Vote in the Atlas Games Critter Contest

Which is the bestest of them all?

  • Ok-Marrofy – Orc War Lizard

    Votes: 18 14.0%

  • Cartrala

    Votes: 4 3.1%

  • Cryllosian Dragonsteed

    Votes: 5 3.9%

  • Dragons’ Rest Steed

    Votes: 5 3.9%

  • Dragori Hound

    Votes: 9 7.0%

  • Gonshodak

    Votes: 14 10.9%

  • Ripdrake

    Votes: 8 6.2%

  • Throast

    Votes: 7 5.4%

  • Bonethief

    Votes: 20 15.5%

  • Chamelosaur

    Votes: 7 5.4%

  • Draak

    Votes: 7 5.4%

  • Dragon Snuffler

    Votes: 3 2.3%

  • Dragori Steed

    Votes: 5 3.9%

  • Hipposaur

    Votes: 4 3.1%

  • Swamp Treader

    Votes: 13 10.1%
  • Poll closed .

log in or register to remove this ad

So, since sharing comments could be particularly useful, here are mine. Note that I didn't go through the counting up the points as an earlier poster, though I'm sure Atlas will. A reminder that the "Creating a Monster" article was not meant to be a bound set of rules, but a guideline. If someone is off by two or three points of skills, or an additional feat, I personally think it is pedantic to discard the creature.

Ok-Marrofy - I could see this fitting into someone's world nicely. Mounting up the enemy is a good way to boost the danger to the players.

Cartrala- Creative, I agree. However it didn't ring true for me on the mini. Entirely subjective on my part, I know.

Cryllosian Dragonsteed - I'm glad to see a creature that isn't inherently evil. If it is a dragon, note that it has the dragon-type immunities, darkvision, and low-light vision (per MM).

Dragori Hound - if other people got disqualified for not being 5x10 large, then how did this one get in?

Gonshodak - Nice description. I was kinda thrown by it having a 10" reach on a creature that is Large (long), and a minature without unusually long limbs. Perhaps the reach is meant to represent it's speed, or that the mini is a nonstandard? (large - extralong :) ) I agree the mini makes me think of a greyhound in a certain way. I like the idea of the Thrash ability, though I'm a bit worried about the damage given to it.

Ripdrake - I agree with the earlier poster about the misgivings on the breath weapon. Neat idea for the creature overall, I'd say.

Throast - good solid creature, the kind you want to have in books. Didn't give in to the "gotta have a flashy bit" thing as much as some others.

Bone thief - Neat idea, but incredibly too powerful for a CR2 creature. Consider what would happen when a low-level party runs into one of these, much less multiple of them!

Chamelosaur - I like the poison as mating scent idea. However, I think the entry is written poorly. Does the creature get any number of Reflex Swipes, instead of the usual limit on AoO? That would make the most sense, as the first AoO would assumedly be an attack per normal rules.

Draak - Wow. A whole bevy of dragons to match the big ones.

Dragon Snuffler - Cute idea. Sneezing rocks? Gotta work on that diet. I would have liked the author to expand on the basic idea more and refine it. The idea of a telepathic/magical bond would be a good starting place. Good choice of Iron Will for the little guy. They'll need that to cope with the Frightful Presence of a dragon.

Dragori Steed - Good idea. I'm concerned about the kick damage. Consider that a Nightmare, also a 6HD creature whose hooves are even flaming, does less damage.

Hipposaur - I find myself having trouble getting past the image of a "hippo" as a huge, fat thing while this mini is lean and quick looking. I like the background. I agree with the earlier poster that the skills look off to me without running any numbers.

Dragons' Rest Steed - proper url is http://www.d20reviews.com/downloads/atlas/Dragon-Rest-Steed.rtf
Very nice backstory, though it is the kind of thing that might not fit in all worlds. I like the way the creature was put together, though I would have liked a better name than "Buck" for the Rear Kick. A bucking horse doesn't kick like the author might think, IMHO.

Overall some good ideas, folks. I was originally turned off by the public voting idea, but I hope that everyone will post their comments on this. That way the creature's authors can gain insight. Makes me wish I hadn't decided to turn down entering this one.

john
 

Errata on size?

It was written:

It seems that many of the authors did not see the errata that was posted for this contest. The figure is on a base that is 1x3 inches, thus the monster is 5x15.

To which I respond: New to me. I d/led the RTF contest guidelines, and there was nothing in there about the creature having to be a specific size. Since my creature isn't the "right" size, but is in the contest as an official candidate, I'd be rather annoyed if it (and the other "wrong" size monsters) were suddenly disqualified.

Other writing commented:

Bone thief - Neat idea, but incredibly too powerful for a CR2 creature. Consider what would happen when a low-level party runs into one of these, much less multiple of them!

To which I respond: Nonsense. The bone theft ability only processes with a successful critical hit, which amounts to less than a 5% chance per attack. Compare that to the incorporeal shadow (CR 3) that ignores 50% of attacks from corporeal sources. Seems balanced to me.

I also know the author of the bonethief used Skip Williams's "How to Make a Monster" article for CR determination. It's as close to an official CR method as any I've seen.

On a game design point, why would a GM put a low-level party up against a pack of bonethieves to begin with? Such would not be a reasonable encounter. An average size pack of bonethieves (say, 8 creatures) would be an EL 8 encounter.

-- Mark L. Chance.

Cry me a river...OF BLOOD!
 

Re: Errata on size?

To which I respond: New to me. I d/led the RTF contest guidelines, and there was nothing in there about the creature having to be a specific size. Since my creature isn't the "right" size, but is in the contest as an official candidate, I'd be rather annoyed if it (and the other "wrong" size monsters) were suddenly disqualified.



-- Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...

True, but it also unfair to those entrants who followed the rules and paid attention to what Atlas said about their contest. To give equal consideration to those that didn't follow the errated rules or blatantly ignored them (a possibility) is akin snubbing those that played by the rules.

Perhaps Atlas, or whoever it is that allowed the "off-size" entrants in, should step in and tell us why these smaller creatures were allowed, or offer an equitable remedy, such as allowing a week to re-write entries and change the sizes, etc, since the errata wasn't widely known.

I'm not complaining, I just want to be clear on what is and what is not going to be considered to be an official entry by Atlas.

-Reddist
 


Re: Re: Errata on size?

reddist said:


True, but it also unfair to those entrants who followed the rules and paid attention to what Atlas said about their contest.
Click to expand...

I did follow the rules and paid very close attention to what the RTF document that explained the rules said. There was no mention in those rules of fixed size requirements or of any sort of errata to be found.

Perhaps I can be faulted for not paying close attention to information posted on EnWorld, but obviously I followed the rules as they were published, or else why is my "wrongly" sized monster a candidate?
-- Mark L. Chance.

Cry me a river...OF BLOOD!
 

"wrongly-sized" entrants

I agree the errata was poorly publicized, but it does create some qualitative differences between those that saw it and those that did not. Especially if they want to tie the description to the miniature when it is published, rather than just for the contest.

Its possible that Morrus, or whoever was screening these, missed a few when sorting out the entries. Hell, its possible that the sorter was unaware of the rules change, due to its bad publicity.

I'm all for allowing the "wrongly" sized entrants, but I'd far rather hear something from Atlas or Morrus than something from you:) You might be a bit biased ;] Hell, I am too. My small entry is doing far better in the poll than my "regulation" sized entry.

Anyway, 'luck.

-Reddist
 

I didn't eliminate those which did not meet the size requirement becasue, like many of you, I felt it would be unfair to do so given that it arrived after the contest was announced.

Unless Atlas decide otherwise, I'm not worried about it. If they do decide otherwise, it'll only matter if one of the non-compliant entries wins, in which case we'll move to the next highest entry.

I'll drop Michelle a line, just to see how she'd like to handle it, but for now assume that it doesn't matter.
 

Huzzah!

Morrus said:
I didn't eliminate those which did not meet the size requirement becasue, like many of you, I felt it would be unfair to do so given that it arrived after the contest was announced.
Click to expand...

I applaud your wisdom!

And, for the record (if there is such a thing), if the size requirement becomes an issue and one the "wrong" size entries wins, it seems reasonable to let the author alter his/her submission to fit the size requirement.

-- Mark L. Chance.

Cry me a river...OF BLOOD!
 

I haven't seen any comment (good or bad) on my entry : the Swamp Treader.

I know it's not high on the neato-cool factor, but that was what I was going for. I thought I would make more of an utilitarian monster. I guess the question I'm really asking is: would you use it in an appropriate adventure?

Any response would be great.


- Tom T.
 

Remove ads

Top