Thoughts about the Monster Manual 3.5

[KDLadage]

I have been thinking about this for a while now... several things in the monster manual need to be changed in some way to make sense. I am not talking about changes like the animal / beast / magical beast classification stuff, but in the way the book is organized and such. For example:

In my opinion, all undead should be templates, not standard creature entries. After all, there had to be a baseline creature before the creature became undead. Thus, the idea of a mummy, or a skeleton or a vampire (which is already a template) make no sense as creature types (in my opinion). The characteristics of a skeleton should be dependent upon the underlying creature that has been animated. For example, why not have skeletal dragons? Why not have a mummified Hill Giant? Undead, as a creature type, needs to be moved entirely to templates. All of them. Each template, then, should have two or three worked examples of how to apply the template to some base creatures -- some obvious, some not so obvious. For example, the skeleton might have a human, giant and dragon examples; a vampire might have a human, a bugbear and some sort of vermin example (imagine vampiric giant ants). In the same vein, Giant should also be a template (although it should remain a creature type as well) so that a giant template for Giant Wolves, or what-have you. Dire should be a template. Any of the adjective-type creatures should be moved there. Some notes on combining templates should be give as well. For example, if I want a Vampiric Giant Dire Wolf, this should be fairly painless to do.

The next version of the e-Tools should support these additional templates. I should be able to open e-Tools and select a base creature and tell it to apply any number of templates and have it calculate everything correctly.

There are other things... but I figure you can offer your suggestions before I rant on some more.

 

[drnuncheon]

In my opinion, all undead should be templates, not standard creature entries. After all, there had to be a baseline creature before the creature became undead. Thus, the idea of a mummy, or a skeleton or a vampire (which is already a template) make no sense as creature types (in my opinion). The characteristics of a skeleton should be dependent upon the underlying creature that has been animated.

I think that the reason that many types of undead are not templates is that the abilities of the creature that made them are not really relevant to the end product.

For example - whether you make a skeleton from a 1st level commoner or a 20th level fighter, you wind up with the same base skeleton.

Similarly, things like muscle mass (base strength) and reflexes of the creature are not relevant, since it's all provided by the magic that animates the skeleton and not by the creature's body.

About the only things that a skeleton would take away from the base creature is the natural attacks - everything else would be dependant on the size of the bones...which, by an amazing coincidence, is pretty much how they have done it. I'd rather see an entry in the skeleton description that says 'skeletons made from non-humanoids can use the natural attacks of the base creature' than I would see a template that basically says 'ignore the base creature except for size, and then use these stats.'

J

 

[KDLadage]

I think that the reason that many types of undead are not templates is that the abilities of the creature that made them are not really relevant to the end product.

I disagree; see below.

For example - whether you make a skeleton from a 1st level commoner or a 20th level fighter, you wind up with the same base skeleton.

That depends on how you see skeletal animation. For example, do you recall the Skeletal Warrior of the old AD&D days? According to the description, the only difference between a skeleton and a skeletal warrior, is the fact that the skeleton was 1st to 5th level when it died; the warrior was 10th-15th level when it died.

Granted, these could be seen as differenc creatures... but I'd say a template could handle that fairly well.

Similarly, things like muscle mass (base strength) and reflexes of the creature are not relevant, since it's all provided by the magic that animates the skeleton and not by the creature's body.

OK... that (again) depends upon if you see the skeleton as pure animation (meaning, in my mind, it would be a construct made of bone, not an undead creature) or if this is somehow gathering the spirit of the deceased to help 'fuel' the magic into semi-perminance.

About the only things that a skeleton would take away from the base creature is the natural attacks - everything else would be dependant on the size of the bones...which, by an amazing coincidence, is pretty much how they have done it. I'd rather see an entry in the skeleton description that says 'skeletons made from non-humanoids can use the natural attacks of the base creature' than I would see a template that basically says 'ignore the base creature except for size, and then use these stats.'

Your choice. I'd rather have a template that says that several options are available and here is how many of them would work. After all, a hord of mice-skeletons is a vastly differnt threat than a Hill Giant skeleton.

 

[MerakSpielman]

I just want to chip in on drnuncheon's side.

The best argument against the ideas he's saying is that, "but then we can't tell how powerful a skeliton is becasue the powerful ones look just like the wimps..." and I think that argument stinks.

You can't always judge power level off of appearance. I see no reason not to have undead templates.

But I REALLY LIKE TEMPLATES and believe there are far too few of them in the game. Heck, I'd be happy if they came out with a separate Monster Template book.

 

[Sagan Darkside]

In my opinion, all undead should be templates, not standard creature entries

How about both? I like to use zombies. I like to use a lot of zombies. I would rather not have to consider what each zombie was pre-zombification. The same goes for all the undead.

Templates are great, but they add to the preperation work load. They also make spontaneous use of creatures more difficult.

For example, if I want a Vampiric Giant Dire Wolf, this should be fairly painless to do.

Perhaps I am just ignorant, but I thought a dire wolf was a giant wolf. Is there some other clarification of "dire" other then really big?

SD

 

[Gez]

Undead based on bodies (like zombies or vampire) should be templates. Undead that are based on minds (like ghost) should be templates. Undead that are merely distorted souls (like shadows) don't need to be templates, as they have no liking to their former self. Undead that are undead because they are outsiders of negative energy, like nightshades or devorers, should sure not be template.


Heh, what I would like for a MM book would be to have creatures sorted by type (first the aberrations, then the animals, then the constucts, the fey, etc.).

 

[Sagan Darkside]

Heh, what I would like for a MM book would be to have creatures sorted by type (first the aberrations, then the animals, then the constucts, the fey, etc.).

An index of that would be nice, but not the entries themselves.

I would rather not play geek trivia with myself trying to remember what type of creature one I am interested in happens to be so I can find it quickly.

SD

 

[Mercule]

Personally, I'm all for templates for intelligent undead. That just makes sense.

It doesn't for non-intelligent undead, though. They can't retain any level-like abilities. Any template you made for a skeleton, for example, would have to include "remove all existing class levels" and advancement and use only the basic racial stats. Eh, whatever. At that point, it's not really worth the effort, IMHO.

Now, I could see the argument (as above for the skeletal warrior) that a skeleton (or zombie, etc.) should be an intelligent undead or that all undead should be intelligent. I don't particularly agree, but it wouldn't ruin the game for me or anything like that.

The fact of the matter, though, is that the current "vision" of skeleton, etc. is that they aren't intelligent. To include the idea of intelligent skeletons is not a supporting point to your case for making them a template. It _could_ be, but first you need to make your case for changing the way skeletons are envisioned in the D&D system (intelligent v. unintelligent).

So, I'll grant you that any intelligent undead should be made into a template (at least I can't think of an exception). I do not, however, agree that non-intelligent undead should be -- there just isn't a benefit to it.

 

[KDLadage]

Sagan Darkside: How about both? I like to use zombies. I like to use a lot of zombies. I would rather not have to consider what each zombie was pre-zombification. The same goes for all the undead. Templates are great, but they add to the preperation work load. They also make spontaneous use of creatures more difficult.

True. Hense, my call for several 'typical' pre-worked samples of the template in action. In other words, you have the Zombie template; in that template is a worked example of a typical human zombie -- that would (lo and behold) match the current zombie listing.

Sagan DarksidePerhaps I am just ignorant, but I thought a dire wolf was a giant wolf. Is there some other clarification of "dire" other then really big?

Perhaps I didn;t think my original statement through well enough...

Gez: Undead based on bodies (like zombies or vampire) should be templates.

No argument there.

Gez: Undead that are based on minds (like ghost) should be templates.

Again, no argument. Although, I would say ghosts are based more on the soul than the mind; although a phantasmal floating being of pure will could go either way; depends upon your cosmology I suppose.

Gez: Undead that are merely distorted souls (like shadows) don't need to be templates, as they have no liking to their former self.

I disagree, but I can see your argument, at least.

Gez: Undead that are undead because they are outsiders of negative energy, like nightshades or devorers, should sure not be template.

That would depend upn the answer to the following question: is this the natural form of this creature, or was it something else at one time? This is the natural form: no template, this is the creature. It was something else, then it needs a template, and we need to know what creature it once was...

 

[Mercule]

Undead that are merely distorted souls (like shadows) don't need to be templates, as they have no liking to their former self. Undead that are undead because they are outsiders of negative energy, like nightshades or devorers, should sure not be template.

Fair enough with the shadows. Do tend to agree there, now that I think about it. (See previous caveat about "none come to mind".)

Personally, I don't think that outsiders of negative energy should be classified as undead. Undead implies once living and made from dead bits (even if the bits are spiritual).

I've been wondering what nightshades were when they were alive and it has been giving me fits since 3E came out. I'll mull over the idea of it just being a crack-addled way to categorize an outsider. If I decide you're probably right, I'll either do the work to convert them to outsiders or just drop them entirely from my game.