MitD XV: The Other Dark One

[Jaxzan Proditor]

As per the above, I think the FBS will be made worse without the size cap. When we introduced it, the FBS had 14 members. Now, some of them probably won't make it back because of mental control, and I'm more strict than I used to regarding strength. But many other suggestions have been added since, many who got dinged on size alone. If as I fear the FBS suddenly ends with 15+ entries, it'll be half as useful as it is today.

ETA: and in case that is not obvious, I have the same problem in reverse with B and F: an FBS with only 3 or 2 entries is not as useful as one with ~6-12.

Grey Wolf

I could see myself regretting my vote, depending on how many entries get added, but I would still prefer a half-useful FBS to none at all. Voting for Z first is an option, but I think at this point I do want to see some change.

...With that all said, my reasoning for putting A above C is that I figured the changes would be largely similar and I’m not committed to a strict strength-size bar, even if it is more lenient than the previous size cap. But, if it was clear A would make the FBS list unwieldy, I’d be inclined to change.

[Squire Doodad]

I think this is a given, but do note that this would make size no longer a requirement. It doesn't stop size from being a con (or a fitting size being a pro), nor does it stop things from getting the hammer due to having preexisting problems, or of course not fitting the Strength limit. Ha-Naga, looking at you

Ideally, the removal of the size limit will only allow a small few candidates back. I personally doubt many things over Huge really fit, with the few that do like the Xenocrysth only being applicable due to factors seen on a case to case basis. But, I guess we might as well.

[lio45]

I could see myself regretting my vote, depending on how many entries get added, but I would still prefer a half-useful FBS to none at all.

As I've pointed out for years, it's the other way around - if new entries get added to the FBS list that were only previously disqualified for size, then people like Ruck and you and I who have all confessed to basically sticking to what's in FBS are going to want to look at those entries, since they're very good fits. So doing just that (adding good entries that were previously kept "hidden" (in practice) in a section that very few people look at) makes the FBS list more useful, not less.

[Squire Doodad]

As I've pointed out for years, it's the other way around - if new entries get added to the FBS list that were only previously disqualified for size, then people like Ruck and you and I who have all confessed to basically sticking to what's in FBS are going to want to look at those entries, since they're very good fits. So doing just that (adding good entries that were previously kept "hidden" (in practice) in a section that very few people look at) makes the FBS list more useful, not less.

I mean some of the entries happen to have good things, but for the reasons we have discussed in strenuous and repeated detail some shouldn't fit due to their size not fitting under the umbrella as a "child". Of course, we should vote on them when their STR is unsatisfactory given their size (say, a 31 STR Gargantuan), but I digress.

That said the FBS's main asset is that it's a quick, consistent and quality analysis of the few monsters, which would mean if it has say 40 monsters on it then a) some of them will ultimately be classified into tiers, and the bottommost ones probably should just go at that point and also b) there will be significantly more to plow through, and it is less likely to give a reader an effective and succinct "this is what we have figured out so far" analysis.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I mean some of the entries happen to have good things, but for the reasons we have discussed in strenuous and repeated detail some shouldn't fit due to their size not fitting under the umbrella as a "child".

Indeed, but also, right now, the FBS has 7 members, that offer a fairly broad panoply of approaches. If we add to that another 7, all of whom are "Glabrezu, but gargantuan/colossal", we'll have accomplished nothing except fill the FBS with chaff. And a chaff-filled FBS isn't useful.

Grey Wolf

[Jasdoif]

Are there any? It seems to me that anything that qualified except for the size either had a problem with strength when scaled down enough, which would generally continue to disqualify them due to lacking an explanation for the tower scene, or got voted in on special exception anyway.

These are the twenty-five creatures I found in section 3e that are (or could reasonably be expected to be) Gargantuan or Colossal and/or mention being too big in their short descriptions:

Spoiler:

Show

• Akvan Div Prince
• Astral Dragon
• Astral Dreadnaught
• Brainstealer Dragon
• Brood Keeper
• Corpse Tearer Linnorm
• Dragon
• Draknor
• Draeden
• Dread Linnorm
• Epic Dragon
• Fiendwurm
• Ghour
• Giant Snowman
• Grootslang
• Gug
• Ha-Naga
• King-Kong descendant
• Lethus Dragon
• Li Lung (Earth Dragon)
• Neothelid
• Nessie the Loch Ness Monster
• Shadow Dragon
• Titan, Elder
• Ulgurstasta Sorcerer

The various dragons have stuff like "can't explain the tower or escape until they're too big to fit in the box"; but all those creatures have listed cons besides the size.

---

Edit to add:

If it's not listed there, yet it's being used in practice as a criterion... are we going to have to break out a dictionary and look up the word "secret"?

I believe "informal" or "de facto" are the appropriate terms here. "Secret" implies a deliberate attempt to keep it hidden...which, besides potentially implying deceit, is horribly undercut by the Strength threshold score by listed anywhere in the opening posts.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

As I've pointed out for years, it's the other way around - if new entries get added to the FBS list that were only previously disqualified for size, then people like Ruck and you and I who have all confessed to basically sticking to what's in FBS are going to want to look at those entries, since they're very good fits. So doing just that (adding good entries that were previously kept "hidden" (in practice) in a section that very few people look at) makes the FBS list more useful, not less.

Well, at a certain point I think it would also start to get unwieldy. The reason why the FBS list is a good place for people to look is in part due to its small size. I should also point out that it’s not like I’ve never ventured past the FBS (again, see my vote) it’s just that at first it was a nice first place to go.

[Doug Lampert]

C>B>Z

30 for huge is almost certainly too low. But I think 38 for huge may be a bit too high, and better too loose a standard than too tight.

[lio45]

Well, at a certain point I think it would also start to get unwieldy. The reason why the FBS list is a good place for people to look is in part due to its small size. I should also point out that it’s not like I’ve never ventured past the FBS (again, see my vote) it’s just that at first it was a nice first place to go.

But again, if all the new entries that have been added were kept off only due to size, then by definition, we want to take a fresh look at all of them.

If Squire Doodad's prediction is correct that it may cause the list to swell to 40 entries, which we all agree is unwieldy, then the correct fix for that is to tighten the FBS criteria in the way the community prefers to do that, which is going to be by something OTHER than "species size must fit in the box" this time.

I agree with Grey Wolf that something that's "as poor a fit as Glabrezu, plus it's Colossal" shouldn't be on the list. If there's such chaff on the list, then that means it's up to us to tighten the requirements to keep it off.

For example, something I've always wanted to add to the FBS requirements would be a minimum CR. I think that when Xykon says "there's nothing in that tower that's scarier than you", that scene is a strict super-solid disqualifier of any lowish CR FBS candidates.

[Charybdis136]

I vote for B. I also do not remember if I ever officially voted on the monster so I want to cast my vote for protean. On a related note, have we ever had a minimum size requirement for the species of MitD? Last thread we talked briefly about it being impossible for the species to be listed as medium or lower due to him being notably smaller than a normal adult of his species. If his species size was medium or below, then he is small or below and he is too small for the umbrella IMO (eye placement and holding up seems unlikely). I do not know if people would agree but I would be for adding a minimum listed size of large for all suggestions. I do not want to complicate the already existing vote so I would also be happy waiting to discuss it formally until everything else settles.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

On a related note, have we ever had a minimum size requirement for the species of MitD?

No. But we also have no FBS entries that are Medium or smaller, nor, to the best of my recollection, have we ever had any, so having such a rule would make no difference. You are free, of course, to apply that to your guesses, suggestions and/or logic.

Grey Wolf

[Charybdis136]

No. But we also have no FBS entries that are Medium or smaller, nor, to the best of my recollection, have we ever had any, so having such a rule would make no difference. You are free, of course, to apply that to your guesses, suggestions and/or logic.

Grey Wolf

Well it is good that it would not change anything. I guess if some super popular creature suddenly appears out of thin air that is medium, I will revisit this point. Certainly no use worrying about it now.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Well it is good that it would not change anything. I guess if some super popular creature suddenly appears out of thin air that is medium, I will revisit this point. Certainly no use worrying about it now.

The funny part is, we do have a super-popular Medium suggestion, the Zodar. He featured prominently in many other forums (tvtropes, for example). But he never made it to the FBS, because of the circus scene.

GW

[MartytheBioGuy]

These are the twenty-five creatures I found in section 3e that are (or could reasonably be expected to be) Gargantuan or Colossal and/or mention being too big in their short descriptions:

Spoiler:

Show

• Akvan Div Prince
• Astral Dragon
• Astral Dreadnaught
• Brainstealer Dragon
• Brood Keeper
• Corpse Tearer Linnorm
• Dragon
• Draknor
• Draeden
• Dread Linnorm
• Epic Dragon
• Fiendwurm
• Ghour
• Giant Snowman
• Grootslang
• Gug
• Ha-Naga
• King-Kong descendant
• Lethus Dragon
• Li Lung (Earth Dragon)
• Neothelid
• Nessie the Loch Ness Monster
• Shadow Dragon
• Titan, Elder
• Ulgurstasta Sorcerer

The various dragons have stuff like "can't explain the tower or escape until they're too big to fit in the box"; but all those creatures have listed cons besides the size.

Well, you certainly work much faster than me (darn kids, needing my help brushing their teeth and... reading them stories! ). As others have said, this list is ripe for further whittling. I, for one, think that most things with "dragon" in their name can likely be swept off the table by the wizard at the circus's line, cool as they may be. I also think that King Kong and Nessie are likely to fall away due to their lack of magical power. But it looks like we're off to a good start, should A, B, or C win.

[lio45]

I vote for B. I also do not remember if I ever officially voted on the monster so I want to cast my vote for protean. On a related note, have we ever had a minimum size requirement for the species of MitD? Last thread we talked briefly about it being impossible for the species to be listed as medium or lower due to him being notably smaller than a normal adult of his species. If his species size was medium or below, then he is small or below and he is too small for the umbrella IMO (eye placement and holding up seems unlikely). I do not know if people would agree but I would be for adding a minimum listed size of large for all suggestions. I do not want to complicate the already existing vote so I would also be happy waiting to discuss it formally until everything else settles.

I agree on all counts. It's clear that MitD's species has to be at least Large.

I'm a very strong supporter of adding a "Minimum CR" requirement to the FBS list, but exactly like you, I don't want to complicate the existing vote (I really want to get rid of the "must fit in the box" requirement and wouldn't want to jeopardize that) so I'm also waiting until that's done to maybe bring it up.

If removing the size requirement causes the FBS list to become unwieldy, all the better reason to tighten it up a bit by removing all the Low CR chaff. (MitD is clearly an incredibly powerful creature, that's undeniable.)



Jasdoif, point taken, it wasn't my intention at all to imply deceit. And I'm fine with a certain degree of curator autonomy, obviously.

Thought experiment, on that topic. Imagine if the curator decides that the only thing that "explains the escape in a satisfactory manner" is that the creature has access to Wish. Wouldn't that in practice be basically the equivalent of replacing the democratically-decided FBS Criterion #1, "must explain Escape", by a different (undemocratic) one, "must have Wish"...?

Just so it's clear, I'm again not accusing GW of anything, it's hypothetical, just curious to bring up the topic of how exactly the FBS criteria get applied. I mean, if the community had wanted to put a STR>=30 requirement in there, then there would be an eighth FBS Criterion, "Must have STR>=30".

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I, for one, think that most things with "dragon" in their name can likely be swept off the table by the wizard at the circus's line, cool as they may be.

Not all dragons look like typical dragons.

GW

[Charybdis136]

I agree on all counts. It's clear that MitD's species has to be at least Large.

I'm a very strong supporter of adding a "Minimum CR" requirement to the FBS list, but exactly like you, I don't want to complicate the existing vote (I really want to get rid of the "must fit in the box" requirement and wouldn't want to jeopardize that) so I'm also waiting until that's done to maybe bring it up.

If removing the size requirement causes the FBS list to become unwieldy, all the better reason to tighten it up a bit by removing all the Low CR chaff. (MitD is clearly an incredibly powerful creature, that's undeniable.)



Jasdoif, point taken, it wasn't my intention at all to imply deceit. And I'm fine with a certain degree of curator autonomy, obviously.

Thought experiment, on that topic. Imagine if the curator decides that the only thing that "explains the escape in a satisfactory manner" is that the creature has access to Wish. Wouldn't that in practice be basically the equivalent of replacing the democratically-decided FBS Criterion #1, "must explain Escape", by a different (undemocratic) one, "must have Wish"...?

Just so it's clear, I'm again not accusing GW of anything, it's hypothetical, just curious to bring up the topic of how exactly the FBS criteria get applied. I mean, if the community had wanted to put a STR>=30 requirement in there, then there would be an eighth FBS Criterion, "Must have STR>=30".

Agree on CR, we all know he is very powerful but I think it is hard to decided how powerful. What is the cutoff? For me it is 21, because I am convinced he is epic, but for someone else 17 might be fine because that is enough to be as much a threat as redcloak (which is enough to be terrifying since redcloak can almost solo tpk the party if he came prepared). So the line is not really supported by evidence via action but how team evil refers to him as a substantial threat. That's why it is hard but I think most people agree that somewhere around 18+. We give extra credit to really high monsters usually.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Agree on CR, we all know he is very powerful but I think it is hard to decided how powerful. What is the cutoff? For me it is 21, because I am convinced he is epic, but for someone else 17 might be fine because that is enough to be as much a threat as redcloak (which is enough to be terrifying since redcloak can almost solo tpk the party if he came prepared). So the line is not really supported by evidence via action but how team evil refers to him as a substantial threat. That's why it is hard but I think most people agree that somewhere around 18+. We give extra credit to really high monsters usually.

I've been informed in multiple occasions that CR is quite broken in 3rd ed, especially in third party expansions, and that it is not a reliable measure of how dangerous a creature is. That is the primary reason why I'd rather not put CR anywhere in the requirements. CRs too low are still mentioned in the cons section, but anything beyond it is a bit too dangerous.

ETA:
Also, FTR & for what is worth, this is the exact post that convinced me I should not keep creatures under strength 30 in the FBS:

Personally I think that with the Aboleth already not having the requisite strength, should be removed from the FBS for inadequate strength, no real defense against Milko's attacks (AC 18, no DR or anything) [fails both accounts for Tower Scene), and needing to actually say "Teleport" (though teleport isn't a very good explanation of the escape itself) (Escape). I agree it almost fits some things, but it doesn't.

We never needed to formally state the strength requirement in the FBS list because it had already been the general strength requirement for the tower as listed in the OP, and the only reason we had creatures such as Aboleth in the FBS at that point was because I found them interesting, despite not meeting the minimum standards. Just in case anyone might have thought lio45's "secret" accusation had any legs.

Grey Wolf

[lio45]

Not all dragons look like typical dragons.

GW

True, but I would guess everyone can agree with a slightly different variation of MartytheBioGuy's point: "anything that looks like a perfectly standard dragon can likely be swept off the table by the wizard at the circus's line".

[MartytheBioGuy]

Not all dragons look like typical dragons.

GW

Which is why I said most and likely.{Scrubbed}I didn't say "And so we now must immediately eliminate all dragons." I pointed to dragons as a good first place to start pruning. You bring the most unsubtle reads to every post I make. This thread, this effort, was what reminded me of OotS when quarantine is getting me down, and got me back into this amazing fandom. It was engaging enough that I dug up my old login and got back in the forums for the first time in literal years. And the way you've responded to the vast majority of my posts is making me want to leave. I understand that you get frustrated arguing many of the same points over and over again, but please don't jump down my throat for things I didn't even say.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Which is why I said most and likely. You don't like reading my posts.

You also said "swept", which implies they were not going to be examined closely, but instead painted with a broad brush. That is dangerous. Thus, my response that you can't assume that because "dragon" is in the name they can be swept for any reason.

Also, please be aware that I had to explain to you the same concept of what is involved in option A winning twice in rapid succession immediately after I explained it in the very same page:

Admittedly, finding all the large monsters that would now be FBS are not quite as bad as that, but it is bad enough I'm giving fair warning that I will NOT be finding them all - I'll expect someone who voted for it to give me the list.

Grey Wolf

3powers' list is utterly inconsequential to the process of identifying every entry in 3e that needs to be in the FBS is A wins since it is missing most 1e creatures and doesn't list sizes, strengths, or anything else needed to make the decision.

If we remove the size requirement, every entry in 3e that now fits FBS criteria must be found and moved to 3a.

{Scrubbed}

Grey Wolf

[MartytheBioGuy]

But not to worry, it won't happen again.

Grey Wolf

Nah, it won't, because I'm leaving these forums. {Scrubbed}

[Charybdis136]

I've been informed in multiple occasions that CR is quite broken in 3rd ed, especially in third party expansions, and that it is not a reliable measure of how dangerous a creature is. That is the primary reason why I'd rather not put CR anywhere in the requirements. CRs too low are still mentioned in the cons section, but anything beyond it is a bit too dangerous.

ETA:
Also, FTR & for what is worth, this is the exact post that convinced me I should not keep creatures under strength 30 in the FBS:



We never needed to formally state the strength requirement in the FBS list because it had already been the general strength requirement as listed in the OP, and the only reason we had creatures such as Aboleth in the FBS at that point was because I found them interesting, despite not meeting the minimum standards. Just in case anyone might have thought lio45's "secret" accusation had any legs.

Grey Wolf

CR is all sorts of busted in 3.5. I agree that makes it a poor predictor. There are balance issues all over the system, much like how a level 17 wizard can kill 4 level 17 fighters with 0 effort (if you dont believe me look up guides on how to break wizards in 3.5 without bending any rules). If team evil was not trying to betray each other they are actually too strong for the party since they are 2 full casters with access to 9th level spells. So I have to agree it is not a great idea to have a hard limit, each entry has to be examined and deemed a reasonable threat to the party on it's own. Which does not need to be a rule, just something we will listen as a pro or con.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Which does not need to be a rule, just something we will listen as a pro or con.

Which is what we do already - for example, the Aboleth has its CR17 as a con (our rule of thumb is CR >= 18). That said, because I don't much trust it and don't really understand or remember the various CRs, unless the information is clearly posted somewhere in-thread when I am refreshing the OP, I'm very likely to forget to make a note of it.

Grey Wolf

[lio45]

We never needed to formally state the strength requirement in the FBS list because it had already been the general strength requirement as listed in the OP, and the only reason we had creatures such as Aboleth in the FBS at that point was because I found them interesting, despite not meeting the minimum standards. Just in case anyone might have thought lio45's "secret" accusation had any legs.

So you're saying that there _is_ a STR requirement that gets applied to every creature when it's getting judged for FBS qualification, but it's not listed among the FBS criteria. In other words, you're pointing out that in practice, the FBS list getting applied to entries is basically this one:

1) Has a plausible explanation for the Escape
2) Has a plausible explanation for the Tower (both his attack and his defence)
3) Has a plausible explanation for the Circus (both his act, and the reactions)
4) Isn't one of the impossible categories (see section 3c - categories) (unless it is an exception)
5) Existed before strip #100 in a form accessible to Rich.
6) Size no bigger than Huge ("fits in the box")
7) Is vulnerable to mind-affecting effects (SoD)
8) STR >= 30

I'll let the reader judge, on that "legs" business.

On a related note, if the "requirements" that are listed in the OP but aren't formally in the FBS criteria are still requirements that FBS contenders have to meet, then how come the Glabrezu is still a FBS?

it is very unlikely he is an embodiment of either Good or Evil

These "requirements" don't seem to be applied very consistently. If the community wishes to make STR>=30 a FBS criterion, it can vote to do that; if the community wishes to make "must not be an Embodiment of Evil" a FBS criterion, it can vote to do that. Until it does, the only FBS criteria should be the ones that are officially FBS criteria, no?

[Savil]

Weird, I was sure there was an option "list xenocrysth in FBS as an exception with size as a con", but I don't see it now. That would be my first choice, but if it isn't available, C>B>G,H>Z

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Weird, I was sure there was an option "list xenocrysth in FBS as an exception with size as a con", but I don't see it now.

There was, but it was my own, and decided to remove it, because I realised it's essentially option E, except for only one suggestion. If we want to move to approval voting "community choice", we might as well be consistent about it, and not just do it for some but not others.

That said, if you want to put it back in, I'll do that. In the meantime, I've added the other votes. I interpreted G,H as Any of (G,H) since they are not compatible (i.e. if we have H, we don't need to also have G)

ETA: you know what, it hurts nothing for me to add it back. Durkon's Thor knows my hope of getting all possible options before the vote went out the window within minutes of the vote starting anyway, what's one more. Done.

Grey Wolf

[Crusher]

As I've pointed out for years, it's the other way around - if new entries get added to the FBS list that were only previously disqualified for size, then people like Ruck and you and I who have all confessed to basically sticking to what's in FBS are going to want to look at those entries, since they're very good fits. So doing just that (adding good entries that were previously kept "hidden" (in practice) in a section that very few people look at) makes the FBS list more useful, not less.

Think about it like this: if you're right, and there are lots of candidates out there that would be at least workable FBS fits, but people keep ignoring them because they're too big (in addition to the ones we already know about), then removing the size limit is going to result in a zillion extra FBS monsters. Which isn't ideal, as GW_c has noted.

On the other hand, the Xeno...whatsit that just got proposed *is* Gargantuan, yet it was found and proposed and is considered a remarkably good fit. Good enough, arguably, that it sparked a willingness to revisit the FBS criteria. So clearly the size restriction isn't completely shutting down discussion of "too-large" monsters. I mean, just to be practical about it, do you have a monster you would like to propose (but haven't) because its too large?

In a nutshell, that's why I'm against Option A. I don't think the rule is currently being so tightly enforced that we're losing out on anything, and in fact we're at risk of the FBS list getting swamped by mediocre candidates.

[Spirare]

These are the twenty-five creatures I found in section 3e that are (or could reasonably be expected to be) Gargantuan or Colossal and/or mention being too big in their short descriptions:

Spoiler:

Show

• Akvan Div Prince
• Astral Dragon
• Astral Dreadnaught
• Brainstealer Dragon
• Brood Keeper
• Corpse Tearer Linnorm
• Dragon
• Draknor
• Draeden
• Dread Linnorm
• Epic Dragon
• Fiendwurm
• Ghour
• Giant Snowman
• Grootslang
• Gug
• Ha-Naga
• King-Kong descendant
• Lethus Dragon
• Li Lung (Earth Dragon)
• Neothelid
• Nessie the Loch Ness Monster
• Shadow Dragon
• Titan, Elder
• Ulgurstasta Sorcerer

The various dragons have stuff like "can't explain the tower or escape until they're too big to fit in the box"; but all those creatures have listed cons besides the size.

Reviewing this list (I'll assume it's complete and there are no other Gargantuan+ proposed creatures in 3e), and assessing each one based on the 6 FBS requirements (assuming A passes the vote) to find new FBS candidates among them:

Spoiler:

Show

• Akvan Div Prince: Potential FBS candidate. Might not fit 3 or 5, debatable.
• Astral Dragon: Doesn't fit 2 or 3.
• Astral Dreadnaught: Doesn't fit 1.
• Brainstealer Dragon: Doesn't fit 5.
• Brood Keeper: Doesn't fit 1, 2 or 3.
• Corpse Tearer Linnorm: Potential FBS candidate. Can raise undead, but that's not an FBS requirement. (Perhaps it should be added?)
• Dragon: Doesn't fit 3. Might be disqualified for strength even if 6 is removed, as stats for younger ones are listed directly and separately.
• Draknor: Doesn't fit 1 or 7.
• Draeden: Doesn't fit 7. Far larger than the typical Colossal, potentially disqualifying exception even if 6 is removed. Can raise undead, but that's not an FBS requirement.
• Dread Linnorm: Doesn't fit 7.
• Epic Dragon: Doesn't fit 3. Might be disqualified for strength even if 6 is removed, as stats for younger ones are listed directly and separately.
• Fiendwurm: Potential FBS candidate. Might not fit 1, debatable.
• Ghour: Potential FBS candidate. Problems with alignment and CR, but those aren't FBS requirements.
• Giant Snowman: Doesn't fit 1.
• Grootslang: Doesn't fit 1 or 5.
• Gug: Doesn't fit 2.
• Ha-Naga: Potential FBS candidate. Might not fit 2, debatable (as proven by how much it's been debated; consensus seems against it, though). Problems with languages and raising undead, but those aren't FBS requirements.
• King-Kong descendant: Doesn't fit 1.
• Lethus Dragon: Doesn't fit 5.
• Li Lung (Earth Dragon): Doesn't fit 3. Might be disqualified for strength even if 6 is removed, as stats for younger ones are listed directly and separately.
• Neothelid: Potential FBS candidate. Might not fit 2, debatable. No eyes, but that's not an FBS requirement.
• Nessie the Loch Ness Monster: Doesn't fit 1.
• Shadow Dragon: Doesn't fit 1.
• Titan, Elder: Doesn't fit 3. Language problems, but that's not an FBS requirement.
• Ulgurstasta Sorcerer: Doesn't fit 2 or 4.

Trimming down to exclusively potential FBS candidates among them:

• Akvan Div Prince: Might not fit 3 or 5, debatable.
• Corpse Tearer Linnorm: Can raise undead, but that's not an FBS requirement.
• Fiendwurm: Might not fit 1, debatable.
• Ghour: Problems with alignment and CR, but those aren't FBS requirements.
• Ha-Naga: Might not fit 2, debatable. Problems with languages and raising undead, but those aren't FBS requirements.
• Neothelid: Might not fit 2, debatable. No eyes, but that's not an FBS requirement.

That makes 6 plausible additions when ignoring size, which may need discussion. 2 appear to fit the FBS requirements well (even if not necessarily the MitD; they have non-FBS cons), and the other 4 are debatable on whether they actually fit the requirements or not.

---

I do agree that the 30-STR baseline should be listed in the FBS requirements as well - although if B, C or F passes the vote, then that would happen anyway, of course.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I do agree that the 30-STR baseline should be listed in the FBS requirements as well

I think it's unnecessarily redundant, but it also is just a few characters. Added.

---

Youtube just decided to "randomly" recommend I watch C.G.P Grey's video on voting systems. The video is some 8 years old, and I haven't watched any of CGP's old videos in forever (I do watch his new stuff, but he puts out a video about once in a blue moon, he's hardly one of my top visited channels). I had not seen any video by him recommended to me in bloody ages, and the moment I start talking about voting systems here, youtube recommends it?

Sigh. And people wonder why I'm so paranoid about what few breadcrumbs of personal info I drop here and there.

Grey Wolf