What monster types have been done to death?

[VirgilCaine]

someone's been using the Creature Catalog.

Well, gee, they're free and I have this thing about the past...it was very cool to be able to say that the Thoul was from the Basic D&D set.

Plant monsters are bizarre. Pretty much like aberrations, except that the amount in the core is fine.

I actually like plant monsters. Now if they only were not immune to crits, so the rogue wouldn't feel left out, they'd be the perfect monster to use.

 

[Shade]

Just out of curiosity, do those of you who selected dragons wish to see less true dragons, or less creatures of the dragon type altogether?

 

[Zappo]

All of them... but especially dragons, humanoids and undead. I wasn't surprised in the least to see three spikes there after voting. We have multiple humanoids covering every possible environment or concept, dozens of undead with all sorts of wacky origins, and as for dragons... ew.

 

[Hussar]

Please, no more bloody undead. Or, as was mentioned, bloody stupid undead. Rounding out the list I would add constructs and possibly fey. The latter since I so very, very rarely actually use them. Never really liked pixies in my game. Just a thing I suppose.

But really, no more undead please.

 

[BOZ]

Well, gee, they're free and I have this thing about the past...it was very cool to be able to say that the Thoul was from the Basic D&D set.

well, i'm glad you appreciate it. it never hurts to hear that people are getting use out of something i'm investing my limited free time into providing.

 

[BOZ]

so, giants, fey, and magical beasts have not been "done to death"... so noted.

 

[demiurge1138]

None, I like all kinds of monsters.

However, it takes a really unique and interesting humanoid or humanoidish creature to really... errrm interest me nowadays. Maybe if someone statted up China Mieville's humanoid creatures or Steven Erikson's humanoids, I might be excited, but as it is, most humanoids are boring.

I haven't read Steven Erikson, but it's interesting to note that, at least physically, China Mieville's humanoids are pretty all just "animal people". Khepri are bug people, vodyanoi are toad people, cactacae are cactus people, etc. The difference between these and the generic catfolk No. 26 is that Mieville's humanoids all have interesting and well fleshed-out cultures, histories and a place in their world, as opposed to maybe a brief paragraph on their society.

Demiurge out.

 

[DreadPirateMurphy]

I am particularly not fond of anthropomorphic animals as humanoids. Cat-people, dog-people, bee-people, badger-people, elephant-people, snake-people, bat-people, etc. It is like a casting call for 50s B-grade horror films. Frankly, almost any animal-human combo could be done with a template, like the one for lycanthropes.

 

[Voadam]

Just out of curiosity, do those of you who selected dragons wish to see less true dragons, or less creatures of the dragon type altogether?

I chose dragons. But I don't want less of them.

I do feel the type has been done to death however.

The core has about a dozen true ones plus wyverns and dragon turtles and half dragons.

MMII adds crystal ones and linnorms

Penumbra Fantasy Bestiary adds elemental dragons and war dragons and a dragon men set.

Scarred Lands add Slaerician dragons and Wrack dragons

Gar'Udock adds in corpse eating dragons

AEG's dragons adds in a few more neutral dragons.

Epic Level Handbook has prismatic and force dragons

Draconomicon adds in more like rust dragons.

Warcraft manual of monsters and d20 modern Arcana add in variants on the basic dragons

And there are plenty more.

I would like to see more drake type dragons in the mold of wyverns, dragons that are large beasts without real sentience or magical spells.

 

[Sundragon2012]

I should have voted OTHER....after I thought about it I know the one type of creature I don't ever want to see again.

The half-anything.

No more half-elementals, no more half-constructs, no more half-dragons, etc. Just sat no to half-anything.



Chris