CurseTheseMetalHands's page

8 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


I really wish we could get an 'actual size' comparison between these three bugbears, the Bugbear Tyrant and the Bugbear Warrior from Legends of Golarian, bwcause it looks like the scale is just all over the place and that's a HUGE turn off for me and one of the reasons I started losing interest in the old D&D miniatures.

I mean, I get that there will be height and build differences among all member of a species, but come on! The Bugbear Warrior was very nearly a large, whereas that Bugbear Flesh Glutton looks to be about the size of a dwarf (or smaller, going by the gallery images) - something I could almost accept for the Bugbear Mystic, a runt who had to turn to magic because he'd never cut it as a brute force fighter, but I expect warrior classes to be more...beefy.

That issue aside, I'm really liking these creature groupings, and if this is a sign of things to come, I can't wait for the next set that's, hopefully, sans townsfolk. A set with clusters of lizardmen, serpentfolk, drow and maybe even a revisiting of the Sea Devils (preferably as some commons this time!) might prompt my first pre-order ever.

DropBearHunter wrote:
CurseTheseMetalHands wrote:
Two horses is plenty bad enough, but if there turns out to be two dancers in this set as well...

I think you missed the joke I was making there.

Edit: see my next post for details

Also, that drumming ginger had better not be common.
a common playing bag pipes is an entirely different matter ;-)

Argh! Don't give them any ideas! I'm not planning a "12 Days of Christmas theme" for my campaign; I'm trying to make peace with the notion of having drummers drumming and ladies dancing, but I'll be damned if I accept bagpipers piping! And if there's a milkmaid or a lord in a leaping pose anywhere in this set? My wrath will not be contained.

Two horses is plenty bad enough, but if there turns out to be two dancers in this set as well...the sort of language required to adequately express my distaste for the very idea would quickly get me banned from here, so I'll just choke down my rage and say I really hope that doesn't come to pass.

Also, that drumming ginger had better not be common.

The Farmer is worlds better than the old D&D Human Commoner (not that that figure set the bar very high), and it should serve as excellent sword meat for marauders to cut down.

The Gorgon...meh. It's a fine sculpt, but I've never been a fan of the monster itself. Guess I can always paint it gold or shades of stone to make it into dressing for a temple or something.

The Bunyip is weird. But I dig it. Freaky is always welcome in my campaigns.

And now we've seem almost all the commons. Gotta say, aside from the Dancing Girl and Serving Girl (both of which would've been better as uncommon), I'm pretty satisfied on that front. Now I want to see more of the large uncommons (since those are almost always the best pieces in every set) and the rest of the dungeon dressing.

Marco Massoudi wrote:
Good news for these people: in February 2016 Wizards of the Coast will release the fourth "Icons of the Realms" set with the title "Monster Menagerie". This set will almost exclusively include "real monsters" (the Gargantuan mini is a Treant). ;-)

That would be good news if I didn't find the majority of D&D sculpts to be utterly abysmal, especially when compared to the Pathfinder line. The D&D Elementals are an embarrassment, the Ogre looks bargain bin toy awful, the Djinn and Efreet are painfully uninspired and lacking in flair, and that Troll, while it matches the artwork, just looks lanky and emaciated. Though, I will say that the Roper looks so freakin' perfect, if there's any chance it turns out to be uncommon (which, of course, it won't), I'd buy a case just for that figure. Well, the Roper, the Beholder and the Mind Flayer.

And, for me, the thought of a Gargantuan Treant is no incentive. I'd much prefer a Gargantuan Hydra or Kraken.

Personally i have begun to buy Dwarven Forge 3D terrain and hope Paizo goes into that direction too.

From my understanding, we're not likely to ever see terrain pieces or dungeon dressing sold as packs or individual pieces that don't first appear in the standard randomized sets. I don't understand the economics of it, but the consensus seems to be that it wouldn't be profitable. But it's also somewhat irrelevant, because there are companies like Dwarven Forge, Reaper and others who either already sell terrain and dressing pieces or are steadily making more and more of those sort of items available to the people who want them. Plus, new Kickstarters for similar products will continue to pop up as long as there's a demand for them. So, those of us who want terrain/dressing pieces, we have options, regardless of whether or not Paizo makes a serious push into that area of the market.

Another horse? Seriously? Couldn't put a horn on it, or some wings, or some snazzy "we won't charge you extra for our horse armor" armor?

And, yeah, that Cutpurse has some weird Elastic Man thing happening with his arms. It's kinda creepin' me out.

Though, that sweet Kobold Devilspeaker mostly makes up for it. Mostly.

The Rusty Dragon Inn set should've been a set that focused solely on Townsfolk and Dungeon Dressing. I'm actually a fan of the dungeon dressing pieces - though, not the ones that have been revealed thus far for this set - but I really resent them taking up a monster slot. Plus, with only six pieces per set, it kills me to see any of them miss the mark, like the Cart and Wagon. I mean, they aren't horrible or completely useless pieces, but they'd be way less of a disappointment in a set that contained, say, 20ish dungeon dressing pieces. And maybe if they weren't rare; okay, the sculpt is probably complex, what with the wagon wheels, but we all know they're just going to be painted a flat brown and, for a rare, that's unacceptable.

Also, speaking of rares, dungeon dressing needs to come in varying rarities. The Chest in Dungeons Deep was rare but the Mimic was uncommon? When would I ever need more Mimics than chests? The Bubbling Cauldron, Iron Maiden and Sarcophagus were appropriate rares, while the Chest and Brazier should've been uncommon. The Anghazan Idol could've gone in either rarity. Stuff like barrels, crates, tombstones, broken pillars and similar simple sculpts requiring limited paint jobs would all be great commons - because they aren't complex and they're all things one might hope to get 4-6 of when buying a case. And more complex stuff, like a town square fountain complete with translucent blue plastic for water, wicked looking thrones made of dragon bones and teeth, an alchemist's table covered in beakers and bottles and glittering crystals, and an ornate altar to a forgotten god would be appropriate - and awesome - rares. And uncommons could be stuff like a large-sized table (what's a tavern setting with no tables for people to sit at?), and a DDM-styled Arcane Portal, and large bookcases lined with books. There's certainly ideas enough to warrant a set with more than a mere 6 dungeon dressing pieces and rarities for those pieces other than just rare.

And Townsfolk don't have to be useless non-combatants. Sure, you'll get stuff like the Serving Girl, Dancing Girl and Merchant, but the Pious Guard, Guard, City Watch Commander and even Half-Elf Bard would fit into the same set. Because 'townsfolk, to me, refers to anyone you might find in and around a town or city. A Filthy Beggar, a Doomsayer, a Farmer, a Sellsword, a Dark Alley Rogue, a Shepherd, a Town Mayor, a Butcher... Even animals, like the Draft Horse and Riding Dog, could be part of the set. Livestock, pets and vermin. Maybe you aren't keen on the uncommon Cow or rare White Stag, but the common rat and common spider could definitely find a home in your game, or some of the pets are ideal animal companions.

You could easily get a 50-figure set focusing on Townsfolk and Dungeon Dressing. And you could probably put one of those sets out every 18 months or so (one a year would be too many). Provided, of course, the sales of such a set matched the more monster-and-NPC focused sets. And if the sales were abysmal? Well, I think that'd a pretty clear statement that those sort of miniatures just aren't all that desirable by the masses and, as such, probably shouldn't be shoehorned into regular sets either, lest you diminish the overall appeal and damage sales of those sets as well.

Spiders! There haven't been any proper spider miniatures since the Heroes & Monsters set, and the Large one was rare. How about a Medium common and a Large uncommon? Same deal for a couple scorpions, how about? I love me some creepy-crawlies.

Also, not a monster, but...well, we got the Gnoll Slaver. How about a slave? I don't need multiple Serving Girls and Dancing Girls - why are those common?! - but I wouldn't mind a handful of slaves. A filthy, beaten slave in ratty, tattered rags and chains. It'll be one of the few times that heavy-handed use of dark wash won't be totally inappropriate.

Beyond that, I really just want more rank and file monsters: skeletons, orcs, serpentfolk, bugbears, lizardmen, zombies, ogres (three phenomenal ones back in Rise of the Runelords but none since?), trolls, giants...all the stuff that fits into common and uncommon slots.