Monster sized ogres

[Ulric]

I wanted to ask if the ogre-SIZ in the monsters book is a mistake?
2d6+3 seems a bit low?

And may I say that I was a bit disappointed about some of the design issues?

Would it really be so hard to name every entry in the contents section? There were 2 empty pages in the back ... so there was enough room for something like this?

For example the "troll" is mentioned as a generic nordic "under the bridge" type, but the ogre seems to be the gloranthan sort.

One thing which didn't exactly pleased me, was the fact, that it seems I now have ca. 3-4 "monster" books from RQ to Legens with more or less the same creatures in it? It's ok to use old material which was overworked for new rules, but hey, from the last RQ incarnation to Legends, there weren't so many changes. If the price wasn't so relatively low, I would be really disappointed.

 

[GevatterHein]

First: I am not a native speaker. So this post contains grammar and spelling mistakes. Sorry for that.

My Point: I must say - I am very diappointed from Monsters of Legend. We only get a few generic creature descriptions. No Elemtals, no Spirits - but Spirit Comabt Rules without Context, Skill-Description and Spirit-Combat-Damage-. Table -, no Chaotic Features, no Demons... Just the very basic of Creatures. That would have been a nice addition to the Core Rules. But as an own book with 116 Pages in Digest Format with a 20 $ Price Tack it's just that: VERY DSIAPPOINTING. And simply not worth the money. I don't know who will buy this Book at a game store. If I hadn't preorderd ist, I had not bought it - that's for sure.

For me Runequest II/Legend is the best Rulesystem on the market today. And I really love it (May be that is one Reason why I am so diappointed with MoL) . But if Mongoose sticks on the road it has entered with MoL, Legend won't sell very well. And will die pretty soon. Even with RQ VI on the Horizon - that would be very, very sad.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Ulric]

Actually: Yes, I'm agreeing. If I had seen it in a store, I wouldn't have bought it.

Maybe this would be better under another topic, but looking at the savage worlds book, which surely is pointing at another type of gamer, but probably similar in its marketing concepts, one get's colour pages, better layout, mostly better illustrations more ideas for uses and all that for less money.

I think its more or less ok for me because I think that mongoose has less money than the producers of savage worlds and has to work with lower production costs, but then ... the solution has to be, that the content is good enough to sell itself, and that's probably not the case with monsters ...

 

[GevatterHein]

I think its more or less ok for me because I think that mongoose has less money than the producers of savage worlds and has to work with lower production costs, but then ... the solution has to be, that the content is good enough to sell itself,

I agree. But MoL doesn't.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

I think its more or less ok for me because I think that mongoose has less money than the producers of savage worlds and has to work with lower production costs

I would have guessed that Mongoose was a bigger company than Pinnacle, though I have no facts to back this supposition up. I think the lower production costs is a deliberate choice rather than an external imposition...

 

[Deleriad]

While not having the MoL rulebook yet (probably not buying it if the comments above are accurate) I am disappointed to see from the preview of the Dragon that the errata from RQII (i.e. its Breathe Flame skill) has not been added. Is that in the published text?

Again going from the preview, the dragon's damage modifier of 4D10 would be correct if the damage modifier kept on increasing in multiples of 10. In RQII however the progression slowed to multiples of 20 over 100. E.g.
101-120: 3D10
121-140: 3D12
141-160: 4D10
...and so on. Unfortunately I think Mongoose simply forgot to publish that anywhere and Legend's table only goes up to 100. So it would be good to know what the actual progression in Legend is.

 

[soltakss]

I wanted to ask if the ogre-SIZ in the monsters book is a mistake?
2d6+3 seems a bit low?

I was going to say that these are Gloranthan-style ogres, which are man sized not troll-sized, but 2D6+3 is small even for them.

 

[AnaliseLameth]

I was having a look at this, and it could be coincidence, but it looks like the Ogre stat block has been duplicated by accident from the Orc one.

If you have MCII, I'd suggest just using the Ogre from that. I guess we will have to wait and see if there is an official errata produced that fixes the MoL book.

With the MCII book not being open content, the issue here for new Legend players that don't have access to MCII, is that we can't post corrected stats for Legend from the older content, so there needs to be official errata to do it.

 

[Asyme]

It's a good point (I'm not sure about you but I've never really had a surplus of dinosaurs in my game etc but the Monsters of Legend? It thinks I should)

And big Crustaceans (again nice but... well... yeah).

Things my players tend to run into:

Undead: Skeletons, Zombies, Liches, Wraiths, and a host of other weird things
Beast Men
Spirits (desperately was hoping for a list of useful stats for various types of these and their abilities)
Elementals (same as spirits)
Possessed things

When I looked at the list though - ignoring mundane creatures, PC races, and big versions of ordinary critters there were about 24 actual monsters - which seemed... odd.

 

[alex_greene]

These are errors. MoL has been updated to take these into consideration. You have an older, much older, version of MoL in your hands. The current version has corrected the orc/ogre crossover problem and added chaotic features.