Black Unicorn

[kbob]

The black unicorn in MoF p. 83 seems at first glance to be an evil version of the basic unicorn. However, upon closer examination it appears to me to be just a dumbed down version of it that just happens to be evil. It keeps greater teleport, gains multi attack (bite), and has cause light wounds 3/day which it can use on a successful horn attack (which is nice). However, the latter two come at the expense of all of the other neat little abilities that the unicorn had plus the fact that the horn was considered a +3 weapon. Does anyone know if this was an oversite and if so did they come out with a newer version. I'm using it as a mount for an npc I'm DMing. I know I can just make it what I want it to be, but I was just wondering if there was some official source I'm missing. Is there another evil unicorn type that is just basically the evil opposite of the standard unicorn?

[Ramza00]

I can't answer your actual literal question, but remember Monsters of Faerun was copyright 2001 (February 2001) for comparison:

PHB was Aug 2000
Monster Manual 1 (the 3.0 edition) was Oct 2000
PHB 3.5 edition was July 2003

Aka the point I am trying to make is with Monsters of Faerun and really the first year 3.0 products you are dealing with some things that are "in beta" (not alpha, but also not ready for prime time.)

So as a DM feel free to recreate the Black Unicorn and change the abilities. In fact that was the original intention of things like prestige classes and so on. The DM will help create a custom class and thus not many prestige classes need to be written and the ones written can be very stylized just to give you ideas and inspiration. Turns out later though they made much more prestige classes and they made the prestige classes generalized and then suggested flavor for they learned after playing with this OGL format that too much freedom only creates more work for the DM but also leads to more conflict between the player and the DM. Mechanics can be way too complicated for both DM and Player. The DM fudging / recreating mechanics on the fly is stressful.

[BowStreetRunner]

Check out the Elite Opponents: Variant Unicorns (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/eo/20061219a) article from the 3.5 D&D Archive. You've got some interesting alternatives there that might suit your needs.

[kbob]

Thank y'all. The advice really helped.

[ShurikVch]

There was Bloodlance in the "Defiled Monsters: Nature's Revenge" article (Dragon #357)

https://image.ibb.co/neXfM8/Bloodlance.jpg

It's horn is +1 wounding weapon, and infects with Demon Fever
Also, it got continuous Magic Circle Against Good, Inflict Light Wounds 3/day, and Summon Demons 1/hour (alas, no Teleport)

[Mike Miller]

I can't answer your actual literal question, but remember Monsters of Faerun was copyright 2001 (February 2001) for comparison:

PHB was Aug 2000
Monster Manual 1 (the 3.0 edition) was Oct 2000
PHB 3.5 edition was July 2003

Aka the point I am trying to make is with Monsters of Faerun and really the first year 3.0 products you are dealing with some things that are "in beta" (not alpha, but also not ready for prime time.)

So as a DM feel free to recreate the Black Unicorn and change the abilities. In fact that was the original intention of things like prestige classes and so on. The DM will help create a custom class and thus not many prestige classes need to be written and the ones written can be very stylized just to give you ideas and inspiration. Turns out later though they made much more prestige classes and they made the prestige classes generalized and then suggested flavor for they learned after playing with this OGL format that too much freedom only creates more work for the DM but also leads to more conflict between the player and the DM. Mechanics can be way too complicated for both DM and Player. The DM fudging / recreating mechanics on the fly is stressful.

Another amusing thing about prestige classes before third edition really got underway... In Dragon mag, they had one of the writers say how prestige classes could be limited to one player per campaign. I can't even imagine that being the case today. How would I tell the players that only one gets a prestige class? And maybe only a single one, at that. Talk about eliminating options!

[BowStreetRunner]

Another amusing thing about prestige classes before third edition really got underway... In Dragon mag, they had one of the writers say how prestige classes could be limited to one player per campaign. I can't even imagine that being the case today. How would I tell the players that only one gets a prestige class? And maybe only a single one, at that. Talk about eliminating options!I've encountered lots of games where players weren't allowed to just jump around from class to class, prestige class to prestige class. I've also known of plenty of games where the party was limited to only one arcane caster or something like that. But only allowing one member of the party to have a prestige class per game? That sounds like the original concept of what prestige classes were supposed to represent was way different that what they actually became.

[Eldonauran]

The option to allow the use of prestige classes is purely under the purview of the DM. Prestige classes are an optional "variant" that the GM can choose to allow or not, in any manner they want. It is right there in the text of the DMG. Players shouldn't expect to be able to use them, unless told otherwise, regardless of how often they are permitted in the community.


Prestige classes are purely optional and always under the purview of the DM. We encourage you, as the DM, to tightly limit the prestige classes available in your campaign. The example prestige classes are certainly not all encompassing or definitive. They might not even be appropriate for your campaign. The best prestige classes for your campaign are the ones you tailor make yourself.

[liquidformat]

Ya a lot of games I have been in are pretty strict about multiclassing and only one prc, some times two if both are 5 or less levels...

[Luckmann]

Another amusing thing about prestige classes before third edition really got underway... In Dragon mag, they had one of the writers say how prestige classes could be limited to one player per campaign. I can't even imagine that being the case today. How would I tell the players that only one gets a prestige class? And maybe only a single one, at that. Talk about eliminating options!

I think the point was more that prestige classes should be allowed on a case-by-case basis, and that it is entirely possible that in a game, maybe only one player actually ends up being allowed or able to take a prestige class.

Honestly, I think that that is a healthier attitude than "anything goes". The books also say that the best prestige classes are fitted for purpose and character, depending on campaign, yet most people I know of just go with RAW and that's that. This disconnect between RAW and RAI, intention and practice, is one of the core issues of 3.5.

The game really isn't built for RAW-lawyering and min-/maxing, but it's the way things ended up and subsequently the base it had to cater to.

[OgresAreCute]

There's also the Nightmare/Cauchemar (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/nightmare.htm). Doesn't exactly have a horn, but it's an evil magical horse as opposed to a good magical horse.

[Fouredged Sword]

Fiend folio looks like it has the TN version as well.

http://monsterfinder.dndrunde.de/details.php?id=977&backlink=%2Fallmonsters.php

A bit high on HD and lacking many spell like abilities, this unicorn still deserves respect.