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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sylrae" data-source="post: 5782233" data-attributes="member: 48520">Hmm. Eladrin are much better as fey than celestials and the Bralani (whatever the old celestial eladrins were?) were in 4E, but as fey, which I guess is your concern.</blockquote>The Bralani were like one of half a dozen types of eladrin.Ah, you might be right about the draconians. I never got draconomicon 2. I disagree about the dragonborn being an acceptable dragonkin replacement though. But I wont be satisfied by 'filling' the niche of a flying creature with a non flying one. And I'm not sure I agree with niche filling at all, for that matter. I do want the actual creatures to make an appearance, not just something sortof similar.  That was more a gripe with the player version than the monster version - which was so watered down that I thought it was insulting to even call them minotaurs, they were just miniature cow people.but yeah, something saying a minotaur can never get lost without being put on another plane would have helped.I dont need all the extra crap numbers and monster feats that 3e had, but any iconic or unusual abilities should be there, even if they get used outside of combat. (Like how all githyanki had the ability to planeshift pre 4e), And any really notable skill bonuses should be mentioned, as well.They're not very impressive if you remember the old ones. But the old Beholders were quite a bit more death than you see in 4e. Several save or suck attacks, and it can use all of them in a single round. Very much a glass cannon iirc, and still very scary.I understand why they did it, but the result left me very underwhelmed. I'd rather just not see beholders, than see beholders that aren't. It kills my hope that they might some day release one I'd consider worth using.[/QUOTE]

Verification