Sword and Sorcery: Creature Collection

[trentonjoe]

Is there a web supplement for this book or something?
There are alot of mistakes in the book that are rules related (many BAB are off, constructs that have constitution scores, animals with 80, 90 and 150 foot movement, CR that make no sense) and I was wondering if they ever published or posted a mistake list.

I think the book has some good ideas but dwarven dogs with 80 movement isn't one of them.

 

[The Sunderer]

When I use a creature from this book, I tend to reverse engineer them using the Dragon guidelines and then rebuild them again making them (mostly) rules compliant....

There are some very nice ideas in the book, ideas marred by the rules mistakes.

I know, it wasn't what you were looking for, but it is an answer

 

[Dicejockey]

The only thing I know of is <a href="http://www.swordsorcery.com/">here</a>

On the left look under product updates. Looks like S&S just have updated CRs though.

-Dicejockey

 

[trentonjoe]

Thanks for the link.

I checked it out and I still think they are wrong. The savant hydra has close to 100 hps, a 22 AC (just nat and dex), 8 attacks arounds (with posion and no negative modifiers) AND can cast spells as a 7th level sorcerer. They bumped it's CR from a 7 all the way to an 8.

If anyone has any additional resources on this matter I would appreciate it.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

Thanks for the link.

I checked it out and I still think they are wrong. The savant hydra has close to 100 hps, a 22 AC (just nat and dex), 8 attacks arounds (with posion and no negative modifiers) AND can cast spells as a 7th level sorcerer. They bumped it's CR from a 7 all the way to an 8.

If anyone has any additional resources on this matter I would appreciate it.

Agreed here. After fighting many CC1 and and CC2 monsters (my character is 15th level now) I can tell from both my experience as DM, my DM:s experience when I play, and my experience when I was player, that even correcter CR:s are for most parts laughtable. If we used CR as guideline as to what is suitable for certain level party, they would end up dead pretty fast. I have bias for CR:s and especially ECL:s anyway, so I can't say I am satisfied with everything in Monster Manual either, much less with those from WotC website.

However, I think many CR:s from all mentioned books work correctly, but those that don't..um.

I don't think there are any additional offical versions, but I've seen some people working on alternative ECL system at least, don't know about CR:s. Personally I got rid of ECL entirely, so don't know about that so much.

 

[Psion]

When I use a creature from this book, I tend to reverse engineer them using the Dragon guidelines and then rebuild them again making them (mostly) rules compliant....

Ditto. I redid some golems, scratching the con score and upping their HD a little to make up for the lost Con. I also use ratmen in my games; I replaced the red witches' "spells as sorcerer equal to HD" to simply making wizard a preferred class.

There are some very nice ideas in the book, ideas marred by the rules mistakes.

Concur. Though except for the Ratmen, I am honestly getting more use out of CC2, with three appearances in the current adventure alone (darkling sentinels. bloodless template, conundrum creature template.)

 

[drachen]

Bitter Tree rules

Hey, I love CC2. There is not one campaign played by us that does not contain a (still harmless)
bitter tree sapling in some corner.

The concept is just too cool.

I agree though that the CRs are wrong. I think their mistake is that CR X means to them that it has a 50/50 chance of killing a group of 3rd level characters and the DMG defines CR X as suitable for level X, an some resources are lost w?o anybody getting killed.

CU
Dieter