JoeGKushner said:
Drow woudl be the first ones I'd think of.
Yes, but nobody is claiming drow are exclusive to FR ... drow are in the 3E MM, after all.
Let's try this again:
Originally Posted by BWP:
Pretty much any of the critters in the Forgotten Realms books that used to be in the 1st ed. "core" monster books. I never understood why a lot of "core" creatures suddenly got dumped into FR as their "home" when 2e was published; 3e should have put them right back where they came from.
And I said:
Uh, such as? Many of the creatures in the 2E MM first appeared in FR products: the dracolich, the beholder variants, etc. Nowadays most people think FR "stole" those creatures, but they originated in FR.
Some people here are suggesting that FR "stole" monsters from the core, pointing out that these "stolen" monsters were in the 2E MM but now appear in FR products. I'm pointing out that many of the monsters appearing in the 2E MM actually originated in FR in the first place and were put in the 2E MM as "generic" monsters, so any suggestions that those monsters are "stolen" when they appear in 3E FR products instead of 3E core products is absurd (like claiming that the elves, dwarves, orcs, and ents in the LotR
movies are derivative of D&D, when they actually come from the LotR books which heavily influenced the D&D game).
* Bullywugs aren't FR-specific creatures, so their presence in the 2E MM or in Monsters of Faerun is irrelevant.
* Shadow dragons are FR creatures (I'm pretty sure they were created by Ed Greenwood but I can't find the book they originally appeared in), ended up in the 2E MM, then appeared in MoF. Not "stolen."
* Deep dragon? FR, from
Drow of the Underdark.
* Wild dwarf? Deepspawn? FR, from
Dwarves Deep.
* Illithid lich? FR, from
Menzoberranzan.
* Electrum dragon? Bone naga? Ormyrr? Doomsphere/ghost beholder? FR, from
Ruins of Myth Drannor
Bullgrit said:
Just a random question, here: Why was the catablepus' (spelling?) death gaze changed to a death ray?
No idea, I had nothing to do with the book that creature appears in.
If Monsters of Faerun was supposed to be a "core" book, why is it called "Monsters of Faerun"? (I'm not being snarky -- I'm honestly puzzled.)
Because core books sell better than world-branded books of the same type.
Because most of the monsters in there are core monsters rather than FR monsters.
But there are a lot of FR monsters in it that people are used to using as core monsters because they appeared in the 2E MM.
Because we wanted FR gamers to know it's a book they should pick up, but didn't want to put an FR logo on it so non-FR people wouldn't pick it up "because I can't use an FR book.
Garnfellow said:
I think it's a fair thing to ask, and to me, your question suggests a main reason why this book is so unsatisfactory. I know it was frequently billed as a core book, but with Faerun on the cover and the occasional Realms reference, it never really felt like a generic sourcebook.
I am surprised that the one-paragraph for each monster on "In the Realms" was enough to distract you from its utility as a generic sourcebook. If it helps, cover up the FR-specific text with liquid paper.
And on the other hand, it never provided enough detail on Realms specific stuff to feel like a deep, immersive Faerun supplement.
Barring an annoying 2E-style sourcebook where you spend pages of ecology on a single monster, you really shouldn't be spending that much space on a single monster in a monster-collection book. The goal of the new 3E books was to give you books you can
game with, not books that are great to read for flavor and then you put them on the shelf and never use them again. With that in mind, one paragraph per monster explaining specific FR issues and uses is not unreasonable and sufficient for most DMs' purposes.