Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Derro" data-source="post: 4162673" data-attributes="member: 51010">Well this thread has revealed a few choice picks (kaorti, ethergaunt). I'd also say that it is a bit skewed to expect the same response to a recently created (last 7 years) creature to something that has stood the test of time (githyanki,&nbsp; drow, slaad, what have you).I think there are some pretty decent WotC creatures. Maybe they haven't been featured in the same manner as the drow (1e D-series modules) or even recently as the githyanki (Lich-queen adventure and gith based campaigns) but there is no reason to issue so broad a statement.What about...Maug <s>Inevitable</s>AvolakeaLiving SpellsQuoriBlueThe Blood Golem of HextorChuulnearly any of the Oni from Oriental AdventuresI may have stretched what you have envisioned as villains, and I can't be 100% on all of these being WotC design but I'm pretty sure they are. At this point of the development of the fantasy gaming niche there are so many different creatures out there it's pretty difficult to get as broad a base of fans for any one type. When the only sources of creatures were the Monster Manual, Fiend Folio, and the occasional article in Dragon or Role-gamer or whatever it's a lot easier to say, &quot;That's cool, let's develop that.&quot; The consumer was a lot less jaded and the designer was a lot less derivative.While I don't have any real big love for any of the stuff after MM2 or the recent 4e developments I'm also willing to recognize the stuff that's good even if it won't see a lot of use. The maug warband that alternately allied with and fought against the PCs in my last Planescape campaign were pretty good characters and a damn sight more memorable than any of the drow I've run across in the last 10 years.But we all know what opinions are like so I'll stop here.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Derro, post: 4162673, member: 51010"] Well this thread has revealed a few choice picks (kaorti, ethergaunt). I'd also say that it is a bit skewed to expect the same response to a recently created (last 7 years) creature to something that has stood the test of time (githyanki, drow, slaad, what have you). I think there are some pretty decent WotC creatures. Maybe they haven't been featured in the same manner as the drow (1e D-series modules) or even recently as the githyanki (Lich-queen adventure and gith based campaigns) but there is no reason to issue so broad a statement. What about... Maug [S]Inevitable[/S] Avolakea Living Spells Quori Blue The Blood Golem of Hextor Chuul nearly any of the Oni from Oriental Adventures I may have stretched what you have envisioned as villains, and I can't be 100% on all of these being WotC design but I'm pretty sure they are. At this point of the development of the fantasy gaming niche there are so many different creatures out there it's pretty difficult to get as broad a base of fans for any one type. When the only sources of creatures were the Monster Manual, Fiend Folio, and the occasional article in Dragon or Role-gamer or whatever it's a lot easier to say, "That's cool, let's develop that." The consumer was a lot less jaded and the designer was a lot less derivative. While I don't have any real big love for any of the stuff after MM2 or the recent 4e developments I'm also willing to recognize the stuff that's good even if it won't see a lot of use. The maug warband that alternately allied with and fought against the PCs in my last Planescape campaign were pretty good characters and a damn sight more memorable than any of the drow I've run across in the last 10 years. But we all know what opinions are like so I'll stop here. [/QUOTE]

Verification