FormCritic wrote:Kieth:Scroll around on this page and find the review of Yggsburgh I wrote on the Acaeum about a year ago....viewtopic.php?t=4137&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=zagyg&start=40
FormCritic wrote:By "advanced monster type," I mean a monster that has been advanced in power using the 3.5 rules. For instance, a gnoll who is also a 5th level barbarian is a much different prospect than simply a gnoll with extra hit dice. The earlier versions of the game were more ridgid in their monster design...and thus a gnoll is only so threatening no matter how many hit dice you add.
FormCritic wrote:For me, the conversion is quite easy...since I seldom use a module as written. I use it as a model, picking and choosing as I go along...which is one reason why I really like clear, generic maps.If you run Gaxmoor using the AD&D rules, you would need to ignore the extra feats and levels attached to the monsters and just run the basic monster types...with a corresponding reduction in character levels. You could run it at lower level.One problem in converting 3.5 into earlier versions is the story-telling factor created by more advanced monster types.By "advanced monster type," I mean a monster that has been advanced in power using the 3.5 rules. For instance, a gnoll who is also a 5th level barbarian is a much different prospect than simply a gnoll with extra hit dice. The earlier versions of the game were more ridgid in their monster design...and thus a gnoll is only so threatening no matter how many hit dice you add.This is what I was referring to in the review when I talked about Gaxmoor being a nice example of the flexibility of the 3.5 rules. You never really know what you're getting yourself into when you pick a fight with a humanoid monster. (Since you can't even use size as an indicator.) This makes it possible for the DM to be much more of a story-teller...since players shouldn't really laugh when they encounter "only" a kobold.When the players really don't know what to expect...outside of a general idea of enemy strength...they are less likely to meta-game and play their characters with more realism.For another example, in AD&D even the meanest white dragon was a laugher for higher level parties. In 3.5, with the monsters getting the same bonuses, feats and abilities as player characters, any dragon might be a serious contender. I have a white dragon in my current campaign that is also a 12th level cleric. It isn't even the toughest age category of white dragon. One encounter with this beast was enough...no one has ever gone back to the ruined fortress of Tenebros because they fear facing that dragon again. There is a huge horde of treasure...including some belonging to dead player characters...but no one dares to try and get it. In AD&D, unless that white dragon had a bazooka and a SWAT team, it would have been just another large, scaley chicken.It is often easier to convert earlier edition adventures to 3.5 because the basic game is still the same...the same math and the same concepts. An OD&D bugbear could leap into a 3.5 game and start swinging without requiring a major refit...even the pumpkinhead bugbear would work.The more complicated nature of the 3.5 game may be used equally as a mark against it or a mark in its favor, depending on your starting bias.
killjoy32 wrote:i only ever DM sort-of-1e for me i just do what i want and whatever works.using mikes example of a dragon: i used everthing a dragon would likely have in its arsenal.i even had a dragon land on a group of characters (plummet), while attacking a magic-user with a lightning breath weapon and tail-slapping a fighter.yes the party was decimated, but i set the rule of using everything a monster can if its intelligent.Al
Badmike wrote:Should make this a separate thread...how to play an intelligent evil monster to spank ass on a party...without resorting to 3rd edition!!! Mike B.
FormCritic wrote:2nd Edition dragons certainly got more impressive. An ancient huge red dragon, for instance, went from roughly the size of a min-van with wings, tail and a neck to a beast that would nicely fill a football field (wings included) and proportionately tougher.And, even in 3.5, the basics remain the same: 1) Be immune to the breath weapon. 2) Close to sword range. 3) Kill the dragon with swords.Unless the Dragon has the Fire Shield spell on...which I've also done before... ....for instance, they other day I mixed the vampire template with the 3.5 Monster Manual entry for a "chaos beast." The result was a shape-shifting creature that sucked blood and was capable of horribly altering the bodies of those it touches. Much fun.Sounds a lot like a Warhammer chaos beast....the WH Chaos creatures are some disgusting, nasty creatures.There are good and bad things about all three versions of AD&D. I regard 2nd Edition as the idiot brother of the trio.
FormCritic wrote:2nd Edition dragons certainly got more impressive. An ancient huge red dragon, for instance, went from roughly the size of a min-van with wings, tail and a neck to a beast that would nicely fill a football field (wings included) and proportionately tougher.And, even in 3.5, the basics remain the same: 1) Be immune to the breath weapon. 2) Close to sword range. 3) Kill the dragon with swords.
....for instance, they other day I mixed the vampire template with the 3.5 Monster Manual entry for a "chaos beast." The result was a shape-shifting creature that sucked blood and was capable of horribly altering the bodies of those it touches. Much fun.
There are good and bad things about all three versions of AD&D. I regard 2nd Edition as the idiot brother of the trio.
Badmike wrote:My best ever Dragon attack was: ...I've told my players many times, when you are taking on one of the BIGGIES (aka Beholder, Mind Flayer, Dragon, Demon, Devil), you are basically taking on ME, the DM, so prepare accordingly.....Mike B.
Keith the Thief wrote:That's a great tale, Mike. Engagements with dragons should be one of the hardest challenges for PCs. Oddly enough, for a game titled Dungeons & Dragons, the dragon too often seemed to be avoided completely or the dragon was a complete wuss (e.g., Mark's description of a giant chicken.)Kudos to your group for regrouping and giving it another go.My players had this "scorched earth" policy that was really starting to get stale after three or four campaigns. So, when they were once again annihiliating everything in yet another dungeon en route to an encounter with a beholder, I decided that the "No. Appearing" stat needed a little tweaking. When they got to the final room, I had them stumble upon that rarest of rares: three beholders holding conference ... sort of a Beholder Soviet (they are lawful evil, after all). Suffice to say there was considerably less pillaging after that ... and quite a few players rolling up new characters.Not that any of this has anything to do with C&C or TLG, but at least I've mentioned them now in order to stay on topic. Keith
Badmike wrote: I've been looking to give C&C a try, how are beholders/dragons treated in the monster book? I really enjoy the 2nd edition versions over what I consider the weaker 1st edition versions, what do the C&C monster books favor? Are they more like the 3rd edition versions?Mike B.
I can't imagine that the beholder is not in their M&T rulebook, but I'll have to wait and see.
Badmike wrote: how are []dragons treated in the monster book? Mike B.
serleran wrote:Its not. It cannot be used without official WotC approval because that creature is not in the SRD. They own the rights, totally, and it requires a license from Wizards to use. Sorry, but there are several "icon" creatures like that, such as carrion crawler, umber hulk, beholder, and some others. None of those appear in C&C material.