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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Eridanis" data-source="post: 729089" data-attributes="member: 275">I don't like the idea of calling something by a commonly accepted name when it has differing powers from the original.WotC took a look at the MM, said, "OK, how can we break this monster down in such a way that it could adventure with an adventurer party from 1st level without throwing everything out of whack?" They decided to create a system where you'd advnace like a class. Fair enough. Then they break down the monster into four, seven, or 20 bits (however many levels the monster class ends up being), and divvying up the monster's powers along the way. Fair enough.My problem is giving a monster that's advancing by class different powers than one that spring full-blown from the MM, and calling them by the same name. For example, to stick with the ogre, I don't know what extra powers you'd want to give to an ogre; membranes under  the arms to allow it to fly? Extra arms? A 20' tongue than hits for 1d6? Cool; go for it. But it's no longer an ogre, it's something else. Call it Eridanis' Folly. Just don't call it an ogre, because when some silly d20 publisher wants to put a monster with mosnter class levels into a module, a DM that reads it will see a party of four ogres in an encounter, and say, "Hmm. Are those MM ogres, or those stupid bat-wing long-tongue ogres from Savage Species?" The publisher needs to spend a few lines in the product talking about the new, improved ogres-that-aren't-ogres, when it would be easier to just call them eridanis' follies for clarity.Perhaps I've misunderstood your point; if so, I apologize.</blockquote>

Verification