Monsters I've made

[danbuter]

Revised Version

Draugr
Armor Class: 17
Hit Dice: 9**
No. of Attacks: 1 (weapon)
Damage: 1d10+3
Movement: 30’
No. Appearing: 1
Save As: Fighter 9
Morale: 12
Treasure Type: B, M
XP: 1,225

Draugr are the undead remains of ancient kings. They appear as a skeleton wearing antique plate mail. They wield a two-handed sword in combat. They are only encountered in ancient crypts.

Draugr can see invisible opponents.

Once per turn, they can breathe a cone of ice out to 10' in front of them. Anyone caught in this cloud of frozen mist must Save vs. Spells or be stunned and unable to act for one round. Spellcasters in the midst of casting a spell who fail their Save lose the spell they were attempting to cast.

Draugr may be turned as vampires. Draugr are immune to Sleep, Charm, and Hold spells.

[SmootRK]

nice. I will work that in.

Also an FYI... I am making various edits in the others as I add them.

For instance, Beastmen references rape, which I am editing out with something like "stealing women" which is more vague. The inference is essentially there, but not going to state "rape" directly... kinda like the Half-Orc/Half-Ogre thing, we all basically get it, but it does not need to be explicitly spelled out.

Also, we have a "vermen (ratman)" already, so will just skip that one for now, even though later we may revisit that because your version has more detail (and everyone might like/prefer the extra fluff over what is there already).

Likewise for Hag, somewhere there is another recent creation of such. I need to do comparisons before I drop that into the Field Guide.

Anyhow, when they show up in the Field Guide, I hope none of my edits bother you (or anyone). Just exercising some editorial control over the content while the Field Guide is under construction. If any of my changes are unacceptable, just let me know so I can work with it and you to come up with a compromise version.

[danbuter]

Do what ya gotta do.

Also, why not have more than one version for a monster? It will give everyone more options.

[Solomoriah]

I'm against multiple versions of the same monster in the same work. It serves little purpose, and it confuses people.

On the other hand, judiciously merging two almost-identical monsters into one combining the best features of each is something I'm in favor of, so long as the authors are cool with it.

[SmootRK]

I'm against multiple versions of the same monster in the same work. It serves little purpose, and it confuses people.

On the other hand, judiciously merging two almost-identical monsters into one combining the best features of each is something I'm in favor of, so long as the authors are cool with it.

Likewise, I feel pretty much the same (within any given work). There is always room for individual versions, campaign specific variants, or otherwise different takes on monsters, but they need to be in different documents/books. Merging ideas is also a good way to go; we come up with a better (and usually quite original final version) this way by combining the best features of each.

[LibraryLass]

I'm on board with pretty much all the creations in this thread (nice job on the draugr!) but I definitely was made uncomfortable with the explicit discussion of rape in the beastman writeup. I could do without that.

[Solomoriah]

Mmm. Ditto. This is a family game. There are ways to describe brutish behavior without including things hard or uncomfortable to explain to a child.

[Shonuff]

nice. I will work that in.

Perfect Now I can draw this.

(That's what i was looking for!)