I gotta say, you guys truly did justice to the Creature Catalogs of old.
The artwork is amazing. The rune golem art should be included in a future "art of D&D" collection. It's that good. Kudos to the artists.
The layout is great, too, giving it the feel of a separate, pull-out section, just like the original CCs.
The monsters themselves are a nice mix of classic and new. It's great to finally have the legendary chupacabra in D&D. The arcane dragons are fresh twist on the true dragon, and the rune golem is definitely not your typical golem.
Kudos to all involved! I eagerly await CC VI. :)
I don't expect the magazine to make it to Canada for a while yet. If you're going to tease me, could you do it with something a little more concrete? Say, a list of monsters? ;)
there will almost certainly be a CCVI, and subsquent 7 and on in time, until the editors at the time decide not to continue it.
so, if something submitted didn't make it this time, there's always next time. :)
I thought the feel of the artwork matched the creepy nature of the creatures presented. The rune golem was especially menacing.
I don't expect the magazine to make it to Canada for a while yet. If you're going to tease me, could you do it with something a little more concrete? Say, a list of monsters? ;)
Well, I suppose that's the least I can do! :)
arcane dragons (hex and tome), chupacabra, gray shiver, hellchain weaver, living wall (template), malfera, norker, nuckalavee, rune golem, warturtle, white hart
I don't have the issue yet, but I wrote two monsters for CCV: the rune golem and the white hart. They're both new woodland creatures for 3.5.
I also submitted some mephits, but I think they got cut for space reasons, along with a second construct submission.
Take a bow for those that got in...they're great! :)
More mephits?...interesting.
I don't have the issue yet, but I wrote two monsters for CCV: the rune golem and the white hart. They're both new woodland creatures for 3.5.
I also submitted some mephits, but I think they got cut for space reasons, along with a second construct submission.
My complements to you for two excellent creatures. The white hart brought back my days running DragonLance and teasing the Solamnic Knight with visions of the White Stag. The rune golem is really excellent. The rules and (especially!) the flavor text evoke a feel of "nature red in tooth and claw." I think it would fit well in a Shannara-type setting with powerful elemental druids. It works well with elves/halflings/druids/volodni, and it's great for a quasi-historical setting in the Dark Ages. I appreciate the mention of the "blood eagle," as well! Good research! Have you ever read the Hammer and the Cross trilogy by Harry Harrison?
The Chupacabra is a creature so sublimely stupid, I simply must use it the first chance I get. I may, in fact, weave a tale of a war between Chupacabras and Flumphs, and snicker to myself until my players hurl dice at me.
Not to sound too much like an asskiss, but the White Hart and Rune Golem are creatures both elegant and slick, proof positive that there's still a lot of creativity left in this game. (But I usually love Baur's work to death.)
The others... I'm not sure which ones are new or not, but they're all interesting. Though, the Hex Dragon's curse ability seems a little powerful, espically the later curses.
Overall, an excellent article, and I wish I had players to subject to it. Good job to all contributors, and I hope to see the chopped subissions soon too!
Thanks for the compliment on the chupacabra... I guess.
But hey, if my monster's remembered as the 3.5 flumph, at least it's remembered.
Kobold Press
|
I appreciate the mention of the "blood eagle," as well! Good research! Have you ever read the Hammer and the Cross trilogy by Harry Harrison?
Glad you like them; the rune golem was originally pitched as part of a set of Viking/Dark Ages monsters, but by the time I submitted, they were relaunching the CC. I hope they do lots more in the series.
Haven't read that particular Harry Harrison trilogy, but sounds great to me. I'll check it out.
actually, i like the "leftovers from other articles" approach just fine. ;) Shade and I are hoping to see some of our cut MotM conversions make it into a future installment. :)
Demiurge - bonus points for including the winged variant for the ol' goatsucker. :)
Wolfgang Bauer - bonus points for working the oft-forgotten d12 into the white hart's damage. :)
Mr. Baur,
A quick question about the white hart:
It's special attacks line lists powerful charge, but there is no damage given or writeup in the Combat section. Should this ability be removed, or was it inadvertently cut? If cut, would you mind sharing what the damage should be?
Thanks!
(P.S. Sorry for the typo in your last name in my prior post.)
I loved seeing the chupacabra finally make an appearance in D&D (just wish I'd thought of it). I remember that my dad used to wear a shirt from Mexico or Puerto Rico that had the chupacabra with a straw in sticking out of a goats neck. It was pretty cool. I'm still working on how to pronouce it, though. :')
actually, i like the "leftovers from other articles" approach just fine. ;) Shade and I are hoping to see some of our cut MotM conversions make it into a future installment. :)
MotM? Not Monsters of the Midway, I hope.
I loved seeing the chupacabra finally make an appearance in D&D (just wish I'd thought of it). I remember that my dad used to wear a shirt from Mexico or Puerto Rico that had the chupacabra with a straw in sticking out of a goats neck. It was pretty cool. I'm still working on how to pronouce it, though. :')
Chew-pah-kah-brra (slight roll on "r" of last syllable)
Chew-pah-kah-brra (slight roll on "r" of last syllable)
Or, as Sarge from Red vs Blue will tell you, "Chupathingy."
Thanks for the compliment on the chupacabra... I guess.
But hey, if my monster's remembered as the 3.5 flumph, at least it's remembered.
I mean no harm, just that cryptozoology sticks in my craw. I would not be able to say "Chupacabra" at the table and have that game remain serious, even if there's a horde of the things drinking all the children in the town at night as though they were so many brick packs.
But, the fact remains, I am tempted to use it. And that, my friend, should be taken as a compliment, as I don't use just anything. So, cheer up. :)
Thanks for the compliment on the chupacabra... I guess.
But hey, if my monster's remembered as the 3.5 flumph, at least it's remembered.
I mean no harm, just that cryptozoology sticks in my craw. I would not be able to say "Chupacabra" at the table and have that game remain serious, even if there's a horde of the things drinking all the children in the town at night as though they were so many brick packs.
But, the fact remains, I am tempted to use it. And that, my friend, should be taken as a compliment, as I don't use just anything. So, cheer up. :)
Ah, yes, the problem with text. Lack of tone. I was amused, not insulted or hurt or anything, that the chupacabra's getting the label of "usefully silly". Consider my previous post slightly sarcastic, because it was.
Although now that you've made the connection, I can't get the image of vicious blood-drinking flumphs out of my head...
I'm curious, the Menace Manual web enhancement for d20 modern has a conversion of el chupacabra from Alternity's Xenoforms. Is this the same creature, how do the stats compare?
actually, i like the "leftovers from other articles" approach just fine. ;) Shade and I are hoping to see some of our cut MotM conversions make it into a future installment. :)MotM? Not Monsters of the Midway, I hope.
da bearsss?
correct on all but the last word though. :)
Although now that you've made the connection, I can't get the image of vicious blood-drinking flumphs out of my head...
and thus the vampiric flumph is born, to destroy all those who laughed at it before... :)
I'm curious, the Menace Manual web enhancement for d20 modern has a conversion of el chupacabra from Alternity's Xenoforms. Is this the same creature, how do the stats compare?
Well, for one thing, I didn't know that there was a chupacabra in the Menace Manual web enhancement. Looking at it now, they're fairly different. The Dragon mag's chupacabra has 1 more HD, is a monstrous humanoid rather than a magical beast, has no psionics, and has camouflage and bonuses to Jump checks. The only really shared ability is blood drain.
Hehe! Not a bad way to begin the writing career at Paizo, even if it is with a big turtle.
Thanks fella's :P
|
Kobold Press
|
A quick question about the white hart:
It's special attacks line lists powerful charge, but there is no damage given or writeup in the Combat section. Should this ability be removed, or was it inadvertently cut?
Shade-
This is my error; I had the ability name it in the text I turned over, but I didn't provide an explanation. Oops.The easiest fix might be to give the White Hart the Spirited Charge effect: double damage on a successful charge, so 2d12 for a CR 5 creature, pretty nasty.
Actually giving it the feat is messy, both because of the prereqs and because the feat assumes there's a rider...Sha
I don't know why, but I think that the white heart and the rune golem go well together. Maybe because they seem very much like pure nature, kind of like what the ashbound druids in eberron want to be. I see something in the far left side of my mind... is it...could it be? Yes indeed it is. I see an adventure... a rune golem guarding the grove of the white heart... stupid greedy PCs burning everything. I have to go plan.
Although now that you've made the connection, I can't get the image of vicious blood-drinking flumphs out of my head...and thus the vampiric flumph is born, to destroy all those who laughed at it before... :)
Well, you could always give it the Monstrous Vampire template (which is really just Vampire for things that aren't Humanoids or Monstrous Humanoids).
But I meant more a story that is both interesting and STUPID at the same time. The kind of thing that would make me laugh to myself, and leave people to wonder if I'm crazy or I'm just trying to annoy them.
Sort of like my idea for a charachter, a Catfolk in a maid's uniform (with glasses, of course). Actually, if I can find a game, online or otherwise, I might have to try that... (HAHAHAHAHA!)
Chupacabra(Fantastic), Rune Golem(Aweinspiring),
White Hart(Amasing), Dragon that looks like a member of the Bee Gees(HAHAHAHAHAHA.....Priceless).
There are somethings that will make your party laugh 'till they cry, for everything else theres Hex Dragon.
P.S. Just kidding.
A quick question about the white hart:
It's special attacks line lists powerful charge, but there is no damage given or writeup in the Combat section. Should this ability be removed, or was it inadvertently cut?
Shade-
This is my error; I had the ability name it in the text I turned over, but I didn't provide an explanation. Oops.The easiest fix might be to give the White Hart the Spirited Charge effect: double damage on a successful charge, so 2d12 for a CR 5 creature, pretty nasty.
Actually giving it the feat is messy, both because of the prereqs and because the feat assumes there's a rider...Sha
No problem. You could always give it the powerful charge ability of the triceratops, allowing it to deal double base gore damage plus 2x Str (2d12+10 in this case) on a charge. Just as powerful, minus the prereqs. :)
Since nobody is credited for the Arcane Dragon, could whomever wrote that little piece please explain it? Is this meant to be a template? I assume it's a variant you can slap on any dragon by the way it's written. But, when does the Alternate Form ability come in to play? And how much slower is their speed with the Graceful Flight ability? The description makes it sound like they are much more adept arcane casters than other dragons, yet all they get for that grand title is a frail form and the ability to take another form more often. Oh, yeah, and they can fly a lot better.
P.S. I thought the rest of CC V was pretty cool. I REALLY liked the Hex Dragon and Hellchain Weaver.
Since nobody is credited for the Arcane Dragon, could whomever wrote that little piece please explain it? Is this meant to be a template? I assume it's a variant you can slap on any dragon by the way it's written. But, when does the Alternate Form ability come in to play? And how much slower is their speed with the Graceful Flight ability? The description makes it sound like they are much more adept arcane casters than other dragons, yet all they get for that grand title is a frail form and the ability to take another form more often. Oh, yeah, and they can fly a lot better.
That took me awhile to figure out too.
I think that Arcane dragons represent a type of dragon, like Chromatic, Gem, etc. Hex dragons and tome dragons are two types of arcane dragon.
I also though the Hellchain Weaver was extremely cool. :D
Ahhhh... Now it's making sense. Thanks, Chris.
Can't wait for this issue, but as the April issue only turned up in my local newsagents last week I guess I'l have to. :(
And then there's the wait for the return of the Princess Ark.
Regards
Mortis
Thanks for the spoiler, Shade! Sorry I took so long.
Speaking of which, I'm still waiting for the issue, and you're all making it harder with your talk of awesome-this and incredible-that. We're in the same boat, Mortis, only I'm bailing shamelessly if my copy comes first. :p
Finally got this issue, and the Creature Catalog is fantastic. It's good to see another Nicholas' submissions alongside mine - and I'm kind of curious to know what other spiderous beasties were in his original article.
I have to agree with everyone else that the art is simply phenomenal. This Ben Wooten character... he's a man to be watched. And, hopefully, hired again.
Director of Game Design
|
I am glad to hear that the article is being so well received. I just wanted to note that some of these monsters were pulled from articles with a wide variety of creatures in them. Some of these will undoubtedly show up in Creature Catalog VI (yes, there will be another one at some point in the future).
Jason Bulmahn
Managing Editor of Dragon
I am glad to hear that the article is being so well received. I just wanted to note that some of these monsters were pulled from articles with a wide variety of creatures in them. Some of these will undoubtedly show up in Creature Catalog VI (yes, there will be another one at some point in the future).
Jason Bulmahn
Managing Editor of Dragon
Excellent.
Demiurge,
I think the Chupacabra is great! I will be using it. Though I will likely be changing it to a fey; it just seems like an ideal fey to me. Great job!
All,
Overall, the entire article was wonderful. Along with the Chupacabra, the Rune Golem, White Hart, Shiver, and Weaver were all quite stunning. The Malfera, well I'm a sucker for tentacles and dreamstuff. The rest were OK. Although I simply don't see the point of the Norker.
THis Ben Wooten guy, he's from WETA workshop me thinks.
May this kind of art grace the pages of WoTC DnD books very soon!
That took me awhile to figure out too.I think that Arcane dragons represent a type of dragon, like Chromatic, Gem, etc. Hex dragons and tome dragons are two types of arcane dragon.
I also though the Hellchain Weaver was extremely cool. :D
Oh. That makes so much sense. I thought you put the modifers from the arcane onto an exsistenting (sp) dragon, like a template. thanks
|
Creative Director
|
THis Ben Wooten guy, he's from WETA workshop me thinks.
May this kind of art grace the pages of WoTC DnD books very soon!
Correct; we've actually been using Ben and a few other WETA guys on the magazines for a bit. Their stuff is excellent; you can expect to see a LOT more from them in the future of both magazines, I expect.
THis Ben Wooten guy, he's from WETA workshop me thinks.
May this kind of art grace the pages of WoTC DnD books very soon!
You are correct, sir. He's listed as Art Direction, Research and Principal Illustration in the superlative "The World of Kong - The Natural History of Skull Island"
As for the norker, it's in CCV as a leftover from CCIV, the Campaign Classics installment. It originally was mentioned in a Dragon article in 1e about changing monster's names to regional varients for more flavor, including some sample stat tweaks. The norker was a modified goblin or orc, I don't recall which.
Incidentally, that article would be an excellent addition to Dragon Compendium 2, if it's another generic campaign book. I'm just saying.
I just picked up issue 343 at the Borders in Brighton on my way back home from a road trip to detroit.
The monsters in Creature Catalog 5 look great. I would have bought this issue just for the norker alone. How did the norker fail to get included in both Wizrds' Fiend Folio (3rd edition era) and Necromancer's Tome of Horrors? It's one of a very small number of beasties from the Fiend Folio (1st edition era) that I can use without laughing.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Regarding the norker - did it really need a fully statted monster block? It seems like the creature could have been one line: Norkers have the same stats as a goblin, but receive a +5 natural armor bonus.
That being said, I like the monster quite a bit. In fact, I'll probably just use the norker instead of goblins in future campaigns. You get to cut down on the amount of equipment your average goblin has (no armor) without reducing its effectiveness. Plus, it's easier to make leveled goblins threatening because they can stack armor on top of the natural AC bonus.