I took my old Monstrous Compendium, scanned them and with the help of Photoshop converted them to C&C. The blank monster page was very useful for making a word template to make my own monsters with.

Personally I would love it if there were something very close to an Illithid (without infringing anyones copyright of course )

+1

Anyone remember the xvarts in BG1? Think I'd buy the monster book just to have that critter in c&c form

L.S.

One is, one isn't.

Now you are just being cruel being that cryptic.

They wont touch the flayer.....

I'm still pulling for dire flumpf.

But seriously, the Prismal Eye was a really cool work around for the beholder. I actually like it in and of itself, so if they did that sort of treatment it would be fine by me,
Still, the MF is easy enough to convert.

I know, converting is easy but there's something about getting it from an official book. I know.

Another reason I love the idea of this book and have been so adamant on Kim Hartsfield forcing TLG to release this book sooner rather than later is that I am SO not into luggiung around Monster Manual II and the Friend Folio to every game where I'm going to need some monsters that don't fall into the standard Monsters & Treasure basic creature choices but need these baddies more in line with good old fashioned classic monster goodness and is strikingly different from Monsters & Treasure of Aihrde which is still awesome in it's own right but doesn't fall well into what player characters might run into, say in the Keep on the Borderlands.

[gasps]
~O

I recently ran the Gauntlet and Sentinel modules, so I have already converted the Xvart to C&C. They are pretty much a blue skinned Kobold.

This is not directly in response to your post Treeb, but I will reply just the same.

Am I the only one who doesn't like to do even "easy" conversions? I hate doing conversions period, particularly the difficult ones. But even when it comes to easy old-school D&D conversions to C&C, I hate doing it. I'm proficient in doing so, and have done so for years now... still hate it. I'd much rather have official C&C monsters for this. That is one of the reasons I'm looking forward to this product so much.

~O

The only conversions I hate doing are from 4E and 3E to C&C. 2E and earlier are so easy to do I don't even think of them as conversions anymore.

Then again, I like converting from 3E and 4E because with all the options they have my conversions are far less "cookie cutter".

So even though I do not like converting from 3E or 4E, there are times I am glad I am.

That is part of why I am buying the S&W Complete version of the Tome of Horrors. When I don't want such a cookie cutter conversion I'll look at my 3E versions, when I am fine with the simple cookie cutter approach, I'll use the S&W C version.

Of course I'll buy this, but I have to admit I don't really understand it.

If it's for easy reference to monsters that couldn't be included due to copyright, how will we look them up without the names? For example, if I am playing an old module that needs a Githyanki, will there be something like it but called a Souvlaki or something?

The blurb on the Anvil implies we'll be getting the same monsters as MM II and Fiend Folio, but I am not sure how that is accomplished if they aren't OGL?

Or is it really some new monsters mixed in with some not-quite-clones with different names, stats, and descriptions?

On the topic of old monsters I'd like to see, the BECMI D&D "Creature Catalog" had some nice ones; chameleon men are pretty awesome.

Very few monsters are "owned" by TSR/WOTC, less than a dozen, at least from the older sources. Illithids, Beholders, probably Githyanki and Githzeri, and a few others.

They don't own Death Knights, for example.

All they "own" is how they were presented. The artwork, the formatting, the wording used. So pretty much everyone can offer a variant. Look at the Beholder variant in the M&T for an example. One Which I think is far nastier than the original Beholder. (Prysmal Eye).

This book needs Firbolgs innit. That is all.

Ooooh! Yeah, Firbolgs are a lot of fun!

I'm pretty sure the Firbolg couldn't be legally added as you know them in D&D. The name could be used as it a mythological name of some Irish rulers, but I don't think they were a giant-kin race.

I know a lot of people assume that the list in the SRD of product identity monsters is all they own, but I believe that small list only refers to what they own in the 3e Monster Manual 1. I could be wrong tho. If I am, than I have a lot more races to do.

If its a creature or people from mythology or history, it can be used.

In the Firbolg's case tho, the D&D version is not presented as it was in mythology. Which would make it a new work. Now you could make a Firbolg that is 2 feet tall, and hurls pebbles, that wouldn't violate Or make the Firbolg just like D&D and name it something else.

I am mostly interested in re-envisions of classics, not direct conversions. Little things that make them different.

Also, completely new monsters. Love those.

Or I can make a giant sized (larger than human) humanoid, which are sometimes ascribed mystical powers, and call it a Firbolg, since that's what they are described as in mythology, and no one can say a thing about it.