# Monster Manual 3 Available at Gencon [merged]



## BrooklynKnight (Aug 21, 2004)

*Monster Manual 3 Available at Gencon*

This was quite a suprise, but today the MM3 was available at Gencon!


----------



## kilamanjaro (Aug 21, 2004)

I'd love to see a list of the monsters!
Please!


----------



## jeffers (Aug 21, 2004)

*Got my Monster Manual 3...*

... and it's soooo crunchity good. I'm doing the Monster Manual 3 Ownin' Dance but singin' the Broke 'cuz I went ta Gen Con Blues.

Questions?


----------



## MDSnowman (Aug 21, 2004)

List monsters with brief descriptions..... NOW

Err.... please?


----------



## TroyXavier (Aug 21, 2004)

Man, I'll be fighting myself whether to buy it or not.


----------



## jeffers (Aug 21, 2004)

Alchemical Golem - As Featured in Dragon some time ago...
Ambush Drake - A wolf-like dragon
Ancient Night Twist - Old Scary Tree
Arcane Ooze - Spell eating goo
Armand - Armadillo Monks
Astral Stalker - Evil Predators with a few days to kill
Avalancher -Spits rocks at you.
Battlebriar - Another angry plant
BearHound - Druid Bears
Boar Topiary Guardian (I kid you not... its an angry bush)
Boneclaw - Undead with spearlike fingers
Bonedrinker - Undead Bugbears
Brood Keeper - Swarm launcher
Brood Keeper Larva Swarm Above Referenced Swarm
Cadaver Collector - A Collector of Cadavers
Changeling - Um... Subtle Shapechangers
Charnel Hound - Giant Undead Hound Shaped beast
Chelicera - Spider with mimicry
Chilling Fog - Chilling... um... fog... 
Chraal  Evil Ice or Water Based critter
Chrysalis - Phoenix like egg form of a Phoelarch

More descriptions later, my phalanges are failin' me...  on with the list 

Cinder Swarm
Conflagration Ooze
Deathshrieker
Arrow Demon
Sorrowsworn Demon
Dinosaur, Battletitan
Dinosaur, Bloodstriker
Dinosaur, Fleshraker
Dinosaur, Swindlespitter
Dracotaur
Dragon Eel
Dread Blossom Swarm
Dread Harpoon Spider
Drowned
Dust Wight
Elder Odopi
Elder Redcap
Elemental, Storm
Elite Demon War Mount
Ephermal Swarm
Feral Yowler
Fiendish Rage Drake
Geriviar
Death Giant
Eldritch Giant
Sand Giant
Glaistig
Glitterfire
Gloom Golem
Gnoll, Flind
Goatfolk
Goblin, Forestkith
Golem
Greater Cadaver Collector
Greater Seryulin
Greater Shadesteel Golem
Greater Seige Crab
Greater Savaklor
Grimweird
Grisgol
Gulgar
Hangman Golem
Harpoon Spider
Harssaf
Horrific Vasuthant
Infernal Conflagration Ooze
Inronclad Mauler
Justicator
Kenku
Knell Beetle
Lesser Bonedrinker
Lesser Knell Beetle
Lhosk
Lion Topiary Guardian (Even angrier bush)
Living blasphemy
Living Spell
Lizardfolk, Blackscale
Lizardfolk, Poison Dusk
Lumi (Interestingly enough, Fans of Days of our Lives (the American Soap Opera) refer to the romance between LUcas and saMI as LUMI)
Lurking Strangler
Mastodon
Mindshredder Larva
Mindshredder Warrior
Mindshredder Zenthal
Mivilorn
Mud Golem
Necronaut
Necrothane
Needletooth Swarm
Night Twist
Nycter
Odopi
Ogre, Skullcrusher
Omnimental
Otyugh, Lifeleech
Petal
Phoelarch
Phoera
Plague Brush
Plaguespewer
Prismatic Golem
Protean Scurge
Quaraphon
Rage Drake
Ragewalker
Rakshasa, Ak'chazar
Rakshasa, Naztharune
Redcap
RejarRoper, Prismatic
Rot Reaver
RunehoundSalt Mummy
Sea Tiger
Seryulin
Shadesteel Golem
Shifter
Shimmerling Swarm
Shredstorm
Shrieking Terror
Sickening Sleep
Siege Crab
Skindancer
Slaughterstone Behemoth
Slaughterstone Eviscerator
Snowflake Ooze
Spellwarped Creature
   Spellwarped Ettin
Splinterwaif
Ssvalkor
Stonesinger
Summoning Ooze
Ten-Headed Terror
Thorn
Triceratops Topiary Guardian (MUCH LARGER Angry Bush)
Trilloch
Troll
Troll, Cave
Troll, Crystalline 
Troll, Forest
Troll, Mountain
Troll, War
Vasuthant
Vermin Lord
Visilight
Voidmind Creature
   Voidmind Grimlock
Warbound Impaler
Warforged
Web Golem
Witchknife
Wood Woad
Woodling
Yugoloth, Canoloth
Yugoloth, Mezzoloth
Yugoloth, Nycaloth
Yugoloth, Ultroloth
Zezir


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Aug 21, 2004)

MDSnowman said:
			
		

> List monsters with brief descriptions..... NOW
> 
> Err.... please?



 YEAH! List or DIE!!!!

...please?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Aug 21, 2004)

Any chance of some info on those two Rakshasas?


----------



## Terry Edwards (Aug 21, 2004)

Whoa!  Ankh-Morpork Guard, get out of my head!


----------



## DMAC (Aug 21, 2004)

Hmmm... Could the Siege Crabs be the source of the Mournland's Carcass Crabs in Eberron?


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 21, 2004)

Flinds!

Kenku!

And I have a suspicion that the Goatmen are probably the one and the same as those from the Red Steel/Savage Coast MC.  Love to see Mystaran creatures picked up and done again.

Okay, 'nuf for me.  I'm buying it.  


Regards,
Eric Anondson


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 21, 2004)

Still no love for the flumph.


----------



## jeffers (Aug 21, 2004)

*See the other thread about MM3, please...*

okay?


----------



## Dimwhit (Aug 21, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Still no love for the flumph.



 Or the Brownie.


----------



## Anthraxus (Aug 21, 2004)

OOooo...   

Neat stuff! I wonder if they've bumped up the power levels of the Yugoloths for 3.5 like they did for the Demons/Devils. I certainly hope so.   

-A


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 21, 2004)

I merged the two threads. It was probably done out of jealousy.


----------



## jeffers (Aug 21, 2004)

*No Flumph to be found...*

... but the Flind is back... and um... Sussurus, and ... um... 

ITS GOT BIG ANGRY TOPIARIES... DAMN... EDWARD SCISSORHANDS WOULD BE PROUD!

Also... they had to hack some stuff up to get to fit... the Topiaries for example... they aren't a template. They didn't do a template for them, just "instructions" on making one from another critter. Now, that's a template, except that it's not worded like one. 

And not every critter has a "[Crittername] in Ederron/Fearun" section. 

BUT WHO CARES! TOPIARIES!


----------



## cybertalus (Aug 21, 2004)

jeffers said:
			
		

> Dinosaur, Battletitan
> Dinosaur, Bloodstriker
> Dinosaur, Fleshraker
> Dinosaur, Swindlespitter




What's with the dinosaur names?  Did someone from battlebots or the wrestling federation sneak onto the Dinosaur Renaming Commission _again_?


----------



## coyote6 (Aug 21, 2004)

I heard that flumph-love was illegal in 37 states.

So how does the new layout look? Is there a lot of empty space?


----------



## jeffers (Aug 21, 2004)

Best Art: WAR's Astral Stalker or Rams's Phoelarch/Phoera

Worst Art: Probably the Spinterwaif or Shredstorm... nevermind... Sea Tiger... sucks big time!


----------



## jeffers (Aug 21, 2004)

coyote6 said:
			
		

> I heard that flumph-love was illegal in 37 states.
> 
> So how does the new layout look? Is there a lot of empty space?




NO! Jam Packed with Topiary-Lovin' Goodness!


----------



## jeffers (Aug 21, 2004)

cybertalus said:
			
		

> What's with the dinosaur names?  Did someone from battlebots or the wrestling federation sneak onto the Dinosaur Renaming Commission _again_?



They Breed Dinos in Eberron, apparently. 

And they do a pretty darn good job of it, too...


----------



## jeffers (Aug 21, 2004)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Any chance of some info on those two Rakshasas?




Ak'chazars (17HD White tigers)are necromancers, Naztharunes (11HD Black Tigers) are rogues.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Aug 21, 2004)

jeffers said:
			
		

> Ak'chazars (17HD White tigers)are necromancers, Naztharunes (11HD Black Tigers) are rogues.



 Ooooh, thanks.

I like Rakshasas almost as much as Illithids and Kobolds(sigh, why can't we have more Kobolds?) so this is just great to see them expanded on. Interesting stuff too.


----------



## Zulithe (Aug 21, 2004)

Wow ... the Rakshasas sounds very sweet.

 And I agree about the lack of Brownie love


----------



## Pants (Aug 21, 2004)

Out of curiosity:
What's the highest CR critter in the book?

What's with the dangerous fauna?


----------



## Chaos Drake (Aug 21, 2004)

cybertalus said:
			
		

> What's with the dinosaur names?  Did someone from battlebots or the wrestling federation sneak onto the Dinosaur Renaming Commission _again_?




I think they add more flavour to the game. Those are names that folk might actually give dinosaurs; it'd be odd to hear a medieval peasant call them by the names we're used to, wouldn't it?


----------



## Argus Decimus Mokira (Aug 21, 2004)

Chaos Drake said:
			
		

> I think they add more flavour to the game. Those are names that folk might actually give dinosaurs; it'd be odd to hear a medieval peasant call them by the names we're used to, wouldn't it?





Not if that peasant spoke Latin   

-Matt


----------



## Knight Otu (Aug 21, 2004)

So, they have changelings, shifters and warforged, but no kalashtar? 

 They have the lizardfolk variants cut from the ECS, but not the other cut monsters, it seems.

 Flinds are back - another one from the ToH.


----------



## jeffers (Aug 21, 2004)

*Highest CR?*

The Greater Ssvaklor, an advanced Dragon/Yuan-ti crossbreed. He's mean,. he's green, he's CR 20. 

Also, the Eldritch Giant Confessor, CR 20... 

And the Ancient Night Twist, CR 20... a CR 20 TREE. 

Plenty of Plant Love in this book.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Aug 21, 2004)

Hi all! 



			
				Anthraxus said:
			
		

> OOooo...
> 
> Neat stuff! I wonder if they've bumped up the power levels of the Yugoloths for 3.5 like they did for the Demons/Devils. I certainly hope so.
> 
> -A




I'm curious about this too, especially the Ultroloth, have they bumped that up to 20 HD?


----------



## jeffers (Aug 21, 2004)

*Ultroloths are CR 13...*

... With 18 HD, Advancement 19-30 (medium) and 31-39 (large)


----------



## Knight Otu (Aug 21, 2004)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> They have the lizardfolk variants cut from the ECS, but not the other cut monsters, it seems.



 Nycter were cut, as well



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> Flinds are back - another one from the ToH.



 There's also Sand Giant and Cave Troll, but I believe both were original creations of the ToH crew?

 Which reminds me... I assume no portion of the book is OGC, unlike the MM2, right?


----------



## Knight Otu (Aug 21, 2004)

jeffers said:
			
		

> ... With 18 HD, Advancement 19-30 (medium) and 31-39 (large)



 And formerly they were 13 HD, Advancement 14-30 (medium) and 31-39 (large), CR 16...


----------



## Upper_Krust (Aug 21, 2004)

Hi jeffers! 

Thanks for the update.



			
				jeffers said:
			
		

> ... With 18 HD, Advancement 19-30 (medium) and 31-39 (large)




So the top generic Daemon is about as tough as a Glabrezu or an an Ice Devil, thats pretty disappointing.


----------



## jeffers (Aug 21, 2004)

*Nycter are here...*

And no... it's not OGC at all...

Oh.. and Eric Cagle rang up my purchase. It was a hoot. Here I was, thinking I was just talking to some Retail Goon and I was talking to a Game Designer Goon.  He signed the book, but I missed Wayne Reynolds, that was dissapointing.  His art rocks, and it would have been nice to get his signature on the book as well.


----------



## Capellan (Aug 21, 2004)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> I like Rakshasas almost as much as Illithids and Kobolds(sigh, why can't we have more Kobolds?)




http://arwink.themadship.dhs.org/

Click on "d20 Stuff", then "d20 Material".  Three new kobold races and four new kobold spells


----------



## Xath (Aug 21, 2004)

I picked mine up yesterday, and it makes me happy.  I have to say, that aside from a few pictures, MM3 has the best art out of any of the Monster Manuals yet.  Also, who wouldn't love giant Topiary Guardians?


----------



## Gez (Aug 21, 2004)

Me.


----------



## Banshee16 (Aug 21, 2004)

cybertalus said:
			
		

> What's with the dinosaur names?  Did someone from battlebots or the wrestling federation sneak onto the Dinosaur Renaming Commission _again_?




I suspect it's because of the influence of Eberron.  I'm noticing they've got the Shifter, Changeling, and Warforged in there as well, which are all Eberron races.  And new breeds of Rakshasa.  The dinosaurs in Eberron have been renamed, to what a medieval fantasy society might call them, instead of latin scientific names.  I suspect that's what they've done here.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Aug 21, 2004)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> So, they have changelings, shifters and warforged, but no kalashtar?
> 
> They have the lizardfolk variants cut from the ECS, but not the other cut monsters, it seems.
> 
> Flinds are back - another one from the ToH.




I bet there's no Kalashtar because they don't have the Quori in the MM3..

Banshee


----------



## Gez (Aug 21, 2004)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> The dinosaurs in Eberron have been renamed, to what a medieval fantasy society might call them, instead of latin scientific names.  I suspect that's what they've done here.




Yep. Because medieval-fantasy predators and other large beasts have names like "fleshrakers" and "bonegrinder". If you look at the large or predatory (or both) creatures in the real world, their names of "wolf" or "lion" or "auroch" or "elephant" are very recent, in the Middle-Age they were called "nighthowler", "fastraker", "blacktrampler" and "tusked titan".


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Aug 21, 2004)

Capellan said:
			
		

> http://arwink.themadship.dhs.org/
> 
> Click on "d20 Stuff", then "d20 Material".  Three new kobold races and four new kobold spells



 You, sir, rock.


----------



## Staffan (Aug 21, 2004)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> I bet there's no Kalashtar because they don't have the Quori in the MM3..



No new Quori? That's a disappointment. I wonder if we're going to have to wait for the Sarlona/Inspired sourcebook before seeing any more than the rather weak one that's in the ECS.


----------



## Knight Otu (Aug 21, 2004)

Yep, Nycters are there, that I can see. But they were not in the ECS, but they have an entry in the Eberron Art Gallery.






  There are also a few other monsters in the Eberron Art Gallery not in the ECS:
Aundair Dragonhawk

Warforged Charger

Tribex

Lizardfolk



			
				jeffers said:
			
		

> And no... it's not OGC at all...



 Sad, but expected (And for anyone wondering, I hope for recognition of other companies' work).



			
				Staffan said:
			
		

> No new Quori? That's a disappointment. I wonder if we're going to have to wait for the Sarlona/Inspired sourcebook before seeing any more than the rather weak one that's in the ECS.



 Dragon #324 supposedly will have new Quori. Also, I'm betting that there will be a Monsters of Eberron book that will contain new Quori. Maybe also a Planes of Eberron.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 21, 2004)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> (And for anyone wondering, I hope for recognition of other companies' work).




If WotC used it, sure. I doubt they did. WotC has a policy that only in-house products are allowed in the premises. Besides, those beasts that existed before the Tome of Horrors was published, well, existed before the Tome of Horrors. WotC designers probably just took previous edition sources and converted the creatures their own way, just like they did for the creatures that have appeared in the 3e Fiend Folio and were also in the Tome of Horrors.


Regards,
Eric Anondson


----------



## Knight Otu (Aug 21, 2004)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> If WotC used it, sure. I doubt they did.



 In case I was misunderstood - I'm not claiming that WotC went and copied creatures from the ToH (or any other source), without giving proper credit. We know that, if WotC uses Open Content from other sources, they give the proper credit, as shown by the MM2 and Unearthed Arcana.

 What I want to happen is what happened in the Monster Manual 2 - a small appendix presenting OGC monsters from other sources with the proper credit. As a recognition of the work of other companies, as it happened before.



			
				Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Besides, those beasts that existed before the Tome of Horrors was published, well, existed before the Tome of Horrors. WotC designers probably just took previous edition sources and converted the creatures their own way, just like they did for the creatures that have appeared in the 3e Fiend Folio and were also in the Tome of Horrors.



 I'm aware of the history behind the Tome of Horrors growing from the Creature Catalog here at ENWorld, and also the infamous events surrounding the "Gentlemen's Agreement", which was supposedly violated. That was a big downer for the ToH crew at the time (I'm not aware of any behind-the-scenes going-ons, though, so I do not know what the gentlemen's agreement was, or anything).


----------



## cybertalus (Aug 21, 2004)

Chaos Drake said:
			
		

> I think they add more flavour to the game. Those are names that folk might actually give dinosaurs; it'd be odd to hear a medieval peasant call them by the names we're used to, wouldn't it?




Yeah, true... though unless the artwork gives some clues or text in the entry includes the real world name of the dinosaur, it makes it rather difficult for anyone besides a hardcore dinosaur fan (which I'm not) to figure out which real world critters the MM3 versions are based on.

Odd, since I usually gripe about the non-fantasy feel of terms used in psionics, but I guess I'd prefer dinosaurs to stick to their real world names.  If only so I can gripe a bit when they keep restatting the same dinosaurs over and over again.



			
				Banshee16 said:
			
		

> I suspect it's because of the influence of Eberron.  I'm noticing they've got the Shifter, Changeling, and Warforged in there as well, which are all Eberron races.  And new breeds of Rakshasa.  The dinosaurs in Eberron have been renamed, to what a medieval fantasy society might call them, instead of latin scientific names.  I suspect that's what they've done here.




So in other words.... Blame Ebberon!


----------



## Ashardalon (Aug 21, 2004)

cybertalus said:
			
		

> Yeah, true... though unless the artwork gives some clues or text in the entry includes the real world name of the dinosaur, it makes it rather difficult for anyone besides a hardcore dinosaur fan (which I'm not) to figure out which real world critters the MM3 versions are based on.



 Using the Draconic names in the Eberron CS:

 The Battletitan is a -vharag'eth, like the T-Rex and the Allosaurus.
 The Bloodstriker is a -karan'eth, like the triceratops.
 The Fleshraker is a 'rhavad'eth, like the deinonynchus and the megaraptor.
 The Swindlespitter is Fashekan'eth, which only really says that it is a land-bound creature (the 'eth part).


----------



## Kesh (Aug 21, 2004)

cybertalus said:
			
		

> Yeah, true... though unless the artwork gives some clues or text in the entry includes the real world name of the dinosaur, it makes it rather difficult for anyone besides a hardcore dinosaur fan (which I'm not) to figure out which real world critters the MM3 versions are based on.
> 
> Odd, since I usually gripe about the non-fantasy feel of terms used in psionics, but I guess I'd prefer dinosaurs to stick to their real world names.  If only so I can gripe a bit when they keep restatting the same dinosaurs over and over again.
> 
> So in other words.... Blame Ebberon!




Kind of. See, I'd have to check my Eberron CS, but I think the dinos in the MM3 are entirely fictional. No RL counterparts at all. There was mention that some new dinos would be created for Eberron.


----------



## WingOver (Aug 21, 2004)

If you have time, can you list which are templates?  Or how many templates are in the book?

Thanks


----------



## WanderingMonster (Aug 21, 2004)

Maybe being a bit nitpicky, but the names of dinosaurs are Greek, not Latin, right?


----------



## Pants (Aug 21, 2004)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hi jeffers!
> 
> So the top generic Daemon is about as tough as a Glabrezu or an an Ice Devil, thats pretty disappointing.



Pit Fiends have 18 HD.


----------



## Ashardalon (Aug 21, 2004)

Pants said:
			
		

> Pit Fiends have 18 HD.



 And are CR 20. The new ultroloth is apparently CR 13.


----------



## Pants (Aug 21, 2004)

Ashardalon said:
			
		

> And are CR 20. The new ultroloth is apparently CR 13.



Read the post I quoted.

I noticed with the Arrow Demon that the CR's were going to be screwed up.  I hope it's only a few that are this off.


----------



## demiurge1138 (Aug 22, 2004)

WanderingMonster said:
			
		

> Maybe being a bit nitpicky, but the names of dinosaurs are Greek, not Latin, right?




Most dinosaur names are mixtures of Ancient Greek and Latin, although there's been a movement towards using worlds of other pedigrees as prefixes (often from a language used in the area the dinosaur was found).

Anyway, as Pants said, the outsider CRs seem to be screwed up. Hopefully the "arrow demon" (I'm going to make a new name for it once I get the book) and the ultroloth are the worst offenders here.

And it's about time we got more powerful plants. Simply because deadly flora is awesome. And I'm glad to see new dinosaurs (even fictional ones) and rakshasa varients. This MM does feel slightly Eberron, but, of course, MMII had a lot of Dark Sun content and FF crawled with Planescape. A little bit of the flavor bleeding over doesn't bother me. Besides, I'm playing in Eberron now. 

Demiurge out.


----------



## Knight Otu (Aug 22, 2004)

Pants said:
			
		

> Read the post I quoted.



 I did. Upper_Krust talks about the CR, not the Hit Dice.



			
				Pants said:
			
		

> I noticed with the Arrow Demon that the CR's were going to be screwed up. I hope it's only a few that are this off.



 When aren't CRs screwed up?  Seriously, I also hope that the CRs are otherwise reasonable.

 A few questions to those lucky enough to have the book:
  - Are the "Monster XYZ in Eberron" and the "Monster XYZ in Faerûn" notes about equal in number, or is one clearly more abundant?
  - Trolls - Are there also Giants among them (as there should be), or only Monstrous Humanoids (as the War Troll)?
  - The (Living) Subtype - is it used beyond the Warforged? Possibly even fully explained?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Aug 22, 2004)

Hi Pants! 



			
				Pants said:
			
		

> Pit Fiends have 18 HD




Indeed, and Balors have 20 HD. Both are CR 20.

The Ultroloth has 18 HD and is CR 13. 



			
				Pants said:
			
		

> Read the post I quoted.
> 
> I noticed with the Arrow Demon that the CR's were going to be screwed up.  I hope it's only a few that are this off.




Has the Ultroloth been significantly boosted in other areas then?

Its MotP Ability Scores were:

S: 13, D: 16: C: 13, I: 16, W: 15, CH: 19
AC 21 (+3 Dex, +8 Natural), SR 25, Hp 71.

In the jump to 3.5 the Pit Fiend gained +54 ability points, +10 to AC, +4 to SR and +102 Hp.

The 3.5 Balor gains +52 ability points, +5 to AC, +180 Hp.

Do we see a similar leap in power for the Ultroloth, which was already much weaker than either the Balor or Pit Fiend in 3rd Ed. anyway, despite having the same HD.

Of course 3.5 was the golden opportunity to fix this discrepancy, I am just curious if they bothered?


----------



## Vanuslux (Aug 22, 2004)

Gez said:
			
		

> Yep. Because medieval-fantasy predators and other large beasts have names like "fleshrakers" and "bonegrinder". If you look at the large or predatory (or both) creatures in the real world, their names of "wolf" or "lion" or "auroch" or "elephant" are very recent, in the Middle-Age they were called "nighthowler", "fastraker", "blacktrampler" and "tusked titan".




Hah...so very well put.


----------



## Pants (Aug 22, 2004)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> I did. Upper_Krust talks about the CR, not the Hit Dice.



Ah, I read it as the other way around.



> When aren't CRs screwed up?  Seriously, I also hope that the CRs are otherwise reasonable.



Sometimes they hit the mark.   
But the Arrow Demon's CR was... pretty off.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hi Pants!
> 
> Indeed, and Balors have 20 HD. Both are CR 20.
> 
> The Ultroloth has 18 HD and is CR 13. [/b]



Well since we're going on HD alone, I'm not going to assume anything about their respective powerlevels, however...



> *
> Has the Ultroloth been significantly boosted in other areas then?
> 
> Its MotP Ability Scores were:
> ...



*
I certainly hope so.  Since it looks like they upped his HD, I'm hoping they went the whole way and de-sissified him completely.  I can only hope that the CR is screwed up and nothing else.

Oh well, if the Yugoloths suck, I'll just stick with my revisions.*


----------



## Von Ether (Aug 22, 2004)

Vanuslux said:
			
		

> Hah...so very well put.



 Actually before the middle ages, wolf was vulf, and even that name was inaccurate sine the animal's real name wasn't spoken by some Germanic tribes in fear that using its real name would give it more power. ... Something that some language student told me once.

The impression I got was that the funky names were translations of the names from the tribal folk who actually lived with these dinos. Sort of like directly translating T-Rex into "King Lizard" if you do that with enough dino names, the Eberron ones don't sound so off anymore. Then again, you can think about all the Westerns and Safari films you seen over the ages.

"We call that a pather, what do you call it?"

"He who walks in shadow and screams like a woman."

"... well that's an accurate, but strange name."

"It does sound strange ... in your tongue, white man."


----------



## Gez (Aug 22, 2004)

Don't forget that dinosaurs (and similar prehistorical beasts) were _never_ named by common folk, but by scientists. Not wanting to recreate the millenia of etymological variations there would have been if they were still alive, they decided to give descriptive names, in the universal languages of scholars, ancient greek and latin. That's why you have names like Tyrant-Lizard King (Tyrannosaurus Rex) or Fastthief (Velociraptor).

Plain ordinary people would have called them things like "dragon", or they would have eventually got a name like "wampa" or "rancor". 

Without this evolution of language that eventually give names, rather than nouns, to the various things, you would have strange stuff. Etymologically, "Dragon" would be "Eye" or "Gaze", "Sphinx" would be "Grappler"...


----------



## pierworker (Aug 22, 2004)

We're gonna need saprager and sacred gardener prestige classes to deal with all those topiaries...(and why are plants always so angry, anyways?!?!?!?)

So how does the flind look in 3.5?


----------



## Incenjucar (Aug 22, 2004)

Gez said:
			
		

> Don't forget that dinosaurs (and similar prehistorical beasts) were _never_ named by common folk




Well, technically... they gave them names like Herakles, Griffon, and Cyclops


----------



## kilamanjaro (Aug 22, 2004)

pierworker said:
			
		

> So how does the flind look in 3.5?




I'm also wondering about the flind.  How do they justify it being a 'new' creature when it's so easy to just advance a normal gnoll?  BTW, how does everyone pronounce flind?


----------



## Knight Otu (Aug 22, 2004)

kilamanjaro said:
			
		

> I'm also wondering about the flind. How do they justify it being a 'new' creature when it's so easy to just advance a normal gnoll?



 As a guess: Because it isn't really an advanced gnoll. In the same way that a bugbear is not an advanced hobgoblin. Different alignment, different place in society, different mental abilities - things that are not really bound to HD advancement. And most humanoids advance by class level (which doesn't meant that they can't advance by HD, but that is much less common).

 (Admittedly, I believe I've read that Gygax(?) originally created the hobgoblins and bugbears pretty much as "advanced" goblins)


----------



## NiTessine (Aug 22, 2004)

jeffers said:
			
		

> Lumi (Interestingly enough, Fans of Days of our Lives (the American Soap Opera) refer to the romance between LUcas and saMI as LUMI)




It also means 'snow' in Finnish. This also has (hopefully) nothing to do with the monster. Or does it?


----------



## s/LaSH (Aug 23, 2004)

Ehh, time to beat a dying horse. I trust you'll indulge me.



			
				Incenjucar said:
			
		

> Well, technically... they gave them names like Herakles, Griffon, and Cyclops




Cyclops: from the Greek Kuklos (round) + Ops (eye).

Griffon: from the Greek Grups, OED unclear on meaning (if it's changed at all). Probably means vulture, if I'm reading between the right lines.

Heracles/Hercules: 'Glorious Gift', if Babynames.com can be trusted.

Two of these are therefore compound words invented and used at the time the legends were invented (or thereabouts), similar to 'king tyrant', 'arm lizard' and all the rest. And, in fact, the scientific dinosaur names are becoming more and more vernacular; if I said teerex, you'd know what I meant, although the word bears only a passing resemblance to its original meaning-laden form.

Most words start off as combinations of others. They may eventually be forgotten; my name's Benjamin, and you'd be hard pressed to say what it means, but in Protohebrew it had a specific meaning still recorded today: Son of my Right Hand. What common word is _your_ name?

Anyway, those words that don't start off as combinants are often based on onomatopoeia (some generations down the line). And it's difficult to mimic the cry of something with lungs bigger than you, so combinants are probably how dinos are going to get named by common people (there's no caste of people speaking an elitist language in fantasy worlds rushing out to discover them first, or if there are, there are enough common folk around to forget them and start calling them Bonesplitters or what have you).

To sum up: I don't mind descriptive names. They have more linguistic consistency.


----------



## Bran Blackbyrd (Aug 23, 2004)

pierworker said:
			
		

> We're gonna need saprager and sacred gardener prestige classes to deal with all those topiaries...(and why are plants always so angry, anyways?!?!?!?)



So does that mean it's less silly now to get sent on a quest for a shrubbery?
And another shrubbery?



> So how does the flind look in 3.5?




Yeah!


----------



## VirgilCaine (Aug 23, 2004)

Von Ether said:
			
		

> "We call that a pather, what do you call it?"
> 
> "He who walks in shadow and screams like a woman."
> 
> ...



 
Same here, hyumon.


----------



## Shemeska (Aug 23, 2004)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Has the Ultroloth been significantly boosted in other areas then?
> 
> Its MotP Ability Scores were:
> 
> ...




In the MM III the Ultroloth was bumped up by:

+100 Hp
Con +8

It also looks like they got some additional SLAs and a few feats associated with the bump in HD. Still not powerful enough for their mystique in my opinion, and they'd still likely get trounced in a straight up fight with any given Arcanaloth. However the 'loths were never about pure personal power (in crunch) being the path to power and control. But a 16 Int is a crying shame for the near pinnacle of 'lothyness. Blaugh.


----------



## Pants (Aug 23, 2004)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> In the MM III the Ultroloth was bumped up by:



Bleh.  Looks like I'm sticking with my versions.


----------



## Razz (Aug 23, 2004)

*Huh!?!?*

What the freak!

90% of these are new monsters, 5% are reprinted monsters from Dragon (much needed, since they're monsters from 3.0 and weren't updated) and the remaining 5% are reprinted monsters from other sources!

Barely any old monsters converted? What is WotC thinking?

Ok, they seem to have this whole philosophy of "We need to attract new generation of gamers so everything is new" so keep the new people happy but piss of the old generation...right?

But there is a really big flaw in that other than pissing off the old gamers...if the new generation of players truly are new, then they wouldn't have any clue (and I mean no clue at all) that the conversion of old material---is truly the conversion of old material...see the logic?

The new generation of WotC employees I have noticed are...rather inexperienced with all of this. They should've never fired the great oldies that dreadful day when over 100 employees were laid off.

In any case, I don't like this new MMIII...sure I'll buy it, but I truly enjoyed the last 2 MMs plus Monsters of Faerun due to the conversion of so many classics and familiar monsters of old.


----------



## Pants (Aug 23, 2004)

Razz said:
			
		

> What the freak!
> 
> 90% of these are new monsters, 5% are reprinted monsters from Dragon (much needed, since they're monsters from 3.0 and weren't updated) and the remaining 5% are reprinted monsters from other sources!
> 
> Barely any old monsters converted? What is WotC thinking?



Oh noez!!!111
God forbid they (gasp!) make something new!!!!   
*screams of terror and bloodshed in the background*


----------



## Gez (Aug 23, 2004)

I'm curious concerning the difference between the Desert Giant from MM3 and the Sand Giant from MM2. (If someone can elaborate a bit on the Death and Eldritch giants too, that would be nice.)


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Aug 23, 2004)

How many monsters have something to do with the Far Realms/Xoriat?

How many other monsters other than the Ssvaklor have something to do with the Yuan-Ti?

How much better is a Flind than a Gnoll?


----------



## Li Shenron (Aug 23, 2004)

jeffers said:
			
		

> Armand - Armadillo Monks




Oh no... please tell me this is a joke


----------



## Upper_Krust (Aug 23, 2004)

Hi Shemeska! 



			
				Shemeska said:
			
		

> In the MM III the Ultroloth was bumped up by:
> 
> +100 Hp
> Con +8
> ...




Well at least thats something.



			
				Shemeska said:
			
		

> Still not powerful enough for their mystique in my opinion, and they'd still likely get trounced in a straight up fight with any given Arcanaloth.




Yet an Ultroloth rules Daemonkind from the Khin Oin - Bring back Anthraxus WotC, this whole Mydianchlarus business is nonsensical. Instead of unleashing the likes of Bubonicus, Cholerix and Typhus upon us (absent from the Book of Vile Darkness for some ungodly reason) we get nothing.

Its clear the Daemons have been disinfected for 3rd Edition.



			
				Shemeska said:
			
		

> However the 'loths were never about pure personal power (in crunch) being the path to power and control.




So says 3rd Edition you mean, previously they could always at least hold their own amongst their peers.



			
				Shemeska said:
			
		

> But a 16 Int is a crying shame for the near pinnacle of 'lothyness. Blaugh.




Its a travesty.


----------



## jeffers (Aug 23, 2004)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> Oh no... please tell me this is a joke




Have I ever lied to you? (Don't answer that!) Seriously, they have a favored class of monk.  Book's out in the car, so I can't quote exactly...


----------



## Tinner (Aug 23, 2004)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> Well, technically... they gave them names like Herakles, Griffon, and Cyclops




Or even better - names like Grumpy, Alice and Dopey! ;-)
(Showing my age ...)


----------



## Razz (Aug 23, 2004)

Pants said:
			
		

> Oh noez!!!111
> God forbid they (gasp!) make something new!!!!
> *screams of terror and bloodshed in the background*




Well, yeah, IMHO, God please forbid most of it. I like the ratio of converted monsters to new to be 50/50 rather than 10/90


----------



## ~Johnny~ (Aug 23, 2004)

Just to confim what Kesh said, the new dinosaurs are entirely new. Like Eberron's "fastieth," they are based on known families but not on specific, known species.


----------



## Knight Otu (Aug 23, 2004)

~Johnny~ said:
			
		

> Just to confim what Kesh said, the new dinosaurs are entirely new. Like Eberron's "fastieth," they are based on known families but not on specific, known species.



 Actually, according to the ECS, the fastieth is based on the leaellynasaura, a real species.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 23, 2004)

One thing that looked odd were the Warforged being in this book with several variants. I haven't picked it up yet, but one of my loony friends drove from Chicago to see what was going on at the Convention.


----------



## Shemeska (Aug 23, 2004)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Yet an Ultroloth rules Daemonkind from the Khin Oin - Bring back Anthraxus WotC, this whole Mydianchlarus business is nonsensical. Instead of unleashing the likes of Bubonicus, Cholerix and Typhus upon us (absent from the Book of Vile Darkness for some ungodly reason) we get nothing.




Well here's hoping that any future fiend book has the 'loths in all their 'lothy glory.  And the possibility for a fiend book, or two, was at least hinted at in the DnD General seminar at GenCon when I asked a few questions. I remain cautiously optimistic.

Of course the absence of the unique 'loths in the BoVD wasn't too much of a problem being as how IMC I killed most of them off in fairly short order. Meh. Mostly I'd love to see a Baernaloth in 3e.


----------



## Pants (Aug 23, 2004)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Well here's hoping that any future fiend book has the 'loths in all their 'lothy glory.  And the possibility for a fiend book, or two, was at least hinted at in the DnD General seminar at GenCon when I asked a few questions. I remain cautiously optimistic.



There's an FR fiend book coming out isn't there?


----------



## Richards (Aug 24, 2004)

Originally posted by s/LaSH:  







> Heracles/Hercules: 'Glorious Gift', if Babynames.com can be trusted.



I think "Heracles" means "Loved by Hera" - which is ironic, as she pretty much despised the poor guy (you know, being the progeny of her husband Zeus and some lowly human trollop).

Johnathan


----------



## Shemeska (Aug 24, 2004)

Pants said:
			
		

> There's an FR fiend book coming out isn't there?




So the rumor held anyways. I think Rich Baker mentioned something about it over on the WotC boards.

However at GenCon it seemed, at least to me, that Andy Collins, Bill Slavicsek, etc heavily hinted that they were at least considering an ecology book, ala Draconomicon, for the fiends, possibly a book apiece for LE and CE. Andy may have just been humoring my question and driving the rumor mill, which from their perspective would be a good thing, but it seemed that something may be in the works even if its not been officially announced. 

At the same seminar they even admitted that they may have swung too far towards 'crunch' in the latest share of books in the past few years, and that the Draconomicon was an even mix of that and 'fluff' that they might be wise to aim towards in the future. If that was an honest admission and a preview of a direction to watch for I will be very happy. I want to see them do the best stuff they can, and I've honestly been mostly underwhelmed for going on two years now.


----------



## 3d6+15 (Aug 24, 2004)

*The Poor Flightless Kenku!!!*

Sorry to change topic slightly (not really a hijack, since the thread IS about MM3).

Very happy to see the return of the Kenku.  I'm crying myself to sleep at night however over the fact that their wings are now vestigial.
I wonder why so many changes to the Kenku overall from 2E and earlier.  They tend to be evil now too.  They no longer have a crazy list of wizard spell like abilities either.

Just plain weird.


----------



## dlane001 (Aug 24, 2004)

Ditto here!  What's the different between the Desert and Sand giants?

-Derek



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> I'm curious concerning the difference between the Desert Giant from MM3 and the Sand Giant from MM2. (If someone can elaborate a bit on the Death and Eldritch giants too, that would be nice.)


----------



## Knight Otu (Aug 24, 2004)

dlane001 said:
			
		

> Ditto here!  What's the different between the Desert and Sand giants?



 Maybe that one doesn't exist?  It's Sand Giant (MM3) vs. Sun Giant (MM2).

 Evil nitpicking aside, I third the question, and add another one:

 Are there Deathless in the MM3?


----------



## aurickandrien (Aug 24, 2004)

Razz said:
			
		

> But there is a really big flaw in that other than pissing off the old gamers...if the new generation of players truly are new, then they wouldn't have any clue (and I mean no clue at all) that the conversion of old material---is truly the conversion of old material...see the logic?




Well, I may be a relatively new player as I've only been into DnD since the latter half of 2001... The rest of the players in my group however are not.  Personally, I'm rather cautious about using WotC monster supplements as I'm not all that familiar with the creatures' roles in previous editions or the settings that they've been poached from.  None of them really explain the context of any of these monsters.

If I really want to understand all the monsters then I either have to ask the other people in my group on a case-by-case basis (rather anti-climatic) or I have to get all the previous edition supplements as well.  It's not strictly necessary, but there you go.


----------



## Dark Psion (Aug 25, 2004)

Any word when the MM3 would be released for everyone else?? 

(and please remember to add +25 days for Amazon to ship it)


----------



## Pants (Aug 25, 2004)

Dark Psion said:
			
		

> Any word when the MM3 would be released for everyone else??
> 
> (and please remember to add +25 days for Amazon to ship it)



Walmart.com has it pegged at Sept. 28.  Don't know how accurate that is...


----------



## MerricB (Aug 25, 2004)

Razz said:
			
		

> What the freak!
> 
> 90% of these are new monsters, 5% are reprinted monsters from Dragon (much needed, since they're monsters from 3.0 and weren't updated) and the remaining 5% are reprinted monsters from other sources!
> 
> Barely any old monsters converted? What is WotC thinking?




Honestly, how many old monsters are left to convert?

Between _Monster Manual_, _Monster Manual II_, _Fiend Folio_, _Tome of Horrors_, other D&D books and the Scott Greene's Creature Catalog, pretty much all of the 1E monsters have now been converted.

I'm not really up to date on the plethora of 2E monsters, but surely many of those have also been converted as well?

Can you start listing some monsters that you'd like to see conversions of?

Cheers!


----------



## Shemeska (Aug 25, 2004)

MerricB said:
			
		

> I'm not really up to date on the plethora of 2E monsters, but surely many of those have also been converted as well?
> 
> Can you start listing some monsters that you'd like to see conversions of?
> 
> Cheers!




Just randomly off the top of my head:

Baernaloth
Dergholoth (though it seems to have been in an issue of Dungeon, if anyone could clue me in to which one, I'd appreciate it)
Gacholoth
Hydroloth

Gear Spirits
Moignos

Varisoh
Quasielementals (all)
Darklights
Scile
Entropes
Tssng (sp? the natives of the Qplane of Mineral)

Most of the quasielemental critters, the paraelemental critters, and a nice chunk of the lesser planar (ie. non exemplar) critters have yet to be converted, or even given the time of day by WotC. I'd love to see the more important ones get converted eventually just to flesh out the ecology of their planes for folks who don't have access to the 2e material that goes into more detail. That's my one only real issue with WotC's treatment of monsters, that they really give no fully fleshed out details of note for a monster's place in its plane or origin/native ecology. The other beef being the random renaming of some of them. Parai being renamed as Visilights for example.


----------



## Pants (Aug 25, 2004)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Can you start listing some monsters that you'd like to see conversions of?
> 
> Cheers!



Many 1st edition monsters were never converted in 2nd edition I believe (the flumph never was... was it) on account of them probably being 'too damn stupid.'  Obviously, many critters from 2nd and 3rd edition fall into that category as well.

I just wonder if some cult-like following is going to spring up around the Ethereal Filcher or the Digester, just like what happened with the the flumph.


----------



## MerricB (Aug 25, 2004)

FLUMPH!!!!

http://www.3rdedition.org/merricb/flumph.htm

Sorry about that... I have the 3E conversion of it, of course. 

Hopefully a few of the Loths might get converted in those upcoming fiendish books. 

Cheers!


----------



## Gez (Aug 25, 2004)

Hydrodaemon, Derghodaemon, and, of course, the Flumph, are among the horrors of the Tome.



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> It's Sand Giant (MM3) vs. Sun Giant (MM2).




OK. I was too lazy to check, and my MM2 was just 2 meters away from me. 


Another question: since there are warforged, is the (Living) subtype described? Can anyone with the book post it?


----------



## Ranes (Aug 25, 2004)

aurickandrien said:
			
		

> If I really want to understand all the monsters then I either have to ask the other people in my group on a case-by-case basis (rather anti-climatic) or I have to get all the previous edition supplements as well. It's not strictly necessary, but there you go.



Surely not. The 3.x creatures are defined entirely in 3.x publications. If you want to become a previous edition buff, good for you but, to be fair, providing that kind of gaming history isn't within the remit of creature books for a particular edition. As a DM, you 'really understand' the critters when you're familiar with all the rules (publisher's or yours) you decide to use in your game. You owe previous editions diddly.


----------



## Shade (Aug 25, 2004)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Honestly, how many old monsters are left to convert?



At last count, I heard around 2200.   

Seriously.


----------



## Voadam (Aug 25, 2004)

Ranes said:
			
		

> Surely not. The 3.x creatures are defined entirely in 3.x publications. If you want to become a previous edition buff, good for you but, to be fair, providing that kind of gaming history isn't within the remit of creature books for a particular edition. As a DM, you 'really understand' the critters when you're familiar with all the rules (publisher's or yours) you decide to use in your game. You owe previous editions diddly.




Well the 3e MM is quite sparse on the non-mechanical descriptions of monsters. 2e did a better job going in-depth on roleplay aspects with their ecology and habitat/society monster description entries.


----------



## Pants (Aug 25, 2004)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Well the 3e MM is quite sparse on the non-mechanical descriptions of monsters. 2e did a better job going in-depth on roleplay aspects with their ecology and habitat/society monster description entries.



On one side of the discussion, the ecologies and habitats were a particular way of shoehorning every monster into the core worlds and 'could' actively discourage DM's from using their own ideas on the critters.
On the other hand, they were great idea generators and good reading to boot.


----------



## BOZ (Aug 25, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Still no love for the flumph.




you know that ToH will always love the flumph.  and the brownie.


----------



## Staffan (Aug 25, 2004)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Can you start listing some monsters that you'd like to see conversions of?



All the guardinals, eladrin, archons, devils, demons, and yugoloths from Planescape.
Modrons (in something other than a web enhancement). Put them in *one* book (or at least all of one type), so I don't have to look through five of them to find what I'm looking for.
Dabuses (Dabi?)
The entire Mystara MC appendix - no need to commission new pictures though, the old ones are gorgeous. If not the entire book, at least the living statues and rakastas.
A bunch of Dark Sun monsters as well, like t'liz, kaisharga, the various forms of zik-trin, belgoi, gaj, gith (not -yanki/zerai).
Giff.
The various beholder-kin from I, Tyrant.
That should suffice for one book, I think.

I was quite disappointed in Tome of Horrors, since it seemed far more focused on converting obscure monsters from 1e (like Wolf-in-sheeps-clothing and flail snail) than monsters I would actually *use*.


----------



## Pants (Aug 25, 2004)

Staffan said:
			
		

> All the guardinals, eladrin, archons, devils, demons, and yugoloths from Planescape.[/b]



I believe all of the devils and guardinals have been converted.  There is one demon (the buleazu), one eladrin (???), one archon (the Tomes), and three yugoloths missing (the dergholoth, hydroloth, gacholoth (?), and baernoloth).


----------



## Knight Otu (Aug 25, 2004)

Pants said:
			
		

> ... one archon (the Tomes), ...



 The LG celestial paragons from the Book of Exalted Deeds are referred to as Tome Archons, I believe?


----------



## Gez (Aug 25, 2004)

Actually, what is missing from WotC books are: alu-fiends, cambions (sure, the half-fiend can sorta fill that role, but not exactly anyway), bulezau, molydeus; guardian yugoloth, dergholoth, hydroloth, gacholoth.

If you picture in the Tome, the alu-fiend, cambion, dergholoth, and hydroloth are there.


----------



## The Human Target (Aug 25, 2004)

I just want Brownies. Oh, and Spiggan Gnomes.


----------



## kilamanjaro (Aug 25, 2004)

The Human Target said:
			
		

> I just want Brownies. Oh, and Spiggan Gnomes.



Spriggans are in Fiend Folio or MM2.  I forget which one.


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Aug 25, 2004)

The Human Target said:
			
		

> I just want Brownies. Oh, and Spiggan Gnomes.



Spriggan are in Fiend Folio p. 162


----------



## Gez (Aug 25, 2004)

Yeah, but _they're not gnome anymore!_


----------



## Frilf (Aug 26, 2004)

Gez said:
			
		

> Yeah, but _they're not gnome anymore!_




I know. Gnomes get no love


----------



## Pants (Aug 26, 2004)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> The LG celestial paragons from the Book of Exalted Deeds are referred to as Tome Archons, I believe?



I'm not really sure... does the BoED classify them as 'tomes.'  Really I thought that they would work better as being a step above them.


----------



## aurickandrien (Aug 26, 2004)

Ranes said:
			
		

> Surely not. The 3.x creatures are defined entirely in 3.x publications. If you want to become a previous edition buff, good for you but, to be fair, providing that kind of gaming history isn't within the remit of creature books for a particular edition. As a DM, you 'really understand' the critters when you're familiar with all the rules (publisher's or yours) you decide to use in your game. You owe previous editions diddly.




As I said it is *not strictly necessary*, and as for the monsters being defined entirely; sure they've got the stats and that, but c'mon the Monster Manual was an exercise of cramming in as many monsters into 320 pages as possible.  And as for the other supplements I'm sure they couldn't at least have managed to fit the words "Dark Sun" next to environment for such setting specific monsters.  Really, though my post wasn't about bagging 3.x WotC monster supplements.

The whole point of my post was that whilst old edition may be _new_ to me that they are decidedly not new to my playgroup, and thus not really all that new at all; in response to *Razz*'s theory that they were entirely new to new players.  So, if you're done bagging my desire not to simply drop setting specific monsters onto my party, who are more familiar with them than me...


----------



## Chaos Drake (Aug 26, 2004)

Frilf said:
			
		

> I know. Gnomes get no love




Only in Fey forests.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 26, 2004)

Listing skipped over monsters, noone has mentioned the Cyclops yet, even though its been mentioned etymologistically (is that a word) several times.

Where's my Cyclops??? >_<


----------



## BOZ (Aug 26, 2004)

Staffan said:
			
		

> All the guardinals, eladrin, archons, devils, demons, and yugoloths from Planescape.
> rakastas




in the meantime: http://www.enworld.org/cc/converted/index.php


----------



## Bran Blackbyrd (Aug 26, 2004)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Listing skipped over monsters, noone has mentioned the Cyclops yet, even though its been mentioned etymologistically (is that a word) several times.
> 
> Where's my Cyclops??? >_<




D&Dg and the last issue of Dragon.


----------



## Olive (Aug 26, 2004)

Gez said:
			
		

> Actually, what is missing from WotC books are: alu-fiends, cambions (sure, the half-fiend can sorta fill that role, but not exactly anyway




If you ask me, the half-fiend is MUCH better. I love templates.


----------



## Psion (Aug 26, 2004)

Did they FIX the ultroloth?


----------



## Knight Otu (Aug 26, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> Did they FIX the ultroloth?



 If by fix you mean "Keep the stats the same except a bump in Constitution", then, yes.  It's earlier in this thread.

 I think there are some unanswered questions floating around in the thread. Anyone with the book who can answer them?


----------



## jester47 (Aug 26, 2004)

Eh, looks like I am passing on MM3.  However, even with its errors, I plan on picking up Creature Collection Revised.  I can't for the life of me justify the Penumbra Fantasy Bestiary when its not 3.5.  I hate converting and conversion notes.  At least right now.  

Time to start a new thread...

Aaron.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Aug 26, 2004)

Anyone else who has the book notice the editing errors? I normally don't complain about them, but this time they bothered me because they seem to involve continuity issues with their own cosmology. 

The big bull-dog/elephant thing (can't remember the name right now) is used as a mount by Demons, and its stats list its terrain as the plane of Pandemonium, yet the first sentence in its description states they dwell on the plane of Acheron. 

Another one is with the Necronaut. Created by Demons from bone covered layers of the Abyss, listed as Chaotic evil, yet they speak Infernal? Shouldn't that be Abyssal? 

It may seem petty, but it just sort of stuck out to me.


----------



## Knight Otu (Aug 26, 2004)

Here are the unanswered questions I could find: 


			
				WingOver said:
			
		

> If you have time, can you list which are templates?  Or how many templates are in the book?





			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> - Are the "Monster XYZ in Eberron" and the "Monster XYZ in Faerûn" notes about equal in number, or is one clearly more abundant?
> - Trolls - Are there also Giants among them (as there should be), or only Monstrous Humanoids (as the War Troll)?
> - The (Living) Subtype - is it used beyond the Warforged? Possibly even fully explained?





			
				pierworker said:
			
		

> So how does the flind look in 3.5?





			
				NiTessine said:
			
		

> It [Lumi] also means 'snow' in Finnish. This also has (hopefully) nothing to do with the monster. Or does it?





			
				Gez said:
			
		

> I'm curious concerning the difference between the Desert Giant from MM3 and the Sand Giant from MM2. (If someone can elaborate a bit on the Death and Eldritch giants too, that would be nice.)





			
				Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> How many monsters have something to do with the Far Realms/Xoriat?
> 
> How many other monsters other than the Ssvaklor have something to do with the Yuan-Ti?
> 
> How much better is a Flind than a Gnoll?





			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> Are there Deathless in the MM3?





			
				Gez said:
			
		

> Another question: since there are warforged, is the (Living) subtype described? Can anyone with the book post it?


----------



## qstor (Aug 29, 2004)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Or the Brownie.




Or the Verbeeg, korred, Leprechaun or giant space hamster.


----------



## qstor (Aug 29, 2004)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Honestly, how many old monsters are left to convert?
> 
> Between _Monster Manual_, _Monster Manual II_, _Fiend Folio_, _Tome of Horrors_, other D&D books and the Scott Greene's Creature Catalog, pretty much all of the 1E monsters have now been converted.
> 
> ...




A lot of the ones in the Monster Manual and Monster Manual II, and Fiend Folio DON'T have official conversions. But we have the Tome of Horrors and Scott and Erica to thank for those. Like I mentioned in my other post..Verbeeg, brownie etc etc..

As far as new vs old monsters...I'm firmly on the side of old ones. I'd rather see 50/50 in a 3.x WOTC monsters book rather than the 95 new/5 old in the Monster Manual III.

One time I asked Richard Baker why they haven't converted the lock lurker for FR...He said it was cause he thought it was stupid. I guess someone at WOTC doesn't like the old 1e/2e monsters and won't convert them. I mean come on Ed Greenwood made the lock lurker and its in Haunted Halls of Eveningstar 2e how more "core" FR can you get for the mosnter.

Mike


----------



## qstor (Aug 29, 2004)

Pants said:
			
		

> I believe all of the devils and guardinals have been converted.  There is one demon (the buleazu), one eladrin (???), one archon (the Tomes), and three yugoloths missing (the dergholoth, hydroloth, gacholoth (?), and baernoloth).




The Molydeus is still missing. I always thought that was cool looking 

Mike


----------



## War Golem (Aug 29, 2004)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> Here are the unanswered questions I could find:



I picked this book up at GenCon and after having skimmed through it once, I think it is great. There are definitely a few really lame monsters and illos in the book, but overall, most of the monsters seem like good, solid concepts and the pictures are well done. The art overall is a clear step up from a lot of recent WotC releases (thankfully!!! - I'm an art nut).

At this point, I would easily rate this book superior to MM2, and probably better than Fiend Folio as well. Very happy with this purchase.

I'll try and answer some of these pending questions for you all now...

Cheers,
War Golem


----------



## War Golem (Aug 29, 2004)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> Here are the unanswered questions I could find:
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WingOver*
> _If you have time, can you list which are templates? Or how many templates are in the book?_



4 templates: Living Spell (variable), Spellwarped (+0, +1, or +2), Voidmind (+1), Woodling (+2)


----------



## War Golem (Aug 29, 2004)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> Here are the unanswered questions I could find:
> Quote:
> 
> Originally Posted by *Knight Otu*
> ...



More slanted toward Eberron, I'd say, but FR is represented.

All of the other trolls are Giant type.

Living Construct subtype is only for warforged creatures in this book. Almost an entire 1/2 page of the book is taken for the explanation and specs of this subtype.


----------



## War Golem (Aug 29, 2004)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> Here are the unanswered questions I could find:
> Quote:
> 
> 
> ...



Flind is listed as a Gnoll sub-species. CR 2. The art is by V. Rams. The picture is good, but I don't like Rams' style for D&D, personally.

Lumi remind me *a lot* of the Luminous race from Fantasy Flight's _Mythic Races_. Except the Lumi has a floating head that is not attached to its body, which just seems kind of silly to me. Otherwise, they seem pretty cool.
No "snow" relationship that I can see. They're from the Positive Energy Plane.

The MM2 has a Sun Giant, not Desert Giant.

Death Giants are CR 16. They are connected to the Neg Energy Plane, and have a "Steal Soul" power. Eldritch Giants are NE, CR 15, arcance powers and sworn enemies of Storm Giants. Both monsters have great illostrations and Round-by-Round Tactics sections.

Not sure about the Far Realms.

No other obvious Yuan-Ti related monsters, but I wasn't looking too closely for that. The monsters with the Reptilian subtype are a pair of Lizardfolk subspecies.

No Deathless that I can see. What are those? The name sounds familiar, but I cannot recall from where off the top of my head.

Cheers,
War Golem


----------



## War Golem (Aug 29, 2004)

*Unholy Toughness*

I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet, but there is a new (or I don't recall seeing it before) Special Quality for many of the undead in this book called Unholy Toughness. This essentially lets the undead creature use its Charisma instead of its (missing) Constitution for determining bonus hit points.

Undead overall have a lot more hit points then they have in the previous monster books. It makes me wonder if the designers don't wish they couldn't go back and retrofit many of the previously published undead with this special quality.

I'll say that as a DM, the pathetically low hit points of many undead has been rather annoying. I like this new special quality. _Many_ of the undead in MM3 have it.

p.s. last but not least, not only did the Ultroloth not get a respectable "power-up" for 3.5, but the illos for the ultroloth and the nycaloth are both not so good, IMO - both are too dark and vague. The new illos for the canoloth and mezzoloth are both great, though - much better than MotP. (All the illos are by James Zhang, by the way.)

Cheers,
War Golem


----------



## Knight Otu (Aug 29, 2004)

War Golem said:
			
		

> I'll try and answer some of these pending questions for you all now...



 Thank you for your effort, War Golem! 



> More slanted toward Eberron, I'd say, but FR is represented.



 While I like Eberron, I'm not sure if I like this. I fully understand if you don't want to do this, but if we could get a count...?



> All of the other trolls are Giant type.



 What you just heard was a sigh of relief.



> No Deathless that I can see. What are those? The name sounds familiar, but I cannot recall from where off the top of my head.



 Deathless are a new type introduced in the Book of Exalted Deeds, and again used in Eberron. Anti-Undead, basically.



> I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet, but there is a new (or I don't recall seeing it before) Special Quality for many of the undead in this book called Unholy Toughness. This essentially lets the undead creature use its Charisma instead of its (missing) Constitution for determining bonus hit points.



 I'm not quite sure if that should make me happy, or if it should worry me...


----------



## Gez (Aug 29, 2004)

War Golem said:
			
		

> The MM2 has a Sun Giant, not Desert Giant.




Yeah, this has been pointed out and corrected before. You got confused yourself, since the error was Sand Giant, not Desert Giant. Desert Giants are the giants from MM3, if the previous listing is correct. 

So, are the desert-dwelling Sun Giant of the MM2 redundant with the assumedly-desert-dwelling Desert Giant of the MM3?

_(As a reminder, a Sun Giant is a Huge Giant (Fire), with 13 HD, the SLA of spike stones, stone shape, and wall of stone, they have a +4 racial bonus to Hide (+8 in deserts), Str 37 Dex 14 Con 25 Int 15 Wis 18 Cha 14, are usually neutral, live in warm and temperate deserts, and are CR 12. 
The Sand Giant from the Tome of Horrors is a Huge Giant (Earth), with 17 HD, the SLA of control earth (as control water but for another element, obviously) and the Su ability of turning a volume of sand into a very long arm that can attack foes once per day, they have Scent, Str 37 Dex 13 Con 23 Int 12 Wis 12 Cha 14, are usually neutral evil, live in warm deserts, and are CR 14.)_


----------



## War Golem (Aug 29, 2004)

Gez said:
			
		

> Yeah, this has been pointed out and corrected before. You got confused yourself, since the error was Sand Giant, not Desert Giant. Desert Giants are the giants from MM3, if the previous listing is correct.
> 
> So, are the desert-dwelling Sun Giant of the MM2 redundant with the assumedly-desert-dwelling Desert Giant of the MM3?



The previous listing is wrong. MM3 has an entry for "Sand Giant," not "Desert Giant." Semantics aside, the MM3 monster amounts to the same thing. It's a desert dwelling giant. CR 10, usually LN.

I really don't think they add much to the game, other than filling yet another ecological niche for the giants.


----------



## Crothian (Aug 29, 2004)

so, how does it compaire to other monster books like Monsternomicon?


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 29, 2004)

War Golem said:
			
		

> I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet, but there is a new (or I don't recall seeing it before) Special Quality for many of the undead in this book called Unholy Toughness. This essentially lets the undead creature use its Charisma instead of its (missing) Constitution for determining bonus hit points.
> 
> Undead overall have a lot more hit points then they have in the previous monster books. It makes me wonder if the designers don't wish they couldn't go back and retrofit many of the previously published undead with this special quality.
> 
> I'll say that as a DM, the pathetically low hit points of many undead has been rather annoying. I like this new special quality. <i>Many</i> of the undead in MM3 have it.




I guess I should be thankful that this _unholy toughness_ was created. Undead do have pitiful hit points. Their d12 Hit Dice doesn't even come close to compensating for no Constitution score.

The nostalgist in me would rather go back to previous editions' rate of attacks, than slap hit points onto every single monster that needs them to compensate for PCs' ability to dish out so much combat damage from so many attacks per round. But the kind of change I want would better come about in a 4th edition, while the rules-patch that is _unholy toughness_ is quick and dirty substitute.

Anyone care to wager that we'll see _unholy toughness_ appear in the WotC undead book coming soon?


Regards,
Eric Anondson


----------



## War Golem (Aug 30, 2004)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Anyone care to wager that we'll see _unholy toughness_ appear in the WotC undead book coming soon?



I think that's a given. The only question (in my mind) is if they will somehow go back and apply it to vampires, liches, etc...


----------



## War Golem (Aug 30, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> so, how does it compaire to other monster books like Monsternomicon?



MM3 is not so different from MM2 and FF that you could not answer that one for yourself even without having yet seen MM3. It is different from Monsternomicon in all the same ways those previous WotC monster books are.

I just think MM3 is a definite notch above MM2 and FF - in artwork, content, layout, etc.


----------



## Pants (Aug 30, 2004)

qstor said:
			
		

> The Molydeus is still missing. I always thought that was cool looking
> 
> Mike



I don't quite know how I forgot the Molydeus.    



			
				War Golem said:
			
		

> p.s. last but not least, not only did the Ultroloth not get a respectable "power-up" for 3.5, but the illos for the ultroloth and the nycaloth are both not so good, IMO - both are too dark and vague. The new illos for the canoloth and mezzoloth are both great, though - much better than MotP. (All the illos are by James Zhang, by the way.)
> 
> Cheers,
> War Golem



Did the other 'loths at least get powerups?

Thanks for answering these questions BTW.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 30, 2004)

Pants said:
			
		

> I just wonder if some cult-like following is going to spring up around the Ethereal Filcher or the Digester, just like what happened with the the flumph.




Looo-ove Filchers.

Filchers rock.

-Hyp.


----------



## Aeolius (Aug 30, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Still no love for the flumph.




I'm holding out hope for April 2005.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/177410000


----------



## coyote6 (Aug 30, 2004)

War Golem said:
			
		

> I think that's a given. The only question (in my mind) is if they will somehow go back and apply it to vampires, liches, etc...




Well, Unholy Toughness sounds like a great name for a feat, no?


----------



## BOZ (Aug 30, 2004)

qstor said:
			
		

> the lock lurker
> The Molydeus




haven't i already mentioned this?  http://www.enworld.org/cc/converted/index.php   and both in 3.5 no less!


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Aug 30, 2004)

Some more questions I can think of...

What goes down as the weirdest or oddest of the monsters (In Fiend Folio it's probably the Aoa in my opinion)?

What are the other varieties of Warforged?

Is the Glaistig anything like the one in the WotC article on their web site (I think it's under Monster Mayhem or the Fey Feature)?

Are there any psionic creatures?  With psi-like abilities that actually use the stuff from the XPH?


----------



## smetzger (Aug 30, 2004)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Flinds!
> 
> Kenku!
> 
> And I have a suspicion that the Goatmen are probably the one and the same as those from the Red Steel/Savage Coast MC.  Love to see Mystaran creatures picked up and done again.




Why aren't they Goatfolk?


----------



## qstor (Aug 31, 2004)

BOZ said:
			
		

> haven't i already mentioned this?  http://www.enworld.org/cc/converted/index.php   and both in 3.5 no less!





Yes, That site is god  

I meant the official versions of critters


----------



## BOZ (Aug 31, 2004)

feh! to you and your official!


----------



## SpuneDagr (Sep 1, 2004)

Why don't they just give undead Constitution scores and be done with it?

Undead use Charisma for Concentration checks.
3.0 Undead Psions used Charisma for Psychokinesis.
Now they use Charisma for HP too.

What's the deal with Charisma, seriously?


----------



## Gez (Sep 1, 2004)

It's strength of will, your capacity to impose your will on the rest of the world.

Some undead, like liches, maintain their unliving existence only through sheer force of will.


----------



## BOZ (Sep 2, 2004)

i'm so glad that charisma is now much more than how good-looking you are.


----------



## Greatwyrm (Sep 3, 2004)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Listing skipped over monsters, noone has mentioned the Cyclops yet, even though its been mentioned etymologistically (is that a word) several times.
> 
> Where's my Cyclops??? >_<




Didn't the Cyclops show up in _Deities and Demigods_ ?


----------



## BOZ (Sep 3, 2004)

yes.


----------

