Bones 6 Enthusiasm and Commentary

[Seahawk]

On 4/7/2022 at 1:39 AM, Jeronimus said:

"The Unholy Sanctum of the Demon Prince" is definitely interesting as well. That title makes me assume the central figure will be be loosely based on one of the actual D&D "demon princes", rather than being a generic pit fiend kind of demon - the Demonic Legion covered that nicely last time, and I got a massive, insane demon figure in the Bardsung box that I think goes surprisingly well with those, so I'm certainly good on winged gargoyle demons.

 

• Demogorgon was covered in the "Fan Favorites" last time.
• Graz'zt is... not that interesting? I mean... he's just kind of a tall guy, isn't he?
• Kostchtchie is just an even taller guy! Well, no, he's basically a gigantic ogre, which might also appeal to those who were clamoring for BIGGER GIANTS.
• Fraz-Urb'lu is the closest to the 'generic winged demon' that they could get. I feel they probably won't go for the gargoyle look again, but I could be wrong. The "Agramon, Duke of Hell" from Bones 4 is a perfect sculpt for this, but from a glance, it looks like he never made it retail yet?
• Malcanthet is really just a succubus. Sophie's right there, if anyone needs a succubus! And I'm pretty sure there was a succubus in Dungeon Dwellers AND a succubus add-on last time. That's a niche that's plenty served.
• Orcus is a classic. They already have an appropriate sculpt for him (https://www.reapermini.com/search/figurefinder+demon/latest/77316), but I think it's in Early Bones, so an updae would probably be a good decision. With the wand's ability to summon undead, I could also imagine this being ripe for an encounter. "Unholy" also sounds right for the lord of undeath, though I suppose any demon would be considered unholy... I backed Next Level Miniatures' kickstarter, so I do already have an Orcus on the horizon, but hey...
• Baphomet is basically a big minotaur... but didn't someone mention there'd be minotaurs in this campaign again?
• Juiblex would certainly be nasty. A big huge slimy thing with hundreds of eyes... for lack of a Lovecraftian monster in this campaign, this might satisfy some people!
• Yeenoghu would definitely be cool, though I'm wondering if they wouldn't have paired him up with the gnolls if this were the one...
• Zuggtmoy would be interesting as well. I don't think the Fungal Queen quite works as a Zuggtmoy proxy (too pretty!), but I've seen that in the comments, so it doesn't seem likely to me.

 

They already make a Yeenoghu.  It could probably use some updating, but it is spot-on for the illustration in the 1st edition Monster Manual 2(?).

 

https://www.reapermini.com/search/gnoll/latest/02704

[Jeronimus]

42 minutes ago, tommyzolla said:

I'm always down for more monsters, but unless I start killing my players at a faster rate, I have more than enough adventurers to last me the rest of my DMing days, and then some.

 

I also feel, and this probably depends in how you approach the game, that far more people will be making their own unique player characters. Probably the result of Actual Plays like Critical Role where roleplay takes such a strong focus, that generic figures won't be the greatest representation of your player's characters. Of course, if you're introducing people to the game, or if they haven't quite decided on an "appearance" until they see a miniature that captures their attention... generic adventurers can still be useful, but characters are obviously more than "dwarf fighter".

I definitely enjoy hunting for miniatures that could look right for characters, but I think that's where figure finders* come in. The success of Hero Forge goes to show that people do care to have customized, unique figures for their character - it's a different kind of feeling.

But I don't know. A big box of grey toys to spark imagination also kinda works.


*EDIT: obviously, these kickstarters also supplement the adventurers that can be found in the figure finder. The more diverse the offerings, the better, but I also understand you don't want your character concepts to be too esotheric, and it doesn't hurt to have multiple options for the same concept.

Edited April 14, 2022 by Jeronimus

[Minsky07]

20 minutes ago, Seahawk said:

 

They already make a Yeenoghu.  It could probably use some updating, but it is spot-on for the illustration in the 1st edition Monster Manual 2(?).

 

https://www.reapermini.com/search/gnoll/latest/02704

They have been updating quite a lot of metal minis in this campaign. So I would still consider that a maybe. 

[tommyzolla]

26 minutes ago, Jeronimus said:

I also feel, and this probably depends in how you approach the game, that far more people will be making their own unique player characters. Probably the result of Actual Plays like Critical Role where roleplay takes such a strong focus, that generic figures won't be the greatest representation of your player's characters. Of course, if you're introducing people to the game, or if they haven't quite decided on an "appearance" until they see a miniature that captures their attention... generic adventurers can still be useful, but characters are obviously more than "dwarf fighter".

I definitely enjoy hunting for miniatures that could look right for characters, but I think that's where figure finders* come in. The success of Hero Forge goes to show that people do care to have customized, unique figures for their character - it's a different kind of feeling.

But I don't know. A big box of grey toys to spark imagination also kinda works.


*EDIT: obviously, these kickstarters also supplement the adventurers that can be found in the figure finder. The more diverse the offerings, the better, but I also understand you don't want your character concepts to be too esotheric, and it doesn't hurt to have multiple options for the same concept.

Yep - totally agree with everything you've said. 

 

I personally love having a large array of minis for players to choose from, and for new players who are overwhelmed by the D&D options sometimes they'll just pick a mini they think looks cool and I'll knock up an easy stat sheet for them to use.  It's also great to have a massive collection of really interesting NPCs and back up minis for one-shots. 

 

I am more than excited to buy the core set (and have pledged already) and I still love thumbing through the reaper blister packs at my FLGS to buy any minis that catch my eye - however, I can also see how many other long time KS supporters wouldn't want to splash out on a full core set if the characters/or monsters don't interest them. For me, if I was on a budget, a $65 monster core of the ants, bog shambler, mongrel folk, nightmare, familiars, toil and trouble, mudmen ect would pull me in even if I couldn't convince myself to get the full core.

 

I agree with you re: more players making/designing their own personal characters, and I love when players turn up with their own minis - it adds to the theatre of the sessions.  

 

I'm in the very fortunate position of having enough expendable cash to buy everything on offer (as I did in Bones 5) and work through it all at my own pace (and give away things that really don't interest me/won't get painted) however for those who don't have that sort of budget, space, or understanding housemates/partners, splitting the core may help pull in a few extra pledges from the veterans who feel there is too much filler for their personal collections this time around.  

 

It was an idea that had never occurred to me until I'd read it today, and seems a good solution to a problem that several people have voiced. 

[WhiteWulfe]

1 hour ago, Glitterwolf said:

I have a feeling this will be the first Bones KS I will resist.

Waiting to see that tomb of Hakir.

Hoping for a wow there.

Pretty much the same for me.  So far I haven't really had much fully catch my attention (let alone hold on to it), and anything that did sound up losing a fair bit of interest at "will be added to core set" alongside their stance on not breaking up the core this time around. 

 

So I'm definitely looking forward to that expansion.  I'd love to see the new paints too, but we shall see.  April isn't exactly a safe time for paints to ship to Canada. 

 

1 hour ago, tommyzolla said:

 

Splitting the core would be awesome, I could easily see that pulling in a lot of on the fence buyers. 

I'm definitely one of those.  There are some figures that have been added to the core set that are interesting to me, but I'm not buying a giant box of minis where easily two thirds I have no interest in painting. 

[Chaoswolf]

I haven't decided how I'm spending the money that I've pledged yet; I've got plenty of time to decide. 

 

About the too many characters in the core discussion; I don't mind it, I like having lots of options.

 

Also, as an alternate point of view,  i know of several people (myself included) who have created characters based on a cool looking miniature.  I'm sure the 6 of us aren't the only ones to have done so. 

[Lidless Eye]

So I have a question regarding the claims of too many Adventurers:

 

Do your parties never fight Bandits?  Plenty of those named in the Core set could serve as such.

 

Do they never encounter rival adventuring parties?  They're a common theme in pre written Adventure paths.

 

Any Wizard can be the Evil Warlock in his Tower with the right paint.

 

It seems like just because they're given a name and title people can only see them for a single use.  It reminds me of, I believe it was Ron, who told the story of someone looking for a character mini that was exactly like "Human Ranger Mason" but then not wanting it because it was labeled Ranger and their character was a Fighter.

[StarFyre]

40 minutes ago, Lidless Eye said:

So I have a question regarding the claims of too many Adventurers:

 

Do your parties never fight Bandits?  Plenty of those named in the Core set could serve as such.

 

Do they never encounter rival adventuring parties?  They're a common theme in pre written Adventure paths.

 

Any Wizard can be the Evil Warlock in his Tower with the right paint.

 

It seems like just because they're given a name and title people can only see them for a single use.  It reminds me of, I believe it was Ron, who told the story of someone looking for a character mini that was exactly like "Human Ranger Mason" but then not wanting it because it was labeled Ranger and their character was a Fighter.

 

for myself (as our forever DM), i rarely use normal bandits/humanoids (unless they are like death knights, undead, vampires/liches, etc) or unique characters (like the Lord of Death Knights  - Saint Kargoth) once characters reach mid to higher levels. 

 

I also try, each campaign to not reuse enemies as much as possible. since i have all my 2e manuals and 3e and i run currently 3.xe/pf1e, its easy to convert older unknown 2e monsters as needed.  example: since ive used bullywugs, and orcs, goblins before, when we start over with a new campaign  unless players ask me to run a specific premade module, if any content i choose to use has bullywugs and orcs, i will replace them somehow. 

 

my players just use whatever they can and due to their high power level, no minis really exist that represent them well without lots of modding, etc.

 

I just buy and paint monsters 😄

 

sanjay

Edited April 14, 2022 by StarFyre

[snitchythedog]

18 minutes ago, Lidless Eye said:

It seems like just because they're given a name and title people can only see them for a single use. 

Character models are never single use as they recycle into different uses as the campaign progresses.  However at this point my collection has at least a couple hundred of them painted.  I will always pick and choose characters from Reapers catalogue as they take my fancy.  I also understand that many encounter models do not sell as well over time as character models but that is effectively what I need.  Reaper has a huge number of undead, orcs, goblins, kobolds, giants, dragons and trolls and I have many of them but I would love to see more.  Even if I don't find the encounters that I am looking for I will still keep the $10 that I have pledged because reaper is a great company.

[tommyzolla]

I've just finished rewatching the 1999 classic film The Mummy, and I've got to admit now I'm pretty darned excited to see what's in the Lost Tombs expansion!

[StarFyre]

7 minutes ago, tommyzolla said:

I've just finished rewatching the 1999 classic film The Mummy, and I've got to admit now I'm pretty darned excited to see what's in the Lost Tombs expansion!

 

in my top 10 fav movies (not best, thats a different list, but definitely favourite).

 

sanjay

[Lidless Eye]

32 minutes ago, tommyzolla said:

I've just finished rewatching the 1999 classic film The Mummy, and I've got to admit now I'm pretty darned excited to see what's in the Lost Tombs expansion!

 

Brendan Frasier is already even in Bones!

[msfnc]

40 minutes ago, tommyzolla said:

I've just finished rewatching the 1999 classic film The Mummy, and I've got to admit now I'm pretty darned excited to see what's in the Lost Tombs expansion!

 

I’m in the same boat, but because of Marvel’s Moon Knight. It’s got me itching for some modern/mythological/mystic/superhero play. I may be able to get something written by the time this project fulfills. 

[izzylobo]

13 hours ago, Chris Palmer said:

Well how about that….🤨

 

I gotta admit, every time I see these Owlbears, all I can think of is this old cartoon (which is not a bad thing at all). 😄

[ksbsnowowl]

1 hour ago, Lidless Eye said:

It seems like just because they're given a name and title people can only see them for a single use.

Definitely not the case for me. I look at the model, and decide how I might use it. For example, in Bones 5, the instant I saw the Demonic Legion/Blood Demons, I knew I’d use them as Tanarukk (fiendish orcs).

 

Bones 5 Core elicited many similar ideas (woodland elven patrol ambushing the party; those Briarlings make perfect twig blights; etc.)

 

The vast bulk of the Bones 6 core brings no such inspiration or excitement.