# I Have A Copy of Monster Manual 5.



## helium3 (Jun 26, 2007)

What do people want to know about it?


----------



## Crothian (Jun 26, 2007)

What's in it


----------



## helium3 (Jun 26, 2007)

Monsters.


----------



## MrFilthyIke (Jun 26, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Monsters.




Zing!


----------



## heirodule (Jun 26, 2007)

ratio of new monsters to templated old monsters?

How many maps?

Any cool yuan-ti related stuff?

What old-school stuff has been redone? or is it all new


----------



## Nightfall (Jun 27, 2007)

Can we get like a look at the Table of Contents perhaps?


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Jun 27, 2007)

Hi helium3,

What's the artwork like compared to previous MM's?
Personally from best to worst, I'd rate the first four as: III then I then IV then II. How would you rate them all five?

How many NEW creatures are there?
How many "templated" creatures are there?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Razz (Jun 27, 2007)

Yeah, start with the Table of Contents. The names of the creatures are what I am interested in first considering I am sure half of them will alert us to what type of creature they are.

Then, when you can, sort them out in creature type.

Also, yes, how many new monsters (and I mean NEW) and how many converted monsters?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 27, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Monsters.



Which ones?


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 27, 2007)

The table of contents would help. I'd want to know what iconic monsters are in there (e.g. new demons, devils, dragons etc.), so that'd answer that.

Any epic (CR 21+) creatures?


----------



## Razz (Jun 27, 2007)

Templates, too, mention which are templates.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 27, 2007)

And helium3 goes screaming into the night at the prospect of typing up so much ...


----------



## Razz (Jun 27, 2007)

Here's a quicker question: how did you get MM5 so damn early?


----------



## frankthedm (Jun 27, 2007)

Which monster family takes the fattest chunk of the book?


----------



## helium3 (Jun 27, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> And helium3 goes screaming into the night at the prospect of typing up so much ...




Eh, most of the questions are the similar enough that I'll only have to work up a single post. At least no one's asked me to break copyright law yet.

I'm at a coffee shop working on my book at the moment, so I won't be able to post an answer until later tonight. I figured I'd get the list of what people want to know started, though.


----------



## helium3 (Jun 27, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> Here's a quicker question: how did you get MM5 so damn early?




I know people.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 27, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> I know people.




Like who?  Name drop!!


----------



## Nightfall (Jun 27, 2007)

I think Helium just had someone at Amazon hand him a copy while having a loaded gun pointed to his/her head...


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 27, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Like who?  Name drop!!



People -- people who know people -- are the luckiest gamers ...


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 27, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Monsters.




Nice.

Seriously, could you type out the whole thing for us? I'm sure everyone would appreciate it.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 27, 2007)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> I think Helium just had someone at Amazon hand him a copy while having a loaded gun pointed to his/her head...




Amazon doesn't have it yet


----------



## Wolv0rine (Jun 27, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> I know people



And everyone wonders what this means until someone notices...



			
				helium3 said:
			
		

> I'm at a coffee shop working on my book at the moment, so I won't be able to post an answer until later tonight. I figured I'd get the list of what people want to know started, though.



...and realizes that helium3 is J. K. Rowling!!!    It makes perfect sense, I tell you.


----------



## Nyeshet (Jun 27, 2007)

Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> And everyone wonders what this means until someone notices...
> ...and realizes that helium3 is J. K. Rowling!!!    It makes perfect sense, I tell you.



If that were true I think magic would work quite different in the HP series!  Also, I would imagine the dragons would have looked quite a bit different - and been a wee bit more powerful and intelligent.


----------



## Nightfall (Jun 27, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Amazon doesn't have it yet





That's what they WANT you to believe Crothian!


----------



## Razz (Jun 27, 2007)

Been refreshing every half hour. Hoping to see the list before I head to sleep. I am off tomorrow, so I'll stay up all night if I must!


----------



## the Jester (Jun 27, 2007)

My biggest question is, how many of the monsters within are converted from earlier editions of the game?

Thanks!!


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jun 27, 2007)

What's the deal with the mind flayer on the cover? Lots of mind-flayer themed monsters inside (thralls and such)?


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jun 27, 2007)

Oh, and give us the name and brief description of the monster that most grabs your attention.


----------



## Glyfair (Jun 27, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Amazon doesn't have it yet




He didn't mean Amazon.com, he meant *an amazon* (how she got it is another matter  ).


----------



## Nightfall (Jun 27, 2007)

Gly,

Please don't put words in my mouth. It's bad enough when people try to shove the pills down in it...  

In any case I did mean Amazon.com, but if it was an Amazon, she probably was involved in the DC Comics crossover thingie.


----------



## Glyfair (Jun 27, 2007)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Please don't put words in my mouth.



I'm sorry if anyone (including you) even considered I might be serious.  The thought never crossed my mind.


----------



## Nightfall (Jun 27, 2007)

Gly,

Just saying...and forgive me if I seem hyper sensitive. I'm just irate about something I have no control over in RL.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 27, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> I'm sorry if anyone (including you) even considered I might be serious.  The thought never crossed my mind.



This is why you can never trust a dire sheep.


----------



## helium3 (Jun 27, 2007)

Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> And everyone wonders what this means until someone notices...
> 
> 
> ...and realizes that helium3 is J. K. Rowling!!!    It makes perfect sense, I tell you.




Yes. And I'll let you all in on a little secret. He DIES!!!!! Muh huh wah hah hah!!!


----------



## Tewligan (Jun 27, 2007)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Gly,
> 
> Just saying...and forgive me if I seem hyper sensitive. I'm just irate about something I have no control over in RL.



Something involving amazons, apparently.


----------



## helium3 (Jun 27, 2007)

Has a grand total of 222 pages.

The table of contents is kind of cool, as it also doubles as a sort of index.

Monsters are tabulated according to Challenge Rating, ECL, Type and Subtype.

Seven new feats.

One new spell.

Eleven templates, most of which appear to be different versions of the "god-blooded" template, ie Vecna-Blooded, Orcus-Blooded, etc.

A list of creatures in the book that can be summoned, created or crafted by characters. The corresponding monster entry has a section that details specifics.

A list of creatures that can function as mounts. The corresponding monster entry has a section that details how said mount can be obtained.


----------



## helium3 (Jun 27, 2007)

Five demons (Adaru, Carnage Demon, Draudnu, Gadacro, Solamith)

Three devils (Gulthir, Remmanon, Stitched Devil)

No new dragons, though two dragons are statted out with the new dragon-only template.

Two new golems, the force golem and the magmacore golem.

Several creatures get the "let's add class levels" treatment; Hobgoblins, Kuo-toa and Vampires.

The mind-flayer on the cover comes about because, I assume, fully 22 pages of the book are devoted to talking about the "Mind Flayers of Thoon." Thoon being some sort of far-realms associated entity that's caused changes to your standard mind-flayer that makes them search for something called "quintessence."

There is one epic level creature. It's called the Master of the Hunt, is CR 22 and is a kind of fey.


----------



## helium3 (Jun 27, 2007)

Here's the list of monsters:

Name [pg number the entry starts on]

Arcadian Avenger [8]
Banshrae [10]
Blackwing [12]
Burrow Root [14]
Dalmosh [16]
Deadborn Vulture [18]
Deadborn Vulture Zombie [18]
Demons [20]
Demonthorn Mandrake [30]
Devil [32]
Dragons of the Great Game [38]
Elemental Mage [48]
Ember Guard [52]
Ethereal Defiler [54]
Fetid Fungus [56]
Frostwind Virago [58]
Garngrath [60]
Gem Scarab [62]
God-Blooded Template [64]
Golem [68]
Graveyard Sludge [72]
Greenspawn Zealot [74]
Guulvorg [76]
Haunt [78]
Hobgoblin [84]
Illurien [90]
Jaebrin [92]
Kuo-toa [94]
Malastor [100]
Merchurion [102]
Mind Flayers of Thoon [104]
Mockery Bug [126]
Phantom [130]
Ruin Chanter [132]
Ruin Elemental [134]
Rylkar [136]
Sanguineous Drinker [142]
Scouring Construct [144]
Shaedling [148]
Shardsoul Slayer [150]
Siege Beetle [152]
Skull Lord [154]
Spawn of Juiblex [162]
Spirrax [166]
Steelwing [168]
Thrym Hound [170]
Tirbana [172]
Troll, Bladerager [180]
Tusk Terror [182]
Ushemoi [184]
Vampire [190]
Verdant Reaver [196]
Vinespawn [198]
Vivisector [200]
Wild Hunt [202]


----------



## helium3 (Jun 27, 2007)

Monsters by type:

Abberation: Ethereal defiler, madcrafter of Thoon, shadow flayer, spirrax, Thoon disciple, Thoon elder brain, vivesector.

Construct: Force golem, magmacore golem, merchurion, scouring slinger, scouring stanchion, scyther of Thoon, shardsoul slayer, slinger scorpion, stormcloud of Thoon, Thoon hulk, Thoon soldier.

Dragon: Chorranathau, Morlincantha.

Elemental: Ruin elemental, spawn of Juiblex (all).

Fey: Banshrae, frostwind virago, jaebrin, master of the hunt, ruin chanter, shaedling.

Giant: Bladerager troll, elemental magi (all).

Humanoid : Hobgoblin duskblade, Nozgug (god-blooded orc), Singh the Immense.

Magical Beast : Deadborn vulture, garngrath, gem scarab, guulvorg, hound of the hunt, malastor, mockery bugs (all), rylkars (all), steelwing, Thrym hound, tirbanas (all), tusk terror.

Monstrous Humanoid : Greenspwan zealot, hobgoblin spell-scourge, hobgoblin warcaster, hobgoblin warsoul, kuo-toas (all), Thoon infiltrator, Thoon thrall, ushemoi (all).

Ooze : Graveyard sludge.

Outsider : Arcadian avenger, Dalmosh, demons (all), fetid fungus, verdent reaver, vinespawn.

Undead : Blackwing, bonespur, bridge haunt, forest haunt, Kugan (phantom ghast), sanguineous drinker, serpentir, skill lord, spectral rider, taunting haunt, vapires (all), deadborn vulture zombie.

Vermin : Siege beetle.


----------



## helium3 (Jun 27, 2007)

the Jester said:
			
		

> My biggest question is, how many of the monsters within are converted from earlier editions of the game?
> 
> Thanks!!




I have no clue. Some of them sound familiar, but I suspect they're from 3.0 splat-books.


----------



## helium3 (Jun 27, 2007)

heirodule said:
			
		

> ratio of new monsters to templated old monsters?
> 
> How many maps?
> 
> ...




It looks like there are around 14 templated creatures or monsters with class levels.

No maps.

No yuan-ti anything.

What is this old school that you speak of?


----------



## helium3 (Jun 27, 2007)

Herremann the Wise said:
			
		

> What's the artwork like compared to previous MM's?
> Personally from best to worst, I'd rate the first four as: III then I then IV then II. How would you rate them all five?




I'm not a huge fan of the art in this one. Any weapons wielded are just ridiculously large. I would also rate III as the best as well. After a quick flip-through I'd say this is around the same as IV. The mind-flayer stuff is pretty cool though.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 27, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Eleven templates, most of which appear to be different versions of the "god-blooded" template, ie Vecna-Blooded, Orcus-Blooded, etc.



Whoa, didn't see that coming. Any non-evil god-blooded?



> A list of creatures that can function as mounts. The corresponding monster entry has a section that details how said mount can be obtained.



Whoa, again.


----------



## helium3 (Jun 27, 2007)

A few more things:

They use the same stat block as found in MM IV.

Each creature entry generally starts with the stat block, has a section on strategies and tactics, a sample encounter, a section on lore related to the creature with knowledge DC's, it's ecology, treasure and how to fit the monster into Ebberon and Faerun.


----------



## helium3 (Jun 27, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Whoa, didn't see that coming. Any non-evil god-blooded?




Yeah. Kord-Blooded. The god-blooded template is an uber-template in that it's a template of templates. You pick the god and use the uber-template to create a template to apply to a creature.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 27, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Yeah. Kord-Blooded. The god-blooded template is an uber-template in that it's a template of templates. You pick the god and use the uber-template to create a template to apply to a creature.



Oh, nice. So I could create a -- don't laugh -- Garl Glittergold-blooded or a Moradin-blooded, then? Do I need Deities and Demigods for this, or are there sufficient rules in MM5?


----------



## helium3 (Jun 27, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Oh, nice. So I could create a -- don't laugh -- Garl Glittergold-blooded or a Moradin-blooded, then? Do I need Deities and Demigods for this, or are there sufficient rules in MM5?




Yes and no you don't need Deities and Demigods. The rules for the "uber-template" are far more "hand-wavey" than your usual template, more like guidelines really.


----------



## Khuxan (Jun 27, 2007)

I have a secret and compelling desire to one day create one of these threads without having a copy of the book in question... and seeing how long I can have everyone thinking I actually own the book.

No offense intended, helium3 - it's obvious you're genuine.


----------



## helium3 (Jun 27, 2007)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> I have a secret and compelling desire to one day create one of these threads without having a copy of the book in question... and seeing how long I can have everyone thinking I actually own the book.
> 
> No offense intended, helium3 - it's obvious you're genuine.




Heh. I wondered if people were going to think that was the case. The book was at home when I posted the thread and then I got busy and couldn't answer any questions until late this evening.


----------



## Felon (Jun 27, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> No new dragons, though two dragons are statted out with the new dragon-only template.



"Dragon-only" template? Could you elaborate, please?



> Several creatures get the "let's add class levels" treatment; Hobgoblins, Kuo-toa and Vampires.



Well, three doesn't sound so bad. Especially those three.

So, what are these new feats? And a new spell?


----------



## green slime (Jun 27, 2007)

Second on those feat descriptions. Feat-junkie here.


----------



## Tuzenbach (Jun 27, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Malastor [100]





Do these monsters touch children in places their bathing-suits cover?


----------



## Sejs (Jun 27, 2007)

Tuzenbach said:
			
		

> Do these monsters touch children in places their bathing-suits cover?




I was thinking that it's an extra-frisky version of the mage the created Undermountain.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Jun 27, 2007)

Tuzenbach said:
			
		

> Do these monsters touch children in places their bathing-suits cover?




Hmmm....  if the spell is called "Malastor's Pleasure Touch" I'll call foul since I sware that spell was in the Book of Erotic Fantasy


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jun 27, 2007)

The mount and "build-me!" lists sound like they try to make the books easier to use. I like that.


----------



## Tharen the Damned (Jun 27, 2007)

Tuzenbach said:
			
		

> Do these monsters touch children in places their bathing-suits cover?




Nope, that is the special ability of the Molestor Template.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Jun 27, 2007)

What's a phantom ghast ninja?  Is it more than just a ghast with ninja levels?

What are some of these thoon mind flayers?


----------



## Mercule (Jun 27, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> The mind-flayer on the cover comes about because, I assume, fully 22 pages of the book are devoted to talking about the "Mind Flayers of Thoon." Thoon being some sort of far-realms associated entity that's caused changes to your standard mind-flayer that makes them search for something called "quintessence."




I thought you were kidding until you put up the ToC.  That's just... unfortunate.

The "Spawn of Jubilex" entry has me a bit weirded out, though.  *shudder*


----------



## Kristian Serrano (Jun 27, 2007)

Never heard of Thoon before, and when I Googled the word, I came across this article from the Sharn Inquisitive.


----------



## Mr.Black (Jun 27, 2007)

Thanks for the monster list Helium. 

Could you list the demons and give a quick description of them?  Are they tannar'ri?  What are their CRs?


----------



## sckeener (Jun 27, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> A list of creatures in the book that can be summoned...by characters. The corresponding monster entry has a section that details specifics.
> 
> The mind-flayer on the cover comes about because, I assume, fully 22 pages of the book are devoted to talking about the "Mind Flayers of Thoon." Thoon being some sort of far-realms associated entity that's caused changes to your standard mind-flayer that makes them search for something called "quintessence."
> 
> Each creature entry generally starts with the stat block, has a section on strategies and tactics, a sample encounter, a section on lore related to the creature with knowledge DC's, it's ecology, treasure and how to fit the monster into....Faerun.




ok...looks like I am buying this book as soon as it comes out....


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jun 27, 2007)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> I have a secret and compelling desire to one day create one of these threads without having a copy of the book in question... and seeing how long I can have everyone thinking I actually own the book.
> 
> No offense intended, helium3 - it's obvious you're genuine.




RangerWickett did tha way back in the day with Sword and Fist, IIRC.  Had people really going.


----------



## Rackhir (Jun 27, 2007)

How are the summonable monsters in here? Anything actually worth summoning at higher levels? IE. is it going to be better than say a gargantuan centipeed or just funky stuff? Anything particularly flavorful for an alienist?


----------



## helium3 (Jun 27, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> "Dragon-only" template? Could you elaborate, please?
> 
> Well, three doesn't sound so bad. Especially those three.
> 
> So, what are these new feats? And a new spell?




The template can only be applied to young adult or older true dragon. It basically trade away spellcasting abilities for other abilities. The flavor is that the dragon with this template is involved in something called Xorvintaal, or "The Great Game", which appears to be some sort of complicated contest between dragons for power and prestige. Dragons with this template can grant a related template to humanoid agents, which are called Exarchs.

The new spell is called Earthbind, and it's a spell like ability cast by the Gadacro, one of the new demons. Now that I looked at it more closely, I think it may be in the Spell Compendium.

The new feats are Battle Magic Tactics, Brutal Throw, Daunting Presence, Kuo-toan Monasticism, Mage Slayer, Mind-Shattering Strike and Sense Quintessence.


----------



## helium3 (Jun 27, 2007)

A phantom ghast ninja is a ghast with levels of ninja and the phantom template. The phantom template can be applied to any corporeal creatures and allows said creature to become incorporeal at certain times if it chooses to do so.


----------



## helium3 (Jun 27, 2007)

Tuzenbach said:
			
		

> Do these monsters touch children in places their bathing-suits cover?




Heh. No, they wake up once a year and eat everything in sight, mate and then go back to sleep. Very yucky looking. CR 16 Magical Beast. Evocative of the Tarrasque, but without all the unique creature stuff.


----------



## Aeolius (Jun 27, 2007)

No new aquatic beasties? No hags? No flumphs? Who are they writing these things for, anyway?!?


----------



## helium3 (Jun 27, 2007)

Mr.Black said:
			
		

> Thanks for the monster list Helium.
> 
> Could you list the demons and give a quick description of them?  Are they tannar'ri?  What are their CRs?




Adaru (Tanar'ri) CR 10, a demonic millipede.
Carnage Demon (Just a Demon) CR 4, a demon that likes to kill more than most demons and gains a bonus from being near others of its kind in combat.
Draudnu (Obyrith) CR 10, a demon with trilateral symmetry that hunts other demons. The glossary at the back describes the Obyrith sub-type.
Gadacro (Tanar'ri) CR 3, a demon that can do sneak attack and temporarily blind creatures that it could sneak attack.
Solamith (Tanar'ri) CR 8, a demon that can rip out hunks of its own flesh (ie inflict damage on itself) and throw it as an underpowered fire ball.


----------



## helium3 (Jun 27, 2007)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> How are the summonable monsters in here? Anything actually worth summoning at higher levels? IE. is it going to be better than say a gargantuan centipeed or just funky stuff? Anything particularly flavorful for an alienist?




Most of the demons and one of the devils are included in this list, as is the Arcadian Avenger and the Fetid Fungus. Not sure how they rate to a Gargantuan Centipeed. More interesting for the player to run I suppose. Nothing that screams alienist though.


----------



## Shade (Jun 27, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Draudnu (Obyrith) CR 10, a demon with trilateral symmetry that hunts other demons. The glossary at the back describes the Obyrith sub-type.




I'm sold on it.


----------



## Razz (Jun 27, 2007)

I'm upset at the lack of Celestials. Arcadian Avenger is the only one in the book.

What has me really upset is the fact that one of the authors of the book sent in about 7 written celestials...none of them made it in.   

I also wish they would stop with the "theme" thing. A whole entry on an illithid city called Thoon? MMIV had Lizardfolk tribes...I really don't like seeing these in a MONSTER MANUAL, to be honest. They just don't belong. Again, they worry about splitting the fan base, but they are literally doing that by combining material in ONE book. These things need to have their own books.

Also, NONE of these creatures are conversions from older editions. What's the deal with that? Did they just give up on converting creatures even though there's plenty out there worth, heck more than worth, converting?

Other than those gripes about MMV, this book appears to be more promising than MMIV. It's still a maybe on my decision on whether or not to purchase it.


----------



## helium3 (Jun 27, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> I'm upset at the lack of Celestials. Arcadian Avenger is the only one in the book.




I think it's understandable though. Most parties won't ever fight good creatures, so you really don't need that many.



			
				Razz said:
			
		

> A whole entry on an illithid city called Thoon? MMIV had Lizardfolk tribes...I really don't like seeing these in a MONSTER MANUAL, to be honest. They just don't belong. Again, they worry about splitting the fan base, but they are literally doing that by combining material in ONE book. These things need to have their own books.




It's not a city, it's an unfathomable entity from the Far Realms. Like a god or a demon lord, but not. Did I type city on accident?



			
				Razz said:
			
		

> Also, NONE of these creatures are conversions from older editions. What's the deal with that? Did they just give up on converting creatures even though there's plenty out there worth, heck more than worth, converting?




Well, I would imagine that the lead designer didn't think there was much left to be mined from older editions. *shrug*


----------



## Shade (Jun 27, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> Also, NONE of these creatures are conversions from older editions. What's the deal with that? Did they just give up on converting creatures even though there's plenty out there worth, heck more than worth, converting?




Not true.  The Master of the Wild Hunt and his hounds were from the 1E D&DG.  And haunts and phantoms _might _ be updates from similarly-named creatures in prior editions.

Still, I'd have liked to see many more.  I'm still holding out for the remaining yugoloths and rilmani at the very least.   :\


----------



## Voadam (Jun 27, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> The mind-flayer on the cover comes about because, I assume, fully 22 pages of the book are devoted to talking about the "Mind Flayers of Thoon." Thoon being some sort of far-realms associated entity that's caused changes to your standard mind-flayer that makes them search for something called "quintessence."




Mechanically variant mind flayers or just fluff?


----------



## helium3 (Jun 27, 2007)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Mechanically variant mind flayers or just fluff?




All new creatures. The Thoon stuff is basically a totally different take on mind-flayers. New goals, new behavior, new minions. It's not meant to replace the basic mindflayer, but to create a new group of the creatures that is at odds with the old flavor.


----------



## Razz (Jun 27, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> I think it's understandable though. Most parties won't ever fight good creatures, so you really don't need that many.




Not for fighting against, but for fighting with. Also, more celestials can be used for more involved (and evolved) campaigns, whether homebrew or published. They make for good NPCs and storytelling events. 

I just feel that celestials shouldn't be overlooked because the designer is ONLY looking at it from a "game mechanic" perspective, D&D should be much more than just that.



			
				helium3 said:
			
		

> It's not a city, it's an unfathomable entity from the Far Realms. Like a god or a demon lord, but not. Did I type city on accident?




Ah, ok. Much better than. I thought Thoon was some sort of illithid city from the sound of it and someone mentioned using Wiki and coming up with something in Eberron. Thoon being Far Realm entity is a lot more intriguing and interesting.



			
				helium3 said:
			
		

> Well, I would imagine that the lead designer didn't think there was much left to be mined from older editions. *shrug*




There's plenty to mine from older editions. But from a few statements made by the designers I've read on these boards and WotC's forums, they only convert monsters if they "believe" it's interesting enough by the gamer populace to convert. I've lately been taking this as "if the _designers_ find it interesting enough" since I don't believe they truly know how the gaming community would accept a creature until it's produced. *Creature Catalog* from Dragon Magazine is one of the top famous series of articles alongside Core Beliefs and Demonomicon because it produces both a mixture of converted and new creatures.

There's plenty of interesting creatures left to be converted, some of which they converted only halfway (example, the remaining 3 rilmani, I believe 2 eladrins are missing, agathinon and light celestials, and definitely some yugoloths). It's just a matter of convincing the designers to seriously look into feeling nostalgic enough to pull some of those critters back from the "2E graveyard".



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> Not true.  The Master of the Wild Hunt and his hounds were from the 1E D&DG.  And haunts and phantoms _might _ be updates from similarly-named creatures in prior editions.
> 
> Still, I'd have liked to see many more.  I'm still holding out for the remaining yugoloths and rilmani at the very least.   :\




I've totally missed that...and the funny thing was I knew the Master of the Wild Hunt was from older editions. Yet I still missed it in my post LOL 

Goes to show you, not enough conversions from WotC lately if I missed something like that after being overwhelmed by so many new beasties.

Phantoms, yes, almost forgot that one. There're haunts on the list?


----------



## Shazman (Jun 27, 2007)

Could you go itnto more detail about the classed creatures (especially the classes of the various hobgoblins)?  Also, could you elaborate on some of the new feats?  Most of them sound like reprints except for the battle tactics,kuo-toa monk feat, and sense whatever.


----------



## JustKim (Jun 27, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> All new creatures. The Thoon stuff is basically a totally different take on mind-flayers. New goals, new behavior, new minions. It's not meant to replace the basic mindflayer, but to create a new group of the creatures that is at odds with the old flavor.



I was afraid it was going to be a collection of the illithid-related monsters from Dragon and Lords of Madness, but this sounds really cool.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 27, 2007)

Hey there! 

What are the ten highest CR monsters in the book (you already mentioned Master of the Hunt was CR 22 as the highest)?

Thank you.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jun 27, 2007)

The Thoon concept is a good one - it lets them rework mind flayers mechanically (because WotC's become much more mechanically smart since, oh, about Monster Manual 3) without having legions of fans claiming that they've destroyed the flavor of the game or somesuch.

It's similar to Tiamat's dragonspawn in terms of the mechanical goals, but by far the key difference is that we actually like mind flayers -- getting a whole bunch of Tiamat-spawn didn't really do a whole lot for some of us.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jun 27, 2007)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> I have a secret and compelling desire to one day create one of these threads without having a copy of the book in question... and seeing how long I can have everyone thinking I actually own the book.




Thank you for giving me a wonderful idea. Everyone in this thread is hereby forewarned, so no whining when I do it.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jun 27, 2007)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> RangerWickett did tha way back in the day with Sword and Fist, IIRC.  Had people really going.




Tome & Blood, Song & Silence, and Masters of the Wild, and the Draconomicon, actually.

Sadly, the faux T&B and S&S were lost in a board reboot.


----------



## Jolly Giant (Jun 27, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> The new spell is called Earthbind, and it's a spell like ability cast by the Gadacro, one of the new demons. Now that I looked at it more closely, I think it may be in the Spell Compendium.





 Could be. I _know _ it is in the draconomicon, however. I added it to my conjurer PC's spellbook just two days ago.


----------



## blargney the second (Jun 27, 2007)

Thanks for finding the Thoon reference in the Sharn Inquisitive!  I knew I recognized the name from something recent.


----------



## Erywin (Jun 27, 2007)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> Thanks for finding the Thoon reference in the Sharn Inquisitive!  I knew I recognized the name from something recent.




*Yoink*


----------



## Dark Psion (Jun 27, 2007)

Are the Mind Flayers presented as Psionic or Magical?

I still remember MM4 and the Githyanki "are a psionic race" and that was the extent of psionics in the article.


----------



## Sucros (Jun 27, 2007)

"Spawn of Jubilex"  Aww... now I'm going to have to BUY it.....


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 27, 2007)

Thoon sounds like one of the Galchutt to me. Tempting ...


----------



## Razz (Jun 27, 2007)

Ok, some questions on the following creatures.



			
				helium3 said:
			
		

> Monsters by type:
> *Dragon:* Chorranathau, Morlincantha.




Could you elaborate on these? These're templates, I assume. What do they do and what're they about?



			
				helium3 said:
			
		

> *Elemental:* Spawn of Juiblex (all).




These are Elementals!? What explanation do they give?



			
				helium3 said:
			
		

> *Giant:* Elemental Magi (all).




Alongside more Fey, I always enjoy more Giants. This one is intriguing, the Elemental Magi. Can you tell us a little more on them?



			
				helium3 said:
			
		

> *Magical Beast:* Rylkars (all) and Tirbanas (all)




I've noticed several pages are dedicated to these and there's more than one type, I assume. Can you tell us what these are?



			
				helium3 said:
			
		

> *Monstrous Humanoid:*  Ushemoi (all).




As above.



			
				helium3 said:
			
		

> *Outsider:* Dalmosh, Verdant Reaver, Vinespawn.




I'd like a little info on these, too. The Vinespawn is, I'm guessing, a template for the spawn of some extraplanar plant? The Verdant Reaver sounds like something from the Beastlands. The Dalmosh has left me clueless.



			
				helium3 said:
			
		

> *Undead:* Skill Lord
> 
> Of all the undead, what the heck is this one? Such a strange name for an undead creature.




On a final note, can you tell us which on the list are templates?


----------



## takasi (Jun 27, 2007)

Who are the artists?  

Anything from Wayne Reynolds?  Or did Paizo lock him in their dungeon for Pathfinder?


----------



## Tuzenbach (Jun 28, 2007)

Still no love for the Flumph? Well, hopefully they'll include it in MM6......


----------



## DMH (Jun 28, 2007)

Do the new illithids have a set description or do they have a variety of forms (due to the chaos they have been exposed to)? Are they psionic, magical or something else?


----------



## demiurge1138 (Jun 28, 2007)

I'm curious about the sanguinous drinker. Is it related to the (much beloved by me) vitreous drinker from MMIV?

Demiurge out.


----------



## Razz (Jun 28, 2007)

Tuzenbach said:
			
		

> Still no love for the Flumph? Well, hopefully they'll include it in MM6......




Dude, the stats for the Flumph was done in (and I thank them greatly for being one of the only Monster Converters out there, besides BOZ and Shade) *Dungeon Magazine #118*.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Jun 28, 2007)

A minor question - do they list the hit Die type in the "HD" of the monster stat block?  In MM 4 they gave the number of hit dice and an average hit point total but no breakdown of the numbers (ie 4d8+12 for CON bonus).


----------



## Holy Bovine (Jun 28, 2007)

Oh and the list of monsters and your descriptions hellium3 have convinced me this one is a must buy for me!


----------



## Shazman (Jun 28, 2007)

Before this thread, I didn't think much about MMV.  Now, I'll probably pick it up if I can find the cash.


----------



## helium3 (Jun 28, 2007)

Shazman said:
			
		

> Could you go itnto more detail about the classed creatures (especially the classes of the various hobgoblins)?  Also, could you elaborate on some of the new feats?  Most of them sound like reprints except for the battle tactics,kuo-toa monk feat, and sense whatever.




Hobgoblin Duskblade-3
Hobgoblin Spellscourge (extra hit dice and the mage-slayer feat)
Hobgoblin Warcaster (extra hit dice and some arcane spells)
Hobgoblin Warsoul  (extra hit dice and more arcane spells)
Crazed Kuo-toa (extra hit dice and new abilities)
Kuo-toa Exalted Whip (extra hit dice and divine casting)
Kuo-toa Harpooner (Fighter-2)
Kuo-toa Monitor (Monk-4)
The Black Duke - Vampire Knight-7 / Ronin-10
The Red Widow - Vampire Ninja-5 / Fighter-2 / Ghost-faced killer-8
Phantom Ghast Ninja-4
Gruumsh-blooded orc barbarian-5/fighter-2
Thoon Thrall Human Commoner-1


----------



## helium3 (Jun 28, 2007)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hey there!
> 
> What are the ten highest CR monsters in the book (you already mentioned Master of the Hunt was CR 22 as the highest)?
> 
> Thank you.




10. Merchurion (CR 17)
9. Vampire, Red Widow (CR 17)
8. Dragons of the great game, Chorranathau (CR 18)
7. Scouring construct, scouring slinger (CR 18)
6. Scouring construct, scouring stanchion (CR 18)
5. Spirrax
4. Wild Hunt, hound of the hunt (CR 18)
3. Vampire, Black Duke (CR 19)
2. Garngrath (CR 20)
1. Wild Hunt, master of the hunt (CR 22)


----------



## helium3 (Jun 28, 2007)

Dark Psion said:
			
		

> Are the Mind Flayers presented as Psionic or Magical?
> 
> I still remember MM4 and the Githyanki "are a psionic race" and that was the extent of psionics in the article.




It's the same here, as near as I can tell.


----------



## helium3 (Jun 28, 2007)

DMH said:
			
		

> Do the new illithids have a set description or do they have a variety of forms (due to the chaos they have been exposed to)? Are they psionic, magical or something else?




Thoon Disciple - Mind Flayer cleric-4
Shadow Flayer - Mind Flayer with the ability to use poison and become invisibile.
Thoon Infiltrator - A parasite that can turn people into Thoon Thralls.
Thoon Thrall - A creature turned into a thrall by a Thoon Infiltrator.
Thoon Soldier - A construct that has a number of special abilities.
Madcrafter of Thoon - A living factory for Stormclouds and Scythers of Thoon
Scyther of Thoon - A construct with funky powers, including the ability to heal naturally.
Stormcloud of Thoon - A weird floating construct shaped like a grell that shoots lightening bolts.
Thoon Hulk - A large construct useful for bashing stuff.
Thoon Elder Brain - A CR 15 elder brain as opposed to the normal Epic CR 25 elder brain.


----------



## helium3 (Jun 28, 2007)

demiurge1138 said:
			
		

> I'm curious about the sanguinous drinker. Is it related to the (much beloved by me) vitreous drinker from MMIV?
> 
> Demiurge out.




Uhh, it drinks blood through its hollow claws.


----------



## helium3 (Jun 28, 2007)

takasi said:
			
		

> Who are the artists?
> 
> Anything from Wayne Reynolds?  Or did Paizo lock him in their dungeon for Pathfinder?




There are 20 interior artists listed. Wayne Reynolds is one of them. Not sure what he drew.


----------



## helium3 (Jun 28, 2007)

Holy Bovine said:
			
		

> A minor question - do they list the hit Die type in the "HD" of the monster stat block?  In MM 4 they gave the number of hit dice and an average hit point total but no breakdown of the numbers (ie 4d8+12 for CON bonus).




It's the same as in MM 4. I agree that it sucks. I'm still a bigger fan of the stat-block from MM 3.


----------



## helium3 (Jun 28, 2007)

Chorranathau and Morlincantha are templated dragons of the great game. They give up their spell casting abilities for other things.

The spawn of Juiblex are considered elementals because of the flavor text, basically. An unholy combination of Juiblex's essence and elemental water.

Elemental mages are giants descended from ogres, so sort of distantly related to ogre-mages. Each kind of giant has an elemental theme (earth, fire and water) and special abilities to match.

Rylkars are a type of nasty, intelligent ratlike creatures from the underdark.

Tirbanas are insects that require humanoid hosts to complete their life-cycle. They form a sort of hive in cities and towns and begin using captured people to make more spawn.

Ushemoi are creatures that gain special powers when exposed to different kinds of stimuli, like pain.

Dalmosh is a unique (I think) gargantuan outsider from the abyss that eats everything in sight.

A Verdent Reaver is what happens to a person when they are charmed by Dryads and spend all their time with them. They look sort of like wooden gorillas.

A vinespawn is a plant creature made up of vines that can spawn more of its kind by using the bodies of victims as incubators.

When I typed "Skill Lord" it was a typo. It should read Skull Lord.


----------



## Garnfellow (Jun 28, 2007)

Red Widow Vampire? What the heck is _that_ -- sounds very cool.

This is the first WotC monster book to tempt me since Fiend Folio.


----------



## Koewn (Jun 28, 2007)

What's the Kuo-Toa Monasticism feat?

I've been statting up some KT monks and they're already tough little fishies...


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 28, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> The Black Duke - Vampire Knight-7 / Ronin-10
> The Red Widow - Vampire Ninja-5 / Fighter-2 / Ghost-faced killer-8



Awesome! Like the superhero-y names.


----------



## Shazman (Jun 28, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Awesome! Like the superhero-y names.




I know that a lot of people don't like classed monsters in a monster manual, but a lot of these sound really good, especially the vampires.  I am a bit confused with the extra hit dice on the classed hobgoblins.  I've never seen humanoids with extra non-classed hit dice. If you are going to do that, they might as well be bugbears.


----------



## helium3 (Jun 28, 2007)

Shazman said:
			
		

> I know that a lot of people don't like classed monsters in a monster manual, but a lot of these sound really good, especially the vampires.  I am a bit confused with the extra hit dice on the classed hobgoblins.  I've never seen humanoids with extra non-classed hit dice. If you are going to do that, they might as well be bugbears.




Yeah. It is a little weird, I suppose. I wondered for a bit if maybe they just forgot to include info on the classes it had, but I don't think that's the case. There are fairly explicit rules in the back of MM1 on how to add hit dice to monsters, and there's nothing really wrong per se with giving a hobgoblin a couple of extra hit dice instead of class levels. It might not be "RAW" in the truest sense but it doesn't result in a creature that's somehow unbalanced or broken.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 28, 2007)

I'd like to see an advanced human. Wonder how many hit dice he needs to become large?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 28, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I'd like to see an advanced human. Wonder how many hit dice he needs to become large?



If anyone had them, Andre the Giant did.


----------



## Stereofm (Jun 28, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Hobgoblin Duskblade-3
> Hobgoblin Spellscourge (extra hit dice and the mage-slayer feat)
> Hobgoblin Warcaster (extra hit dice and some arcane spells)
> Hobgoblin Warsoul  (extra hit dice and more arcane spells)
> ...




I am sad to see so much waste of space ... really ...


----------



## Stereofm (Jun 28, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Chorranathau and Morlincantha are templated dragons of the great game. They give up their spell casting abilities for other things.
> 
> The spawn of Juiblex are considered elementals because of the flavor text, basically. An unholy combination of Juiblex's essence and elemental water.
> 
> ...




That is much better. Some imagination, at last. I might buy the book after all.


----------



## Shazman (Jun 28, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Yeah. It is a little weird, I suppose. I wondered for a bit if maybe they just forgot to include info on the classes it had, but I don't think that's the case. There are fairly explicit rules in the back of MM1 on how to add hit dice to monsters, and there's nothing really wrong per se with giving a hobgoblin a couple of extra hit dice instead of class levels. It might not be "RAW" in the truest sense but it doesn't result in a creature that's somehow unbalanced or broken.




I don't think it's against the RAW, but it doesn't make a lot of sense. Humanoid hit dice aren't nearly as good as class levels.  Outsider and dragon hit dice are okay, but humanoid hit dice leave much to be desired.


----------



## blargney the second (Jun 28, 2007)

In an MM4 discussion some WotC people said they were going to keep the humanoids with class levels for MM5, but find some way to add something extra.


----------



## DMH (Jun 28, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Tirbanas are insects that require humanoid hosts to complete their life-cycle. They form a sort of hive in cities and towns and begin using captured people to make more spawn.




I am sick of parasitoids like this, but make it a parasite (ie the host survives and may be used over and over), then it has possibilities.


----------



## Razz (Jun 28, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Elemental mages are giants descended from ogres, so sort of distantly related to ogre-mages. Each kind of giant has an elemental theme (earth, fire and water) and special abilities to match.




Aww, no Air? What gives? How could they do Elemental Magi and do only three and not the complete 4?

Also, I'd like to know what the feats do. I recognize some as reprints, but others there are brand new


----------



## demiurge1138 (Jun 28, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> Aww, no Air? What gives? How could they do Elemental Magi and do only three and not the complete 4?



Perhaps that, using this schema, ogre magi are the air magi (what with their perfect fly speeds, invisibility at will and cone of cold).

Demiurge out.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 28, 2007)

DMH said:
			
		

> I am sick of parasitoids like this



Blame HR Giger.


----------



## Razz (Jun 28, 2007)

demiurge1138 said:
			
		

> Perhaps that, using this schema, ogre magi are the air magi (what with their perfect fly speeds, invisibility at will and cone of cold).
> 
> Demiurge out.




I was just thinking that a few moments before you posted this. I can see it that way. They're already blue-skinned, too, a proper color for air (I'm guessing white skin will be for the ice/water magi maybe?).


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 28, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Blame HR Giger.



It would be nice if WotC could settle on just quasi-Alien and make it all it can be. I like the BoVD one, myself, although the one from the Miniatures Handbook is also good.


----------



## helium3 (Jun 28, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> Aww, no Air? What gives? How could they do Elemental Magi and do only three and not the complete 4?
> 
> Also, I'd like to know what the feats do. I recognize some as reprints, but others there are brand new




Oh. Ooops. It was air, earth and fire. No water. My bad.


----------



## Aeolius (Jun 28, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Oh. Ooops. It was air, earth and fire. No water. My bad.




No water? What gives?  deja vu.... 

They must've known I had been using merrow magi for years, now.


----------



## Razz (Jun 29, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Oh. Ooops. It was air, earth and fire. No water. My bad.




Eh? No Water? So is the ogre magi supposed to represent the water one or something?

Does it explain anywhere in the text why there's no Water Elemental Magi?


----------



## helium3 (Jun 29, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> Eh? No Water? So is the ogre magi supposed to represent the water one or something?
> 
> Does it explain anywhere in the text why there's no Water Elemental Magi?




No, it doesn't really explain it anywhere. Maybe they're saving it for MM6.


----------



## Felon (Jun 29, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> I also wish they would stop with the "theme" thing. A whole entry on an illithid city called Thoon? MMIV had Lizardfolk tribes...I really don't like seeing these in a MONSTER MANUAL, to be honest. They just don't belong. Again, they worry about splitting the fan base, but they are literally doing that by combining material in ONE book.



Just because it's not for you is hardly evident of damaging their entire fanbase. You never do seem to latch on to that little point.


----------



## Felon (Jun 29, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> No, it doesn't really explain it anywhere. Maybe they're saving it for MM6.



Earth, wind, and fire giants, huh? They don't all happen to wear big gold chains, do they?


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jun 29, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Just because it's not for you is hardly evident of damaging their entire fanbase. You never do seem to latch on to that little point.



Luis really does have that problem.


----------



## Razz (Jun 29, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Just because it's not for you is hardly evident of damaging their entire fanbase. You never do seem to latch on to that little point.




A little late on replying to that one, which was already corrected by Helium3 a long while back? It's almost as if...hmm...you just felt like picking on opinionated me? So typical of some of the posters here when they cross my posts here. Sad...

In any case, I was referring to the fact that some of the WotC staff on the FUTURE RELEASES forums on their website had informed many of us that the reason they won't do new creatures in one book with classed monsters/NPCs in its own separate book is because they don't want to split the market. 

In retaliation to that, I was saying that makes no sense to pour both into one book and further limit the content of both (e.g. the same page count instead of an increased page count in order to better share the two concepts). Instead of pleasing a majority, you end up giving less to both sides which leaves the same amount angry and the rest foolishly complacent with it.


----------



## Razz (Jun 29, 2007)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> Luis really does have that problem.




I've noticed you've been using my actual name as if you personally know me or something? Many times you've stalked my posts only to further harass me on my opinions everywhere I go (I have yet to see you attack me on the Paizo boards) and now you're calling me by my name? 

Now it's just getting creepy. A bit infatuated with me there?

Please, for both our sake, just put me on ignore if you can't handle what I believe in when it comes to the way I think D&D material should be handled. There are much more opinionated and worse folk here on the boards to slam than myself.  :\


----------



## Felon (Jun 29, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> A little late on replying to that one, which was already corrected by Helium3 a long while back? It's almost as if...hmm...you just felt like picking on opinionated me? So typical of some of the posters here when they cross my posts here. Sad...



Don't feel singled out. _Anybody_ can get that kind of attention. They just have to go around stating opinions in a factual manner, and they'll wind up being challenged. And if that doesn't do the trick, they can always tut-tut the WotC design staff as if they were an unquestionable authority on the topics of sourcebook design and fanbase appeal. 

Hey, everyone's opiniated. That's not what draws people to constantly correct the various inaccuracies and logical falacies that seem inherent to your criticisms. I suspect we'll see more threads from you about MMV, just like we did with MMIV. If past experience is any indicator, you'll say outlandish stuff like accuse DM's of being lazy for wanting statted-out monsters and suggest that if they don't have time to do it themselves they should just quit the hobby. You probably know better, but seem to crave the attention, and the fact that it's not the good kind of attention isn't important. And that is sad as well.

But having said all that....


			
				Razz said:
			
		

> Now it's just getting creepy. A bit infatuated with me there?



It is creepy and inappropriate to use someone's real name on a baord where they're employing an alias. On the other hand, putting a narcissistically erotic spin on that is probably not the way to go with a stalker.


----------



## Felon (Jun 29, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> The new spell is called Earthbind, and it's a spell like ability cast by the Gadacro, one of the new demons. Now that I looked at it more closely, I think it may be in the Spell Compendium.



True that.


> The new feats are Battle Magic Tactics, Brutal Throw, Daunting Presence, Kuo-toan Monasticism, Mage Slayer, Mind-Shattering Strike and Sense Quintessence.



Would love to here more about the feats (I'm already familiar with Brutal Throw and Mage-Slayer).


----------



## Felon (Jun 29, 2007)

Shazman said:
			
		

> I don't think it's against the RAW, but it doesn't make a lot of sense. Humanoid hit dice aren't nearly as good as class levels.  Outsider and dragon hit dice are okay, but humanoid hit dice leave much to be desired.



Indeed, I'd say the same goes for advancing a troll into a "war troll" and advancing an ogre into a "skullcrusher ogre", but it does let them advance a creature in a minimalist sort of way, without resorting to class levels that some people find objectionable.


----------



## coyote6 (Jun 29, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Would love to here more about the feats (I'm already familiar with Brutal Throw and Mage-Slayer).




I'm curious to see if Mage-Slayer changed any.


----------



## helium3 (Jun 29, 2007)

Battle Magic Tactics - This one is tough to describe without getting into the nuts and bolts and I don't want to do that. Basically, if you hit a creature with a spell requiring a save at the beginning of a round, saves that it makes later in the same round are more likely to fail.

Mage Slayer - Negates the ability to cast defensively.

Kuo-toan Monasticism - Kuo-toa monks can use their adhesive to improve their flurry of blows.

Mind-Shattering Strike - Kuo-toan stunning fist attacks can also make opponents attack their allies to a limited degree.

Daunting Presence - Your very presence can make opponents shaken.

Sense Quintessence - Detect magic also allows you to detect quintessence.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jun 29, 2007)

I don't see what's so inappropriate about it. You hastened to point out whenever you had a letter demanding that Paizo publish statistics for more modrons published in _Dungeon_'s Prison Mail - yet another place where you've been acting like your personal preferences should determine the way a gaming company conducts its business - so I can only assume that you were trying to draw attention to yourself.

But then, I think that's the reason you express your opinions so arrogantly in the first place, so . . .


----------



## joshhg (Jun 29, 2007)

Guys, I really don't want to get into the middle of this, but could we all just calm down? Helium is doing someting very nice, and I don't want this thread locked.

Could we all just back off and take a deep breath? Please?


Also, Helium, Could you elaborate on "vapires (all)", the Deadborn vulture and the zombie form, and the Greenspwan zealot?


----------



## Felon (Jun 29, 2007)

joshhg said:
			
		

> Guys, I really don't want to get into the middle of this, but could we all just calm down? Helium is doing someting very nice, and I don't want this thread locked.



Good point. Let's move on.

Thanks for the feats, Helium.


----------



## JiCi (Jun 29, 2007)

Greetings Helium3,

I would like to know more about the other contructs. Can you please give a short description for each of them, excluding the ones for Thoon, of course ?

Thanks in advance

JiCi


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 29, 2007)

joshhg said:
			
		

> Also, Helium, Could you elaborate on "vapires (all)", the Deadborn vulture and the zombie form, and the Greenspwan zealot?



I'm not helium, but:
vapires = vampires, i.e.
The Black Duke - Vampire Knight-7 / Ronin-10
The Red Widow - Vampire Ninja-5 / Fighter-2 / Ghost-faced killer-8

What I'd like to know:
Burrow Root [14] & Demonthorn Mandrake [30] - these sound like plant creatures? Have these been omitted from the creatures-by-type list?


----------



## Pielorinho (Jun 29, 2007)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> But then, I think that's the reason you express your opinions so arrogantly in the first place, so . . .



Moderator's Notes:

At this point, I'm going to kick you from the thread.  This board requires civil, courteous, and respectful behavior from all members to all members.

If you have a question, please do not hesitate to email me; all moderator emails are in the Meta Forum sticky.  Do not post in this thread again.

Everyone else, please treat one another with civility, courtesy, and respect, even if you hate one another's stupid guts .

Daniel


----------



## green slime (Jun 29, 2007)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Moderator's Notes:
> 
> At this point, I'm going to kick you from the thread.  This board requires civil, courteous, and respectful behavior from all members to all members.
> 
> ...




Its the 'orrible text colours that get to me...


----------



## Winterthorn (Jun 29, 2007)

*Are Humans worse than Monsters? EEK!*



> Thoon Thrall Human Commoner-1




Hmm... rarely see Humans in any MM. So this brings a question to mind: the OD&D, D&D Basic, AD&D, AD&D 2nd all cited Humans (often under "Men") in their monster manuals, but the only core race _not_ in the D&D 3rd Ed MM are Humans! Do Humans show up anywhere in MM3, MM4, or MM5 (other than as a templated critter or in a race book)? It seems strange, at a minimum for the sake of thoroughness, that Humans are not statted in a MM, while all other intelligent beings - yup, dwarves, elves, etc. - are! What's with that?   

Not meaning to go off-topic too much, but reading this thread made me ask  

@helium3: you noticed this? Thoughts as you look things over?


----------



## Shroomy (Jun 29, 2007)

Hmmm, I just assumed that that Throon Thrall (say that five times fast!) was a template and the Throon Thrall Commoner 1 was just the example creature.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 29, 2007)

Shroomy said:
			
		

> Hmmm, I just assumed that that Throon Thrall (say that five times fast!) was a template and the Throon Thrall Commoner 1 was just the example creature.



Me too.


----------



## Razz (Jun 29, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Don't feel singled out. _Anybody_ can get that kind of attention. They just have to go around stating opinions in a factual manner, and they'll wind up being challenged. And if that doesn't do the trick, they can always tut-tut the WotC design staff as if they were an unquestionable authority on the topics of sourcebook design and fanbase appeal.
> 
> Hey, everyone's opiniated. That's not what draws people to constantly correct the various inaccuracies and logical falacies that seem inherent to your criticisms. I suspect we'll see more threads from you about MMV, just like we did with MMIV. If past experience is any indicator, you'll say outlandish stuff like accuse DM's of being lazy for wanting statted-out monsters and suggest that if they don't have time to do it themselves they should just quit the hobby. You probably know better, but seem to crave the attention, and the fact that it's not the good kind of attention isn't important. And that is sad as well.




And, case in point, I've noticed quite a large number of people actually agreed with how I felt about MMIV, so it's obvious I was actually going somewhere with what I state rather than just starting flame wars purposefully. I don't randomly say things. I do back up what I feel and say about things and it's really just other people that take it very offensively. There's a lot of passionate gamers involved with D&D, me being one, but if anyone's paid any attention to my posts I've never jumped on another poster's back here, or anywhere, just to ride them out like some kind of rodeo. If anything, I'm the one being ridden everytime I say, heck, anything.

I also don't say things cause I "crave attention". I say them because that's exactly what I think of the situation. I've never singled anyone out EVER in my posts. They're very generalized and can apply to anyone, heck, even someone's dog who watches D&D sessions. I've noticed it's the ones who are somehow offended by what I say to start wars with me, despite how broadly generalized they are (which just singles them out as the subject of my topic with their remarks, so who is it that's exactly craving attention at that point?).



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> But having said all that....
> 
> It is creepy and inappropriate to use someone's real name on a baord where they're employing an alias. On the other hand, putting a narcissistically erotic spin on that is probably not the way to go with a stalker.




Yeah, but, unless he cracks into my personal info, I'm not too worried.

Anyways, back on topic:



			
				helium3 said:
			
		

> Battle Magic Tactics - This one is tough to describe without getting into the nuts and bolts and I don't want to do that. Basically, if you hit a creature with a spell requiring a save at the beginning of a round, saves that it makes later in the same round are more likely to fail.
> 
> Mage Slayer - Negates the ability to cast defensively.
> 
> ...




Thanks for these. It's Mind-Shattering Strike kuo-toan only by any chance?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 29, 2007)

He's been banished from the thread. Please drop it; it's dirty pool to keep on going without him here.


----------



## Pielorinho (Jun 29, 2007)

Moderator's Notes:

Razz, I'd like you to drop it as well.  It is never appropriate to engage in a discussion on the boards of the pitfalls of other folks' posting styles.  If there's a problem, please report it and do not respond in thread, ESPECIALLY once a moderator has stepped in.

I'd appreciate it if you'd edit your previous post.


----------



## Razz (Jun 29, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> He's been banished from the thread. Please drop it; it's dirty pool to keep on going without him here.




Sorry, was mainly replying to what Felon had stated.


----------



## Winterthorn (Jun 29, 2007)

Shroomy said:
			
		

> Hmmm, I just assumed that that Throon Thrall (say that five times fast!) was a template and the Throon Thrall Commoner 1 was just the example creature.




Actually I am not assuming that the Thoon Thrall 1st-lvl Human Commoner is anything more than a sample templated Human either - indeed there's a Ghost 5th-lvl Human Fighter in the core MM v.3.5 on page 117 - but that relates to my point about D&D 3rd Ed... Humans appear in the various MM's under templates, but "our race" has never been fleshed out like other races in the various MM's. No description, no background, no basic stats "as a monster" like, say, Halflings, nothing about temperment nor ecology nor typical encounters. Zip! It's like a strange silence...

Maybe with the fleshing out of some of the humanoids in the latest MMs we Humans show up? I'm not complaining, but I am really wondering 'cause it really seems weird that we do _not_ have fleshed-out material on our species in the game context other than in a PH.

:lightbulb: You know what, I'll consider posting something in a new thread; something people can copy and print and insert in their MM


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 30, 2007)

Just got my own copy of this book, and all I can say is... Wow.

While I didn't dislike it, and didn't have many of the objections that other people did, I felt that _MM4_ was not as strong as prior _MMs_.

_MM5_ more than makes up for it. I think this may be one of the best, if not _the_ best, of the series. A great many of the critters in here are both thematically and mechanically interesting, with some cool new abilities.

But I thought the best part of it was the themed critters. The skull lords and associated undead, the tirbana, the elemental magi, and the mockery bug (shades of _the Thing_) are all enough to inspire entire adventures; and the section on Thoon is enough to build an entire campaign off of.

_MM5_ is a perfect example of a design philosophy that I've been touting for years now: Specifically, that a D&D book needs not only to be mechanically solid, but _inspirational_ and _interesting to read_. I don't just want tools, I want ideas and plot hooks to spur the imagination.

This is the first monster book I've seen in a while that did that for me, and my biggest complaint is that I didn't get to contribute to it.


----------



## DMH (Jun 30, 2007)

So what is the release date on this puppy? I have heard the 1st of July and the 3rd week of July.


----------



## MerricB (Jun 30, 2007)

Mouse', you've been writing everything else recently. How on earth did you *not* contribute to MMV? 

Cheers!


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 30, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Mouse', you've been writing everything else recently. How on earth did you *not* contribute to MMV?




Bad timing, mostly. I was in the middle of something else--don't remember exactly, but I'm thinking it was _Forge of War_--when _MM5_ was in process.

Oh, well. At least I got to design some cool monsters for _FoW_, and hey, there's always the inevitable _MM6_.


----------



## Warbringer (Jun 30, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> _MM5_ more than makes up for it. I think this may be one of the best, if not _the_ best, of the series. A great many of the critters in here are both thematically and mechanically interesting, with some cool new abilities.




Given that I now buy anything with your name on sight unseen, this recommendation is a sale.


----------



## joshhg (Jun 30, 2007)

Jhaelen said:
			
		

> I'm not helium, but:
> vapires = vampires, i.e.
> The Black Duke - Vampire Knight-7 / Ronin-10
> The Red Widow - Vampire Ninja-5 / Fighter-2 / Ghost-faced killer-8



Thanks! That's what I thought, but I wasn't sure.

Hey, Mouse, can you answer any questions, or are you being restricted by WotC?


----------



## dargoth3 (Jun 30, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> The template can only be applied to young adult or older true dragon. It basically trade away spellcasting abilities for other abilities. The flavor is that the dragon with this template is involved in something called Xorvintaal, or "The Great Game", which appears to be some sort of complicated contest between dragons for power and prestige. Dragons with this template can grant a related template to humanoid agents, which are called Exarchs.





Can you expand on the Exarchs? Theres a mini in the next DDM set called the Exarch of Tyranny....


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 30, 2007)

joshhg said:
			
		

> Hey, Mouse, can you answer any questions, or are you being restricted by WotC?




Well, I'm not comfortable going into _too_ many details. (I wasn't on the book, but I do appear to have gotten my copy before the official release date.) But I'm happy to answer general questions, along the same lines that Helium's been doing.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 30, 2007)

Warbringer said:
			
		

> Given that I now buy anything with your name on sight unseen, this recommendation is a sale.




Wow. Thank you. 

And I truly believe you won't be disappointed.


----------



## Felon (Jun 30, 2007)

Well, that's good enough for me.


----------



## Shazman (Jun 30, 2007)

dargoth3 said:
			
		

> Can you expand on the Exarchs? Theres a mini in the next DDM set called the Exarch of Tyranny....




Yeah, I'd like to know what an Exarch is too.  I thought it was an official name for priests of Bane or Hextor until I saw this.  All I currently know about them is that the mini looks cool.


----------



## helium3 (Jun 30, 2007)

Shazman said:
			
		

> Yeah, I'd like to know what an Exarch is too.  I thought it was an official name for priests of Bane or Hextor until I saw this.  All I currently know about them is that the mini looks cool.




Exarchs are creatures selected by Dragons with the "Dragon of the Great Game Template" to be their agents in said great game. Not sure what the template does and I'm in SF with my copy in Seattle, so Mister Mouseferatu is going to have to expand on that if anyone does.


----------



## Superj3nius (Jun 30, 2007)

what about playable monsters and their lv adjustments?

thanks for the info!


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 30, 2007)

Shazman said:
			
		

> Yeah, I'd like to know what an Exarch is too.  I thought it was an official name for priests of Bane or Hextor until I saw this.  All I currently know about them is that the mini looks cool.






			
				helium3 said:
			
		

> Exarchs are creatures selected by Dragons with the "Dragon of the Great Game Template" to be their agents in said great game. Not sure what the template does and I'm in SF with my copy in Seattle, so Mister Mouseferatu is going to have to expand on that if anyone does.




The template grants a small number of abilities and immunities, which require "favor tokens"--essentially, points representing the favor of the dragon whom you serve--to activate. If you run out, the template becomes essentially inactive until they're restored.

It's not the most fascinating entry in the book, but it's at a good power level to be usable by PCs, allowing the DM to run an entire party serving a dragon of the Great Game, without substantially changing the power level.

(And "Exarch" is just one of those terms that, we'll have to accept, has multiple meanings in the game, since these exarchs have nothing to do with the Exarchs of Bane or Hextor. )


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 30, 2007)

Superj3nius said:
			
		

> what about playable monsters and their lv adjustments?




*Name (ECL [includes HD and LA])*
Arcadian Avenger (10)
Banshrae (19)
Elemental magi:
     Ken-kuni (13)
     Ken-li (17)
     Ken-sun (22)
Ethereal Defiler (26)
Greenspawn Zealot (8)
Hobgoblin:
     Duskblade (4)
     Spellscourge (7)
     Warcaster (7)
     Warsoul (14)
Jaebrin (2)
Kuo-toa:
     Crazed (7)
     Exalted Whip (14)
     Harpooner (7)
     Monitor (9)
Nozgûg (8)
Shaedling (7)
Singh the Immense (sample exarch) (15)
Troll, bladerager (11)
Ushemoi:
     Arkamoi (8)
     Hadrimoi (13)
     Lashemoi (4)
     Turlemoi (16)


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 30, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> The template grants a small number of abilities and immunities, which require "favor tokens"--essentially, points representing the favor of the dragon whom you serve--to activate. If you run out, the template becomes essentially inactive until they're restored.
> 
> It's not the most fascinating entry in the book, but it's at a good power level to be usable by PCs, allowing the DM to run an entire party serving a dragon of the Great Game, without substantially changing the power level.
> 
> (And "Exarch" is just one of those terms that, we'll have to accept, has multiple meanings in the game, since these exarchs have nothing to do with the Exarchs of Bane or Hextor. )



You know, this might just sell the book to me, since the central mystery of the Midwood campaign is "where the heck did that green dragon next door fly off to, and why didn't she come back?"

I had been thinking of going with a dragon PrC/story hook from Draconomicon, but that'll put her so far above the power level of the PCs, it won't be as fun as theoretically being able to end the campaign one day with the heroes slaying her and removing her as a threat forever. This template/story hook seems like a good alternative to her seeking godhood.


----------



## Razz (Jul 1, 2007)

Any reason the Water Elemental Magi is missing from the Elemental Magi group? I figured I'd ask since someone who helped write the book is here.

I just find it strange. I was planning on doing a theme with Elemental Magi in an adventure I was going to plan, but seeing as how Water is missing it'll just make my players constantly asking/wondering "Where's the water magi?" in the group and totally distract them from the main events. (considering the elements in D&D come in four, seeing the 4th missing just feels...really odd)


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 1, 2007)

From my earlier post:



			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> This is the first monster book I've seen in a while that did that for me, and my biggest complaint is that *I didn't get to contribute to it*.




I just happened to get an early copy; I wasn't part of the design. So no, I can't answer any questions regarding what did or didn't make it into the book. Sorry.


----------



## Felon (Jul 1, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> I just find it strange. I was planning on doing a theme with Elemental Magi in an adventure I was going to plan, but seeing as how Water is missing it'll just make my players constantly asking/wondering "Where's the water magi?" in the group and totally distract them from the main events. (considering the elements in D&D come in four, seeing the 4th missing just feels...really odd)



Tell them he's gone fishing.


----------



## bento (Jul 1, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> _MM5_ more than makes up for it. I think this may be one of the best, if not _the_ best, of the series. A great many of the critters in here are both thematically and mechanically interesting, with some cool new abilities.
> 
> But I thought the best part of it was the themed critters. The skull lords and associated undead, the tirbana, the elemental magi, and the mockery bug (shades of _the Thing_) are all enough to inspire entire adventures; and the section on Thoon is enough to build an entire campaign off of.
> 
> _MM5_ is a perfect example of a design philosophy that I've been touting for years now: Specifically, that a D&D book needs not only to be mechanically solid, but _inspirational_ and _interesting to read_. I don't just want tools, I want ideas and plot hooks to spur the imagination.




This reason is probably why I found value in _Lords of Madness_ and _Libris Mortis_ while passing on MMIV.  New monsters are great, but even cooler is going the extra step by giving me information on how to build a better encounter.   

I'm not the kind of DM that will throw monsters in willy-nilly, but build on a theme.  Variations and more importantly aspirations of the monsters are what builds memorable adventures.  Giving me four or five examples of liches, each with their own story of how they came to be and what they are working towards (LM p151-156) will inspire me more to add them to an adventure than just a two page splat (MM p166-168) in a monster book.


----------



## Ripzerai (Jul 1, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Tirbanas are insects that require humanoid hosts to complete their life-cycle. They form a sort of hive in cities and towns and begin using captured people to make more spawn.




Sounds exactly like the hivebrood from the 0D&D Creature Catalogue (and the 2e Mystara MC). Exactly. So this might be another converted creature to add to Razz's list.

Hivebroods, at least, weren't much like red slaadi/xill/etc. in the way they reproduce. They didn't simply lay eggs in their chests.


----------



## DMH (Jul 1, 2007)

The mockery bug sounds like a critter from the second MC for Dark Sun. It absorbed DNA via bloodfeeding and turned partially into whatever it ate. After feeding on a variety of monsters, it would make mongrel men look normal.


----------



## orcmonk220 (Jul 1, 2007)

Anyone feel the urge to have a civil war campaign climax between Mind Flayer and the Thoons??? 

Evil goodness....


----------



## Dire Bare (Jul 2, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> And "Exarch" is just one of those terms that, we'll have to accept, has multiple meanings in the game, since these exarchs have nothing to do with the Exarchs of Bane or Hextor.




Actually, both uses of "Exarch" are appropriate, no multiple meanings here.  "Exarch" is a real world religious title (look it up!).  An Exarch of Bane is a dude in the religious hierarchy of Bane's church, he/she serves Bane.

The MMV Exarch serves a dragon, rather than a god.  Slightly different use of the term unless the template supposes a religious devotion to the dragon, but not really a different meaning.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jul 2, 2007)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> Sounds exactly like the hivebrood from the 0D&D Creature Catalogue (and the 2e Mystara MC). Exactly. So this might be another converted creature to add to Razz's list.
> 
> Hivebroods, at least, weren't much like red slaadi/xill/etc. in the way they reproduce. They didn't simply lay eggs in their chests.




Haven't seen MMV yet, and my OD&D memories of the Hivebrood are hazy.  But if these new bugs are practically identical to the Hivebrood . . . . then why didn't they just simply update/convert the Hivebrood!?!?!

While I don't know yet if this is the case here, it's one of my pet peeves when Wizards designs a "new" creature that fits the same niche as a classic.  Just freakin' update the classic monster for Pelor's sake!  I also hate it when they take a classic monster (such as the Water Weird) and tag it's name to a completely different beastie (I think they did this with the Mountain Giant too, if I remember correctly).

Okay, sorry, mini-rant over.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 2, 2007)

I felt the same way you did about the MM2 weirds, DB, at first. The old water weirds were kind of dumb, though. The new ones are a lot more interesting, although I would have liked to have seen the old ones converted as well in the same volume.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 2, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> although I would have liked to have seen the old ones converted as well in the same volume.




Not sure if it helps you, but Dragon #347 has an Ecology of the Elemental Weird. In it, it includes the stats for the "old-style" weirds, as larval forms of the _MM2_ weirds.


----------



## Razz (Jul 2, 2007)

Dire Bare said:
			
		

> Haven't seen MMV yet, and my OD&D memories of the Hivebrood are hazy.  But if these new bugs are practically identical to the Hivebrood . . . . then why didn't they just simply update/convert the Hivebrood!?!?!
> 
> While I don't know yet if this is the case here, it's one of my pet peeves when Wizards designs a "new" creature that fits the same niche as a classic.  Just freakin' update the classic monster for Pelor's sake!  I also hate it when they take a classic monster (such as the Water Weird) and tag it's name to a completely different beastie (I think they did this with the Mountain Giant too, if I remember correctly).
> 
> Okay, sorry, mini-rant over.




My problem with WotC is them having this anathema to converting older edition creatures in the first place. MM3, 4, and 5 have 90% new creatures. Yet folks like me are still waiting on, say, the incomplete list of Rilmani given back in 3E Fiend Folio and still no sign of the other 3 and no sign of any more yugoloths either. And who knows when the Hierarch Modrons will ever get done, seeing how that ended up being 1/3 completed and no sign of the rest being done.

The thing is, there's so much potential and classic goodness to the creatures in older editions that can not only be converted to 3.5E, but given a new spin to it (especially if it wasn't interesting in the first place, make it interesting!). Besides, why are they worried about not using NEW creatures with this newer generation of customers anyway? The newer customers won't know the difference. Unless someone actually tells them it's from an older edition updated to 3.5E, and even then who cares? The customer gets the benefit of a "new" creature (to them) anyway and us veteran gamers receive our updates.

I am hoping the Digitial Initiative will meet these needs as I have given up on waiting for this stuff to appear in print books.  :\


----------



## Maggan (Jul 2, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> Besides, why are they worried about not using NEW creatures with this newer generation of customers anyway?




I'd guess two reasons:

1. If they convert something old, they will get flack for doing it wrong. However they chose to do it, odds are those "old" gamers won't agree to it. Or at least, someone is bound to make a stink about it on the internet, thereby making it less fun and fulfillling trying to please the rest.

2. It is more fun creating new stuff than redoing someone else's work.

I think it's mostly 2, but some of 1 also enters into it, I believe. 

/M


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 2, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> The thing is, there's so much potential and classic goodness to the creatures in older editions that can not only be converted to 3.5E, but given a new spin to it (especially if it wasn't interesting in the first place, make it interesting!).



Yeeeeeah, no. If it wasn't interesting to begin with, I'd rather have WotC come up with something interesting to replace it. Salvaging the losers of the past is something people should do in Ecology articles or PDF products or even really compelling message board posts.

Trying to make the Adherer not suck is a goal with only a so-so chance of success and I'd rather take my chances with something new than something that's already got a history of not working.


----------



## JiCi (Jul 2, 2007)

Can someone give me a short description on the new construct creatures please ?


----------



## Dire Bare (Jul 2, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I felt the same way you did about the MM2 weirds, DB, at first. The old water weirds were kind of dumb, though. The new ones are a lot more interesting, although I would have liked to have seen the old ones converted as well in the same volume.




Actually, I LOVE the new Weirds, they are very cool and interesting monsters and I've even used them in game.  I just wish they hadn't been called Water Weirds (and Earth, Fire, etc).

The new take on the classic water weirds in Dragon was a lovely nod from the Paizo folks to the original creations, it's just a shame it was necessary in the first place.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jul 2, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Yeeeeeah, no. If it wasn't interesting to begin with, I'd rather have WotC come up with something interesting to replace it. Salvaging the losers of the past is something people should do in Ecology articles or PDF products or even really compelling message board posts.
> 
> Trying to make the Adherer not suck is a goal with only a so-so chance of success and I'd rather take my chances with something new than something that's already got a history of not working.




There are some truly sucktackular "classic" monsters that have yet to be updated, if ever.  Paizo's article "Monsters of Suck" in the Dragon Ecologies collection was just a beautiful example of this.

However, there are still tons of very cool monsters that have not yet been updated officially.  That's why I love the Creature Catalog guys!


----------



## Dire Bare (Jul 2, 2007)

Dire Bare said:
			
		

> Actually, both uses of "Exarch" are appropriate, no multiple meanings here.  "Exarch" is a real world religious title (look it up!).  An Exarch of Bane is a dude in the religious hierarchy of Bane's church, he/she serves Bane.
> 
> The MMV Exarch serves a dragon, rather than a god.  Slightly different use of the term unless the template supposes a religious devotion to the dragon, but not really a different meaning.




Hmmm, I'm quoting myself here, that can't be a good sign . . . .

After poking around on Wikipedia a bit more, I found that the title of Exarch has been used both secularly and religiously at different times and places in Europe.  It seems to usually denote control over a region, rather than simply being a religious title akin to Deacon, Bishop, or even Pope.  One could be both a Bishop and an Exarch!

So, do these Draconic Exarchs in MMV rule over any territory for their draconic masters?  For that matter, do the Exarchs of Bane or Hextor rule territory in the name of their respective churches?  Or did D&D just do another random title grab with a cool sounding name?

Either way, I'm cool.  I have decided to use the title Exarch in my new campaign I'm working on, perfect for a theocracy . . . .


----------



## Patlin (Jul 2, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Yeah. Kord-Blooded. The god-blooded template is an uber-template in that it's a template of templates. You pick the god and use the uber-template to create a template to apply to a creature.




Yeah! And there I go getting all indignant I was going to get stuck with a bunch of templates only usefull on Greyhawk!


----------



## Razz (Jul 2, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> I'd guess two reasons:
> 
> 1. If they convert something old, they will get flack for doing it wrong. However they chose to do it, odds are those "old" gamers won't agree to it. Or at least, someone is bound to make a stink about it on the internet, thereby making it less fun and fulfillling trying to please the rest.
> 
> ...




I think it is both those cases, too, but are there any creatures out there converted from an older edition that still sucks currently? I'm sure there's a few, but there's also a few brand new creatures that're real crap, too. 

I'm not the one who thinks ALL creatures from past editions should return, but there is quite a number out there that should and would probably receive a wider audience if some spotlight was given to them. Case in point, the Modron article in the recent Dragon Magazine, the Archomentals, the Ferrous Dragons, and more. Dragon Compendium Volume One did so well because many 1E and 2E material (besides monsters) were updated from older editions. 

Heck, even the Flumph was loved by few (or some? I can't really tell the number of Flumph fans out there?) and Dungeon Magazine provided it. 

Also, I doubt Creature Catalog is so famous and loved by the magazine fans just because some of the beasties in the article are "new" creatures.  

MM2 was the best MM in my opinion, only cause it had a right mixture of old and new creatures.


----------



## Razz (Jul 2, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Yeeeeeah, no. If it wasn't interesting to begin with, I'd rather have WotC come up with something interesting to replace it. Salvaging the losers of the past is something people should do in Ecology articles or PDF products or even really compelling message board posts.
> 
> Trying to make the Adherer not suck is a goal with only a so-so chance of success and I'd rather take my chances with something new than something that's already got a history of not working.




I dunno, the Susurrus was an older edition creature and it's been given a face-lift in MM3 that worked rather well.


----------



## Glyfair (Jul 2, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> What do people want to know about it?



Given one of the RPGA fastplay characters in the current poll is a Jaebrin, I'd be curious about some more details (enough to decide whether it would be an interesting option).


----------



## Superj3nius (Jul 3, 2007)

playable races and their level adjustment please!


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 3, 2007)

Superj3nius said:
			
		

> playable races and their level adjustment please!




Umm...

*points up-thread*

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3618890&postcount=166


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 3, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Umm...
> 
> *points up-thread*
> 
> http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3618890&postcount=166



Now that's service!


----------



## jontherev (Jul 3, 2007)

What is the level adjustment/cr bump for the god-blooded template?  Does it depend on the god?  Thanks.

EDIT:  Oh yeah, one last question...can this template be applied to giants?


----------



## helium3 (Jul 3, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> Thanks for these. It's Mind-Shattering Strike kuo-toan only by any chance?




Yessir.


----------



## helium3 (Jul 3, 2007)

Patlin said:
			
		

> Yeah! And there I go getting all indignant I was going to get stuck with a bunch of templates only usefull on Greyhawk!




Hah hah!! That's what you get for being indignant!!


----------



## Shazman (Jul 3, 2007)

Thanks for all of the info Helium and Mouseferatu.  Before this thread, I really didn't have much interest in another Monster Manual.  MMIV was okay, but I thought way too many pages were devoted to spawn of Tiamat.  Right now, I have to say that MMV is in the must buy catergory for me. I'm really looking forward to the classed critters and new templates and feats.  Lots of people hate classed critters in monster manuals.  I liked a good deal of them in MMIV even though many people didn't.  You can never have too many fully statted out NPC's. Ideally, a book of humanoid  opponents with class levels and templates would  be the best way to do this, but it doesn't look like WotC is planning on going that route (unless that's what Exemplars of Evil will be). In the mean time, I'll take what I can get from Dungeon and monster manuals.


----------



## jontherev (Jul 6, 2007)

I really appreciate all of the information provided in this thread.  I'll be picking this up when it comes out.  If anyone who already has a copy could answer my post linked below, I would appreciate it even more!  Thanks again.  I read the whole thread and did not find this already answered...but maybe I just missed it.

Darn...link didn't work, so I'll just cut and paste my previous post...

What is the level adjustment/cr bump for the god-blooded template? Does it depend on the god?  Also, can this template be applied to giants?  Thanks so much.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 6, 2007)

jontherev said:
			
		

> What is the level adjustment/cr bump for the god-blooded template? Does it depend on the god?  Also, can this template be applied to giants?  Thanks so much.




LA and CR are both +1.

The template can be added to any creature "favored by the god," as defined by the specific deity. For instance, Gruumsh-blooded must be orcs, but Kord-blooded can be any non-evil creature with a Strength of 16 or higher.

So the answer is, essentially, "Sometimes, depending on the god."


----------



## jontherev (Jul 6, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> LA and CR are both +1.
> 
> The template can be added to any creature "favored by the god," as defined by the specific deity. For instance, Gruumsh-blooded must be orcs, but Kord-blooded can be any non-evil creature with a Strength of 16 or higher.
> 
> So the answer is, essentially, "Sometimes, depending on the god."



Ah....thanks!  I'm most curious about Orcus.  That happens to be BBEGod in my campaign.


----------



## Razz (Jul 9, 2007)

Question for *helium3*:

_The Elemental Magi, what're their HD? Are their abilities similar? What're their ability scores compared to each other? Do they share the same aspects and abilities?

In other words, if I were to creat my homebrew Water Magi, could it be done thoroughly and easily by simply adjusting an existing Elemental Magi or would I have to craft the creature from scratch and use the other magi as guidelines?_

Thanks.  

(Note, I saw the Art Gallery for the book. Awesome art, but no Water Magi. Here I was hoping it was accidentally/purposely cut from the book and would introduce itself later in errata/web enhancement file if I could spot its artwork in the images. It's happened before, for example, the Fallen template in *Fiend Folio * had art but the template was cut)


----------



## timespike (Jul 9, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> All new creatures. The Thoon stuff is basically a totally different take on mind-flayers. New goals, new behavior, new minions. It's not meant to replace the basic mindflayer, but to create a new group of the creatures that is at odds with the old flavor.




Now see, I LIKE this. The more far-realms stuff you give me, the happier I am. Lords of Madness was a treasure trove for me, it looks like this will be more of the same.


----------



## timespike (Jul 9, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Hobgoblin Duskblade-3
> Hobgoblin Spellscourge (extra hit dice and the mage-slayer feat)
> Hobgoblin Warcaster (extra hit dice and some arcane spells)
> Hobgoblin Warsoul  (extra hit dice and more arcane spells)
> ...




Those all sound actually useful...


----------



## HeinorNY (Jul 9, 2007)

What are the size of these thoons? Are there any Tiny Thoon?


----------



## Shade (Jul 9, 2007)

ainatan said:
			
		

> What are the size of these thoons? Are there any Tiny Thoon?




If so, the adventure is about to start.


----------



## DMH (Jul 9, 2007)

The mockery bugs- are they more like the Judas breed in Mimic or The (new) Thing?


----------



## kibbitz (Jul 14, 2007)

Saw the art for the virago on http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/eo/20070713a.

Nice! Who's the artist? First part reads like Jason, can't make out the surname.


----------

