Faerie Dragons and Shriekers [Archive] - Wizards Community

Faerie Dragons and Shriekers [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
miiik
11-18-05, 03:09 PM Has anyone found either of these in any of the official books?

Seems to me that they've disapeared.

If anyone could point me at them, it'd be great.

Thanks!
savant_warlord13
11-18-05, 03:14 PM fairy dragons-draconomicon

shriekers-monster manual
cwslyclgh
11-18-05, 03:32 PM Shriekers are listed un Fungus in the Monster Manual, perhaps that is why you are missing them.

I believe that S-W is correct about Faerie Dragons being in the Draconomicon, but do not have the book on hand to check for sure at the moment.
miiik
11-18-05, 03:47 PM oh snap.

I feel like a fool.

thanks guys :)
sandskimmer
11-18-05, 07:01 PM I always thought pseudodragons were fairy dragons. Apprantely I was wrong. You learn something new everyday...
Shemeska the Marauder
11-18-05, 08:55 PM Originally, according to rumor, Faerie Dragons were going to be in the 3e Monster Manual, but one of the designers couldn't stand them, largely for their prior editions' predilection for apple tarts, and thus they were excluded.

This however, might be an apocryphal story. But I could believe it, having heard the reasons for leaving out some other monsters that only appeared in later books.
cwslyclgh
11-18-05, 09:22 PM while they might have been left out because of the silliness factor, I doubt that it was liking of apple pastries that did it specifically... actually i would have been suprised if they had appeared in the 3.0 MM, they would have been an odd choice based upon historical precident. (Faerie Dragons did not appear either in the original 1e MM, or in the first 2e MC, they appeared in MM2 and MC2 respectivly.)
DungeonMaster
11-18-05, 11:32 PM I think that story is highly plausible considering almost every "cute" monster was nixed in the transition from 2nd to 3rd edition. Brownies, leprechauns, fairy dragons, just to name a few got the axe. I'm pretty sure 3rd edition was intended to be much more "dark", in fact I remember dragon magazine claiming so.
Shemeska the Marauder
11-18-05, 11:56 PM I think that story is highly plausible considering almost every "cute" monster was nixed in the transition from 2nd to 3rd edition. Brownies, leprechauns, fairy dragons, just to name a few got the axe. I'm pretty sure 3rd edition was intended to be much more "dark", in fact I remember dragon magazine claiming so.

It's especially more plausible because it seems that the Faerie Dragon was also specifically not included later in Monsters of Faerun because it was considered 'silly'. This is according to James Wyatt, and appears in a comment on his webpage.

I'm only going to name names if I can support the rumor.
Dhavaer
11-19-05, 12:09 AM Originally, according to rumor, Faerie Dragons were going to be in the 3e Monster Manual, but one of the designers couldn't stand them, largely for their prior editions' predilection for apple tarts, and thus they were excluded.

This however, might be an apocryphal story. But I could believe it, having heard the reasons for leaving out some other monsters that only appeared in later books.

What were the reasons for leaving out the other monsters? And how did you find out?
Allenbdinoboy
11-19-05, 12:30 AM The fairy dragon is in the Draconomicon like savant_warlord13 said.
Shemeska the Marauder
11-19-05, 08:47 AM What were the reasons for leaving out the other monsters? And how did you find out?

Modrons and Yugoloths were originally going to appear in the first 3e MM, but were left out because they didn't want to have an over abundance of outsiders in the book, and they didn't want to only include a partial list of either race; they intended to hold off on them till a future book when they could properly handle them both. Effectively they didn't want to have to skimp on detail and do them half heartedly, so they decided to wait till a later book.

This was according to some comments made by Monte Cook a while back.

Of course, after that point there were some major changes to which people comprised the design team. A lot of people left and new people joined, and those prior reasons appear to have somewhat fallen by the wayside.

The yugoloths later appeared in the Manual of the Planes, MM2, FF, and then the 3.5 update in the MM3.

The modrons appeared in the MotP and its web enhancement. That the modrons appeared in the web enhancement however appears to have been a reaction to a massive and apparently unexpected negative response to having largely shafted the Modrons in the MotP and attempting to minimize them while replacing them with Formians (originally native to Arcadia). Apparently one designer viscerally hated Modrons, though I can't say who (I can only say who it wasn't), and thus they got shafted.

At some point, the reasons according to Monte Cook for not including the Modrons in the MM, by the time the MotP came out had been superseded by someone elses idea that they were silly and not the direction they wanted DnD to go in. Some later comments by Andy Collins (who was a much later addition to the design team) seem to indicate that by the time the Planar Handbook was published, this change in policy had become enmeshed, and Collins seems to have been fully unaware of the earlier policy, and intentions regarding the Modrons, at the time of the MM. So somewhere along the line, one designer decided to shaft the modrons for the most part, and the original ideas of 'we don't want to do them half heartedly, because they're cool, and we'll just wait till a future book to do them properly' transmuted into 'they are silly, everyone hates them, and we won't use them at all because that has become policy apparently'.
Slagger the Chuul
11-20-05, 09:24 AM The other thing with modrons is that there are 15 castes, with each (bar Primus) requiring a stat block for its own modrons. To a non-modron observer, however, there are just a lot of different modrons performing equally inscrutable tasks, and the main method for distinguishing one caste from another is by their shape or number of arms.
Taeldrin Laesrash
11-20-05, 09:48 AM However, if anyone wants stats on the castes (Excluding Primus of course), Planewalker has a new entry called Modrons: The Complete and Unabridged Stats.
miiik
11-21-05, 03:32 PM wow, didn't expect all that.

It's pretty funny though.

I was actually going to use one as a "villain" for a campaign we just started up with some of my friends.

All based on fresh apple pies disapearing off people's window sills.

lol
Shemeska the Marauder
11-21-05, 03:43 PM I was actually going to use one as a "villain" for a campaign we just started up with some of my friends.

All based on fresh apple pies disapearing off people's window sills.

lol

Oh that's great :)

I've also used a chaos imp (CN critters native to limbo) who was the familiar of CN/CG tiefling wizard, that took on the form of a fairy dragon, just to get amusing reactions out of people.
miiik
11-21-05, 03:50 PM nice :)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
miiik 11-18-05, 03:09 PM	Has anyone found either of these in any of the official books? Seems to me that they've disapeared. If anyone could point me at them, it'd be great. Thanks!
savant_warlord13 11-18-05, 03:14 PM	fairy dragons-draconomicon shriekers-monster manual
cwslyclgh 11-18-05, 03:32 PM	Shriekers are listed un Fungus in the Monster Manual, perhaps that is why you are missing them. I believe that S-W is correct about Faerie Dragons being in the Draconomicon, but do not have the book on hand to check for sure at the moment.
miiik 11-18-05, 03:47 PM	oh snap. I feel like a fool. thanks guys :)
sandskimmer 11-18-05, 07:01 PM	I always thought pseudodragons were fairy dragons. Apprantely I was wrong. You learn something new everyday...
Shemeska the Marauder 11-18-05, 08:55 PM	Originally, according to rumor, Faerie Dragons were going to be in the 3e Monster Manual, but one of the designers couldn't stand them, largely for their prior editions' predilection for apple tarts, and thus they were excluded. This however, might be an apocryphal story. But I could believe it, having heard the reasons for leaving out some other monsters that only appeared in later books.
cwslyclgh 11-18-05, 09:22 PM	while they might have been left out because of the silliness factor, I doubt that it was liking of apple pastries that did it specifically... actually i would have been suprised if they had appeared in the 3.0 MM, they would have been an odd choice based upon historical precident. (Faerie Dragons did not appear either in the original 1e MM, or in the first 2e MC, they appeared in MM2 and MC2 respectivly.)
DungeonMaster 11-18-05, 11:32 PM	I think that story is highly plausible considering almost every "cute" monster was nixed in the transition from 2nd to 3rd edition. Brownies, leprechauns, fairy dragons, just to name a few got the axe. I'm pretty sure 3rd edition was intended to be much more "dark", in fact I remember dragon magazine claiming so.
Shemeska the Marauder 11-18-05, 11:56 PM	I think that story is highly plausible considering almost every "cute" monster was nixed in the transition from 2nd to 3rd edition. Brownies, leprechauns, fairy dragons, just to name a few got the axe. I'm pretty sure 3rd edition was intended to be much more "dark", in fact I remember dragon magazine claiming so. It's especially more plausible because it seems that the Faerie Dragon was also specifically not included later in Monsters of Faerun because it was considered 'silly'. This is according to James Wyatt, and appears in a comment on his webpage. I'm only going to name names if I can support the rumor.
Dhavaer 11-19-05, 12:09 AM	Originally, according to rumor, Faerie Dragons were going to be in the 3e Monster Manual, but one of the designers couldn't stand them, largely for their prior editions' predilection for apple tarts, and thus they were excluded. This however, might be an apocryphal story. But I could believe it, having heard the reasons for leaving out some other monsters that only appeared in later books. What were the reasons for leaving out the other monsters? And how did you find out?
Allenbdinoboy 11-19-05, 12:30 AM	The fairy dragon is in the Draconomicon like savant_warlord13 said.
Shemeska the Marauder 11-19-05, 08:47 AM	What were the reasons for leaving out the other monsters? And how did you find out? Modrons and Yugoloths were originally going to appear in the first 3e MM, but were left out because they didn't want to have an over abundance of outsiders in the book, and they didn't want to only include a partial list of either race; they intended to hold off on them till a future book when they could properly handle them both. Effectively they didn't want to have to skimp on detail and do them half heartedly, so they decided to wait till a later book. This was according to some comments made by Monte Cook a while back. Of course, after that point there were some major changes to which people comprised the design team. A lot of people left and new people joined, and those prior reasons appear to have somewhat fallen by the wayside. The yugoloths later appeared in the Manual of the Planes, MM2, FF, and then the 3.5 update in the MM3. The modrons appeared in the MotP and its web enhancement. That the modrons appeared in the web enhancement however appears to have been a reaction to a massive and apparently unexpected negative response to having largely shafted the Modrons in the MotP and attempting to minimize them while replacing them with Formians (originally native to Arcadia). Apparently one designer viscerally hated Modrons, though I can't say who (I can only say who it wasn't), and thus they got shafted. At some point, the reasons according to Monte Cook for not including the Modrons in the MM, by the time the MotP came out had been superseded by someone elses idea that they were silly and not the direction they wanted DnD to go in. Some later comments by Andy Collins (who was a much later addition to the design team) seem to indicate that by the time the Planar Handbook was published, this change in policy had become enmeshed, and Collins seems to have been fully unaware of the earlier policy, and intentions regarding the Modrons, at the time of the MM. So somewhere along the line, one designer decided to shaft the modrons for the most part, and the original ideas of 'we don't want to do them half heartedly, because they're cool, and we'll just wait till a future book to do them properly' transmuted into 'they are silly, everyone hates them, and we won't use them at all because that has become policy apparently'.
Slagger the Chuul 11-20-05, 09:24 AM	The other thing with modrons is that there are 15 castes, with each (bar Primus) requiring a stat block for its own modrons. To a non-modron observer, however, there are just a lot of different modrons performing equally inscrutable tasks, and the main method for distinguishing one caste from another is by their shape or number of arms.
Taeldrin Laesrash 11-20-05, 09:48 AM	However, if anyone wants stats on the castes (Excluding Primus of course), Planewalker has a new entry called Modrons: The Complete and Unabridged Stats.
miiik 11-21-05, 03:32 PM	wow, didn't expect all that. It's pretty funny though. I was actually going to use one as a "villain" for a campaign we just started up with some of my friends. All based on fresh apple pies disapearing off people's window sills. lol
Shemeska the Marauder 11-21-05, 03:43 PM	I was actually going to use one as a "villain" for a campaign we just started up with some of my friends. All based on fresh apple pies disapearing off people's window sills. lol Oh that's great :) I've also used a chaos imp (CN critters native to limbo) who was the familiar of CN/CG tiefling wizard, that took on the form of a fairy dragon, just to get amusing reactions out of people.
miiik 11-21-05, 03:50 PM	nice :)