Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Shade" data-source="post: 1719093" data-attributes="member: 287">This is meant to be a sort of "open letter" to monster developers out there.   It seems like most of the monster books use the same formula time and again, leaving large parts of the customer base unsatisfied.   Additionally, the presentation has been inconsistent from book-to-book. Here's my wish list.   Please post yours as well, and perhaps someone will take notice. Types of Creatures:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Less humanoids.  I can't recall the last time I saw a truly inspiring humanoid creature.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Less "watered-down" versions of existing creatures in order to create low LA races (see spikers, mephlings, etc.)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Less specific undead, more undead templates.  The Warcraft RPG Manual of Monsters did an excellent job with this, presenting nearly all the undead as templates, but using the sample creatures to represent the iconic versions of the creature.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">More creatures that round out well-developed subspecies of creatures (such as beholderkin, demons, devils, yugoloths, illithids, etc.)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Less creatures that are simply a slight variation on an existing creature.  ("It's a tiger...wing wings!", "It's a troll, but is vulnerable to cold instead of fire!", and so on).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Less unnecessary reprinting of templates.   Rather than printing a whole new type of undead that is essentially just a ghost or vampire with slightly different powers, follow the precedent set by Monsters of Faerun and Oriental Adventures and just list the variations (such as ghosts and liches in these books).   The Draconomicon does a nice job updating the half-dragon template as well.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">More conversions.  Why create a lackluster new monster just for the sake of it being new, when numerous interesting creatures from previous editions of the game have yet to make their appearance in this edition?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">More high-CR creatures.  I know that the rationalization is that a DM can simply advance a low-CR monster.  However, this is challenging to those who don't live and breathe monster conversions, and it is extremely time-consuming.  Plus, although the MM 3.5 took great strides forward, the rules still don't cover every aspect of advancing a creature (such as whether spell resistance, damage reduction, and caster level for spell-like abilities improve when HD are added).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Giants that are truly gigantic, of Gargantuan or Colossal size.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Some interesting Fine and Diminutive creatures.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">More types.  The introduction of the deathless type in Book of Exalted Deeds helped categorize a problematic niche of creatures.  I don't think they should go crazy with this, but if a monster truly doesn't fit any of the existing types without serious problems, a new type could be introduced.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">More subtypes.   Krishnath proposed an electricity subtype awhile back, and I could easily see subtypes for sonic, positive, negative, and shadow as well.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Rationalization of how a monster can actually survive in its indicated environment.   Shouldn't a xeg-yi be immune to negative energy?  Shouldn't arctic creatures have some higher threshold for cold than a desert-dwelling creature?</li> </ul>Presentation:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Stop giving a creature only a descriptive name, when the creature is intelligent or cultured enough to have a unique name for its race (as with mind flayer/illithid).  Be consistent with naming conventions throughout various books (devils go by "horned devil" in the main entry, but list "cornugon" in the text, while demons list "glabrezu" in the title, not something like "arrow demon").</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Be consistent among monster types.  If a troll is a giant, then a war troll, desert troll, soup troll, etc. should be giants.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">List all the monsters immunities, resistances, vision, etc. on the SQ line consistently, rather than occassionally stating simply "tanar'ri traits", etc.   Continue to simply list "incorporeal traits" and "construct traits" for things that are always consistent to a certain type or subtype.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">LA's for creatures whose ECL would be over +20.   Throw us epic-level players and DMs a bone.  It only takes at most one more character to type "+X" instead of "-" on the Level Adjustment line.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">ALways list the languages a monster can speak (or if it can't speak or understand a language).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Continue to list what spells (if any) can be used to summon a creature.  Although I'm not a fan of the new system of listing a creature to remove from the existing summon lists, I'd like to see them pick a system and stick with it.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">More "if you are using X book" sidebars like in Fiend Folio, but less "In the Realms or In Eberron" in the core books.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Include pronunciation for each monster entry.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">List monsters in a consistent manner.  For example, all golems should be listed as "Golem, <name>" (see MM2 where chain golem appeared under "c", while all the rest of the golems were under "g").</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Always include index of monsters by name, by type, and by CR.</li> </ul></blockquote>

Verification