Lady Aurora's page

Chriton227,

Thanks so much for the heads-up! Thanks also for pointing me toward the website. I figured such a place existed but hadn't been able to track it down yet.

I have the 3ed core books but not the 3.5 so I'm sure this information is probably clearly available for everyone else. But could someone just clue me in on this one simple question -
one of the NPCs is described as possessing a "Robe of Bones (full)". What exactly is a robe of bones, and what does it do?

I'm also looking forward to adding some flavor to the swamp trek, but rather than throwing some more monster cannon fodder at the poor PCs - I'm going for a bit more window-dressing.
Something along the lines of quaking bogs, distant dancing lights (not an actual will-o-wisp), quicksand (maybe disguised as mud, and more like black ooze) and constantly hampering swarms of insects which slow travel, limit sight, and threaten distraction. None of these is likely to drain any hit points from the characters (unless some poor soul actually drowns in the black ooze) but they give the PCs a challenge and allow druids/rangers a chance to use some brain power or finesse. I'm also considering having some decrepit rope bridge over bubbling mist-shrouded bog water. Let the PCs sweat but the fact is, outside of some creaking and swinging, the bridge is completely capable of holding the traveler's weight; the water is harmless (as long as you don't get it in your mouth) and only about waist deep. The presence of the bridge is sure to make them nervous though and it'll be fun to see what clever crossing strategies they come up with. Maybe I'll add a small 2 person rowboat with a hole in the bottom, partially submerged near the entrance to the bridge - just to give them another possible tool for crossing the "dangerous" misty waters!

Not only does it take time for the whirlwind to transport a "victim" from the bottom of the cone to the top and eject him, but don't forget the victim doesn't instantly hit the ground. It takes a bit of time to plummet screaming to the pavement. There have been Sage Advice questions in the past about how long it actually takes for a character to fall from a "decent" height. I'm not ready to swear to this, but I think the answer was that the default time is a full round. So under those guidelines, regardless of how fast the djinn whirlwind was becomes moot - it wouldn't be any benefit to try to pluck a victim up before he's actually hit the ground (snatching him in mid-air might be a neat trick but there's probably minimal/no damage to the victim that way - unless you count mental distress!!).
Anyway, just something else to consider.

I agree with Tatterdemalion. Use of templates is often illogical and they shouldn't just be handed out like candy. I also agree that they are often just a tool to advance powergaming, which, of course, upsets game balance.
This concept of "well, if the players are determined to have it, you have to let them" is complete crap. Who's running this game anyway?
I think it's the worst kind of playing to allow anything and everything just because it appears in some sourcebook (or worse, some article) somewhere. D&D is all about options but taking all of them, or even most of them, just leads to an illogical, unbalanced game and a host of problems. Even if a game mechanic/rule/option appears in one of WOTC's core books doesn't mean that the players automatically have some "right" to claim it. Everything is subject to the DM's perogative.
There are no bad players, just poor DMs.

I think the leadership feat is yet another example of how versions 3.0 & 3.5 constantly create problems and then later are forced to impliment complex systems to fix the problems (or worse, force DMs to untangle the mess). It's like the overmedication of our elderly, for crying out loud!
I believe WOTC created the leadership feat as a way to curb the large-scale usage of followers/henchmen by the average PC so that the whole thing didn't get out of control (which I wasn't aware has ever been a problem until now), instead they succeeded in creating the very problem they sought to avoid. If characters are going to spend a hard-earned feat, they sure as h*** are going to use it. This just motivates PCs to squeeze every possible advantage out of their followers and creates the kind of headaches the original poster complained about. This requirement is not enforced on NPCs because WOTC figured no DM in his right mind is going to waste time with endless underlings and thereby rob their cool villian of the spotlight.
Still, now they have created this problem and it won't be easy to fix. You can't unring a bell so changing leadership to a non-feat option for those who've already played it in its newest version probably will do little to alleviate stress and trouble. Once a DM finds him/herself in this quagmire, its best to use tactics like those described in the thread above. Those DMs who haven't encountered this as a problem, remove the leadership feat while there's still time or risk going screaming into the night!
Thanks again, WOTC!

I agree with Great Green God (and the other posters). I find DMing Speak with Animals as kinda fun. You get to describe things STRICTLY from an animal's perspective. I agree that animals are largely unintelligent and certainly have no capacity to judge motivations or "feelings". IRL, people from a particular race generally perceive people of a different race as "all looking alike". Why should it be different for animals viewing a different species? All humanoids are going to be perceived as largely the same (you might mention a different smell or size, but otherwise - two legged ones pretty much sums it up). Birds are going to talk mostly about colors and "shiny things", and movement (things they generally pay attention too) while wolves will talk mostly about smell. Vultures are greedy scavengers so I'm betting the majority of a conversation with such a creature would center on how much carrion is available in said dungeon. Informing PCs that the local vulture has a steady diet of blood and guts (possibly with spicy variety included in the daily menu) isn't going to spell out what exactly lies ahead, but it'll cause PCs to tighten their grips on their weapons! I love it!

My wife came up with a pretty good one last night (although most people probably don't have the resources to replicate it). She used the cake plates (they probably have some official term but I don't know what it is) that belong to the top tier of our wedding cake. The columns are cool and the white platforms can be clouds from a cloud giant's home (which they represented in my wife's game) or just the upper level of some columned prommenade. They come in various sizes (the platform plates and the height & design of the columns). My wife decorates cakes from time to time so we also have clear posts and I'm thinking right now that they'll work great as "water columns", waterfalls, or even the column of air from AOW.

Sounds to me like you have a problem of MIN/MAXing just in reverse. Rather than hack & slash and powerplay (which clearly it appears your PCs have been doing), the pendulum has now swung to the full opposite extreme and all they want to do is deep intrigue, behind-the-scenes, in-depth personal stuff.
My first advice is - absolutely DO NOT abolish the leadership feat in an effort to curb your players behavior. I firmly believe what they are currently experiencing is a phase, one in which they will likely quickly tire of in not too much time. This clearly is not your personal style of play but humor them for at least one campaign and if they still insist, then you need to revisit your options at that point (like discontinuing being their DM for a while or something).
I personally don't believe you'll have to ever go that far. I mean, you asked the question and you gave the answer at the same time. You have this epic level super-hero who doesn't actually ever get to adventure because he's so busy with the details of his empire. That sounds more like HIS problem than yours. The ranger/fighter can't logically travel anywhere with this troupe of mercenaries he insists on dragging along - EXACTLY! That's going to get real old, real fast! If the players want to play these traveling hordes and armies of followers, don't prevent them from doing so - punish them by LETTING them do so. A session or two of them having to go through the logistics of deciding the behavior/actions of what amounts to a dozen or more NPCs and they'll quickly be pleading for mercy. If they each want a ship with full compliment and crew to adventure in your up-coming high seas campaign, let the others at the table sit with twiddling thumbs while player number one goes through the 15 minute explanation (and die rolling) required to complete his "actions" for that round, then onto player two, and number three ... and so on. The tedium will quickly convince everyone involved that having just one character a piece is truly the way to go!
Like the saying goes "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it!".
Give them what they're asking for and they'll soon be asking for the kind of game that you personally prefer anyway. But give them a chance to sample the grass on the other side or else they'll resent you for being an oppressive DM.

I'm not trying to hi-jack this thread and side-track it into a debate about my personal xp reward system, but I do feel compelled to somewhat defend myself here.
I appreciate both Jeremy and Steve's remarks and certainly respect your opinions. In all fairness, I think perhaps I didn't describe my reward system properly because I'm not sure you guys are fully grasping its finer points.
To Jeremy I say ... I run a very cut-throat campaign and, as per your example, many of the characters regularly die (this includes a healthy percentage of clerics,rogues and wizards). I understand what you're saying about saving specialty attacks until the most opportune moment (what you refer to as "good play") but I disagree that involving one's character in encounters outside their comfort zone or specific design niche is "bad play". I designed my reward system to specifically prompt players to find creative ways to involve their characters in every encounter - that doesn't mean standing toe-to-toe with some hulking brute in what amounts to a suicide battle, it means coming up with creative ways to involve yourself: maybe distract the bad guy from a distance, use a non-combat/non-healing spell in some helpful way, aid others in the skills that they excell at (and be able to rely on help from others when it comes to your time in the spotlight). I don't regard this as bad play, I regard it as good play - good TEAM play.
Steve, I know you were attempting to be sarcastic but in truth, I do reward PCs for doing the things you describe (essentially for playing their characters the way they were intended) and give extra bonuses for using their characters outside of their usual roles (sort of an "above and beyond the call of duty" kind of reward). I guess I just view the whole thing as working for your supper. It's not enough to hang out and only step in when you are specifically needed, you need to constantly be considering how to involve yourself in every situation - often outside of the obvious. I'm sorry if you have had negative experiences under a similar situation. Thank you for sharing your views.
With all due respect to both of you, I still think my system is the most fair and equitable, encouraging good role-playing and creative problem-solving. The good thing about D&D is, though, that everyone is free to do things their own way. I'm glad your way works well for you.

Jeremy,

My thoughts exactly (about the fighter almost always being in harm's way). My xp division system provides motivation to be a fighter in the first place. It also motivates the rogue and/or the wizard to do something other than hang in the back (since they're typically weak in a toe-to-toe fight). If a player wants to earn experience (at least at a decent rate) then he/she better come up with some creative ways to get their character involved. Clerics in my world better have something other than just medical skills on hand. The cleric earns experience for casting healing spells (or any spells - so does the wizard) but he/she needs to be prepared to be fully involved in every encounter or quickly find themselves levels behind everyone else.
I'm curious to what is the possible explanation for a fighter who is basically alone, up front, hacking and slashing (and taking like abuse from his foe) to simply step aside when the battle is over and let the thief who's been hiding in the back watching the entire affair now step forward and collect all the booty.
If, as a player, I know my character will recieve the same xp just by being "present" during an encounter, why the h*** would I risk constant death by playing a fighter or some other class that is constantly in harm's way?

I'll be running it in a home-brew that has existed for 20 years and is largely based on Greyhawk (it even contains the Free City and the Cairn Hills already).
I'm not a big one for pre-packaged campaigns but a person has to start somewhere ... so I started with Greyhawk and just adjusted some populations/politics to my own liking. The pantheon and powerful NPCs, along with the bulk of the countries and geography are included (though most are at least partially modified).
Greyhawk rocks! and should be given more attention and support by the powers that be, IMO.
The only reason I don't use it "as is" is because it mildly insults my intelligence as a DM to have to fully rely on someone else's ideas and imagination (even if that person is brilliant), so I personalize every single aspect of the game. From soup to nuts, I've put a little of my own flavor in everything.
So major kudos to Paizo for adding the conversion notes (though with Greyhawk, conversion is minimal) so every DM can adjust every adventure. I believe that's how it really should be.

We use flaws in my campaign but more often than not, I make up my own (as the DM) for the players to choose from. Maintaining game balance is incredibly simple (and I've entered the debate about reducing MIN/MAXing in other threads) ... just because Paizo or WOTC or whoever presents the rules a certain way, doesn't mean the DM is required to use a game mechanic that exact way. In terms of maintaining game balance I simply require a detailed and plausible explanation to why a character would possess a specific flaw and/or feat. The two must be related and the advantage gained by the feat must be exactly equal or less than the penalty accrued by the flaw. I, the DM and ultimate authority in my universe, am at sole discretion to refuse any suggested flaw/feat exchange or sometimes - the player can choose the feat gained but I (as DM) get to choose which flaw they must suffer with in exchange (which is great fun, of course).
I think the whole concept of flaws adds wonderful flavor and inspires great role-playing opportunities.

I'm actually Sir Marcus's wife - just hi-jacking his post to give a female opinion...
My vote goes to lizardmen, not this silly "folk" stuff. All this politically correct gender-correction stuff really rubs me the wrong way. It's like "letter-carriers" versus "mailmen". This is so insulting - like a woman can't use that lump of grey matter within her skull to use a masculine term without taking personal offense or automatically assuming it is some complex covert plot to subvert women everywhere and prevent them from expanding their career opportunities. Like if a person uses the term "lizardman" one must automatically assume only males exist (which is obviously impossible anyway). Not only does "lizardfolk" sound corny, IMO, but it's hard to make anything containing the suffix "-folk" sound terribly menacing or dangerous. I agree with previous posts, "folk" sounds like people you meet at a hoe-down or something.
What's next - the "boogie-person"?

I'm sure Jeremy is right about the "official" answer to your question. IMC, we do things slightly differently. I divide the XP value of everything (monsters, traps, whatever) and half the value is awarded to the group regardless of their individual participation (as clearly the powers that be intend it to be) but the other half is divided only amongst player characters who actually get their hands "dirty". This seems much more fair and equitable to me personally. If your rogue is the one responsible for literally risking life and limb by attempting to disarm a trap (and will therefore take the brunt of damage should he fail his attempt), then the rogue should gain a bigger "piece of the xp pie" when the trap is "overcome" (either by successfully disarming or painfully setting it off). Someone who's just hanging out in the back ranks saying, "Yeah, good idea, Bishop should go" while somewhat "experiencing" the occassion (and therefore earning their piece of the half xps) is not deserving, in my opinion, of an equal share. In my campaign, rewards are completely dependent on risk. NO FREE LUNCHES!!

I agree with Jeremy MacDonald's last post. In fact, I'm a little freaked out by how much of my own history with D&D has evolved along with the game (as he described in his post). When I started out with 1st Edition, my characters existed with their entire life's ambition to troop from one illogical dungeon to the next (with big bad guys and nasty traps behind each isolated and locked door), slaying the bad guys and scooping up the loot. With 2nd Ed. we were re-educated to really search for our characters' motivations and personal goals. My top character was, at the time, a paladin who did little other than involve himself in the endless minutia of governing his fifedom and enduring all the personal & political intrigue one can encounter when barely leaving one's own castle steps. As I've said in past posts, I personally have not adopted the 3rd Edition rules and playing style (although my campaign borrows heavily from some of 3rd Ed's finer points). I personally view 3rd Edition, 3.5 (and the inevitable 4th Edition which can't be too far in our future) as attempts to morph the game into something more appealing to the current video game/computer program generation of today (not that there's anything wrong with WOTC's adaptation - it just doesn't appeal to me personally). The beauty of this game is that it is intended to be personalized and customized by each player and DM. I personally do not require some $30 hardcover book to tell me how to design or run my campaigns. If some rule or game mechanic seems illogical or overpowered or complicated, I drop it like third period French! If I can personally come up with some rule or game mechanic that simplifies or adds excitement to the game, it's a done deal before it's barely put to paper.
The people I play with are a small but devoted group. The fun of today's game is that we can develop characters who are unique and colorful, with real talents and foibles, logical motivations and goals, that have the opportunity to slay the dragon and rescue the perverbial princess, climb aboard a ship and explore the seven seas, uncover and thwart the evil schemes of the king's traitorous advisor, and perhaps also marry the basketweaver's daughter and have a family to come home to when the day is done. A happy mix of all the possibilities (and use of brain, brawn, AND heart) makes the latest (and hopefully future) gaming materials the best yet.

I know the different DMing styles have been discussed at length in the Magazines and other forums. I also recognize it's a bit off topic for this thread, but I thought I'd throw my two coppers worth in anyway.
I'm glad Airwalkrr's problems seem to be behind him but despite the player behavior he viewed as immature or undesirable, it's important to remember that the DM sets the tone and ultimately decides what does and does not exist in his/her world.
I disagree that the rules run the game and the DM is merely an instrument of those rules. The DM is creator and controller of his/her multiverse and can likewise choose which rules to include and which to disregard. Players who want to enjoy various races,classes, rules, or options from any d20 source (including the core books) need to first ensure that they are available in this DM's unique campaign.
Personally, I have intense feelings against the idea of a DM "fudging" rolls or stealing/destroying treasure or weapons that he/she allowed to enter the game in the first place! Even if this "furthers the storyline", I personally believe it violates the spirit and intent of the game. DnD is about fun but everything must be tempered,IMO, with fairness. I personally never fudge a roll or save a character/NPC. Yes, sometimes this leads to disappointment (both on my side as DM and the player's side when a favorite character dies). Yes, once I spent hours creating this awesome NPC baddie that through a fluke of the dice roll was anihilated in 2 rounds without ever striking a single blow. I was bummed!! But as Medesa said in her example, the joy is in the danger and in the PC's faith that they (and the dice) control their character's destiny (and that of their enemies as well). It provides the danger, uncertainty, and exuberance in an honest victory that makes D&D superior to any other game.

Dollar store bag 'o' toys are great. Silly string can have a number of applications. I also use play-do or pudding in a zip-lock sandwich bag for oozes/jellies,etc. Cheese-cloth also has a large number of applications (it can be cut, dampened, sprayed with starch and left to dry - instant shapes!). Small pom-poms make great fireballs or minute meteors.
One of the best creations I ever did was building a cube out of toothpicks and Saran Wrap for a gelatinous cube. I only built it with 5 sides so I could set it on top of a miniature character and voila - you've been ingested!

IMC, we also use "hero points" which work sorta like limited wish. When a character does something particularly clever or heroic, he may earn a hero point. A character may never have more than one hero point at a time (this is never really an issue since they are only rarely awarded). The PC can then cash in his/her hero point at a later date. The players love this system and it adds a lot of flavor to the game.
For instance, once a desperate unarmed character threw himself off a ledge onto a small cluster of gnolls that were about to polish off his severely wounded companion. The chaos that ensued was hysterical (and, amazingly, largely successful!). He was awarded a hero point for his selfless act. A few sessions later the party was in desperate shape again and the character with the hero point ended up the last man standing after a particularly vicious battle. He was hovering on unconsciousness and losing a hit point/rd because of a special wound he had received. He cashed in his hero point to stay conscious and active despite negative hit points (until -10 when he would theoretically drop dead). Anyway, he survived (and thusly, so did the storyline). It was great fun.
Do other people use hero points too?

Flava,
I am totally with you about the whole xp loss issue. I fully support your xp point gain for crafting items theory, in fact I use an almost identical system in my campaign. I really like your "sickness" system and will no doubt adopt some of its finer features as my own! On a personal note, I respect your views and "sticking to your guns" about your own opinions on this topic vs. "constructive criticism"
As I mentioned in my house rules post, I convert almost everything (especially feats) to a percentage roll. First a PC must choose the appropriate feat (or NWP, in my world). The chance of success starts at 10% and improves just one point with each attempt. A failed attempt to craft any item (from magical to mundane)results in experience points earned but total loss of raw materials (including gold pieces). The character earns experience whether they succeed or not (though obviously more for success) because a person learns SOMETHING - even if it's only what NOT to do! How much a character succeeds by when rolling the skill check determines the quality of the work done (this system also works for musical performances and artwork). Anything IMC that requires a "check" roll results in xps earned (as determined by the DM).
Anyway, this percentage system prevents the problems others have mentioned regarding whipping off 20 wands or creating countless potions at low levels or causing any game imbalance. The cost of materials alone is prohibitive especially considering the vast majority of early attempts will result in failures. Also, more difficult or high level magic items would have appropriate percentage penalties (5 to 10% difficulty challenge for medium level items and 20% and up for high level or epic level items/artifacts). With my system even a first level crafter could get lucky (with minor items) and a high level crafter can still fail (although this is logically less likely). After exceeding 75% chance of success in any skill/feat, characters have the option of becoming instructors and passing along their talents or aid others in making their skill checks. This is useful for one character to help or instruct a party member since I require a plausible excuse for any feat chosen by advancing characters (or newly created ones for that matter).
I also require all characters to "study" for a number of weeks equal to each higher level gained. For example, a character moving up from 9th level to 10th, would need to spend 10 weeks in "training". This training period is rarely role-played out but it often provides "down-time" for PCs whose characters have not gone up a level. This provides the perfect opportunity for characters to practice their crafts/trades. I have a character that retreats to his blacksmith shop during down times and hones his skills (while hopefully earning both experience and some extra coinage as well).
If there is a flaw in my scheme it is this ... all the money, time, and effort required to raise your skill/feat percentage to any kind of reasonable chance of success tends to discourage PCs from choosing "Craft" skills/feats in the first place - forcing them to rely on the capricious nature of random magic items. But PCs who have an interest or motivation to learn any craft or trade have almost limitless possibilities and creative opportunities.
Anyway, that's just my thoughts on the matter.

I have an extremely complicated web of house rules (we play 2nd Ed. rules with some 3rd & 3.5 modifications) but I will share some that are mostly along the same lines as have been previously discussed.

A natural 1 is a "flub" and we use a "flub" chart - though I have just "acquired" some quirky additions from those listed here. (Thanks!)

Maximum hit points at first level and the choice to roll for a "natural boon or bane". 50/50 chance and then I have charts of natural positive and negative traits that are gained in this manner. I do like the mention of justifiable flaws and feat opportunities at upper levels (I'll probably incorporate that into my long-running campaign world soon). Upon character creation (and everybody MUST start at 1st level), adventurers receive their choice of any non-magical item listed in the PHB as a "family heirloom" for which they do not have to pay from their starting money.

I keep meticulous track of each player's experience points which they earn for combat prowess, clever strategies, use of "non-weapon proficiencies", spell casting (100 xp/spell lvl), treasure acquired, ad hoc story bonuses, etc. Half of a creature's experience value is granted automatically to every PC who "engages" the creature for the first time. The PCs keep a "monsters encountered" list that helps expedite this process. This XP "bonus" seems logical to me because a person would learn the most/gain the most insight when engaging an enemy for the first time. The remaining half of a creature's xp value is divided according to hit points and granted to the characters as they damage the creature. An extra xp bonus is granted to the character responsible for the "killing blow". It sounds a lot more complicated than it really is. My players love this system because it motivates them to get their characters involved in each encounter.

There is no permanent loss of experience points for any character EVER.

What the newer editions call class skills, I call by their old name - "non-weapon proficiencies". These are acquired in the 2nd Ed. prescribed manner but in my game they are always in the form of percentage points. Players must first justify how their character learned each proficiency. Once the DM is satisfied, they start with just 10% chance at success (I grant 20% for proficiencies/skills started at the beginning/character creation). Each time a character attempts to use his/her skill (whether successful or not), he/she gains one point of proficiency (10% chance become 11% for next time) and appropriate experience points are awarded. No character can improve above 98% for original skills and 95% for skills gained after character creation - nobody's perfect!! This system, I believe, is far superior to any official D&D system as it prevents low level characters from being more skilled than high level characters without proportional experience, motivates players toward creative role-playing, requires players to choose skills carefully and logically, and inspires use of all available skills. For example, PCs can't just acquire swimming, horsemanship, or blind fighting because it will come in handy sometime in the future. Without practice, when the lights go out, even a 15th level fighter with blind fighting proficiency can't hit the broad side of a barn. Conversely, a 3rd level character who has spent months in a subterranean environment with little or no available light, will be a force to reckon with despite the lantern's demise during the barroom brawl.

I have adapted the way the thieves' skills (or ranger, etc) work in a similar manner. If a character earns say, 15 points per level, toward the pick pocket, open locks, hide in shadows, find & remove traps,and other class skills then those points should only be applied logically. Therefore, in my world, little tally marks are kept above each thief's skill and when that character gains a level - points are only awarded for skills actually used within that time frame. How can a thief's (or rogue for you 3rd Ed players) have his pick pocketing skills improve when he has spent the last 6 months in an isolated wilderness? A character who regularly disarms traps should logically have a better chance at success, regardless of level, than another who has rarely/if ever encountered a trap in his/her entire life!

I am personally opposed to any rules that I regard as illogical (even "official" D&D rules) or that inspire laziness on the part of the DM or the players.

I realize this discussion died down quite a while ago, but I just wanted to add my two cents: I don't like the Wil Save article. If the reader wants personal insight and out-of-game comments & opinions, we have those great editorials. I agree that I don't want or need to be "entertained" in my DUNGEON. I would rather be informed and inspired. DRAGON said it completely retooled its Ecology articles (a personal favorite of mine) because the past style was more "fluff and entertainment" than useful, practical, or informative. As much as I enjoyed reading past Ecology articles, I like the new form too (perhaps, ...gulp ... even better) because of their clear practicality. But if the writers recognized the trouble with Ecology, why are they so resistant towards a more critical eyeing of Wil Save? I'm not saying he doesn't do a good job writing. I'm just saying (under the original who cares sentiment) that perhaps his writing would be better devoted to more practical matters. I'd be happy to see the current article style vanish.

The wonder of the game is that anyone can do whatever they want, but personally I think this sort of thing is exactly what's wrong with the game today. Do we really need new monsters (or a billion variants to the huge number of monsters already in existance)? The medusa is a classic and she's wonderful and versatile just the way she is. If people are looking for variety and "spice", why not just develop different medusas with unique skills, feats, and personalities? With a little imagination there are plenty of situations that would make interesting "twists" to this classic.
And are you really suggesting that giants and similar humanoids are not challenging or interesting enough on their own? I've been playing and DMing for over twenty-five years now and haven't even gotten close to using up the original monsters or their classic adaptations.