Switch to full style
Herein are gathered all the threads about those creatures that stalk our nightmares and against whom are characters must battle!
Post a reply

Classic Monsters: The Manual

Sun Feb 20, 2011 1:36 am

So, I am really looking forward to another monster book. This promises to bring a lot of old school classics to the forefront, and I am all for that. My question, though, is why the choice of title? It's okay, but why not add some more treasure stuff to the book and simply have a Monsters and Treasure II? Is it to avoid looking like the redundant madness that is pumped out by Wotc? I don't think that is humanly possible to duplicate their vast number of book clones, so that can't be an honest concern. I just think that it would just lend some consistency to the books. Either way, I eagerly look forward to this release.

Re: Classic Monsters: The Manual

Sun Feb 20, 2011 3:31 am

Keep it Old School - if it's not in the original TSR Monster Manual, Monster Manual II (and if you insist, Fiend Folio) you don't need it.

Even that is overkill, in my not so humble opinion. Personally, I believe in DMing on a budget. How many humanoids do you need? Orc means goblin. Hobgoblin is old English for "little goblin". Hobbit means "little one". A Kobold is a goblin that lives in abandoned mines. How many dragons? There are Wyrms (wingless dragons), Drakes (winged western dragons) and Asian dragons. That's it... there ain't no more!

Okay, your campaign may vary, but I like to keep things tightly medievalist - it saves wear and tear on me as a DM and I don't have to worry about keeping 500 monsters straight, the focus is on the story and the role the player characters take in it.

Re: Classic Monsters: The Manual

Sun Feb 20, 2011 2:42 pm

I like the minimalist approach as well, but I have a horrible addiction to monster books...and look forward to this one. My only question was why the choice of title. No biggie.

Re: Classic Monsters: The Manual

Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:10 am

You sure that is the final title choice?

I can see why they would title it like that, because it makes it clear that it is a book focused on bringing more of the "classic" monsters to C&C, so may attract more interest.

When it comes to me, I'll just be buying this book to simply support TLG. Its too damn easy for me to convert from the original books for me to "need" this book. Now once I buy it I have no doubt I will use it because even the little work needed to convert them will already be done for me. I certainly do not need to buy this though.

Re: Classic Monsters: The Manual

Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:26 am

I would be interested, I find the C&C take on monsters sometimes has just one or two mechanical quirks to suit C&C that I may not have thought of. I'd check it out if the pdf was reasonably priced *ducks for cover*

Re: Classic Monsters: The Manual

Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:46 am

zarathustra wrote:I would be interested, I find the C&C take on monsters sometimes has just one or two mechanical quirks to suit C&C that I may not have thought of. I'd check it out if the pdf was reasonably priced *ducks for cover*


pdf? Naw...has to be hard cover. I mean, it's so hard to get someone's attention when you slap 'em upside the head with only a cd. ;) :lol:

Re: Classic Monsters: The Manual

Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:49 am

Go0gleplex wrote:pdf? Naw...has to be hard cover. I mean, it's so hard to get someone's attention when you slap 'em upside the head with only a cd. ;) :lol:

Ur doing it wrong... a CD is a thrown weapon. :mrgreen:

Re: Classic Monsters: The Manual

Mon Feb 21, 2011 1:41 am

zarathustra wrote:I would be interested, I find the C&C take on monsters sometimes has just one or two mechanical quirks to suit C&C that I may not have thought of. I'd check it out if the pdf was reasonably priced *ducks for cover*


LOL :lol:

Personally, i like this title.
It makes it clear this is not the MM or MM2, and possibly very distinct from M&T(of A)

That said, I'd like to see a few new monsters (maybe up to 20% of the book) because, like someone said, the Old books are easy to convert.
((now I duck for cover!))

Re: Classic Monsters: The Manual

Mon Feb 21, 2011 2:22 am

*feels sorry for the duck being used for cover*

:P

Re: Classic Monsters: The Manual

Mon Feb 21, 2011 4:29 am

My aim is to make old-school players have this reaction:

CK: Ahead of you, you see a giant snail. It stands almost seven feet tall to the top of its brightly colored shell. Instead of a single head, it has six flail-like tentacles sticking out. Each is swinging about wildly. It is approaching you rather quickly for a snail. Roll for initiative.

Player: Oh wow! Cool! A flail snail! They are so dumb!

<a battle ensues>

Player: Don't you ever, ever have us fight one of those again, you diabolical SOB.

CK: I thought you said they were dumb?

Player: I hate you.

Re: Classic Monsters: The Manual

Mon Feb 21, 2011 4:46 am

zarathustra wrote:I would be interested, I find the C&C take on monsters sometimes has just one or two mechanical quirks to suit C&C that I may not have thought of. I'd check it out if the pdf was reasonably priced *ducks for cover*


Okay, this honestly made me laugh out loud.

Steve

Re: Classic Monsters: The Manual

Mon Feb 21, 2011 2:12 pm

AGNKim wrote:My aim is to make old-school players have this reaction:

<snip>

Player: I hate you.

Sold! :D

Re: Classic Monsters: The Manual

Mon Feb 21, 2011 2:26 pm

Andred of Albans wrote:Keep it Old School - if it's not in the original TSR Monster Manual, Monster Manual II (and if you insist, Fiend Folio) you don't need it.

Even that is overkill, in my not so humble opinion. Personally, I believe in DMing on a budget. How many humanoids do you need? Orc means goblin. Hobgoblin is old English for "little goblin". Hobbit means "little one". A Kobold is a goblin that lives in abandoned mines. How many dragons? There are Wyrms (wingless dragons), Drakes (winged western dragons) and Asian dragons. That's it... there ain't no more!

Okay, your campaign may vary, but I like to keep things tightly medievalist - it saves wear and tear on me as a DM and I don't have to worry about keeping 500 monsters straight, the focus is on the story and the role the player characters take in it.


I'll polietely disagree. I mean, you did say it, Andred - campaigns do vary. I personally like all the options. Do I use them? No, not every one. I kind of got the idea you were a medievalist, based on the topics and tone of your other posts. And that's cool; definitely nothing wrong with that. While I'm not traditional in that regard, I am a traditionalist in the classic fantasy sense. Most of my foes, in past campaigns, come straight from the "first monster book" - Monster Maunal (from various editions), Monsters & Treasures, etc. But I still like having the options. Having three monster books (or more) won't stope me from being a traditional monster guy or you from being a medievalist. :)

I agree with Relaxo - I like the title. I'm glad, and hope, that they keep this title, or something similar - I really don't think it necessary to call it M&T II.

Re: Classic Monsters: The Manual

Mon Feb 21, 2011 4:58 pm

Lord Dynel wrote:
Andred of Albans wrote:Keep it Old School - if it's not in the original TSR Monster Manual, Monster Manual II (and if you insist, Fiend Folio) you don't need it.


I'll polietely disagree. I mean, you did say it, Andred - campaigns do vary. I personally like all the options. Do I use them? No, not every one.

I was being snarky :lol: Not everything I post is serious :ugeek:

Lord Dynel wrote:I kind of got the idea you were a medievalist, based on the topics and tone of your other posts.

Does it really show :?

Lord Dynel wrote:And that's cool; definitely nothing wrong with that. While I'm not traditional in that regard, I am a traditionalist in the classic fantasy sense. Most of my foes, in past campaigns, come straight from the "first monster book" - Monster Maunal (from various editions), Monsters & Treasures, etc. But I still like having the options. Having three monster books (or more) won't stope me from being a traditional monster guy or you from being a medievalist. :)

Of course not, and it will help keep TLG in business which is definitely a good thing.

Lord Dynel wrote:I agree with Relaxo - I like the title. I'm glad, and hope, that they keep this title, or something similar - I really don't think it necessary to call it M&T II.

Well, we could go with Creature Catalog, Bestiary, Physiologus or Monstrum :mrgreen:

Re: Classic Monsters: The Manual

Mon Feb 21, 2011 10:10 pm

Andred of Albans wrote:I was being snarky :lol: Not everything I post is serious :ugeek:


If you say so, hoss. No harm no foul. That being said, you seemed pretty emphatic in you post for a dislike of yet another lexicon of creatures that it did not seem like snark. Whether it was or not, I'm still allowed to disagree. ;)

Andred of Albans wrote:
Lord Dynel wrote:I kind of got the idea you were a medievalist, based on the topics and tone of your other posts.

Does it really show :?


Yes...but I won't hold that against you. :lol:

Andred of Albans wrote:
Lord Dynel wrote:And that's cool; definitely nothing wrong with that. While I'm not traditional in that regard, I am a traditionalist in the classic fantasy sense. Most of my foes, in past campaigns, come straight from the "first monster book" - Monster Maunal (from various editions), Monsters & Treasures, etc. But I still like having the options. Having three monster books (or more) won't stope me from being a traditional monster guy or you from being a medievalist. :)

Of course not, and it will help keep TLG in business which is definitely a good thing.


Agreed!

Andred of Albans wrote:
Lord Dynel wrote: I really don't think it necessary to call it M&T II.

Well, we could go with Creature Catalog, Bestiary, Physiologus or Monstrum :mrgreen:


Which furthers my point...but it's all good. A means to an end, my friend. :P

Re: Classic Monsters: The Manual

Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:11 am

Monssstersss....gooOOOOOood! heh heheh! :)

Re: Classic Monsters: The Manual

Tue Feb 22, 2011 6:50 am

I think it is a perfect title. I noticed the title before I read the blurp about what was to be in it. But the title had already made me think, oh cool, they're converting some more of the old first edition critters. Was glad when I read the blurp to find that was exactly what the book will be. If that is the goal of the book, the title is perfect as is, it fairly unambiguously informs the casual viewer what it is about.

Re: Classic Monsters: The Manual

Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:01 pm

I like the flail snail getting some respect. LOL.

Houserule: an average Duck provides +0.5 AC
Dire Duck,+1

Re: Classic Monsters: The Manual

Tue Feb 22, 2011 6:52 pm

Relaxo wrote:I like the flail snail getting some respect. LOL.

Houserule: an average Duck provides +0.5 AC
Dire Duck,+1

:lol:

Re: Classic Monsters: The Manual

Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:29 pm

I'll be interested to see the gentle "translations" into C&C for some creatures, especially Son of Kyuss or the dread Eye of Fear and Flame. Also... Nilbog, Xvart, Azer, and several others. The Fiend Folio (by itself) is just chock full of BBQ; gets tastier to consider Monster Manual II as well.

I do hope there will be some actual new creatures though. I think that should be mandatory.

Re: Classic Monsters: The Manual

Tue Feb 22, 2011 9:07 pm

Here's the tag line:
Classic Monsters: The Manual. Fear the snail. :D

Re: Classic Monsters: The Manual

Tue Feb 22, 2011 9:35 pm

serleran wrote:I'll be interested to see the gentle "translations" into C&C for some creatures, especially Son of Kyuss or the dread Eye of Fear and Flame. Also... Nilbog, Xvart, Azer, and several others. The Fiend Folio (by itself) is just chock full of BBQ; gets tastier to consider Monster Manual II as well.

I do hope there will be some actual new creatures though. I think that should be mandatory.


There will be some new monsters, fresh from the mind of yours truly. Been gaming for 148 years now, so I have a few in my brain floating around. :)

OK, maybe closer to 25 years...

Re: Classic Monsters: The Manual

Tue Feb 22, 2011 10:13 pm

what about the Dire Duck?
or Dire Flumpf?

Re: Classic Monsters: The Manual

Wed Feb 23, 2011 2:08 am

NORKERS! You've been advised.

~O

Re: Classic Monsters: The Manual

Wed Feb 23, 2011 3:46 am

Omote wrote:NORKERS! You've been advised.

~O


Norkers: See Goblin, Hob. Add 1d3 bite damage. Fights with club. Cut and paste everything else. :lol:

Re: Classic Monsters: The Manual

Wed Feb 23, 2011 3:51 am

Haha! Seperate entry required. Srlsy.

~O

Re: Classic Monsters: The Manual

Wed Feb 23, 2011 12:09 pm

Xvart, Meezel, Meenlocks?
(I have no idea the original source book for these)

Re: Classic Monsters: The Manual

Wed Feb 23, 2011 12:26 pm

Relaxo wrote:Xvart, Meezel, Meenlocks?
(I have no idea the original source book for these)

Xvarts make me think of evil Smurfs. :)

Re: Classic Monsters: The Manual

Wed Feb 23, 2011 3:14 pm

Relaxo wrote:Xvart, Meezel, Meenlocks?
(I have no idea the original source book for these)

They appeared in the 1st Edition Fiend Folio. According to the credits in the back of the book, the Xvart was created by Cricky Hitchcock, the Meazel by Dermot Jackson, and the Meenlock by by Peter Korabik.

Re: Classic Monsters: The Manual

Wed Feb 23, 2011 7:09 pm

SWEET! SO THEY'RE IN!

Norkers, Xvarts, Meezels and meenlocks became a bit of a running gag wiht some friends of mine because I inherited a Ranger character whos character sheet listed every possible humanoid and giant he had a bonus to fight, and I guess this group didn't have the FF because they hadn't heard of Norkers, Xvarts and Meezels... and out of context, those are silly sounding words, so it became a running gag.
I didn't say it was a funny story.
Post a reply