|
I found the news that both Dungeon and Dragon were going away to be more than a little disappointing, since I was working on several proposals for Dungeon.
At the same time I'm greatly interested in the idea of making Monsters for the new Pathfinder books but I'd like to ask as a starting point what sorts of monsters are you looking for?
Are there certain CR's that you're looking for, humanoids, races equivalent to the core ones or say, orcs... or possibly ancient aberrations, dragon types, ancient beings of unimaginable power, vermin... Basically, while I have lots of ideas, I'm wondering if there's any guidelines or suggestions in particular.
I admit, I find the idea of helping contribute and having one of my ideas used by one of these admitted masters of their craft quite thrilling!
on this subject would you still be using the current (WotC) format for new monsters, or would you be designing one of your own?
|
Let's reverse the question, and try to be part of the process1
My very first sale was to Dragon. I'm pretty sure in twnety years, someone who has become much better known than I am is going to say :My very first sale was to pathfinder."
The real question is, what kinds of monsters are we going to submit?
What Kinds of Monsters Are You Going to Submit to Pathfinder?
Don't wait for the guidelines, start shooting out idea now (and maybe someone will chime in and talk to us about which ideas they like).
What does the game need? What game mechanics should we build monsters around? What's been done to death?
I know I always end up writing a few monsters up for my home campaigns. Snakes that have spell-stealing poisons. Burning undead that create clouds of darkness with smoke everywhere they go. Spellcasting hydras. Chain golems. Psionic ghosts.
I suspect a lot of what Pathfinder is going to present is going to depend on what we, as a community, start submitting.
Owen K.C. Stephens
Dragon alumnus
Creative Director
|
We'll be using an evolution of the current stat block. It'll be familiar enough to readers of Dungeon that it'll be easy to navigate, but will have some more refinements to it (Including several we're putting in because of feedback from our readers).
As for what kinds of monsters we're looking for... Owen's advice above is pretty spot on. We want a wide variety to choose from, and saying that we're looking for certain types or CR bands will only narrow that down. Keep in mind also that the process for submitting them and all that is still being worked out. Keep an eye on paizo.com/pathfinder for the latest news, in other words...
Actually... I can say this. I, personally, am interested in new monsters that are based on real-world legend and myth that haven't yet been statted up. This certainly includes monsters of a cryptozoological nature, like chupacabras or Bigfoot (although you'll have to get pretty obscure there to find one that hasn't already been statted up elsewhere).
|
|
Actually... I can say this. I, personally, am interested in new monsters that are based on real-world legend and myth that haven't yet been statted up. This certainly includes monsters of a cryptozoological nature, like chupacabras or Bigfoot (although you'll have to get pretty obscure there to find one that hasn't already been statted up elsewhere).
Huh. Something I've always been interested in is the old knocker spirits (which also went by the name 'kobold', but they're not the little reptillian tunnelrats we all know and love to hate). I think I have some reading to do.
Another monster I'd like to do up, probably under a different name and a few changes is the grue. Yes, that grue. It is dark, and you are likely to be eaten by one. Or at least something inspired by that line of reasoning. Dimension doors through places with complete blackness, lots of teeth and improved grab. And, obviously, blindsight.
Just so the DM can say as the party's lights go out: It is dark. You are likely to be eaten by...
Actually... I can say this. I, personally, am interested in new monsters that are based on real-world legend and myth that haven't yet been statted up. This certainly includes monsters of a cryptozoological nature, like chupacabras or Bigfoot (although you'll have to get pretty obscure there to find one that hasn't already been statted up elsewhere).
Really?
*rubs hands together*
Excellent...
|
|
See, this is the kind of behind-the-scenes info that's solid gold when it comes time for submissions. (And it helps justify some of the things I've written off as busness expenses recently.)
We should also talk about what types of monsters we think we'd like to see in Pathfinder, even if someone doesn't plan to submit it themself. For example, and speaking only for myself, I'd love to see some things to fill the niches of monsters not in the OGL. Gem dragons are off limits, but a whole new group of psionic dragons wouldn't be. Pathfinder can't use beholders, but there might be some new weird, horrifying, alien, ray-using aberration that could fill the same slot in an adventure, if one of us can think of it and pitch it to Paizo.
And the more we talk about it, the more snippets the editors may let slip about what they're looking for.
|
|
I've been doing a little thinking, and a little bit of brainstorming.
What I'd like to see is the stuff similar to Meenlocks from Escape from Meenlock Prison. Things that are creepy and strange, that mess with the minds of the players instead of outright controlling them.
And I was about to say that I didn't want to share them yet because I'd tip my hand, and anything going into the book shouldn't be shared, but a) I haven't sent them in yet, so they're not pending and b) Isn't this going to be OGL? Which means others could use it anyway give proper attribution.
One of the ideas I had was a monster based loosely upon the idea of a spirit that steals faces. Possibly a form of ghost or undead, or perhaps just a native spirit or incorporeal. Either way, the creature has no face of it's own and steals others. This could work similarly to the spell 'calm emotions', only with the face stealer gaining the benifits of whatever emotion the character was feeling (including stuff like barbarian rage and morale bonuses).
Or you could play them up as a subset or variant of dopplegangers, only instead of the doppleganger base form, they're just plain humans with no faces. Or similar ideas. Yeah, I'm kinda spewing thoughts at the moment, and don't have any stat blocks geared up yet, it's still something I'd like people to see. And maybe comment on, no idea.
Actually... I can say this. I, personally, am interested in new monsters that are based on real-world legend and myth that haven't yet been statted up.
There's a lot of potential material form mythologies that are overlooked. In Philippine folklore I can already think of the kapre, tikbalang, and manananggal (a counterpart to the Malaysian/Indonesian-based pennanggalan from Oriental Adventures), all with basic write-ups on Wikipedia. Madagascan folklore speaks of anthropomorphosed animals, apparently based on extinct lemurs. And, from my own profession (paleontology), there are scads of beasts that haven't been statted yet.
|
Creative Director
|
Actually... I can say this. I, personally, am interested in new monsters that are based on real-world legend and myth that haven't yet been statted up.There's a lot of potential material form mythologies that are overlooked. In Philippine folklore I can already think of the kapre, tikbalang, and manananggal (a counterpart to the Malaysian/Indonesian-based pennanggalan from Oriental Adventures), all with basic write-ups on Wikipedia. Madagascan folklore speaks of anthropomorphosed animals, apparently based on extinct lemurs. And, from my own profession (paleontology), there are scads of beasts that haven't been statted yet.
Those all sound awesome!
I first really got into the overlooked mythology monster scene back when i was working on Fiend Folio. It was kind of like a fantasy footbal drafting session; all of us got a stack of monsters and then we ended up trading back and forth. I think I ended up trading away one of my "monster based on mythology" entries to that cad Erik Mona (who then brought back the shedu, bless his soul!) before I realized how interesting that challenge was; to D&D up a new monster based on myth. The wendigo and the ahuizotl got into the Fiend Folio as a result of my two myth monsters.
More recently, I did the same thing in Fiendish Codex I. I had two new races of demons to detail. I knew what I wanted to do with the obyriths; they were to be Lovecraftian horrors from before the dawn of time. But the loumaras? They had me stumped. Until I decided to start looking up spirit monsters from all over the world. I had a huge list at the end, but alas, there was only room for the guecubu and the dybbuk, but since they were based on real myths, they pretty much had an immediate feeling of tradition and belonging, even though there were only two loumaras in the entire book.
So that all brings me to Pathfinder's Bestiary. I'm looking forward to being able to order some art for a hodag or a globster or a mokele-mbembe sometime soon!
|
|
Another source of monsters I don't think anyone's touched much is the monsters of Russian folklore.
Aside, I suppose, from Baba Yaga. There's the rusalka, the bannik, the Katschei. There's also the get of the Night Mare (not the same thing as the flaming horse) who include beings like the humpbacked horse. There's also the Firebird, a beautiful woman who can turn into a bird, the singing of whom can put to sleep anyone who hears it.
I'd have to go digging for more names and ideas, but I wonder if anyone's seriously looked at these before?
Damn, I'll have to see if I still have my campaign notes from my native american homebrew attempt. Never took off, but I had a list of interesting creatures from the northwestern first nations tribes.
Dibs on Ogopogo!
OK, I just took a walk, which always gets my wheels spinning. I've got an idea for a cool shape-shifting, identity stealing monster based on something from the Classic of Mountains and Seas, an ancient Chinese bestiary. The thing is, I've got a whole adventure idea that revolves around this creature, but my name isn't Pett or Logue. So I'd like to submit the creature, but the creature would be much more interesting if the folklore surrounding it could be presented in the form of a short adventure, or adventure segment. I'm willing to collaborate, even if you only put my name in 8 point type on the last page of the article.
I know that Pathfinder needs its superstar authors to build the brand, but I also know that in the long term it will be good for them to systematically recruit fresh blood. Will there be any way for aspiring authors to contribute to building this cool new setting, get published, and have our talent recognized? Maybe an online fan-magazine, that publishes supplemental material, and even fan-fiction? I know the economics of this are probably really sketchy, and Paizo can't afford to compete with itself at this point, but an online magazine might help to fill some of the void left by Dragon's disappearance, enrich the newly emerging Pathfinder world (which is by nature a collaborative project anyway), and bring in gamers who are impressed by the content so that they buy the printed stuff.
What's with monsters from mythology already published in WotC's books? Will Pathfinder be using those?
For example, I know selkies were published in some monster book or other. What happens when a Pathfinder adventure needs a shapeshifting fey for a romantic tragedy? Will it present its own version of selkies or try to avoid stuff already published by WotC and look elsewhere?
This also applies to other non-adventure game elements: classes, feats, spells...
My interest in this is one of a newly published writer who regretted not trying his hand at it earlier, when D&D had more material that still needed to be covered. Pathfinder, being limited to open content, seems like it could be a new opportunity, but there seem to be new pitfalls to be avoided.
On one hand, if the line includes Paizo's own take on already established stuff, I think it could weaken their image as a cut above other 3rd party d20 companies as far as officialness goes. OTOH, considering how many things are covered by WotC books by now, going out of the way to avoid duplicating non-open WotC stuff might be pretty limiting.
If there's a bane shadowstalker cleric/rogue PrC in Pathfinder, many people will favour the shadowbane stalker from Complete Adventurer just by the virtue of it being a WotC creation. But if you don't want to duplicate anything by WotC, what are you going to do when you need a PrC for investigative evil-hunting cleric/rogues?
Paizo folks, do consider these as valid concerns, and how will you be dealing with them, if you'd care to share?
|
Creative Director
|
Monsters like shedus, selkies, wendigos, linnorms, ahuizotls, sirines, sylphs, banshees, catoblepas, firbolgs, megalodons, phoenixes, and other monsters based on real-world myth, legend, cryptozoology, and fossil records that have been statted up in books like MM2 and Fiend Folio aren't technically off limits, but we can't use those versions of them. As we need them, we'll simply come up with a new interpretation, just like we've done for our goblins, only unlike the goblins, we'll also come up with a new stat block for the monster. And in MANY cases, those stats already exist in open books like Tome of Horrors (although we'll likely be adjusting those stats too, either to bring them up to the latest version of the SRD rules or to modify the monsters to make them a better fit for our campaign world).
Monsters like shedus, selkies, wendigos, linnorms, ahuizotls, sirines, sylphs, banshees, catoblepas, firbolgs, megalodons, phoenixes, and other monsters based on real-world myth, legend, cryptozoology, and fossil records that have been statted up in books like MM2 and Fiend Folio aren't technically off limits, but we can't use those versions of them. As we need them, we'll simply come up with a new interpretation, just like we've done for our goblins, only unlike the goblins, we'll also come up with a new stat block for the monster. And in MANY cases, those stats already exist in open books like Tome of Horrors (although we'll likely be adjusting those stats too, either to bring them up to the latest version of the SRD rules or to modify the monsters to make them a better fit for our campaign world).
Can I have the wendigos James? Please oh please!!! ;-)
|
Can I have the wendigos James? Please oh please!!! ;-)
Sure, but only after being subjected to an entire pot of cappuccino made with caffinated water and caffinated cream, followed up by a 12-pack of Jolt cola and force-fed pixie stix while being made to watch the movie Ravenous repeatedly while being bound Clockwork Orange-style. :)
Watching Cannibal! The Musical afterwards is purely optional.
Can I have the wendigos James? Please oh please!!! ;-)
I was thinking the same thing recently. The legend of the wendigos is far richer than what the D&D version offered.
|
|
I was thinking the same thing recently. The legend of the wendigos is far richer than what the D&D version offered.
Quite honestly, this is true of nearly all of the critters James mentioned. The thing I like about the changes and opportunities I'm seeing comes down to this:
I don't want my players to ever go 'Meh XXXX' ever again. I expect the new goblins to get their interest again. I want my players to go 'Oooh and Aaaah when a phoenix shows up, and I want them to be utterly terrified or despairing when some of these other things show.
Addmittedly, I gave my players nightmares for a week with 3 skeletons and a zombie, so your milage may vary.
Side note, but regarding the statblocks, my only gripes are:
No number appearing listed anywhere.
No common terrain listed in statblock (often but not always in aftertext).
No AC breakdown. This is really annoying when the stat buffs/debuffs start flying. Game grinds to a halt because of this. Seriously. Most important of all to me.
I was thinking the same thing recently. The legend of the wendigos is far richer than what the D&D version offered.Quite honestly, this is true of nearly all of the critters James mentioned. The thing I like about the changes and opportunities I'm seeing comes down to this:
I don't want my players to ever go 'Meh XXXX' ever again. I expect the new goblins to get their interest again. I want my players to go 'Oooh and Aaaah when a phoenix shows up, and I want them to be utterly terrified or despairing when some of these other things show.
I agree completely, Sean.
As we need them, we'll simply come up with a new interpretation, just like we've done for our goblins, only unlike the goblins, we'll also come up with a new stat block for the monster.
First, thanks for your answer.
Are you concerned about the tendency of many people (IME, anecdotal, &c.) to be more skeptical towards "non-official" material, especially when also presented with a WotC treatment of the same concept?
Also, does this apply to other game elements, like classes or feats? Can we expect to see (or perhaps even contribute :) ) Paizo's takes on something like the knight (defensive battle leader), swordsage (sword-wielding martial artist) or the Shadowbane stalker (sneaky cleric)?
Another monster I'd like to do up, probably under a different name and a few changes is the grue. Yes, that grue. It is dark, and you are likely to be eaten by one. Or at least something inspired by that line of reasoning. Dimension doors through places with complete blackness, lots of teeth and improved grab. And, obviously, blindsight.Just so the DM can say as the party's lights go out: It is dark. You are likely to be eaten by...
My brother was the first DM to use a Grue while I played, but not the last. Grue attacks were usually preceded by torch withering winds in the tunnels, with plenty of moisture, and were only seen by our players after we reached something like tenth level when we discovered that they were actually rather humorous looking to the point of being laughable, like the Tasmanian devil wearing a frilly tutu. Of course their grab was overwhelming and their bite was deadly, and they dragged off a few dozen NPCs as we climbed levels.
The Grue must have gone with the licensing of Zork, and last I heard that was with Activision, who owns them I don't know. Zork designers, I'm reading now, stole it from Jack Vance who had a different take on it.
Whether of not Pathfinder has a Grue doesn't really matter because I've never DMed without them. I don't need them published and I certainly wouldn't want Grues if they weren't call Grue because the name has a menacing ring, and in fact means "shudder" (or so I read).
Probably it is proprietary. Does anyone know?
Former Zork players out there? You guys have Grues, too?
|
Creative Director
|
Are you concerned about the tendency of many people (IME, anecdotal, &c.) to be more skeptical towards "non-official" material, especially when also presented with a WotC treatment of the same concept?
Also, does this apply to other game elements, like classes or feats? Can we expect to see (or perhaps even contribute :) ) Paizo's takes on something like the knight (defensive battle leader), swordsage (sword-wielding martial artist) or the Shadowbane stalker (sneaky cleric)?
I am concerned, but I also think that our customers are smart and discerning and loyal. If these messageboards are any indication, people really like what Paizo's been doing with Dragon and Dungeon. We're going to maintain that level of quality with Pathfinder and the GameMastery modules/supplements. Our production values equal those of WotC, and we use a lot of the same authors they do. Certainly, being branded "official" is an ENORMOUS advantage, but being able to blaze our own trail lets us be innovative and experimental in ways that WotC cannot be.
And yes, the philosophy of monsters does apply to all other game elements. If we need a sniper prestige class or a knight or whatever, we'll make one up or adopt one from an OGL/d20 sourcebook.
|
Creative Director
|
Of course, based on past evidence, anything invented by JJ will be cool.
Thanks for the support!
Of course, I'm also the guy who championed the flumph's return back in issue #118. And I stand by that decision; Tim Hitchcock's "Box of Flumph" is a nifty little adventure, and it proves that no matter how reviled or hated a monster is, it's possible to make a really fun adventure out of them. It's all about the flavor text.
Our production values equal those of WotC, and we use a lot of the same authors they do.
that is an incredibly generous statement, I can definatly see that you are still making nice with WotC ;) speaking of production values I have to say that the Magazines have been much better edited then any of WotC's released books for the last couple of years. By subscribing to Pathfinder I am banking on this trend continueing.
|
|
Speaking of production values I have to say that the Magazines have been much better edited then any of WotC's released books for the last couple of years. By subscribing to Pathfinder I am banking on this trend continueing.
Actually, I've been impressed with several of the materials coming out of WotC in the recent past. I admit, I dislike the Complete books, but not because of the production values, but because of the content. I will note - I'm not saying the content is bad, but because I prefer sticking to the Core Rules and the OGL.
I do, on the other hand, have the Tome of Magic and find the quality and concepts to be excellent. And having read Mr. Jacob's campaign journal for Eric Mona's AoW game, I suspect he might agree with me.
ToM was one of the better books that WotC has put out "recently", but even it could have used better editing in places ::shrug::
|
Creative Director
|
I do, on the other hand, have the Tome of Magic and find the quality and concepts to be excellent. And having read Mr. Jacob's campaign journal for Eric Mona's AoW game, I suspect he might agree with me.
Yup. Binders are one of the coolest things WotC has come up with, and the look of Tome of Magic is beautiful and vibrant. Good stuff!
|
|
Yup. Binders are one of the coolest things WotC has come up with, and the look of Tome of Magic is beautiful and vibrant. Good stuff!
I have to agree, and I suspect that I may be bending some Dungeon adventures around to have a Binder as the BBOE. Or I'll inflict a PC one on some poor unsuspecting DM next time I play.
RE Tome of Magic: As an unrepentant Plane of Shadow addict, ToM was a veritable orgasm for me. I've look at the other sections, and used them... but the shadow stuff is what I always go back to.
RE monsters: What sorts of monsters would I want to see? The fey suggestion is good, especially if they can be as evocative as the shadar-kai. I like dark, gritty creatures - but ones with enough intelligence to have individual personalities. Varrangoin are one of my favorites. I'll even admit to thinking twig blights are cool.
The legend of the wendigos is far richer than what the D&D version offered.
Which version are you familiar with? I know the Marvel Comics version, which is when a curse afflicts someone who becomes cannibal, transforming it into a large, white-furred, tailed humanoid with prodigious strength (able to hold off the Hulk in battle), regenerative abilities (fast healing from wounds inflicted by Wolverine's adamantium claws), and magical metabolism. Basically, a humanoid tarrasque. Oh, and it's tied to the Canadian hinterlands.
The legend of the wendigos is far richer than what the D&D version offered.
Which version are you familiar with?
The legend of the Wendigo goes back to early Native American folklore, and probably earlier. It's sort of a possessing spirit that causes you to decide your buddies look tasty.
I don't like your friends!
Well then just eat the vegetables....
Certainly, being branded "official" is an ENORMOUS advantage, but being able to blaze our own trail lets us be innovative and experimental in ways that WotC cannot be.
Indeed, might we hope that this is a the silver lining for the wannabe authors out there?
A poster on ENWorld asked whether WotC's online thing will continue Dragon's and Dungeon's tradition of being a stepping stone for artists and writers wanting to get into the industry. I'd like to turn that around and ask the same about Pathfinder.
Compared to Dragon and Dungeon, how much material is going to be produced by in-house writers and how much will be open to outside submissions? Can we expect some writers' guidelines?
|
|
New takes on monsters that only have stats in some more obscure supplements might be a great idea, especially if the new take is more interesting or draws from a different source than the original. Certainly looking into some mythologies that have been less mined for ideas already should lead to some cool additions. And of course, modern mythologies can be retro-fit for fantasy settings as well.
I'm really looking forward to seeing what everyone can add to this new venture. And monsters are a great way to get your toes wet writing d20 material -- they're involved enough to show a mastery of prose and game mechanics, but short and easily completed. They're also extremely fungible, making them a good edition to Pathfinder.
I enjoy reimaginings immensely. I tend to be very selective in my games. I do not like to have a great many monsters as possibilities, because I find it hard to justify that they all could find a niche in a fantasy ecosystem. Many monsters were added to D&D in the past in an attempt to always have something new. There seems to me to be a lack of focus going on. I like the creativity and imagination that is shown by many of the monsters in Dragon and Dungeon over the years, but I far prefered the ecologies to any bestiary because they add depth. The goblins in the first pathfinder are a classic example. If goblins like that existed, they would have an effect on their world. windows would be barred and houses would likely not use thatch. Like the angle of rooftops in countries that have heavy snowfall being a peak and the rooftops in morrocco being flat for utility, people adapt to the rules of their world. For adventurers to have to roll dice to see if they even recognise the class of a creature seems to me to violate a principle of common sense. People know the threats in their world. There is room for rare creatures, but there would still be some knowledge of them as general knowledge. Please go for quality over quantity. In my games, I tend to be a minimalist.
I have more to add, but I am going to split my post up.
Dragons.
I believe that the dragons in the MM are OGL. That said, I am tired of the old chromatic and metallic divides. It makes far more sense to me to have dragons be based on the terrain they are adapted to.
I would suggest that instead of adventurers going, "Silver eh?" " We sheathe our swords and wave to it" Dragons should possess the gamut of alignments. They are intelligent individuals that live for aeons, why would their perceptions and philosophies be completely determined by colour? There is a name for that.
Why not have dragons that have individual markings and complex motivations?
Exempli Gratia:
A dappled green and sap green dragon that is passionatley attached to a town like a child to an aquarium. She loves to watch the goings on from her perch and tries to stop any outside interference with the town. Any who approach, reagardless of their intent are warned off with a gout of flame and any of her pets that try to escape infuriate her with their disloyalty. The town is going quietly mad and its inhabitants attempt to mollify and placate their unwanted guardian, not realising that any interaction is against her wishes.
A charcoal black and purple dragon that lives in a range of hills. He is pinned on all sides by the territories of other, fiercer wyrms and lacks food and resources. He deals with those that travel through his lands, and offers security in exchange for food, but has a mean pride that makes him lash out at any percieved slight. Moody and irritable but desperate for supplies. Never grateful. Always eying his neighbours skies with jealous blue eyes.
A spindly and horned wyrm with a cream body and snakelike belly. He collects skulls, but lacks the dexterity or patience to clean them. HE allows caravans to pass his desert redoubt unmolested if they provide him with a skull he has never seen before and the tale of its taking.
A white and sea green dragon that lives in a burrow in a glacier. Ancient and terrible, the monster will allow nothing living to tread on his territory and no structure to be built on it. It flies as long as it can and stays awake as long as possible, to guard the purity of its landscape. Sometimes the strain of its vigil enrages it and it flies south and rampages, killing indiscriminately. Sometimes though, a deep loneliness overtakes it, and in its melancholy it questions itself and finally , once a century, It shape changes into a grizzled man and goes to demi human lands to see if it is still right to despise them.
These are just a few of the first ideas to pop into my head. I would rather have such dragons. Perhaps I am alone in this.
Undead.
Dead bodies moving around are not scary anymore. Shambling zombies have been replaced on film with the agile rage machines of 28 days later. Left4Dead is coming out on Steam. The undead need a makeover. I like the basic undead and I like that they are plausibly always evil. Skeletons are mindless and brittle as stands. How about skeletons that only stop moving when consecrated or splashed with holy water? There are many excellent ideas for stark horror that have been devalued here.
Why not stick to a basic few dozen undead, and add more templates that can modify them. The D&D ghoul is based loosely on the Lovecraft Mythos ghoul. Just because we have had vanilla ghouls for thirty years, doesn't mean they can't be reworked a bit. What about a type of ghoul that regenerates itself after feeding, and has its decomposition reversed. When it is full, it looks almost normal. It becomes rational and regains some of its memories, it becomes aware that it had loves once, and sometimes, ghouls come back to their homes and families, or just walk through the muck of a town unnoticed. Then the hunger and rot take them and drag them down again.
Imagine a family that has the child return, so in their grief and blindness they take it back, and they make sure it is fed. They get their baby what he needs and they try to make it all right again.
That is a lot scarier to me than: "Ok, elves in front!"
On the dragon issue: To an extent, I agree with you, but I feel at this point that the chromatic/metallic dragon division is a classic part of D&D. THere /are/ ways to mess with player expectations. Dragons have 'usually' alignments, so they are more malleable than outsiders, and how many times have we seen fallen celestials/redeemed fiends? Additionally, chromatic dragons are well aware of their shiny cousins: I remember running an encounter from the Book of Challenges features black dragon wearing a hat of disguise, so he appears to b e acopper dragon. Asks lots of riddles, then eats the PCs anyway.
|
|
Dragons have 'usually' alignments, so they are more malleable than outsiders, and how many times have we seen fallen celestials/redeemed fiends?
Actually, I believe at least in the case of silvers and other metallic dragons, the alignment is 'always'.
That said, there is nothing that means a good dragon must be friendly. Perhaps the dragon has scryed the future in some relic in his horde, and believes the party will be directly or indirectly responsible for some terrible evil, or unleashing some terrible evil. So in order to preserve the greater good, the party's gotta die. The dragon's horribly sorry about this, but well... greater good.
Good and lawful doesn't mean nice or friendly.
By the same token, it's possible for a chromatic dragon to be bored, lonely, or just working on some terribly convoluted plan for his own gain that might lead to him being nice to the party, provided they don't jump him right off. Even then he might disable at first and only if they prove intractible will he kill them. That said, he'll probably insist on gifts. At the least.
The new monsters are really cool!
Especially the Attic Whisperer, the Giant Gecko and the Sandpoint Devil!!!
Can't wait to be the drunkard who tells the heroes the story of the Sandpoint Devil in their favorite tavern.
I'd like to see some Celtic dragons-- no wings or legs, animal intelligence, tail sting, constriction, poison breath. Yeah!
Former Zork players out there? You guys have Grues, too?
My Midwood campaign just had an encounter with a Shadow Grue, complete with Knowledge (Arcana) giving the classic warning about them.
I just tweaked the Ethereal Marauder with shadow flavoring and had it flee light and used the Wikipedia description for the character with darkvision (minus the glowing fur mistake).
If I were creating a Monster Manual-type book, I'd certainly dump the Ethereal Marauder in favor of my Shadow Grue.