's pretty easy to make and run such encounters if one wants. They aren't particularly unique bears and just throwing the mount keyword on a bear and going for it is easy.I do agree with you here. This is why I said the tarrasque has never actually managed to have mechanics that ever justified or made using it because of its fluff relevant. A huge entry on the tarrasque and its fluff doesn't change it's a dumb monster that really needs to be made mechanically from the ground up to use. When there are so many other great monsters that are both very fluffy and mechanically great, why does the tarrasque deserve the effort?Specific books like Open Grave, Draconomicon and similar are by far the best for this - not a general monster manual that should be a general monster manual. I want lots of varied and interesting monsters. I don't want a few things taking up space that could be for a lot of unique creatures. I think the MM3 does the best job of the 3 they've released and I'd like to see that continue. There are a lot of great monsters in it across all three tiers of play. What gets a few pages of fluff always deserves it and then we move on to even more awesome monsters. The amount of new, fun and interesting mechanics introduced in MM3 is staggering to me. Even creatures I would never use I want to refluff or make equivalents for of my own that share those mechanics.Demonomicon also matches the description. Aside from the fact everything I've read from the previews has been fantastic, it introduces great mechanics, introduces daemons as traps (Cacodemon) and more daemons that I can shake a stick at. This is the sort of specialist book that should do what you describe.Leave monster manuals as general books though. Do not overspecialise them wasting huge amounts of time on one creature. What one person loves another might despise entirely. If people don't like demons, don't make demons occupy too much of the book. Monster Manuals should inherently cover breadth and not depth. Specific books should cover depth, not breadth. I've been very happy with the approach that 4E has taken with this and I would like to see it continue (MM3 like general books, Open Grave/Draconomicon/Demonomicon specialist books).</blockquote>

Verification