What's your favorite monster book?
- Thread starter blackshirt5
- Start date
Beholder Bob
First Post
Rather then be positive, I'll start by being a bastard:
The tomb of horrors may be good - but
1) The artwork is so bad I'd not buy that book except under threat
2) They commit a grave sin (also committed in FF or MMII, not sure which) - they have a small sized animal (The 'golden gorger' is nickname, something starting with an 'r') with an OBSCENE amount of HP. It is an animal, perhaps a magical beast - and it seems altogether silly. It is accurate, though, to the MMII (1st edition) - where it was stupid even then. If I need this type of silliness, I'll use the vorpal rabbit.
3) The book focuses on accurate portrayal per the 1st edition - great. Just great. It didn't update them, make them more consistent, and correct the logic errors that plagued the 1st edition - but rather carried them through into the 3.x edition. Hell, I can carry over 1st edition monsters w/out fixing them fairly easy on my own - if I pay money for the book, I expect more thought then xeroxing them. Oh well. If I find it used I... actually, not even then.
4) Others have said they like the artwork - am I the only one who found a high percentage of poor pictures? Not all of them sucked, but far too many of them did.
MMII or FF (not sure which) - the one with the gravecrawler. A small worm thing that petrifies and has an obscene amount of HP. OBSCENE. For a worm. Also - if they wish to create these odd little beasties - include a little thought behind it - like why they look and act like they do. Not hard fact or science, but make it possible to suspend disbelief. Come on.
In general - I am willing to work with tiny little things w/great big HP if you make it logical, otherwise I'll be embarrassed in DMing the damn thing ('yep, I know it would fit in a sack, but it doesn't care that you've stabbed it 12 times - it seems... unhappy').
CC 1: I haven't seen 3.5, but I bet it has the same problem as 3.0 did - no damn lists! I want a concise list showing beasties by CR, by type, and a list by name & page number. A small request - but it makes the book ACTUALLY useful. Some of the beasties are rather neat - but having to crawl through the book looking for something I know is IN the book, but not remembering the name.... Grrrr.
CC 2: Haglings (pa-leeze: the vile garbage pail kids are coming to get me). Had much better format for the lists - me likee. The beasts seemed to me (and we know how opinionated I am) lacked focus. CC1 has no list, but I mostly use CC2 to look up the names of critters in CC1.
Armies of the abyss, and Hells legions. Cool stuff, neat descriptions, well-developed and good range of CR's (no, I do not work for them). Nice nightmare feeling to them. The prestige class in (do not remember the book) were nice, as was the 'standard' class, but wimpy - and using a random system to determine their defects (some of which are beneficial as a feat) risks imbalance folks. That, and Why, god why, do people keep thinking CHA = looks? A defect costs this fellow CHA (oh my god, I'm so ugly! My since of self suffers so. I mean, I may be a Satanist, eat babies (the other white meat), and thrive on cruelty, but that harelip just undercuts my sense of identity, my presence - guess my prime spell casting stat will have to slide towards the ground. I'll never get to go to the ball now..."
I like the monsternomicon - cool stuff, great description, even if it is difficult to fit into my campaign. I'll find a way.
B![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
B
The tomb of horrors may be good - but
1) The artwork is so bad I'd not buy that book except under threat
2) They commit a grave sin (also committed in FF or MMII, not sure which) - they have a small sized animal (The 'golden gorger' is nickname, something starting with an 'r') with an OBSCENE amount of HP. It is an animal, perhaps a magical beast - and it seems altogether silly. It is accurate, though, to the MMII (1st edition) - where it was stupid even then. If I need this type of silliness, I'll use the vorpal rabbit.
3) The book focuses on accurate portrayal per the 1st edition - great. Just great. It didn't update them, make them more consistent, and correct the logic errors that plagued the 1st edition - but rather carried them through into the 3.x edition. Hell, I can carry over 1st edition monsters w/out fixing them fairly easy on my own - if I pay money for the book, I expect more thought then xeroxing them. Oh well. If I find it used I... actually, not even then.
4) Others have said they like the artwork - am I the only one who found a high percentage of poor pictures? Not all of them sucked, but far too many of them did.
MMII or FF (not sure which) - the one with the gravecrawler. A small worm thing that petrifies and has an obscene amount of HP. OBSCENE. For a worm. Also - if they wish to create these odd little beasties - include a little thought behind it - like why they look and act like they do. Not hard fact or science, but make it possible to suspend disbelief. Come on.
In general - I am willing to work with tiny little things w/great big HP if you make it logical, otherwise I'll be embarrassed in DMing the damn thing ('yep, I know it would fit in a sack, but it doesn't care that you've stabbed it 12 times - it seems... unhappy').
CC 1: I haven't seen 3.5, but I bet it has the same problem as 3.0 did - no damn lists! I want a concise list showing beasties by CR, by type, and a list by name & page number. A small request - but it makes the book ACTUALLY useful. Some of the beasties are rather neat - but having to crawl through the book looking for something I know is IN the book, but not remembering the name.... Grrrr.
CC 2: Haglings (pa-leeze: the vile garbage pail kids are coming to get me). Had much better format for the lists - me likee. The beasts seemed to me (and we know how opinionated I am) lacked focus. CC1 has no list, but I mostly use CC2 to look up the names of critters in CC1.
Armies of the abyss, and Hells legions. Cool stuff, neat descriptions, well-developed and good range of CR's (no, I do not work for them). Nice nightmare feeling to them. The prestige class in (do not remember the book) were nice, as was the 'standard' class, but wimpy - and using a random system to determine their defects (some of which are beneficial as a feat) risks imbalance folks. That, and Why, god why, do people keep thinking CHA = looks? A defect costs this fellow CHA (oh my god, I'm so ugly! My since of self suffers so. I mean, I may be a Satanist, eat babies (the other white meat), and thrive on cruelty, but that harelip just undercuts my sense of identity, my presence - guess my prime spell casting stat will have to slide towards the ground. I'll never get to go to the ball now..."
I like the monsternomicon - cool stuff, great description, even if it is difficult to fit into my campaign. I'll find a way.
B
B
Beholder Bob
First Post
Pants said:That would be the MMII
I'm just wondering why the Gravecrawler is undead and not a Magical Beast or an Abberation... THAT doesn't make any sense.
I noticed that. It used to be, all undead had a corporeal life form they had been before becoming undead - but not so now. The walking graveyard, the gravecrawler, crimson mist (....damn, memory failing, must upgrade..my..brain) others I can not remember. When did this switch happen? I'm okay with non-humanoid undead, but WHY are they undead, what did they come from.
Oh well.
B
B
Tharen the Damned
First Post
DaveMage said:
The Book uses Monte Cooks Arcana Unearthed rules but every monster also has 3.5 facing, there are conversion notes (eg. how to exchange AU spells for PHB Spells) and all the AU Feats used are listed in the appendix.
So if you play 3.0 or 3.5 you have to convert the creatures and NPCs.
But why not convert your game and play AU?
Similar Threads
