| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Firhyanda |
Posted - 27 Jan 2006 : 15:29:30
Greetings
I came across this list out there in cyberspace somewhere im not even sure where I got this document it’s titled. The Dragons Bestiary, Forgotten Realms Monstrous Compendium Supplements. It’s basically a huge list of monsters that were published for the realms from various sources modules, Dragon, Polyhedron etcetera most of which appear to be canon. I have the realms bestiary volume one from this sight and love the thing I use it often and many of the creatures on this list are not in it. There are close to 150 entries hear almost a number for a stand alone monster Manuel for Faerun. Some of these are in Monstrous Compendium Monsters of Faerun but many are not. I have always been vaguely disappointed that there was not a large hard cover monster Manuel just for Faerun. Monstrous Compendium Monsters of Faerun is nice but it always seemed inadequate for the setting. Would it be difficult to gather copies of these monsters from all of there original source and convert them to 3.5? My question is has anyone converted these to 3.5 and if not why not? Maybe it could be done as a WATC web enhancement. Would anyone else be willing to pay for a hard cover monster manual for Faerun? |
| 18 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 20 Jun 2006 : 07:52:08
To me the kobolt will always be the egg laying dog-rat, even if I liked the slayers guide to kobolts (published by Mongoose I think).
As to the kobolts place in the evolution, that is one question I really would like to know. Maybe their related to platypuses as they are also between mammal and reptile? No, probably some sort of alien invasion or godly whimsy. |
| Chyron |
Posted - 20 Jun 2006 : 05:53:09
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
That does sound good, but doing something like that wouldn't make money for Wizards...
That is true, I would not expect WOTC to go for that...I was thinking it would have to be something run by the gaming community at large...a massive and long undertaking (much like my wish for an online or software based Forgotten Realms Encyclopedia and New FR Atlas....ahhhh pipedreams  ).
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
I seem to remember kobolds being scaly and laying eggs, but also looking more doglike. So they lost some of the dogish traits and played up the egg laying and scaly thing more.
I remember Kobolds like this too...from the old 1st ed MM. Short, runty, good for fodder, but nasty in big numbers (*recalling the old Tucker's Kobolds article) I remember that the gold box Pool of Radiance game really captured well the Kobold Cave encounter, which featured everything listed in the MM right down to the giant boar pets that kobolds kept.
However since 3E where it seems that nearly everthing is upgradable...I sorta miss the days when kobolds were kobolds and skeletons were skeletons...now your kobolds can just as easily be 10th level barbarians...
|
| GothicDan |
Posted - 20 Jun 2006 : 05:41:51
I second Msatran's comments about kobolds. I always thought that Kobolds were kind of cool - the anti-gnomes. Now they're... Lizard sorcerers?
Where's my rat/dog-man with a stick with a scorpion on the end of it? |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 20 Jun 2006 : 05:13:50
It would definately be a new paradigm for marketing, but I'm not sure they are that dedicated to exploring new avenues, or perhaps, that Hasbro is sure enough to try this.
I seem to remember kobolds being scaly and laying eggs, but also looking more doglike. So they lost some of the dogish traits and played up the egg laying and scaly thing more.
Hm . . . I guess that old picture in the 1st edition DMG with the fight between the kobolds and the green dragon might really have been a family spat then, eh? |
| msatran |
Posted - 20 Jun 2006 : 05:03:03
Then maybe not. Now, maybe. Remember, if you can guarantee that Elminster's ecologies will sell a print run of 100,000, (And I guarantee you now it probably would)Hasbro will publish it.
But, changes to monsters? My big beef is, of course...THE KOBOLD!
When in god's name did these dog people suddenly become lizard people? And then, when did these lizard people become draconic people? Kobolds are NOT descended from Dragons. It's silly and gives them too much credit. (Sorry, Gwendolyn, but I preferred kobolds when they weren't related to the most powerful creature in the game.)
And as to downloadable monsters not making money for Wizards? Hey, Wooly, if Ipod can make money charging 99 cents per song, then Wizards can make money downloading 25 cents per new monster. Or wait for the next manual. Your choice. :)
I guarantee huge profits. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 20 Jun 2006 : 03:03:37
quote:
Originally posted by Chyron
What would be really neat is if there could be a community Monster Manual database similar to Wikipedia. You can just log on and go to the monster you want. Sorted by name or world. Entries could be official and include community edited version alongside for variation. No need to lug around your MM all the time...(or your old compendiums) just go online or print out the ones you need for the game.
That does sound good, but doing something like that wouldn't make money for Wizards... |
| Chyron |
Posted - 19 Jun 2006 : 19:05:38
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Why should we have to do this, though? The entire thrust of 3E seems to have been "make it killable, and if it doesn't pertain to killing it, it's not important." 3.x seems to be more of a hack and slash system, but many people here aren't interested in that.
Yap, I think so too...modules seem to build up the end boss mentality more and more. And monsters are just like stats on a card...hmmmmm, that seems familiar.
quote:
Besides, sometimes knowing how a monster lives or breeds can do a lot more for a DM than knowing it has these special attacks and a reach of so many feet.
Bring back Elminster's Ecologies..... 
quote:
Lastly, WotC and TSR before them have constantly produced new monsters. It doesn't do any good to rely on older material if a particular critter has never even been mentioned before.
What would be really neat is if there could be a community Monster Manual database similar to Wikipedia. You can just log on and go to the monster you want. Sorted by name or world. Entries could be official and include community edited version alongside for variation. No need to lug around your MM all the time...(or your old compendiums) just go online or print out the ones you need for the game. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 19 Jun 2006 : 17:37:16
quote:
Originally posted by Ergdusch
I have to disagree here! Everyone complaining about being fan of 2nd Ed. monster discriptions - why don't you refer to the old material for cross-references. The behaviour and habbits of monsters will most like not have changed just because we went from 2nd Ed to 3rd to 3.5th Ed. For all of those that cannot make this cross-reference because they don't have the books at hand - use the little that is given and
YOUR IMAGNATION!
and be happy to be free to create your own baackround for monsters as you (should) do for NPC villians as well.
Ergdusch
Why should we have to do this, though? The entire thrust of 3E seems to have been "make it killable, and if it doesn't pertain to killing it, it's not important." 3.x seems to be more of a hack and slash system, but many people here aren't interested in that. Besides, sometimes knowing how a monster lives or breeds can do a lot more for a DM than knowing it has these special attacks and a reach of so many feet.
And, as you yourself have proven from your questions about Sammaster, sometimes people don't have access to certain older resources, and/or they'd like to have the official material at hand, instead of just winging it.
Even if a person does have the older stuff, do you realize just how much of it was produced? Just for the loose-leaf Monstrous Compendiums (not included the Annuals and the volumes that weren't loose-leaf), there's over a dozen products to go thru. I'd not want to lug around all of that stuff to back up a single 3.x tome, just because the latter source wasn't complete.
Lastly, WotC and TSR before them have constantly produced new monsters. It doesn't do any good to rely on older material if a particular critter has never even been mentioned before. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 19 Jun 2006 : 17:29:58
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
quote:
Originally posted by Ergdusch
I have to disagree here! Everyone complaining about being fan of 2nd Ed. monster discriptions - why don't you refer to the old material for cross-references. The behaviour and habbits of monsters will most like not have changed just because we went from 2nd Ed to 3rd to 3.5th Ed. For all of those that cannot make this cross-reference because they don't have the books at hand - use the little that is given and
YOUR IMAGNATION!
and be happy to be free to create your own background for monsters as you (should) do for NPC villains as well.
Why use a official campaign-setting, why use other peoples npc's, why use published lore at all? Well, for one reason the world and everything in it interests me and I want to see how a creature lives and works in that world. I can make up all of this myself, but I like the Realms and I want to see how something fits in.
Exactly and some monsters from 2e have been changed and so have thier habitats, etc. So if I'm going to use a reference to a 3/3.5e version, I might look at the lore about them and then decide if I like it or not and if I don't then I'll look back at the 1e and 2e lore about the creature, if the creature existed in 1e/2e. |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 19 Jun 2006 : 15:43:02
There is already so much crossreferencing to do, why not spoil us a little? We haven't been spoiled in a long while... that would actually require a marketing department to check for what players/DMs want/need. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 19 Jun 2006 : 13:29:06
quote:
Originally posted by Ergdusch
I have to disagree here! Everyone complaining about being fan of 2nd Ed. monster discriptions - why don't you refer to the old material for cross-references. The behaviour and habbits of monsters will most like not have changed just because we went from 2nd Ed to 3rd to 3.5th Ed. For all of those that cannot make this cross-reference because they don't have the books at hand - use the little that is given and
YOUR IMAGNATION!
and be happy to be free to create your own background for monsters as you (should) do for NPC villains as well.
Why use a official campaign-setting, why use other peoples npc's, why use published lore at all? Well, for one reason the world and everything in it interests me and I want to see how a creature lives and works in that world. I can make up all of this myself, but I like the Realms and I want to see how something fits in. |
| Ergdusch |
Posted - 19 Jun 2006 : 13:13:44
I have to disagree here! Everyone complaining about being fan of 2nd Ed. monster discriptions - why don't you refer to the old material for cross-references. The behaviour and habbits of monsters will most like not have changed just because we went from 2nd Ed to 3rd to 3.5th Ed. For all of those that cannot make this cross-reference because they don't have the books at hand - use the little that is given and
YOUR IMAGNATION!
and be happy to be free to create your own baackround for monsters as you (should) do for NPC villians as well.
Ergdusch
|
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 10 Mar 2006 : 07:30:36
quote:
Originally posted by EytanBernstein
Because the recent Monster Manuals have included information about the monsters in FR (as well as Eberron), I doubt there is much impetus to create a large hardcover FR monster book. There are monsters scattered throughout most of the 3.5 FR manuals though.
It would still be nice to know more about setting specific monsters in terms of society etc. I agree with the previous posters that merely providing stats provides only the barest of frameworks for a DM fo rwork with.
Unless of course, the DM basically creates hack'n'slash areas, in which case these stat blocks are just the thing to use.
Mace (who should really head to work now) |
| EytanBernstein |
Posted - 10 Mar 2006 : 03:47:00
Because the recent Monster Manuals have included information about the monsters in FR (as well as Eberron), I doubt there is much impetus to create a large hardcover FR monster book. There are monsters scattered throughout most of the 3.5 FR manuals though. |
| Scot Storm |
Posted - 10 Mar 2006 : 00:00:55
Yes Iam also a fan of 2e monsters too because that is what I grew up too. In fact The Monster Compendium I and II had large write ups like Wooly was talking about.You could almost put together a story about any race that was mentioned and it seemed like my imagination ran wilder than now hmmph. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 27 Jan 2006 : 23:15:56
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
It would be an opportunity to restore the lore missing from a lot of recent monster write-ups.
That's a good point. That was one of the things I loved about 2E, and hate about 3E. In 2E, monsters were more than their stats. They had societies, mating rituals, preferred foods, and organs that could be used for nifty things after the critter was slain. Every monster had a full-page write-up, and many had longer write-ups.
3E went backwards, back to the days of 1E monsters. No society, no notable behaviors... It's like 3E monsters just sit around, waiting to be slain. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 27 Jan 2006 : 20:13:00
It would be an opportunity to restore the lore missing from a lot of recent monster write-ups. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 27 Jan 2006 : 17:07:45
I believe what you are referring to is the Realms Bestiary, Volume 1 by Eric L. Boyd and Thomas M. Costa. It's a very good resource, and some of the monsters have since appeared in canon sources.
As for a hardcover Realms monster book, I'd buy it, but I'd not be eager to do so if it was just an update of 3.0 monsters. |
