Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jhaelen" data-source="post: 5869983" data-attributes="member: 46713">Possibly. I didn't get that impression. I can remember seeing most of them when they were originally published. There's been some monsters that likely have been created intentionally 'silly', but few of them are on the list.In a way, as a long-time D&D player you stop wondering about weird cross-breeds and only notice how ridiculous some of them are if it's pointed out to you by an 'outsider'. So I greatly enjoy these articles; it's a bit like 'the emperor's new clothes'.I might groan at unimaginative names (mant? rly?!) and change them, but otherwise keep them largely intact and actually use them in my games.Since D&D features 'Animate Object' as a spell, there's a lot of potential for 'funny' monsters.</blockquote>