(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
Many of the "leaks" came from playtesters - obviously they weren't in-house playtesters.
WOTC: What were they thinking? (not a rant)
- Thread starter Bluemoon
- Start date
I won't go so far as to say it was better in all respects and in all instances, but I think the 2E Monstrous Manual generally did a much better job of making the illustrations of the monsters match their written descriptions. Plus, those providing the 2E illustrations generally didn't find it necessary to "rebuild from the ground up" monsters that had appeared in 1E. Some exceptions exist, but take a look at the 1E and 2E carrion crawler. The 1E version didn't match the description ("a cross between a cutworm and a cepalopod"); Tony DiTerlizzi's 2E illustration nailed the written description perfectly. So, a change was made to an existing monster's appearance, but specifically to make it match its written description.
Compare this to the 3.0 Monster Manual, in which (according to the comments made in the Wizards article) one of the main concerns the design team had going in to 3.0 (and carried over to 3.5) was making sure the monsters looked different than they did in previous editions of the game. So now we get a carrion crawler with tentacles coming from underneath its toothed mouth - rather silly-looking, in my opinion, but it would have been fine had they changed the description of the carrion crawler to match the "new look" of the creature. But they didn't; the description is virtually word-for-word the same as in previous editions. Hippogriffs used to be completely avian in the front half of their bodies and equine from the waist down. Now the poor things have horselike heads with beaks slapped on as an afterthought. Shambling mounds, if you believe the pictures, are large, blobby plants with two whiplike tendril-appendages. Of course, if you read their description (in the 3.0 Monster Manual, anyway; I don't have any of the 3.5 books yet), that depiction is not warranted. Xorn, who in previous editions had skins that looked armor-plated - something you'd expect in a creature that eats its way through the Elemental Plane of Earth - now are squishy bags of flesh that make me wonder at their alleged AC.
My overall impression is that the 1E and 2E artists were expected to stick within the written descriptions of the monsters they were illustrating, while the 3.0 and 3.5 artists were encouraged to go hog-wild without regards to staying within what the bounds of how the creatures were described. All in all, I think this was a poor decision on the part of whoever was in charge of such things.
Don't even get me started on the goofy butterfly/extended fish fin "wings" some of the metallic dragons are sporting...
Johnathan
tetsujin28
First Post
I'll take Dave Trampier over the 3e artists any day of the week.
MeepoTheMighty
First Post
You're right, they should have re-hashed art from 1e and 2e. Then they should have wasted pages with full-color plates which coincidentally happened to be the covers to other products. I'm sure that would have silenced all the whining. 
Just to be clear, I'm not advocating that they should have simply "recycled" existing artwork from 1E/2E books for the 3.0 Monster Manual, merely that they should have depicted the monsters as looking the same way. By all means, do up a new painting of a carrion crawler, but make it look like a cross between a cephalopod and a cutworm (as described), not an 8-tongued caterpillar with teeth. 
Johnathan
Johnathan
MeepoTheMighty
First Post
Destil said:A serious shame. DMG variants were some of the best parts of the book, particuarrly when they were combined with a "behind the curtian" entry. But, hey... more space sacrificed for prestige classes. Not like I have access to anywhere near enugh of thoes yet.
While there's certainly no shortage of prestige classes, you have to remember that a lot of people play under the impression that if it ain't from WoTC, it ain't official. I would imagine there are many groups who wouldn't allow anything from the splat books, even, but wouldn't think twice about using PrCs from the DMG. I think it's good to have a nice cross-sample of classes in the core books so you have more than just shadowdancers and arcane archers to fall back on.
Psion
Adventurer
For the same reason he would carry his poison lab with him. To wit: HE WOULDN'T! If an assassin is on a job, he would memorize what he needs and leave it behind. Of course, this is just another example of the IMO silly thought processes that has lead to so many questionable decisions in this edition.
This is the nail in the coffin of the official assassin AFAIAC. Although I didn't really like that they all got made into spellcasters given sufficiently good stats, at least I could sort of see that in a world rife with magic, they would have such training. But all assassins just happen to have the potential to be spontaneous casters? Sorry, I don't buy it.
Mouseferatu
Hero
Psion said:
Of course, that's only true if you assume that all "spontaneous" casting classes must be innate. Frankly, I don't see why you can't include a school of spellcasting that teaches spontaneous casting abilities. Granted, neither the bard nor sorcerer are written that way (in the core books, at least), but that doesn't mean it can't be done that way.
Flyspeck23
First Post
Actually the bard (a "spontaneous spellcaster") is both: "These manipulations [of mystic energies] require natural talent [...], long study [...], or both (in the case of bards)." - PHB 3.5, p. 177
So no need to assume that all Assassins were born to be... well, Assassins
So no need to assume that all Assassins were born to be... well, Assassins
Derulbaskul
Adventurer
Does anyone else see the humour in there being dozens of new monsters and, yet, despite the addition, there are something like 350 monsters in the 3.5 Monster Manual, as opposed to the "500+" monsters in the 3.0 Monster Manual?
Cheers
D
Cheers
D
Similar Threads
