Community Based Monster Classes VI

[DiBastet]

I agree with just revising things. It would be better to focus on the flawed monsters than to just keep making new ones. I could very well, happily, update the fey.

[FishAreWet]

I think putting a simple asterisk by classes that could use a review would be a simple fix.

[Hyudra]

I think putting a simple asterisk by classes that could use a review would be a simple fix.

Or having a separate list of classes in need of revision.

But such still requires us to figure out which classes are in need of such, take the time to properly identify/link to them, and make the list (or put down the asterisks). For now, I think, we'll just leave it open to revision.

If you think a class is subpar and you want to revise it, run it by the council, by way of post or PM.

But it's, of course, preferred that you finish what you're doing (or get it to the almost-finished point where a council member - usually yours truly - deems it nearly done) before you start something new, be it a new monster or a revision.

I've got another batch critique coming up, but it's fairly comprehensive and is taking a bit.

[Frog Dragon]

Could the Mezzoloth and the Nycaloth be moved into Unfinished monsters for the time being, until they receive a looking through for the new abilities? They're very different beasties from what they were when I first made them, so they're going to need another round of critique.

[Hyudra]

Could the Mezzoloth and the Nycaloth be moved into Unfinished monsters for the time being, until they receive a looking through for the new abilities? They're very different beasties from what they were when I first made them, so they're going to need another round of critique.

Ah, the timing is awkward. We just got an influx of new monsters, and you've still got the Black Dragon, a 20 level creature, to finish. As Gorgon said, we're asking people to please ask and get the a-ok before they add more to the overall workload (be it a new monster or a revision). New contributors are perfectly fine, but people with existing projects adding new stuff to the pile is kind of problematic, and leads to us being buried.

Can I ask that you please finish Black Dragon, and then remind us of those two when we've got that nearly done?

I'm being a little picky about that (in this post & the one above) because I'm only midway through a mass critique of some 17 monsters. I'm kinda bothered by the prospect of adding more, unnecessarily.

[Hyudra]

Going for a scoring system to encourage changes where a class is lacking, if something is otherwise faulty. Inspired by the scoring system used by the ICO challenge here at GitP. Let me know what you think.

The criteria for scoring is:

Originality: How unique is the design? Does it stand out as something that would be different to play? Is it interesting or boring? Grades are a sliding scale, with low grades if I can do the same thing with class levels or if another monster does the same thing. Mid-to-High grade if it has a feature or combination of features you wouldn't find elsewhere. Highest grades if it has a feature or combination of features you wouldn't find elsewhere, available across most levels in the class. Monsters that offer a lot of options are liable to get higher grades here (but if those options suck, you may get hit in Elegance, Power or Flavor, below).

Playability: Does the monster have a defined role? Does it bring something to the group? How easy is it for some random Joe who picks up your monster to make that monster fit his idea of what he wants his monster character to be? Where Elegance, below, is concerned with the quality monster entry itself, Playability refers to how well the monster is expected to perform when it's at the table.
Abilities that are unintuitive, complicated, slow the game down, hurt the group dynamic (such as by accidentally offing party members) or force the game to stop while one looks for a rule or detail in a book are going to hurt a monster's score under playability. Higher scores go to monsters who have abilities you can remember the rules for from memory, who have just one or two abilities that require a quick glance at the appropriate text or monsters who actively make gameplay more fast paced and exciting.

Power: How balanced is the monster? Is it balanced overall? Is it more or less balanced at every level? Does it scale well enough to be a contender at high levels?
Grades are a sliding scale, with deductions for overpowered/underpowered features or weak/overstrong levels. Further deductions for powers made available sooner than usual (ie. flight at 1st level), or too late to be useful (such as standard SR at 18th level).
I'm aiming for Tier 2-3ish power levels, and hitting the sweet spot will get a high score from me (I'll assume a 5 to start and deduct if we're outside that range, basically). Ask if you don't know what that tier thing means.

Elegance: Does the monster feel polished? Is the entry appealing and easy to read through? Do the individual features flow and progress neatly? In short, does it feel like a nicely put together class?
Grading with a 3 to start, bonuses for nice picture, good ability text, adherence to thread standards, and good flow throughout the work. Higher/highest marks if I feel like it could appear in a WotC book. Penalties for bad spelling, poor grammar, awkward presentation, ugly/missing picture when other pictures are clearly available, failing to adhere to thread standards.

Flavor: Where Originality, above, is about the class, Flavor is focused on the monster and the atmosphere. Does the monster give the impression of the monster in the books, lore, novels and/or game? Do abilities fit the monster? Do the ability descriptions?
Grading with a 3 to start. Bonuses for abilities that really sell the monster. Penalties for stuff that feels out of place or particularly dry.

All scores are on a 1-5 scale. I stress that I am not demanding 5's across the board. However, if you're consistently getting hit in some areas, consider shoring up your weaknesses and/or asking for help in that particular department. Hopefully this helps out anyone who has had their monster on the list for a while and is having trouble figuring out why it just won't get the A-ok. More than that, I'm hoping people stop just waiting for a long list of stuff to fix and just fixing what is listed, and put some more effort into addressing the larger issues.

Pandorym

• 'All class skills are skills for Pandorym' -> I don't like this. For one thing, it's the factotum's shtick. Beyond that, a lot of skills don't make sense for the Pandorym... like Iajitsu Focus. Use rope. Ride. It comes across as lazy.
• Run on sentence: "You lose all previous racial modifiers and gain the Outsider Type with the Psionic, and Evil subtypes, native to the Material Plane after spending so long on it, and the nightmare realm of your home, perpendicular to the Prime Material"
  
  • Should be 3 sentences.
  • No need for comma after Psionic.
  • 'after spending so long on it' isn't a complete thought, or a proper fragment.
  • You're native to two places?
  • The whole fragment at the end 'and the nightmare realm of your home, perpendicular to the prime material' is awkwardly worded and doesn't make a ton of sense.
• Under Pandorym Body: whitch. Spelling error #1.
• I don't like the use of brackets throughout. Other accepted monsters haven't used stuff like "[1d6+Cha mod]" or "(DC = 10 + Cha Mod + HD/2)". Also, that whole HD/2 is ugly. Further, the 10, then cha mod, then ½ HD is out of order. These points all run contrary to the presentation used by other monsters.
• The limited equipment slots hurt the Pandorym. What does it get to make up for this?
• Don't start sentences with and. (See last sentence of Pandorym Body)
• "At 3rd level, you gain the ability to use your vast intellect to show how pathetic a creature is in the vast scale of things." - flavor text is a bit weak.
• "To learn or manifest a power, a psion must have an Intelligence score of at least 10 + the power’s level. " -> you mean a pandorym?
• Faint Sign of Binding: You state 'makes teleportation hard', but conjuration isn't necessarily all teleportation. Some is creation. This is confusing.
• Corporealize: Get rid of the brackets on "[Con Mod]".
• Corporealize: Too many 'and's in middle sentence.
• Corporealize: The references to HD are a bit confusing. Does this refer to your number of HD, or the size of your HD? Some would read it as d8 damage.
• "At 6th level, your mental faculties allow you to think so hard you can focus your terrible fighting skills into something useful." - terrible flavor text. I'm sorry, but it's really weak and doesn't help sell the Pandorym as a creature.
• "you learn to block out annoying things like Magic." - again, a little weak. This flavor text doesn't help me feel that I'm playing the Pandorym.
• Spelling error #2: nieve. (you mean Naive). Stopping the critique here, at an 8th level ability. Spell check.
• {table=head]Category|Score
  Originality| 3.5 (stepping on factotum toes with the skills, bumping shoulders with the brain in a jar, but you're doing ok with the psychic crystal monstrosity bit)
  Playability| - (can't say, didn't review the whole class)
  Power| - (can't say, didn't review the whole class, hard to review a psion)
  Elegance| 1.5 (brackets, lazy class skills, awkward wording, grammar, spelling, feels disjointed)
  Flavor| 2 (ability text doesn't sell the monster's flavor)
  Overall| Can't rate (ended critique to allow time for spellcheck), average 2.3[/table]

Jovoc

• I know it makes sense, and it looks ok, but the whole breaking the class down into categories based on level (the bolded 1st level, 2nd level bit) runs against convention.
• Body of Vengeance:
  
  • You change from 'you' to 'it's' between sentence one and sentence two.
  • And you reverse that change halfway through sentence two.
  • The whole 'at 9HD you become medium' is weird in both formatting and being unconventional. Why not make it part of a later ability (abyssal skin?)
• General way of doing things in this thread is to avoid giving full BAB and strength bonuses in the same class.
• 2nd level hurts for feeling unique to the Jovoc. It's bland.
• It'd help if you named creature source somewhere where it's clear.
• Summon demon:
  
  • "Note CL= HD" - try to stick to complete sentences and avoid acronyms unless they make the text clearer.
• Punishment strike:
  
  • Is too much, in terms of numbers. +10 to attack rolls and +7ish damage at 10th level?
  • the 'for one round' thing is really unclear.
  • Don't use 'HD/2' as it's confusing.
  • and too many uses for something so generally potent. At 10th level I'm looking at 10-12 uses a day. It's just a bit much.
• Bloodclaws:
  
  • Flavor text is a bit weak. "Your claws are blood red".
  • You sacrifice 10hp and gain the ability to claw people from 100' away? That's... a lot of range. Could use flavor to sell it.
  • 14HD benefit needs details. RAW, I could do it to any nauseated creature anywhere, without line of sight.
• Retributive Aura:
  
  • Still feels kinda awkward.
  • You use FC as an acronym and it makes the ability read fairly awkwardly.
• In reference to Playability score, below, I just don't know what the creature's role would be in a group. You're a damage dealer, but you don't deal as much damage as a dedicated damage dealer. You can take hits with DR and fast healing, but you're not really a dedicated tank. You don't really have the skill point base to take on a particular role as a tracker or the like.
• {table=head]Category|Score
  Originality| 4 (Good overall, but 2nd level is kinda lacking)
  Playability| 2.5 (I worry Retributive Aura would bog down play, lack of role?)
  Power| 3.5 (Full BAB coupled with Str bonuses, punishment strike, retributive in some situations)
  Elegance| 2.5 (the level headings, confusing, use of "HD/2", use of acronyms, awkward retributive aura)
  Flavor| 3.5 (I like the double claw ability, but 2nd level doesn't convey any Jovoc feel and weak flavor text in Bloodclaws hurts it)
  Overall| 16, average 3.2.[/table]

Gargoyle

• Thought I pointed Gorgondantess to this. I haven't. To help out, I'll try to score it.
• The image, I must admit, I don't love. Would prefer to stick to digital/traditional art rather than include photography, miniatures and real life models. Some I saw, with a search, included:
  
  • http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs10/i/20...le_by_nJoo.jpg
  • http://sensevessel.deviantart.com/ar...Gargoyle&qo=68
  • http://leopardsnow.deviantart.com/ar...argoyle&qo=134
  • http://artpox.deviantart.com/art/Gar...argoyle&qo=160
  • http://www.kragstad.com/images/wallp...neGargoyle.jpg (some cropping needed)
  • http://www.accademiaditolaria.com/wp...oads/esper.jpg (a little out there).
  
  Take your pick, depending on the flavor you're going for.
• I think there's a bit of an issue in that the creature lacks full BAB, takes a rogue approach, but doesn't get all the goodies a rogue gets. I mean, you get 'chiseled' abilities at every level, and have better saves/HD, but you don't really get that oomph that sneak attack offers a rogue to make up for the non-full-BAB, the ability to get into position for those sneak attacks, the skills/skill points or the general utility abilities like ability to find traps and whatnot.
• Claws - they deal 1d4 damage... plus 1.5x Str? 1x Str? ½ Str?
• Oh, you say it later. No, just include the Str mod as part of the claw description.
• "They have a racial bonus to Hide checks in stone terrain equal to their HD (minimum 4)." - I'd recommend something like, "Gargoyles have a racial bonus to hide checks in stone terrain equal to ½ their HD or their Dex mod, whichever is higher)" - the full HD to checks is too much.
• Chiseled Armaments:
  
  • Good work overall, but filthy talons are kinda lame. Won't help most adventurers. Needs some gravy to sell it (something that makes the disease otherwise worthwhile, or that uses the disease to the gargoyle's advantage.
• Chiseled Fortifications:
  
  • Tough Skin... hrm. Assuming I'm a 10th level gargoyle with a +8 Con mod, that's +17 AC. This is a lot, and leaves me concerned about just how much it scales.
  • You failed to close a bracket under Zealous Carvings, after talking about subtypes.
  • Runecarved Body is a bit weak. Consider something like, "The Gargoyle's natural weapons may be considered magic weapons that deal damage appropriate to the chosen element whenever it would benefit the Gargoyle."
  • The example for Runecarved Body feels a bit out of place.
  • The bit about miss chance could stand to be touched up. As read, it implies the Gargoyle's attacks are the ones that would miss.
• Freeze:
  
  • Don't love it as a free action. Doesn't state how long it lasts, which leads one to think, on being targeted with an attack that threatens a crit, a gargoyle would just trigger this ability to gain fortification. Make it a swift, grant better bonuses?
  • Feels very minor, in the grand scheme of things, when it's a core ability of the Gargoyle.
• Improved Chiseled Armaments:
  
  • Stone Heavyweight is a little meh. Not docking any points anywhere, but powerful build is really overused.
  • Water Bullets: Not docking points here, but part of me wishes the weapon did less damage and had the 'push enemies to the limits of the weapon's range' earlier, and got the damage bumped up at a later point. It's a great idea that fits the 'geyser' bit. I could stand to see Water Bullets renamed to something else.
  • The dex damage on petrifaction isn't a lot, and I envision it as being really subpar, especially since you're increasing enemy AC and making it harder to apply further dex damage. Add a workaround of some sort?
• I like what you did with the flight/mobility abilities, but I'd add some kind of technique for attacking from above that encourages use of glide in combat. Perhaps moving the 9HD bonus damage down.
• Statuesque Perfection: "They choose any two abilities from the Chiseled Armaments, Stone Skin Fortifications or Carved Mobility lists (two total, not per list)." -> This could be reworded to do away with the bracket.
• Move the saved Carved Mobility info to the comments box?
• {table=head]Category|Score
  Originality| 4.5 (Lots of options, most of which work.)
  Playability| 3 (It isn't bad in this department, but it isn't particularly great either. Perhaps bump its skills/skill points up a step?)
  Power| 3.5 (Inferior to rogue? A bit terrain dependent for hide checks, disease isn't that hot as an option, Tough Skin, Freeze)
  Elegance| 4 (Awkward placement of the bit where you detail Str damage to claw, iffy picture, bracket under Statuesque perfection, but the overall monster fits together very smoothly)
  Flavor| 4 (Every option you list is damn flavorful and I can very much picture it fitting a Gargoyle, but Freeze is a signature ability that feels overlooked.)
  Overall| 19, average 3.8
  [/table]

Quasi-God

• Ok, so this creature is one of the ones that prompted me to do the whole scoring thing, so I could stop talking in generalities and try to hammer out exactly why I, Gorgon and you, K.B., are having trouble getting this one to a finished state.
• My initial complaint about this class is that it doesn't feel like a monster class. It feels like a prestige class for someone with class levels. The pre-reqs kind of convey this, too.
• Why Charisma 11 in the pre-reqs? It seems like an arbitrary number.
• The *'s in the table and the ensuing description are kind of messy. Further, they make it hard on a player who is gaining a level and has to check and double check their previous choices and/or outside material to figure out their most basic advancements.
• "1 point = 1st level advances it
  +2 points (3 total) = 3rd level also advances it
  +3 points (6 total) = 5th level also advances it"
  -- This is messy, looks awkward and has 3 incomplete sentences.
• Class Features - you have this line italicized a little ways into the text. It feels out of place and looks
• "(which change after 24 hours to match the !uasi-God if it permanently changes alignment)":
  
  • Misspelled 'Quasi-God'.
  • Rather than use brackets, you could make that a separate sentence.
• Natural armor bonus equal to Cha mod? This is a little weird, and doesn't stack with other natural armor bonuses. Bears clarification/fixing.
• "The Quasi-God gains +1 to its Charisma score at 2nd & 4th level. At levels 1, 3 & 5 they may advance 1 stat of their choice (which may be different for each boost)." - should change to 'advance one stat' for readability.
• Don't write abilities as '1/5 rounds'. It's confusing, awkward and kinda lazy.
• Let the light/darkness of the Quasi-God be adjusted. That is, 'may shed any amount of light/darkness up to a maximum of a 60' radius.
• Divine Spark:
  
  • I worry a bit about a free darkness effect that can be used to impede foes. I mean, darkness sucks as an effect, but getting it for free can potentially screw up the enemy.
  • 'that deals 1d6/3HD damage' - reword to 'that deals 1d6 untyped damage for every 3HD of the Quasi-God.'
  • '1/day for every 2HD the Quasi-God may' reads awkwardly. Reword to 'Once a day for every 2HD the Quasi-God has, it may...
  • '1/day for every 2HD the Quasi-God may heal or repair (for constructs) a creature (including yourself) by 1d6/3HD.' - You shift from 'the Quasi god may...' to '(including yourself)'. Should be either 'you may ... including yourself' or 'the Quasi-God may ... including itself/himself/herself.' Try to be consistent.
  • And again, 'by 1d6/3HD' should be 'by 1d6 for every 3HD the Quasi-God has.'
  • 'As a standard action usable 1/day for every' -> should be 'usable once a day for every...'
  • 'for every 2HD the Quasi-God may' - insert 'has' after Quasi-God.
  • You probably get the sense of what I'm looking for by now. I'll stop detailing changes I've already covered, but try to make changes throughout, where possible.
  • 'They may reduce the target's AC, any one Save, Damage reduction or Spell Resistance by 1 point for every 2HD it has' -> you change focus from 'they' to 'it', leading one to believe we're basing this off the HD of the victim, not the quasi-god.
• Fledgling Portfolio:
  
  • "The creature may only be newly empowered, but they are becoming a God nonetheless" -> Here's one thing that bugs me. It seems like the entry can't decide whether the Quasi-God has already achieved divinity (see pre-reqs, "thus earning your Divinity", "Divinity manifests differently in each of the rare few who achieve it", "unless the source is another God") or whether it's on its way to such ("they are becoming a God nonetheless"). It feels a bit divided on the subject - I think there were other areas that give varying impressions one way or the other, but this hurts the flavor of the class and makes it feel a bit incoherent.
  • "They may only cast spells that are of a level that a Cleric who's level matched your HD" -> See underlines.
  • And who's isn't the right word. The entire sentence, come to think of it, is awkwardly written. Try: 'They may only access domain spells of a spell level equal to ½ their HD.'
  • "Any spells with an XP cost still requires the Quasi-God to pay this cost." - get rid of the 's' after spells.
• Shield of Divinity:
  
  • "As a new Deity, many mortal magics find great difficulty affecting the creature." - I'd replace the word 'magics' with 'forces', to avoid confusion or debate as far as monster abilities, normal weapons (alchemist's fire) or divine spells being ignored by a player reading the flavor text literally.
  • "At 3rd level they gain DR equal to 1/2 your HD"
• Manifestation of Divinity:
  
  • Divine Companion:
    
    • The growing/shrinking of companions feels really weird.
    • "f the Companion is killed the Quasi-God may expend the 4 highest level effects from their Fledgling Portfolio ability without their usual effects to resurrect it after 24 hours have passed." - this makes absolutely no sense to me, I'm afraid.
  • Aura of Divinity:
    
    • Weakness aura is pretty powerful, given the 'no save, at least 1 negative level'.
    • And resolve is pretty weak in comparison.
    • Drain is pretty potent as an aura. No-save damage to pretty much every enemy on the battlefield? So at 15th level, I can give every enemy 3 negative levels (1 on a save), costing each foe 15 hp, and then have them take 15 damage a round just for being there?
    • The auras seem flat out better than other Manifestations of Divinity
  • Far Sight:
    
    • Seems pretty dramatically underpowered compared to other options.
  • Divine Travel:
    
    • The options all put together feel like a bit much. Dimension dooring at will could be fine (although it's a bit too easy, IMHO), flight plus teleportation & feather fall would also be fine, but getting the whole package feels a bit crude.
  • Personal Plane:
    
    • Underpowered, kind of, in comparison to other options.
  • Overall, Manifestation of Divinity offers abilities that are great group utility and options that are great (and unfortunately, sometimes overpowered) combat options, but since you can only pick one of 'em, you're having to choose between sucking at combat or getting the more flavorful worldly stuff.
• "they still dies of old age" - die.
• Hamper the Competition: You make the shift from 'they' to 'you' midway through a sentence or two.
• 'cannot die from natural causes' - this is kinda vague. Clarify that it's only old age?
• 'This ability extends the Quasi-God's Venerable or Great Wyrm Age Category by an infinite amount' - what? Clarify.
• n addition they gain a bonus equal to 1/2 their HD to: a number of class skills equal to their skill points/level-2. What? Clarify.
• {table=head]Category|Score
  Originality| 2 (I think I could get the vast majority of the effects with cleric levels & self-buffs and/or multiclassing for some of the features. Those features I couldn't get this way, like Aura of Divinity, I find problematic. I can see the effort though, and the limited wish is certainly unique)
  Playability| 2.5 (the 'fill in the blank' BAB, saves, skills, make it kind of a hassle to level up and/or double-check stats at the table.)
  Power| 3.5 (Deduction for issues with Aura of Divinity, class options, such as Manifestation of Divinity options, don't seem well balanced against one another.)
  Elegance| 1.5 (The *'s and ensuing choices, odd +cha to natural armor, mispelling, numerous readability/format issues, unconventional shorthand use of stuff like '1/5 rounds'.)
  Flavor| 2.5 (Can't seem to decide whether it's a god or is becoming a god, some abilities like divine spark, aura of divinity, offer lots of stuff for good quasi-gods and insufficient options for evil/aggressive ones)
  Overall| 12, average 2.4[/table]

Cloaker

• It seems weird to me that you've got this thing flipping and flying and leaping about, and you've got a good will save and crappy reflex.
• "Skills Points at 1rst Level" - just say 1st or better yet, first.
• "It can still use its whiplike tail to strike at other targets." - I like this, but it needs more defining in how it works. Perhaps clarify that you can bite an engulfed target and tail whip an adjacent opponent as a full round action?
• "Attacks that hit an engulfing cloaker deal half their damage to the monster and half to the trapped victim." - silly question, but what about attacks directed at the trapped victim? Does half go to the cloaker?
• Obscure Features: Perhaps lower to 1/2 the Cloaker's HD?
• For engulf, come to think of it, you should say something like 'the Cloaker may engulf an opponent that unwittingly tries to wear it' with a big bonus on the grapple check for catching the enemy by surprise.
• Moan:
  
  • Needs clarification, based on the initial sentences. Can it use each ability on the list a number of times a day equal to its HD? Or just use one of the abilities?
  • Allow the Cloaker to reduce the radius?
  • I don't like the automatic penalty of Unnerve.
  • "overcome by nausea and weakness." - The 'weakness' bit is misleading.
  • Nauseated is a pretty powerful condition. 1d4+1 rounds is a long duration.
  • 'affective' should be 'effective'.
• {table=head]Category|Score
  Originality| 4.5 (The playstyle, with the leaps, engulfs and the like, feels distinct and unique.)
  Playability| 4 (Solid enough, but see Power, moans look hazardous to allies)
  Power| 3 (Needs a way around freedom of movement, some of the moans are a little too powerful)
  Elegance| 4 (Pretty consistent throughout, but some abilities need clarification, fixing.)
  Flavor| 4.5 (The monster comes across very well.)
  Overall|20, average 4.[/table]

Vivisector

• The skills available generally shouldn't exceed 3x your skill points a level. If you've got 2+int mod skill points a level, 6 skills on your list is more than enough. Vivisector has 16 skills on its list and only 2 skill points a level.
• Further, I don't know that disable device is a great fit. Knowledge (Religion), knowledge (arcane) and sense motive don't necessarily fit my vision of the creature either.
• You don't state source.
• 'To ingest/regurgitate each (or both)
  ring(s) requires a full-round action. ' - accidental line break there. Should just be a space (not a new paragraph) between (or both) and ring(s). Also, I'd reword to 'to ingest or regurgitate one or both rings requires a full round action.'
• Why the hell does Vivisector have listen as a class skill if it automatically fails all listen checks?
• 'Anything with a skeletal system can be Vivisected for Bones, but all Undead can ONLY be Vivisected for Bones. Slime is specific to Oozes, and the only thing you can take from an Ooze. Construct Essence is the only thing that can be harvested from a Construct, and can only be harvested from a Construct. ' - I'd just note which applies to what on the actual list, so the text above is cleaner.
• "they may internally pickle an organ for a number of days equal to your CON Mod" - Yours as a player? You switch from 'they' to 'your'.
• I don't love CON being CAPITALIZED like that, especially when you don't do it ELSEWHERE.
• Poison needs to scale.
• It doesn't have a lot to do in combat (until 4th level, you just claw at people and hope for a foe to coup de grace, and even after that, you're only adding invisbiility to your repetoire. As such, it kind of lacks a role. It seems built as a melee DPS character, but it's going to get outclassed by most (barbarian, any ToB, even some rangers, etc.) in that department.
• {table=head]Category|Score
  Originality|4 (The whole stealing/using organs is cool, other abilities are fine, if not amazing)
  Playability| 3 (I wonder if it lacks a defined role. See last point on list, above.)
  Power| 2.5 (Poison doesn't scale,
  Elegance| 2.5 (source missing,
  Flavor| 2.5 (skill list is kind of unintuitive. Aside from a minor bonus to crit range/scale and the whole coup de grace thing, it doesn't really 'vivisect' in combat.)
  Overall|14.5, 2.9 average.[/table]

Razor Boar

• "Skills Points at 1rst Level:" should be 1st or first. Latter preferred.
• Perhaps change 'low growls' in Razor Boar Body to 'snorts and growls'?
• Surge of Force:
  
  • HD+4 is a lot of surges of strength. Maybe change to 'A number of times per day equal to its HD or its Str mod' - this, I'm finding, is a good way to offer a good few uses at low levels while ensuring it scales smoothly into higher levels. With that, the Razor Boar will typically have about 4 to start with, maybe 5 at second and third levels, and then plateau out.
  • In any case, 'Once per day per HD+4' is awkward. Why not five times a day + the Razor Boar's HD?
• Trample:
  
  • Don't use '.5HD'.
  • "A boar that scents a foe that has injured it in the last 24 hours gets +10 ft to their movement speed and ignores terrain for the purpose of calculating overland movement as long as they are pursuing that foe." - Is the +10' movement speed only for the overland movement? It's kind of confusing as read. Perhaps 'A boar that scents a foe that has injured it in the last 24 hours gets +10' to its movement speed as long as it is pursuing that foe. It ignores terrain hindrances for the purposes of calculating overland movement while tracking that foe.' That's only if you meant the two to be read as separate. If they're the same, try to reword to emphasize that fact.
• Wrench:
  
  • "Against manufactured weapons this is treated as a disarm attempt for which the boar is treated as wielding a two-handed weapon." - you use 'treated' two times there. Reword to 'for which the boar is considered to be wielding a two-handed weapon." ?
  • "a reflex save DC 10 + .5 HD + str." - don't use '.5 HD'. Also, stress Str mod.
• Sharp Tusks:
  
  • "Additionally, whenever the boar threatens a critical hit its critical multiplier increases by 1 for each point the unmodified attack roll was higher than the minimum roll needed to threaten a critical hit. Additionally, the boar's tusks are treated as adamantine for the purposes of penetrating damage reduction and hardness." - you use additionally twice here. Replace the second one with 'finally' or 'lastly'?
• Unstoppable:
  
  • "However, if the boar's hitpoints go below the point where it normally would have died it cannot be healed back above that point by normal magic." - This may be unnecessary. Just let them be healed back up if they get below -10hp and the party has the means & the ability to heal them in time. Deleting it & the sentence that follows would make for cleaner text
• "If it has the improved critical feat for its tusks or if they gain the keen property from some other source increase their critical threat range by one, these bonuses do not stack and are not multiplied by the keen property." - maybe add 'instead' in there somewhere?
• "its critical multiplier is halved when it does so.(round up, apply after sharp tusks)" - The bracketed bit should be a sentence of its own.
• "Reflexive Gore: At ninth level the razor boar's reflexes quicken, allowing it to gore its foes as it runs. When a foe fails their reflex save or misses their attack of opportunity against the trampling boar they provoke an attack of opportunity from the boar. A foe who intentionally fails their save does not provoke this attack." - if you intend for this to be a buff to Trample, it should be clearer.
• {table=head]Category|Score
  Originality|4.5 (It's good.)
  Playability|4 (Some text -Wrench, Barrel Through included- is overlong or complicated considering what it does. Otherwise looks enjoyable to play and it does what it needs to)
  Power|4.5 (No complaints.)
  Elegance| 3 ('.5HD', some grammar issues, some text feels unnecessary.)
  Flavor|3.5 (It works, it fits, but a part of me is disappointed that it didn't emphasize crits or the whole 'hunt you down and murder you' flavor more. Sure, you get lots of effective crits, but the active abilities stress other stuff.)
  Overall|19.5, average 3.9[/table]

Black Dragon

• Picture has an icky rectangle on it. Could stand to be replaced. There's a lot of good art out there if you're willing to look at it.
• Let me state for the record that I find dragons problematic. I have been pretty vocal about the fact that I don't think they were terribly well balanced from the start, and all the dragons that have been made with that base template in mind have carried those problems forward. With that said, I'm going to review this dragon ignoring what precedents have been set (despite my complaints) in the past. As such, please do keep in mind that my complaints aren't directed entirely at you or your work so much as the overall Dragon project, as it's been done thus far.
• We don't do full BAB and +Str on the same creature. Especially not those with scads of natural attacks.
• At 1st and 2nd level the Dragon is pretty overstrong. Compare to a swordsage - you've got spells (which you'll be using primarily to buff yourself) a breath weapon soon after, and a full attack that delivers three attacks for 1d8+Str, 1d6+½Str and 1d6+½Str again. Considering that enemies you face will have 6-10+Con mod hp, you're doing enough raw damage on a full attack to off two opponents a round (assuming you take multiattack, which is kind of a foregone conclusion). This is at a point in time when the swordsage is 5 levels away from delivering iterative attacks and is using a maneuver to maybe deal a bonus 1d6 damage.
• State in the ability descriptions when the ability is gained. ie. At second level, the Dragon gains the ability to... The third level Dragon may... Upon reaching fifth level, the Dragon can...
• "At level 6, the Black Dragon can cast Charm Person or Animal 1 per day per 3 hit dice" - better to phrase it 'once per day per three hit dice.' as it reads better.
• Under Spell Like Abilities: "Save DC:s are equal to 10+1/2 HD+Charisma Modifier." - this belongs above the 'at level 13' bit. Should probably be included in the text itself. In fact, that whole blurb needs just a bit of fleshing out. It's very truncated.
• "At level 4 the Black dragon becomes able to fly with a speed of" - awkward wording.
• "Each wing can also be now used to deliver a secondary natural attack dealing 1d4+1/2 str damage." - I take a bit of issue with this, as we've now got five natural attacks at 4th level, before your party swordsage even has one iterative attack. If the dragon took a level in an initiator class for fifth level, it could get something like Punishing Stance, allowing it to deliver 5 attacks with a bonus +1d6 damage on each. I just see this getting out of hand.
• Levels 3, 7, 8, 11, and maybe a few others, at a glance, look rather dull. Like, you're either gaining something passive that a dozen other monsters have (DR, SR, Blindsense, immunity to disease, ability to see in darkness) or you're gaining an ability that probably isn't going to prove useful more than once every level or two (corrupt water).
• Weakening breath states "At level 14, the dragon may, instead of using Diseased Breath in conjunction with its breath weapon, instead use Weakening Breath." - but you don't get diseased breath until later.
• Weakening Breath - you take a penalty? That's not terribly exciting, since you can't off a creature with it. Beyond that, how long does the penalty last?
• I always found Crush rather undignified.
• You have several ways of applying sickened, but they tend to come up really late in the class, when that particular status effect isn't all that great.
• Impure Breath is kind of underwhelming as a capstone.
• {table=head]Category|Score
  Originality|2 (Stuff that sets it apart from other dragons is few and far between, some abilities -such as Diseased breath and impurity- overlap with one another in terms of effect)
  Playability| 2 (Some really dull levels with nothing meaningful gained.)
  Power| 2.5 (Too powerful at very early levels, too many natural attacks too quickly, arcane spellcasting besides)
  Elegance|3 (Missing consistent "at 2nd level the dragon may...", "1 per day per 3 hit dice", awkward/insufficient wording in many places, some abilities are kind of awkward in execution (weakening breath)
  Flavor| 3.5 (It's a dragon, has all the individual dragon parts, but doesn't feel all that much like a dragon. Does that make sense? It just doesn't give off the feel of something majestic, awe inspiring and powerful, kings/queens of monsters.)
  Overall|14, average 2.8.[/table]

Hellfire Wyrm

• Right off the bat, I note that levels 18 and 19 are dead. Off the twig, kicked the bucket, shuffled off their mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible. They's dead levels, mate.
• "Before you say anything about the lack of wings or tail slap attack, the original monster didn't have them either. Hence the increase in maneuverability." - but, there's wings on the table?
• Not many class skills. If a PC happens to have more than a +2 int mod, they'll be forced to take cross class skill ranks.
• See the Black Dragon, directly above, for my complaints on plethora of natural attacks, progression issues, etc.
• On the table, you list abilities in the 'feature' column, ending the line with a comma. See levels two and seven.
• Hellfire wyrm body: It gains the fire subtype, but I'd stress that it gains fire immunity and cold vulnerability in the same sentence, for clarity, rather than sticking it at the end.
• SLAs: Ways the SLAs are gained is really hard to follow.
• SLAs: Also, I really dislike when people use algebra in the entries. Like, "X is ____". Just list it with each individual level. Or hell, make a table.
• Again, just like on the table, levels 3 and 8 on the SLAs list end in commas.
• Alternate form is notoriously abusable. I'd detail it very carefully, lest people assume humanoid forms that give them abilities that can break the game on a pun-pun level.
• Hellfire Breath: State what hellfire damage is.
• Hellfire Aura, I don't like. It makes for too many damage rolls and bogs down play.
• End sentences with periods (re: Persuasive)
• Tainted Skin: That DR shows up pretty late.
• Temptation of Hell: Would reword to "Any SLAs the Hellfire Wyrm gains that have the mind affecting descriptor can now..."
• Master Weapons of Hell: Why 3 damage? Why increase in multiples of three?
• {table=head]Category|Score
  Originality|2.5 (Stuff that sets it apart from other dragons is few and far between, )
  Playability| 1 (Unfinished class, some levels are dull, hellfire aura bogs down play)
  Power| 3 (Too powerful at very early levels, too many natural attacks too quickly)
  Elegance|1.5 (table formatting, dead levels, and other inconsistencies in the text (orphaned commas) lead me to believe the monster isn't done. Some stuff isn't explained.
  Flavor| 3.5 (It's a dragon, has all the individual dragon parts, but doesn't feel all that much like a dragon. Does that make sense? It just doesn't give off the feel of something majestic, awe inspiring and powerful, kings/queens of monsters.)
  Overall|11.5 Average 2.3[/table]

Aboleth

• Rather than have an overly extensive skill list, why not a class feature that lets it consolidate the list? Like, 'pick 2 skills that share an ability score involvement (such as hide and move silently, which are both dex based skills). You may merge these skills into a new skill, using that skill when either of the two parent skills would be called for. This process of skill consolidation may be performed twice at first level and once more with Aboleth class levels 3, 5 and 7.' So you've got Aboleths combining Autohypnosis and Sense Motive into a new skill, which they dub 'Sensory Detection' or Gather Information and Use Magic Device into a new skill, dubbed 'Apocrypha'. Suitably alien and unfathomable for the Aboleth, no? This would probably replace Memory of the Aeons.
• First level, as I read it, kind of sucks. I mean, you get two lamesauce tentacle attacks, low base land speed, no natural armor, and your class skills at level one are a sorta-boost to knowledge checks and a choice between Aquatic (amphibious) Subtype with a Cantrip, Aquatic (non-amphibious) subtype with swim bonuses, amphibious traits with outsider subtype and a bite attack or air subtype with a permanent feather fall effect. I mean, I think a CR 1/3 goblin could kick your 1st level Aboleth's rear.
• I don't know that I love the 'hide from the land dwellers' that keeps coming up in amphibious path. It doesn't seem fitting flavor.
• 'Cha Mod times per day...' (amphibious path) - reword to 'A number of times a day equal to the Aboleth's Cha mod...'
• 'equal to half it's HD' - it has HD. I swear, I'm going to put the same rule into effect for it's that I have for spelling errors. I refer you to:
  http://www.angryflower.com/itsits.gif
• "It's slimy skin and fluid movement lets it function in many ways as if they" - switching from it's (which is wrong, again) to 'they'.
• "The Aboleth can use weapons designed for a creature one size smaller without penalty." - does this mean it gets proficiency for such weapons? Why would you even want this, otherwise?
• "the Aboleth gains a continual Freedom of Movement effect on it's person at all times." - bob the angry flower just busted a forehead vein.
• "IV - The Aboleth's swimming skills become unparalleled, and it can avoid most hazards effortlessly. The Aboleth can, once per day, ." - can what? Candleja
• "It also gain a bite attack dealing 1d4 + Str Mod " - gains?
• "The Aboleth gains a bonus to Intimidate equal to 1/4 it's HD ... and it's thick skin gives it DR 5/Magic" - Bob the Angry Flower is frothing at the mouth.
• "III - The Aboleth learns how to Slime Bomb it's opponents in glorious warfare." - Bob the Angry Flower just shed a tear.
• "IV - Its Flight Speed doubles..." Yes!
  "...As a move action, it can move triple it's flight speed" No!
  I give up! I just really hope that it's coming across that this looks iffy, because I'm thinking about setting a rule that if I come across "it's" used wrong more than twice, I'm quitting the critique right then & there.
• Really don't like how Just as Planned scales. It feels awkward. The progression of abilities doesn't feel right.
• @ just as planned: Why even have an autohypnosis check if the DC is that low? 5 skill ranks + stat mod and you're not going to lose on anything short of a 1-3, anyways.
• Forbidden Dreaming still feels useless, and in the end, 3rd level is really dull too.
• Convert the Flesh isn't going to help you as an adventurer - foes won't die from it until long, long after combat ends. So all you're really getting from it is a reduction in enemy's natural armor. A bonus worse and harder to apply than a 1st level spell.
• Drowning ooze, can't tell whether it intends for you to be underwater or not. Regardless, it's got the same flaw as convert the flesh. Enemies won't die from it before your fellow adventurers mince them.
• Enslave the Mortals: Having charmed/dominated/enslaved/zombie minions is really problematic. If you've got an army of beholders or mages, then stuff starts to get wonky balancewise. In any event, basing stuff off HD is also really problematic, too.
• Still don't like the save or lose Nostalgia ability at 7th level.
• {table=head]Category|Score
  Originality| 2 (some very unexciting levels, has very few/no abilities that are both effective and interesting/unique to it.)
  Playability| 1.5 (Feels like it really lacks a defined role. You don't get enough uses of the stuff that defines the class, like illusions and horrifying mind bending/body warping corruptions, so you're just tentacle slapping a lot, virtually dead 1st and 3rd levels, 4th sorta dead, )
  Power| 1.5 (Really weak first level, third level, fourth, fifth levels. Enslave the Mortals is potentially gamebreaking, as is Drowned in Nostalgia.)
  Elegance| 2 (Countless its/it's mixups, just as planned feels really jarring in how it scales with HD,
  Flavor| 3.5 ('hide from the land dwellers' is kinda off. You more or less hit the target as far as this category goes, but it still feels something's missing.)
  Overall|10.5 - 2.1 average.[/table]

Phase Wasp

• Thank the pantheon, finally, a short monster.
• There's a format error, before your first spoiler, you've got:
  

  "d6 HD
  {spoiler]"

  sticking out there.
• As is, it's liable to gain more skill points than it has class skills to spend them on.
• Tiny creatures are problematic. The phase wasp exemplifies these problems. It can't do anything early on except what every other tiny creature does. Hide, try to enter enemy's space, attack, pray AC keeps it alive.
• It can't do anything at 1st level. Considering that's half the class, this is unfortunate.
• 'understand its body language and low growls enough' - phase wasps growl? Maybe Chirp? Chitter?
• Phase Powers: While this helps the class, it still leaves you stuck in the tiny creature dynamic for 2-5 rounds after you use it. Since that demands you either do nothing or try to enter the enemy's space, you're liable to be in an awkward spot when it comes time to use the ability again.
• I feel badly because it's a short monster and I wanted to give it much love, but I'm fairly certain it just wouldn't work as is, as a two level investment replacing your race and class.
• {table=head]Category|Score
  Originality|2 (It's virtually identical to a half dozen other tiny creatures at 1st level, and 2nd level doesn't add nearly enough to compensate.)
  Playability|1 (I don't think a player who sat down at the table with this would do very well. I might even argue some familiars would outclass it pretty badly.)
  Power|2 (It's pretty underpowered)
  Elegance| 3 (Pretty good, but indented bits of the text and the italics rather than bolds for ability names do make it kinda hard to follow)
  Flavor| 3.5 (Can't complain here, I guess. I think an ability at 1st level that helps sell the wasp's nature would help)
  Overall|9.5, average 1.9[/table]

Bleakborn, Remorhaz, Gray Jester, Flesh Golem, Ettercap

• No changes since last critique

Skeroloth, Lodestone Marauder, Marrash

• Added to the list.

Ragewalker

• Given the volume of stuff I've done thus far, gonna wait for you to finish working on it (assigning ability scores) before giving you a thorough review.

Corrupted Creature

• No changes since 02-08-11.

For the sake of my own sanity, I'm not scoring or critiquing monsters that haven't responded to my last critique. Monsters that got a bonus critique as per my modest proposal (Chuul, Violet Fungus) are excepted.

I hope no feelings are hurt by the scoring. I really do want to help everyone make their submissions as good as possible.

So, let me know what you think of the scoring. Does it help, is it interesting, does it make it easier to get a sense of other people's monsters? Your response will affect whether I do it again (it's a touch more time consuming, I must admit).

Edit: Hit the character limit. Posting the rest after I get a reply, so I'm not triple posting.

[Gorgondantess]

Personally, I think the scoring system is a mite hackneyed. Points for flavor and elegance, but playability is just shot.
I mean...
Okay, so those criteria are good. Just fine, in fact. However, it's just... assigning arbitrary numbers strikes me as pointless and futile. What score passes? Just say power: (what's right or wrong with it). Originality: (what's right or wrong with it). Etc. What does a 3 mean? What does a 4 mean? What does a 1 mean? Sure, you could assign values to these numbers, but the fact remains that they're still totally arbitrary and really it would be rather easier to just say it outright.
Also, I want to see a Saguaro review.

[Hyudra]

Personally, I think the scoring system is a mite hackneyed. Points for flavor and elegance, but playability is just shot.
I mean...
Okay, so those criteria are good. Just fine, in fact. However, it's just... assigning arbitrary numbers strikes me as pointless and futile. What score passes? Just say power: (what's right or wrong with it). Originality: (what's right or wrong with it). Etc. What does a 3 mean? What does a 4 mean? What does a 1 mean? Sure, you could assign values to these numbers, but the fact remains that they're still totally arbitrary and really it would be rather easier to just say it outright.
Also, I want to see a Saguaro review.

I did have details listed for the individual numbers (so what a 5 meant, what a 4 meant, etc), but cut it to make room for the phase wasp. And I did have a blurb where I admitted that playability was admittedly subjective, but I scrapped that too somewhere along the line.

The intent behind the numbers (and the scoring system in general) is that I wanted to give a more concrete kind of feedback. I feel, sometimes, that I make a comment, and it gets looked at, the change gets made, but without something solid to point to (like an actual number), the person doing the monster doesn't understand the impact of the accumulated issues.

But when I can say, on a scale of 1 to 5, the errors in this department bring you down to a 1, then that might serve as a wake up call. I dunno.

Violet Fungus, Rast, Magmite Magmin, Saguaro Sentinel and Chuul I'll do tomorrow. Honestly, that batch (11 in depth critiques) took me hours, so I hope it's appreciated by some. I'm all worn out now.

[Gorgondantess]

The intent behind the numbers (and the scoring system in general) is that I wanted to give a more concrete kind of feedback. I feel, sometimes, that I make a comment, and it gets looked at, the change gets made, but without something solid to point to (like an actual number), the person doing the monster doesn't understand the impact of the accumulated issues.

But my point was that assigning something so concrete as a number to something so complex as a monster class review is inescapably arbitrary. Even with a number guideline.

But when I can say, on a scale of 1 to 5, the errors in this department bring you down to a 1, then that might serve as a wake up call. I dunno.

...Perhaps. Though I think it would be simpler to just change how you review to reflect this as opposed to creating a whole new system.

Violet Fungus, Rast, Magmite Magmin, Saguaro Sentinel and Chuul I'll do tomorrow. Honestly, that batch (11 in depth critiques) took me hours, so I hope it's appreciated by some. I'm all worn out now.

Weren't you going to do the Saguaro Sentinel a few days ago?

[Hyudra]

Weren't you going to do the Saguaro Sentinel a few days ago?

Lies. All lies.

[Psyborg]

Yay! More monster classes getting close to done!

Seriously. These (meaning the project as a whole, and nearly all of its classes) are awesome. Y'all are...well, absolutely bonkers, of course, but at least your craziness is both productive and appreciated. Keep it up!- after adequate sleep and/or caffeine, though, please.

[Kobold-Bard]

This is my resignation from monster class making (dramatic, isn't it).

I am not inherently a creative person; which was sort fine under Oslecamo because as long as a class looked like he monster and had all it's abilities it was good, but these days I'm starting classes and everyone is essentially finishing then by proxy because I can't come up with anything new.

The Quasi-God is never going to be finished, and under the new system most of my monsters are likely going to need to be redone by someone else anyway. Add to that the fact that I apparently can't use simple English and I just can't be bothered, it's not fun to me anymore.

Please move the Quasi-God, Rast & Magmin to the abandoned list & the Chimera is up for grabs again. Thanks for the memories & keep up the good work.

[Crafty Cultist]

Bleakborn:

• I wonder if greater brittle strike isn't redundant. I mean, at 7th level, you've got 21 uses of your brittle strike. At ~4 encounters per day, this is ~5 uses per encounter. By 8th or 9th level you'll have enough uses not to care anymore.

Greater Brittle strike was added on advice for Gorgondantess. It may not be that major an ability, but it means you dont have to keep track of how many uses you've used that day. Less number tallying makes it a bit easier to play right?

[The Winter King]

Jovoc
Phase Wasp

Some Fixes to the above.
@Hyudra I know breaking the class down by level runs against convention, but I hated going through my books to find out when an ability was gained.

Also heres a feat I thought up when making the Phase Wasp:

Speech of Man
Prerequisites: Unable to speak due to physical limitations
Benefit: You can speak and learn to speak languages regardless of physiology. If you dont understand any languages you speak common.
Normal: These creatures cant speak.

[Frog Dragon]

Ah, the timing is awkward. We just got an influx of new monsters, and you've still got the Black Dragon, a 20 level creature, to finish. As Gorgon said, we're asking people to please ask and get the a-ok before they add more to the overall workload (be it a new monster or a revision). New contributors are perfectly fine, but people with existing projects adding new stuff to the pile is kind of problematic, and leads to us being buried.

Can I ask that you please finish Black Dragon, and then remind us of those two when we've got that nearly done?

I'm being a little picky about that (in this post & the one above) because I'm only midway through a mass critique of some 17 monsters. I'm kinda bothered by the prospect of adding more, unnecessarily.

Actually, I modified the black dragon as well. Currently, I've been trying to work through my backlog of monsters needing modifications, making sure it's all in order before I tackle anything new. It may not have been the wisest of decisions, but I have now edited both the Black Dragon, the Mezzoloth and the Nycaloth. I started revising those a while ago, so it's not like I started now, when problems with the Black Dragon had been pointed out.

I'm fine with stalling my critters, but the Nycaloth and the Mezzoloth have gone under heavy overhauling since they were added to the list, so I don't think they belong in the finished monsters list anymore.

Edit: To clarify, all of this is pretty much finished, and only needs a final look-through.

Edit 2: And I'm just going to go back to my dragon now.

[NineThePuma]

I give the number system a 2.1 score. On what scale? Why, I'll never tell!

More seriously... As KB has abandoned the Quasi-God and I'm something of a grammar nerd (though I'm not perfect and its more of an experience thing than an interest), I'd like to take it up.

I will probably relate the class to cleric domains, probably offering 4 of them which will each adjust the chassis slightly. The base chassis will be weak, but with the benefits it shouldn't be too bad.

I'm going to take a page out of 2e's clerics and probably expand the spheres significantly, but that's still debatable, and I've been awake for a while, so...

[DiBastet]

I'm more or less with kobold bard in this one. I don't believe in the strength of the points system. it seems arbitrary, it seems... deppreciative. We're all striving for quality and to make something that will last (even if "last" is a lurker looking around to find a class for his lamia, medusa or nymph monster character he wanted so much to play).

I fear that under Creativity people will be shunned because the monster class does more or less what the monster does. Sure there are some incredible base classes around, but some are just "boring" with a little thing or another (like, let's say, the barbarian). I understand the need for iconic abilities to be gained at low levels, then become fully fleshed then maybe adding some lore abilities related to the ones the monster already gains, but I fear a player comes with a whole different monster and players say "What? Doesnt seem like an aboleth..."

I like Playability. Sure I believe "simples is better", so I find it nice to make abilities simpler than to create a whole new system. it's nice when an ability seems like other you see around. Sure, the newwer MM show many exclusive abilities, but they are mostly in a format that you already saw around. But then, I speak again for a Compatibility issue, to give a more...lenient... view on abilities and things that look closer to the original.

No problems with Power. The thread's guidelines are like a 3.5 and "for designers" view of what appeared on savage species. I believe a DM presented with a class from the thread would look at the guidelines and say "oh, that's good, no need to worry with this unbalancing thing" or something like that. Once more, I speak for Compatibility, making exceptions for some certain monsters. There are some monster that really have abilities beyond what is common, but it's part of the monster. I know it's a monter class, don't negate my review based on that, it's just that I find strange if a player comes to a DM with a Rakhshasa and he says "well, cool, but where's your uber SR?" or something like that. Balance is NEEDED, but there are some things where we could allow a little to escape if it was balanced with a little other a little under...

Elegance is a must. Just be careful not to be to Nazi. I feel offended if I'm on Phase One of monster creation, just wanting some evaluation on abilities, and all people do is say "it's nor "herz", but "hers"" and stop evaluation. For god's sake, if it's not on the final version, please. Let. Go. It really offends and sounds a little too Nazi.

Flavor is cool. I defended it a lot of times above.

Now, I like the categories. I dont like the points. "What, I get 1 on everything???" isn't a goo thing to think when you put yourself into the creation of something and people don't seem to care. there's a lot of hardcore homebrewers that won't care for a low rating, but if you want just the old hardcore to participate then it's cool. But then, there are many people that look "hey, monster classes! Maybe I could try making one too" and really, make One. It's participating. And "we" (since I'm just a "first time poster") should encourage people to participate. And I tell you, a point review isn't exactly encouraging, as people don't want to feel ashamed with a 1...

besides, how much is enough. Ohh, I got nmany 4. Is it approved yet? it seems artificial. It would be better get the whole review and leave the numbers behind. besides, you said it takes you a lot more time to use it, so why use it? Use the time and space for some constructive criticism on more classes. I kinda feel annoyed when I say that I want people to point me if there's something wrong in the balance in the actual phase and I know I don't receive some good criticism because some table and arbitrary numbers are on the way...

Oh, and finally. An "Except for the things I said all in all it's cool" here and there goes a loooong way to encourage people. You know "well, at least there's something people liked, let's keep going".


Please, if a lot of my in-depth review sound a little Emo, understand that I'm trying to get thing on a more positive view. It's hard work on a forum and in the internet in general, but it can be done.

PS: This review took me 30 minutes. Tried to be positive and support the thing I liked, but point in a constructive way the ones I don't. Hope you like it.

[Frog Dragon]

Black Dragon

• Picture has an icky rectangle on it. Could stand to be replaced. There's a lot of good art out there if you're willing to look at it. Apart from the rectangle, I did like that picture a lot. But anyhow, it has been replaced.
• Let me state for the record that I find dragons problematic. I have been pretty vocal about the fact that I don't think they were terribly well balanced from the start, and all the dragons that have been made with that base template in mind have carried those problems forward. With that said, I'm going to review this dragon ignoring what precedents have been set (despite my complaints) in the past. As such, please do keep in mind that my complaints aren't directed entirely at you or your work so much as the overall Dragon project, as it's been done thus far. I considered doing some modifications to the template, but I figured it would stray too much from how the other dragons were done.
• We don't do full BAB and +Str on the same creature. Especially not those with scads of natural attacks. Halved the strength bonus. It's not getting any until level 5, and it caps out at +3 now.
• At 1st and 2nd level the Dragon is pretty overstrong. Compare to a swordsage - you've got spells (which you'll be using primarily to buff yourself) a breath weapon soon after, and a full attack that delivers three attacks for 1d8+Str, 1d6+½Str and 1d6+½Str again. Considering that enemies you face will have 6-10+Con mod hp, you're doing enough raw damage on a full attack to off two opponents a round (assuming you take multiattack, which is kind of a foregone conclusion). This is at a point in time when the swordsage is 5 levels away from delivering iterative attacks and is using a maneuver to maybe deal a bonus 1d6 damage. Dropped natural attacks to later levels. It now only has a bite attack until level 8.
• State in the ability descriptions when the ability is gained. ie. At second level, the Dragon gains the ability to... The third level Dragon may... Upon reaching fifth level, the Dragon can... Done.
• "At level 6, the Black Dragon can cast Charm Person or Animal 1 per day per 3 hit dice" - better to phrase it 'once per day per three hit dice.' as it reads better. Done.
• Under Spell Like Abilities: "Save DC:s are equal to 10+1/2 HD+Charisma Modifier." - this belongs above the 'at level 13' bit. Should probably be included in the text itself. In fact, that whole blurb needs just a bit of fleshing out. It's very truncated. Done.
• "At level 4 the Black dragon becomes able to fly with a speed of" - awkward wording. Rewrote the ability.
• "Each wing can also be now used to deliver a secondary natural attack dealing 1d4+1/2 str damage." - I take a bit of issue with this, as we've now got five natural attacks at 4th level, before your party swordsage even has one iterative attack. If the dragon took a level in an initiator class for fifth level, it could get something like Punishing Stance, allowing it to deliver 5 attacks with a bonus +1d6 damage on each. I just see this getting out of hand. Dropped wing attacks to level 11.
• Levels 3, 7, 8, 11, and maybe a few others, at a glance, look rather dull. Like, you're either gaining something passive that a dozen other monsters have (DR, SR, Blindsense, immunity to disease, ability to see in darkness) or you're gaining an ability that probably isn't going to prove useful more than once every level or two (corrupt water). I've shuffled abilities around to try and fix this.
• Weakening breath states "At level 14, the dragon may, instead of using Diseased Breath in conjunction with its breath weapon, instead use Weakening Breath." - but you don't get diseased breath until later. Actually you gain Diseased Breath at level 12, but my formatting sucks. I've fixed this, and also made new abilities.
• Weakening Breath - you take a penalty? That's not terribly exciting, since you can't off a creature with it. Beyond that, how long does the penalty last? I removed the ability, and replaced it with the Fouled Breath.
• I always found Crush rather undignified. The original dragon had it.
• You have several ways of applying sickened, but they tend to come up really late in the class, when that particular status effect isn't all that great.
• Impure Breath is kind of underwhelming as a capstone. It is no longer a capstone, having been moved to level 18, while Impurity has been moved to level 20, and modified.
• {table=head]Category|Score
  Originality|2 (Stuff that sets it apart from other dragons is few and far between, some abilities -such as Diseased breath and impurity- overlap with one another in terms of effect)
  Playability| 2 (Some really dull levels with nothing meaningful gained.)
  Power| 2.5 (Too powerful at very early levels, too many natural attacks too quickly, arcane spellcasting besides)
  Elegance|3 (Missing consistent "at 2nd level the dragon may...", "1 per day per 3 hit dice", awkward/insufficient wording in many places, some abilities are kind of awkward in execution (weakening breath)
  Flavor| 3.5 (It's a dragon, has all the individual dragon parts, but doesn't feel all that much like a dragon. Does that make sense? It just doesn't give off the feel of something majestic, awe inspiring and powerful, kings/queens of monsters.)
  Overall|14, average 2.8.[/table]

I tried to accentuate the flavor of the black dragon some more, but I wasn't really sure how to go about it. The first few levels now have more options, but less power, and I tried to weed out the levels with nothing interesting.

[FishAreWet]

I think you guys spend too much time arguing about rating systems. Just let it be and keep revising the creatures until everyone is happy. If he wants to grade them by numbers it might help some people understand what needs to be fixed. It sure as hell doesn't hurt.

@Hydura, what's it gonna take for me to get Briarvex off Abandoned Monsters and into Finished Monsters? I've lowered Thorn Burrow damage to cap at 5d6, less then half of what Sneak Attack is doing, and I removed the ability to Entangle with anything less then a Move Action. And I removed creating permanent vegetation with Entangle. I really want to finish up this monster so I can move on to new ones.

[Hyudra]

Ok, so it looks like the number score is a wash, with no supporters. That's cool. Scrapped.

There does seem to be merit in the individual categories. I think I'll keep that. At the very least, it helps ensure the review is well rounded in its focus.

This is my resignation from monster class making (dramatic, isn't it).

I'm sorry to see you go. Honestly. I feel bad that I contributed to/was the atmosphere of frustration that led to you making that post & if I hurt your feelings in any way. I liked you and by proxy I liked that you were on the project. I hope that, even if you find that atmosphere here to be too demanding for your creations, that you stay a part of the project somehow, either by way of commenting here or by taking a hand in the homebrew monster class thread, where the oversight is more relaxed and (I suspect) creations are more flexible.

Also heres a feat I thought up when making the Phase Wasp:

More than one person has had suggestions for a feat like that. I'm thinking, maybe, we should have a section on the front page, like the one for growth table, that details more in-depth rules (and a feat, agreed upon by all here) for mute monsters and other really common stuff that comes up.

I fear that under Creativity people will be shunned because the monster class does more or less what the monster does. Sure there are some incredible base classes around, but some are just "boring" with a little thing or another (like, let's say, the barbarian). I understand the need for iconic abilities to be gained at low levels, then become fully fleshed then maybe adding some lore abilities related to the ones the monster already gains, but I fear a player comes with a whole different monster and players say "What? Doesnt seem like an aboleth..."

Thanks for the review of the scoring system.

Originality as a category is more intended to promote a little out of the box thinking, within the confines of the monster itself. I'd like to think that with some of my own monsters (Monstrous Spider, Minotaur, Troll), I've taken one trick ponies and made them pretty damn unique to play. The Gargoyle and Razor Boar are other really good examples that have come up recently.
A large part of the reason we're redoing some of the old monsters is because they were 90% the same. Sure, they had whatever class features they had in the monster entry, but the rest was virtually interchangeable. Having a playstyle that breaks the mold (but still keeping in flavor with the monster, of course) gives the monsters a whole other dimension of appeal. Someone comes across the Razor Boar, sees the bull rush follow-through on hit and says, "Oh wow, I could play that" on the merits of the abilities alone, rather than just the fact that they want to play a razor boar.

Oh, and finally. An "Except for the things I said all in all it's cool" here and there goes a loooong way to encourage people. You know "well, at least there's something people liked, let's keep going".

Sure. Kobold-bard's reaction was a bit of a wake up call there. I will strive to be more positive and supportive. I think there's a rule on that on one of the Evil Overlord/Evil Empress lists somewhere.

As KB has abandoned the Quasi-God and I'm something of a grammar nerd (though I'm not perfect and its more of an experience thing than an interest), I'd like to take it up.

Not wasting any time, huh? No, in all seriousness, that may be good. You're not currently working on anything, IIRC, so I don't expect problems there, and your game plan looks solid.

Black Dragon

Dragons are really, really tricky. I mean, even WotC kinda screwed up on Dragons, and they're the professionals.

If we were on a major development team, and we were producing material for a video game, an official book or the like, I'd honestly be pushing for the Dragons to be done last, and then, they'd probably be done with multiple people working on them.

Dragons are the penultimate monsters of D&D. The titular monsters, really.

I like the new picture, by the by.

I think you guys spend too much time arguing about rating systems. Just let it be and keep revising the creatures until everyone is happy. If he wants to grade them by numbers it might help some people understand what needs to be fixed. It sure as hell doesn't hurt.

@Hydura, what's it gonna take for me to get Briarvex off Abandoned Monsters and into Finished Monsters? I've lowered Thorn Burrow damage to cap at 5d6, less then half of what Sneak Attack is doing, and I removed the ability to Entangle with anything less then a Move Action. And I removed creating permanent vegetation with Entangle. I really want to finish up this monster so I can move on to new ones.

She, and to get a monster off the abandoned list just requires that you ask. The abandoned monster thing was just to tidy up the list, as it was cluttered with a good few that hadn't been updated in a month or more. If you intend to update, there's no need for it to be on the abandoned list, right? When I finish the review of the Saguaro Sentinel, I'll update the lists, including moving the Briarvex back.

Just wrapping up here:

Violet Fungus

• It's flavorful, but weak.
• Proficiencies needs to be a complete sentence.
• 1st level looks like it would struggle. You just have two (low damage) tentacles and an ability that's primarily flavor.
• Second level is a bit better with poison, but see the Monstrous Spider for how that monster used poison. The Fungus could stand to have scaling on that level.
• Wild Empathy on plants is kinda neat, but what is it going to let you do? Not like empathizing with a tree is going to make you a friend that shifts the tide of a battle.
• Poison & Plant Communication appear in that order on the table, but are ordered plant communication, poison in the entry itself.
• What size is the violet fungus?
• Dire Tentacles helps, but I don't know that it's enough.
• Non-organic consumption should have a more concrete effect on game mechanics, I think. Some way to gain strength or gather energy for later use.
• {table=head]Category|Score
  Originality| Not bad. I can confidently say we don't have organic breakdown as an ability anywhere. Needs more abilities that sell it though. See playability.
  Playability| Playability is low. For a player wanting to sit down and play in a campaign spanning 5 levels, the violet fungus is going to struggle. Your options in combat are sorely limited, with even movement being limited to a 10' range. It needs something to make players say "Oh, that's something I want to play." or "That's something I want fighting beside me in a group."
  Power| A little off here. Compare to a swordsage, and it falls well behind. Poison could scale better, and it could stand to have more tricks. 1st level is liable to struggle.
  Elegance| Pretty good, but proficiencies needs to be fleshed out & there's minor issues with ability order on table vs. text.
  Flavor| Superb. Organic Breakdown, Plant Communication & Non Organic Consumption are very flavorful. It does feel like a mushroom. It just needs to feel more like a class too.
  [/table]

Señor Saguaro

• BAB, saves, look ok. Proficiencies, skills, also ok.
• Cactus Body - It probably doesn't need that large a disguise bonus to appear as a nonsentient cactus. Not that that's ever going to come up in a typical campaign.
• @Thorns, what if Señor is the one doing the bull rushing, striking, grappling?
• I'm halfways surprised that Señor doesn't take more from slashing, but my experience with cactuses is limited to one I got as a gift when I was 15 and I somehow killed it with neglect. How do you kill a freakin' cactus?
• Ok, so I'm reading natural defenses, I really like it, but I find myself wondering: is this what the Saguaro Sentinel wants? I mean, you're tough with DR, natural armor beefed by con bonuses, con bonuses and fat HD... and you're discouraging enemies from attacking you in favor of other allies. What's bound to happen, really, is the penultimate trap of Tanks. You'll be tough enough that enemies will ignore you to the best of their ability, murder your teammates and then gang up on you. Or die and then leave the next random encounter to finish you off while you drag your teammates to the local shrine. Most tanks want a way to provoke enemies to attack them, not discourage it. Not saying it's a bad idea, but it runs contrarywise to your already established role.
• 1000 needles - don't see myself using it that often, really. Maybe that's intended, but the self-damage is a bit rough. I'd only really use it if I had some form of natural healing (fast healing) or if I could damage/blind three or more enemies in a go.
• @Improved Grab - "Creatures successfully held by Señor Saguaro take Thorns damage, and any attacks during the grapple also deal thorns damage." - is this in addition to thorns damage stated under thorns?
• @Trample - hard to imagine (most cacti aren't very dense, are they?), but sure.
• Pin Missile - Get to 20HD, use pin missile, murder half a small city. Not sure I like just how much that radius scales. At 10HD, even, you're still affecting 20 ~squares~ in every direction.
• And as far as the penalty goes... assuming at 10HD that you're dealing 4d6 thorns damage, you're dealing between 4 and 24 damage, 14 average. So a -2.8 penalty on average (I use the decimal to point to how close you are to a -3), with a -4 possible. I can live with that.
• "After using this ability, Señor Saguaro loses is Thorns, Needle Arms, Pin Missile, Sweep (for the purposes of impalement) & Thorny Grasp ability for 1d4 rounds as the Saguaro Sentinel regrows all its thorns." - needs updating to list abilities you've written since, and you've got 'loses is thorns' instead of 'loses his thorns'.
• "Alternately, Señor Saguaro may direct the Pin Missile as a standard action from one arm. This requires a ranged attack roll to strike the target, though it only loses thorn based abilities for one arm." -for one arm?
• You know, I had a whole shtick planned for the Ettin, based on making it a bumbling, awkward giant, with the two headed bit to mix things up. The falling on people was part of that. But the Ettin was already done. Ah well. Looks like it works.
• @Arm Growth - I had to reread it. RAW, with only the example to bring us back to sanity, you'd get 2 new arms (two additional arms) at 10th, for a total of 5, three additional arms at 15th for a total of 8, etc. I'd reword.
• Sweep - include a "At 9th level..." blurb. There's weird line breaks/paragraphing going on there, formatwise.
• "Creatures impaled in this manner are brought along with Señor Saguaro as it moves, and may attack it with a -4 penalty to attack," - the bit at the end is redundant.
• "Creatures thrown are considered improvised thrown weapons with a base damage of 1d10 for a medium sized creature and a range of 10'" - a range of 10' or a range increment of 10', just checking.
• "The thrown creature takes as much damage as it would deal " - Awkward. Clarify?
• {table=head]Category|Score
  Originality|Pretty solid. Thorns sorta overlaps with the purple worm's own defensive spikes, but seems more defensively oriented. I've wanted to see a solid melee debuffer, just didn't expect it from a cactus.
  Playability| I anticipate no playability problems here. Looks good. Don't know, though, that it'd be a monster that I'd be excited to play, if someone offered me a spot at their table and handed me a saguaro sentinel character sheet. The class pretty much begs you to get Goad or some equivalent from somewhere though.
  Power| Looks solid. Maybe a bit of a weakness in having all those brawny defenses vs. tank syndrome, but no real issues. 1000 needles may be a little weak.
  Elegance|A few abilities need clarification.
  Flavor|I think you hit the mark, as far as selling a cactus person. Can't think of anything that's particularly out of place or that could be added.[/table]

Chuul

• "Lobster-Squid-Fish-Man Body:" -> rename to Chuul body? Standardization!
• "Additionally the chuul may choose to ignore the frail power of the gods, gaining spell resistance 10+HD against divine spells only." -> "frail power of the gods" seems out of place. Also, a bit early to be gaining spell resistance.
• The attribute bonuses to wisdom need to be better clarified on the table, since the way it's shown, it implies it's the player's choice.
• Again, under experiment gone awry, feels a bit early to be getting SR (other creatures get it at 2nd level at the earliest.)
• The constrict bonus... That's a pretty sizable bonus. In fact, what it looks like you're doing is making That Damn Crab. That is, you've got an absolute grab/constrict machine. For example:
  
  Charlie the Chuul with Experiment Gone Awry origin attacks Nancy the Warlock, both level 2. Charlie's got a +6 attack bonus, and Nancy's got AC 16. Charlie makes a full attack against Nancy, Delivering two attacks, Charlie needs a 10+ to hit. Two 50% chances to hit.
  
  Assuming Charlie does land a hit (odds are in his favor), he deals 1d8+5 damage, makes a grapple check (+5 from Str bonus, so odds again liable to be in his favor against a typical humanoid) and deals 2d6+5 damage if successful. Charlie's got 7 average claw damage (two claws that can hit) and 12 average constrict damage. Nancy's liable to have 15hp.
  It's a bit too much.
• @Tentacles: Don't use .5Str It's hard to read and can be very much misinterpreted. Use 1/2 or ½. (The latter can be made by turning on numlock, holding alt, typing 1, 7, 1 on numpad, then releasing alt).
• Third level, armor spikes. Adding gravy to the grapple monstrosity. May be a bit much, but this issue should go away when you've got the rest of the grapple engine sorted out.
• @ lurking predator: I don't like a dependence on water. It's not necessarily that common (or consistently common) as terrain features go, and it tends to make for a creature that is fantastic in some environments and terrible in others. It's like favored enemy/favored terrain. You're only really special when your favored enemy/terrain isn't on the field.
• @ otherworldly preacher: 'this does not scale after it is gained' - don't do this. It forces players to procrastinate on gaining levels in the monster class until the latest possible time.
• @ one among many: Ok, so I've got the murderous claw/improved grapple/constrict machine in place. Now, in the battle against the BBEG, I can gain +3 claw attacks. This will make DMs throw heavy books at you.
• @ Entangling Tentacles: Entangled isn't the right condition for this, given the flavor text. Entangled tends to refer to an external impediment to movement. If you left goopy slime on them, that'd work, but a numbing poison, not so much.
• @ Human Shield: What type of action is this? Might want to make it an immediate action.
• @ Grasping tentacles: I get that you're making a grapple monster here, but I think it's a bit too much. Consider that you can, as written, full attack, deal a bonus 5 claw attacks and a tentacles attack. Each attack has damage combined with a chance to grab & constrict.
• @ Madness: Inoculation against insanity needs to be better defined, as it's pretty broad. This ability is one of those that'll bog down combat if you're not careful (and I fear you've not been careful). You're asking for a lot of will saves (assuming you go from 5th level to 20th, that's 185ish encounters, with most involving an enemy being in close proximity to the Chuul for 1-2 rounds. Let's say there's, on average, 1 enemy in range of the Chuul for 1.5 rounds per combat. That's 278ish will saves, 278 or so rolls on confusion table. Beyond that, you've got what amounts to a save or lose that doesn't require an action of the Chuul's part, so he's taking enemies out of combat without even trying. This is a problem.
• @ Throw: Too many words! You get into all these side examples (touch attacks, fire elemental vs. water elemental) that don't necessarily even apply. (I throw a ghoul at someone, they get paralyzed every time?)
• "No grapple check must be made if the chuul is grappling a creature that it does not count as grappled by." is awkwardly worded. Plus an overuse of the word 'grappled'.
• Arguably too much damage considering how easy it is to set up. I mean, consider:
  
  6th level Chuul against 6th level Warlock. Chuul has 22 Str and large size. Hits with a claw for 2d6+6 damage, gets an improved grapple check (+6 from Str, +4 from size, total of +10), liable to win. Warlock grappled, takes 2d6+6 damage from constrict.
  
  Next turn, Chuul throws victim. Grapple check (+15 bonus), constrict damage (2d6+6), throw Warlock at another enemy, dealing 2d6+6 damage to each.
  
  2 standard actions, and aside from just needing that one successful claw hit (not a horrible chance at happening), you've got a system that deals about 65 damage total, on average (52 to warlock, 13 to alternate victim), with a maximum of 90 total damage. Again, worth stressing, a sixth level foe has somewhere in the neighborhood of 45-50 hp.
• @ Paralytic Tentacles: Why the flat 6 round duration? Also, this is just icing on the OmgWtfGrapple cake.
• @ Devour Faith: What's this obsession people have with abilities that screw over divine casters? I mean, not complaining, per se, but I think there's three or four monsters on the unfinished list that do this sort of thing.
  
  The loss of prepared spells is a bit much, especially since it's costing the cleric his or her best spells.
• {table=head]Category|Score
  Originality|Decent. I've been wanting to see a more grapple focused monster. I like the tentacles, which have dynamic with grapple & add an interesting choice there.
  Playability| Good here. It looks to have a fairly defined role - get in close and grapple the biggest threat, or just tear **** up, which it does look like it can do. Could maybe use more tactical options in combat.
  Power|Power concerns as listed above, namely that it emulates That Damn Crab in the grapple machine. Devour Faith is maybe too powerful considering you can strip enemy divine casters of their best spells.
  Elegance|Stuff needs clarification, abilities need tweaking.
  Flavor|I like that you have different options for different backgrounds. Goes a long way. The mechanics don't really sell the flavor though, and the flavor text was just a bit dry. Good enough, but not 'wow'.
  [/table]

[Lix Lorn]

...if dragons are the penultimate monsters, I'm curious. Who are the ultimates?

[Hyudra]

Gods?

My message is to short. Pleased to lengthen it to ten characters.

[Lix Lorn]

Ooh, okay. (nods)

[TheGeckoKing]

Seriously, Pandorym can't be fully reviewed because I mis-spelled two words wrong?
..............
Really?
I'm finding it REALLY hard to go back and fix stuff when i'm just getting paragraphs and paragraphs of "You can't spell". Honestly, it's not even very helpful. Just plain annoying.

[Hyudra]

Seriously, Pandorym can't be fully reviewed because I mis-spelled two words wrong?
..............
Really?
I'm finding it REALLY hard to go back and fix stuff when i'm just getting paragraphs and paragraphs of "You can't spell". Honestly, it's not even very helpful. Just plain annoying.

I understand that you're frustrated, but I get frustrated too. If I read through a monster and note a spelling error, it's 10-20 seconds to copy paste the text, switch to another window to add it to the list of stuff to be fixed, note the correct spelling, and find my place again. This gets old really fast when it takes a fraction of the overall time to just spellcheck your monster (with liberal use of the 'ignore all' and 'add to dictionary' buttons).

So with that in mind, given that I was spending an inordinate amount of time covering spelling errors that are relatively easy to catch by way of spellcheck, a good few pages back I announced that I'd stop any critique after 2 spelling errors (with leniency for words that have alternate meanings and for those with english as a second language) to allow for the person to spellcheck.

I try not to ask anyone to do anything I wouldn't ask of myself twice over. I'm sorry you're annoyed, but in all fairness, I don't think spellcheck is too much to ask, and I did review two of your other monsters.

[TheGeckoKing]

Yes, but my stupid spellchecker only checks things i'm typing, not things already typed, unless I go through all the stuff i've typed VEEEEEEEERY slowly with the arrow buttons. It's just not viable for me to do it and return back a sane person.
In short, Google Chrome is doing my head in (Not that IE is much better).

[Frog Dragon]

Try an online spell checker? A quick googling got me this.

[Lix Lorn]

Control A, Control C, open word, control V, spellcheck, control A, Control C, back to the Playground, control V?

[TheGeckoKing]

Control A, Control C, open word, control V, spellcheck, control A, Control C, back to the Playground, control V?

I tried that once, but Hyudra is going to hang, draw and quarter me if it does what it did last time, with regards to the It's-Its rubbish that it keeps failing to pick up.

[Hyudra]

Drawing & quartering is so tired. It's so much more fun to be creative.

Like a mix of salt and milk on your subject's feet. Tie them down, introduce them to a goat. The goat will lick up the salt and honey, and with its rough tongue, will lick up some foot with it. Then, since goats have insatiable appetites, well, they just keep licking.

As far as spellchecking goes, I use a built in spellchecker for firefox that leaves squiggly red lines under anything the dictionary doesn't recognize. Serves me pretty well.

And if the its -> it's bit throws you off, just stick to his/her.