What do you look for in a monster book?

[blackshirt5]

One can never have too many hags

Why stop with simply listing the remains? Are there any d20 monster cookbooks out there?

This might be close, it'll include details on the what and how of harvesting monster bits for use in brewing potions, crafting magic items, and other things(such as the possibility of eating them, as orcs ITW do, to gain their power).

And hags, like undersea critters, are something that I have a hard time thinking of new and original ones, so unless I'm hit by sudden inspiration, there probably won't be any in this book.

BTW, the book, I've got no idea when it'll be done or released. I'm really only working on the basic concept of it right now, the only details that I've got set are that me and Vechs 3.0 will be working on it, I'll be doing stats and history, he'll be doing the art, and I might involve the rest of my gaming group in the project as playtesters and/or more writers.

 

[Aeolius]

...And hags, like undersea critters, are something that I have a hard time thinking of new and original ones...

I have that area covered Most of my 250+ Aeo Originals are hags and sea critters, plus a few arctic creations from my prior campaign. Now all I need is an extra brain, 4 extra arms, and all the time in the world... One of these days...

 

[drnuncheon]

I think there are enough hags in other books, and I haven't really done any undersea critters yet, it's hard to think of monsters for undersea campaigns that aren't just rehashes of "fishman/sharkman/octopusman #3".

Since I am a nice guy, I will give you an idea that nobody has ever used. Ever.*

A sea-cucumber-man.

Sure, it sounds goofy, but just wait until one of your PCs tries to attack one...and it launches its stomach at them through its mouth!

J
* Now that I have said this, someone is sure to come along and say "In Volume XVIII of the Synnibarr Monstrous Compendion, there was a sea-cucumber template that could be added to anything, and gave it x-ray laser eyes too."

 

[blackshirt5]

You're scaring me doc, but that is a really scary idea for an attack form.

 

[LGodamus]

Rules compliance....I hate having to double check each monster to make sure they actually followed the d20 system rules.. Creature collection 1 is the arch type of this......I know it was the first monster book out , but the horrible knowldege of the rules it shows keeps me from ever using it....oh and the ART.

 

[blackshirt5]

Rules compliance....I hate having to double check each monster to make sure they actually followed the d20 system rules.. Creature collection 1 is the arch type of this......I know it was the first monster book out , but the horrible knowldege of the rules it shows keeps me from ever using it....oh and the ART.

This won't be a problem man, I've seen the problem in other books(CC doesn't bother me as much as The Encyclopedia of Demons and Devils), and I'm gonna double and triple check all the stats to make sure they're compliant.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Next question: Do you prefer undead as templates or as regular creatures?

And another: If something is brought about by demonic interference or possession, should the demon also be statted up, or just mentioned in the backstory?

Question 1 - I think templates are the way to go. Too many types of monsters/creatures that could be used and you could fill a book just on skeletons.

Question 2 - Mmmmm, that is a bit harder. I would like to see the demon stats but information of those possessed/or contracted to them, this could be done as a template.

 

[The_Gneech]

Well, I like a particular flavor of monster, and if that flavor is there, I'm much more likely to buy the book.

I'd be hard-pressed to describe that flavor exactly, other than to say I'm something of a "traditionalist." I like critters from Greek myth, from Tolkien, from Robert E. Howard ... I don't much care for things like the digester or the ethereal filcher to pick on some random critters, that are just sorta odd. (Disclaimer: Although I do like some, like the grell; I'd be hard-pressed to describe why I like them and not the others.) I'm also not interested in steampunk, and have very little use for fiends, demons, or devils.

Stuff I like: owlbears, hook horrors, orcs, gnolls, lizardfolk, various types of undead, giant scorpions, drow, dragons, lycanthropes, displacer beasts, ankheg, umber hulks...

-The Gneech

 

[ErichDragon]

What do you look for in a monster book?

Monsters.

 

[blackshirt5]

Question 1 - I think templates are the way to go. Too many types of monsters/creatures that could be used and you could fill a book just on skeletons.

Question 2 - Mmmmm, that is a bit harder. I would like to see the demon stats but information of those possessed/or contracted to them, this could be done as a template.

Yeah, I was leaning towards making the undead templates anyway, so another question, do you prefer templates scattered throughout the book, or do you prefer them all in one appendix?

I'll stat up the demons, as well as the new creature that the combination of demon and mortal make through possession.

Gneech-I agree with you as far as things like the digester and the ethereal filcher go, I don't like creatures that are wierd just for the point of being wierd, ya know? The creatures in the book will all be created from the standpoint of fitting into the campaign world they're designed for, which has different areas ranging from barbarism to Rennaissance tech, with a lot of different feels to them; I think that if the first book does well, then other books will follow that will detail monsters found in other areas of the world as well.

Also, do you prefer monster tomes written a la the WotC "Monster Manual", written from an OOC perspective, or like Monsternomicon, written from an "in-character" perspective?