I'm Dreaming of Thematically-Linked Monsters...

[James MacKenzie]

I'd like to hear about what people want to see in the next round. Unique monsters? Intelligent races? Evil incarnate? Minor critters tht scurry underfoot?

[Russ Taylor]

I'd like to see you in the next round, Stained Peaks was great :)

As a voter, I'll be looking for usability, a diverse range of CRs, and true linking theme. I'm hoping to not see entries dominated by undead, fiendish critters and dragon derivatives.

This will be a challenging round. I hope to be competing in it as well.

[Heathansson]

I'm JAFO, but I can't find the exact rules for this next round, so--are these supposed to be three new critters, or standard SRD ones with a backstory?

[Starglim]

At this stage it depends what the judges have in mind, though I assume the requirement will be for unique monsters, to provide something different to the villain round.

I'd look for a wide spread of CR, the potential to use them in a variety of different ways and for them clearly not to be either villains or mooks, since a winning author needs to be able to shift gears between rounds better than that.

[Eric Hindley]

I'd like to see an adventure's worth of monsters, so a mook-type, a mini-boss type and an encounter-unto-itself type, hopefully with CRs within a couple of steps so they could actually be used together.

So maybe CR 2 mooks, a CR 6 mini-boss type and a CR 10 solo monster. Something like that for a 8th level party.

[Joel Flank]

I'd like thematically linked to somehow be related. For instance, worker, soldier, and taskmaster formains, or drow, driders, and yochlols are two existing sets of monsters. You could also go with goblins, worgs, and bhargests. Stuff like that, which all together shows more depth than a single monster does, either through different versions of the same monster, a monster, it's pet, and it's leaders, etc.

[Jason Nelson]

I have some ideas for creatures but haven't done more than sketch out possible stats and such because we have no idea what the design specs for the next round will be, nor any certain guarantee of who will be advancing. The 'who has your vote' thread might or might not be representative; at least, it seems closer in the middle than the last round did.

Anyway, while it seems logical that the request will be for a low, a medium, and a high CR creature, that's no better than a guess. Also, 'theme' could mean all kinds of different things--terrain/environment, location, history, race, plane.

I agree with the original poster, though, that since part of this contest is based on audience response, it would be interesting to see what people hope to see, or maybe more importantly what they really Really REALLY do not want to see.

P.S. It is funny that in items, countries, and villains, there has been almost no mention of dragons anywhere. I wonder if everyone just figured they were overdone; but it's a funny irony that THE iconic monster of D&D has rarely been seen in this contest.

[Dan Jones]

I'd like to see something in the low-to-mid CR range, with only a few special abilities, that are easy to run, and have a synergistic effect if run together, even if it's as simple as goblins getting a +4 bonus of Ride checks with worgs.

I'd also kind of like the theme to match your country.

I'm also interested in seeing something done with some of the more rare monster types, like fey, monstrous humanoids, humanoids, giants, and plants.

Mook, mini-boss, and BBEG triads would also be interesting.

[James Hunnicutt]

I'm curious to see if the rules dictate the 3 must be allies. They could be 3 ancient enemies. Terran, Protoss...

[Heathansson]

Yeh---I think matching the country would be cool, if it's not going to bollox the creative process.

[Joel Flank]

Jason Nelson 20 wrote:

P.S. It is funny that in items, countries, and villains, there has been almost no mention of dragons anywhere. I wonder if everyone just figured they were overdone; but it's a funny irony that THE iconic monster of D&D has rarely been seen in this contest.

I think, especially in this round for villains, with a full stat block, that dragons would simply be too much - too much room to mess something up, too big of a stat block, and too hard to do in an interesting way that hasn't been seen before.

[Jason Nelson]

SmiloDan wrote:

I'd like to see something in the low-to-mid CR range, with only a few special abilities, that are easy to run, and have a synergistic effect if run together, even if it's as simple as goblins getting a +4 bonus of Ride checks with worgs.

I'd also kind of like the theme to match your country.

I'm also interested in seeing something done with some of the more rare monster types, like fey, monstrous humanoids, humanoids, giants, and plants.

Mook, mini-boss, and BBEG triads would also be interesting.

I like most of your points above.

My only reservation really is about tying the theme to country, not because I don't really like the country I submitted, but I was actually planning to go a different direction. I think I had in mind the idea of showing different things, and different KINDS of things, so I wouldn't end up seeming like a 'one-trick pony' if I went through multiple rounds of the contest.

I wonder now if that was a good thought--try to make entries in different rounds as separate as possible, or as closely linked as possible. It's an interesting question. The plan I have at this point for linked monsters is very different from my country, my villain, or my magic item. I wonder if I should rethink that. Food for thought over the next few days.

[Dan Jones]

Yeah, I know if I had made it in the contest, the 3 monsters I was going to work on don't really gel well with the country I would have submitted. Or they'd end up as a minority of some kind in that country.

Another thing I would be interested in seeing is a different take on "classic" monster types: Giants, Vampires, Werewolves, Hags, Witches, Sea Serpents, Dragons, Sidhe, Frankenstein's Monster, Golems, Ghosts, Spirits, Demons, etc.

Also, the new monsters shouldn't be tied TOO closely to a particular campaign or style or country; they should have a large amount of portability.

[Starglim]

Jason Nelson 20 wrote:

SmiloDan wrote:

I'd also kind of like the theme to match your country.

I like most of your points above.

My only reservation really is about tying the theme to country, not because I don't really like the country I submitted, but I was actually planning to go a different direction. I think I had in mind the idea of showing different things, and different KINDS of things, so I wouldn't end up seeming like a 'one-trick pony' if I went through multiple rounds of the contest.

I wonder now if that was a good thought--try to make entries in different rounds as separate as possible, or as closely linked as possible. It's an interesting question. The plan I have at this point for linked monsters is very different from my country, my villain, or my magic item. I wonder if I should rethink that. Food for thought over the next few days.

Variety is good.

Maybe it would give enough design scope if contestants were allowed to use any of the round 2 countries. There was at least one quality use of another contestant's country in this round. I'm not for or against requiring the use of a submitted country, but I think this would make it more interesting and less restrictive.

[Samuel Kisko]

Too bad there will only be 8 entries for round 3, I'd like to see 32 of this round. This is one subject where I'd like to see a good bit of variety and see some people take some chances. I think that when people are in the top 8 they will be less willing to take a risk.

So chances are, an undead were-elephant with a black pudding breath weapon and tusks that permanently drain character levels would be unlikely. Too bad.

[Jason Nelson]

Starglim wrote:

Variety is good.

Maybe it would give enough design scope if contestants were allowed to use any of the round 2 countries. There was at least one quality use of another contestant's country in this round. I'm not for or against requiring the use of a submitted country, but I think this would make it more interesting and less restrictive.

I had thought about working in another person's country in the villain entry but did not (though I did find a good use for someone else's magic item). I could probably find a country to fit my monster concepts, though I don't think it's critical that they fit a particular country. In fact, for 'portability' maybe it's better if they're not tied to any setting. Hard to say. There are pluses and minuses to giving a particular background.

[R D Ramsey]

Core wrote:

Too bad there will only be 8 entries for round 3, I'd like to see 32 of this round. This is one subject where I'd like to see a good bit of variety and see some people take some chances. I think that when people are in the top 8 they will be less willing to take a risk.

So chances are, an undead were-elephant with a black pudding breath weapon and tusks that permanently drain character levels would be unlikely. Too bad.

You realize you just posted one of Boomer's planned entries, right?

[Clinton Boomer]

Clouds Without Water wrote:

Core wrote:

So chances are, an undead were-elephant with a black pudding breath weapon and tusks that permanently drain character levels would be unlikely. Too bad.

You realize you just posted one of Boomer's planned entries, right?

Well, great - now I'd down to TWO monsters. Thanks a pantsful, Kisko.

[Michael Raper]

I'm looking forward to this round most of all. The only thing better then new monsters is monsters that have a link. I'm curious as to what kind of theme the top 8 will choose, Will they be related to their villains from the last round? Will they be from a country from round 2? Will they have an item from round 1? None or all of the above? It's something that'll be fun to read through That's for certain.

[Clinton Boomer]

JoelF847 wrote:

I'd like thematically linked to somehow be related. For instance, worker, soldier, and taskmaster formains, or drow, driders, and yochlols are two existing sets of monsters. You could also go with goblins, worgs, and bhargests. Stuff like that, which all together shows more depth than a single monster does, either through different versions of the same monster, a monster, it's pet, and it's leaders, etc.

I've been thinking about the next round a LOT - mostly because I've recently found myself answering a lot of questions put to me by long-lost friends and family as to what, exactly, I'm doing with myself these days.

Whether I find myself in the next round or not (and I sure hope that I am - vote for me!), I'm really, REALLY interested in what this next stage of the contest will bring.

Now, I've pretty much assumed that "three thematically linked monsters" meant something like what Joel mentions above - a sort of monster ecosystem. Other examples would include Salamanders, (found here), the various Thoon Illithid & Friends from MM5, or the Golem "sub-type" of constructs.

But I could potentially be very, very wrong. Maybe we're looking for "three different monsters, YOU choose the theme!" - one writer will do three mind-control monsters, another might do three different KINDS of the same monster (mephits, anyone?), while another might choose three critters who hate each other: after all, the Illithid, Githzerai and Githyanki are three "thematically linked monsters".

No matter what, this next round will be AWESOME.

[Clark Peterson]

You guys might want to check out my draft Round 4 rules.

I'd love your input.

[French Wolf]

Before the competition started I would have said that basing every round on a theme would have been a winner but the truth is we want to see the best results.
One or two have followed a unifying idea but others that progress haven't. It's getting a "home run" (in the judges vernacular) that matters most.

Good Luck to all eight.

Cheers

[R D Ramsey]

thatboomerkid wrote:

the Illithid, Githzerai and Githyanki are three "thematically linked monsters".

I'm personally hoping for something like this. Three golems or whatever better be pretty darn good if they're going to compete with something like the above trilogy.

At least for my vote...

[Clinton Boomer]

Clouds Without Water wrote:

thatboomerkid wrote:

the Illithid, Githzerai and Githyanki are three "thematically linked monsters".

I'm personally hoping for something like this. Three golems or whatever better be pretty darn good if they're going to compete with something like the above trilogy.

At least for my vote...

Brother, I already know what I'm doing if voted forward.

Hope to amaze you.

[French Wolf]

High CR villains are ok.

High CR monsters will just sit on my shelf. I'm not that interested in them other than as a curiosity.

Lower CRs (1-8) are far more useful and my votes will tend to favour something I can use.

However I do like Gith, Slaadi and the like.

Cheers

[Russ Taylor]

Clouds Without Water wrote:

thatboomerkid wrote:

the Illithid, Githzerai and Githyanki are three "thematically linked monsters".

I'm personally hoping for something like this. Three golems or whatever better be pretty darn good if they're going to compete with something like the above trilogy.

At least for my vote...

Really, though, those weren't done as a trilogy. The mind flayers were done first, the gith were patched onto them at a later date. It's easier to have an idea come off as neat when it's stapled to a creature that's already pretty cool. Even relatively lame critters like grimlocks come off better when linked to flayers (see Dragon #78, the Psychology of the Mind Flayer).

Thinking back on the many, many monster products I have, the majority of linked monsters in them have only rarely excited me. Most of the ones that did are pairs like the gith, having trouble coming up with groups of three or more. All that comes to mind is drek like spawn of tiamat, beholderkin, or nightshades.

Russ

[Set]

My biggest bit of predictability as a GM is a fondness for thematically linked monsters. Even if the theme is 'mad cult of the Frostmaiden Auril' and all of the critters are Cold subtype, or 'shadow creature servants of the Penumbral Pentagon,' it's still a theme.

There are times I want to break the cliche (a dwarven wizard's guild, frex) and there are other times I want to run with it.

[James Hunnicutt]

French Wolf wrote:

Lower CRs (1-8) are far more useful and my votes will tend to favour something I can use.

QFT

[mythfish]

My dream entry in round 4 will have low-to-mid CR monsters that are highly portable but still ooze flavor (in fact, I want to see at least one ooze in this round). The portability is very important for me in this round...I want monsters I can drop into almost any campaign setting without making changes. Tying monsters to a particular previously submitted setting feels like a cheap gimmick to me unless done exceptionally well.

I think the ecologically/societally linked monsters will go over better with me than the three different versions of the same critter or the ancient rock-paper-scissors enmity. But depends on how it's done. The dream entry, though, will have three monsters that complement each other tactically as well as thematically.

[Set]

mythfish wrote:

The dream entry, though, will have three monsters that complement each other tactically as well as thematically.

Oh yeah. A series of creatures that have a mechanical and thematic synergy are going to work better for me than a trio that are only thematically linked.

Dark Creepers and Dark Stalkers are one such example. The Stalkers darkness powers help the Creepers set up their attacks, providing both defense (through concealment) and offense (by helping the Creepers set up Sneak Attacks).

'Brood' style critters that send out swarms or other critters (such as Yellow Musk Creepers and their Zombies) also appeal to me, particularly if the creatures have some sort of synergy (the minions defuffing the party and 'setting them up' for the next larger beastie, like a Mind Flayer who sends out a flying swarm of 'mindworms' that inject a hallucinatory toxin that causes a few points of Wisdom damage, softening up adversaries against his mind blast and charm effects).

[Dan Jones]

Yeah, I'm really looking forward to low-to-mid CR baddies that are thematically linked and work synergistically.

The last big dungeon I ran had a theme of "weird tattoos." It featured an Arcane Ooze, a pair of "young" Eldritch Giants, and a pack of Rune Hounds (all from MM3).

I'm also a big fan of the Hag Coven, Giant minions, and Ogre mooks encounter. And Goblinoids, especially the Barghest BBEG with goblinoid and worg mooks.

[Dirk Gently]

I've seen some people above push the synergy thing, and I think that's cool. It's one thing to have monsters that have linked backstories, it's another entirely to have three monsters that can potentially work together like a group of PCs. That would provide an interesting challenge to both DM and player.

[Matthew Morris]

Psionic Monsters automatically get brownie points from me!

I too would like to see a set. level wise low low middle or middle middle high. something that's portable, and will freak out the players.

Bonus if I can think of a good proxie mini from the description

[cappadocius]

Automatic Passes for Cappadocius:

A cool CR 1/4 monster.

Ecologically linked critters - Anemones, Clown Fish, and Green Brittle Stars; Mushrooms, Pigs, and Wolves; Cartoon Mice, Cartoon Cats, Cartoon Dogs. That sort of thing. I want to sing the Circle of Life, dammit.

Under-represented mythologies. Sumerian, Maori, Slavic. Go to a library, fools.

Octopuses. Monkeys. Make an Octopus-Monkey, and I'll probably vote for you twice.

Three unusual races from The Travels of Sir John Mandeville.

Earn those votes, my pretties. EARN THEM!

[Ernest Mueller]

Surprise me! But there's a couple things I'm predisposed towards...

Mostly CR10 or less. Like most other people in the world I play in campaigns that start at L1 and tend to peter out in the low teens. Epic level content is for people with too much time on their hands.

Something fleshing out the Theocracy of Carnamach! Because it's boss.

No lame ripoffs of existing stuff - especially Cthulhu mythos but including the rest of the novels/books/TV shows etc that we've all experienced. If you are thinking of anything that's even arguably like Cthulhu, Aliens, or Reavers I'm already sick of it.

Nothing retarded that would only be encountered in a "wizard's lab" or outer plane (e.g. xeg-yi).

The most "grown-up" understanding of theme will win for me. Fire giant, hell hound, and X is a pretty lame theme.

Monsters grouped by "their powerz happen to synergize" but that would have nothin gto do with each other realistically get a auto-pass.

[Clinton Boomer]

Wait . . . an "auto-pass" is good or bad?

I can see it both ways: Like, if you automatically pass a test, that's GOOD. But if you automatically pass something over & ignore it, that's BAD.

In what context individual voters mean "auto-pass" is important.

[cappadocius]

thatboomerkid wrote:

In what context individual voters mean "auto-pass" is important.

For THIS voter, "auto-pass" is a good thing.

[Ernest Mueller]

thatboomerkid wrote:

Wait . . . an "auto-pass" is good or bad?

In my meaning in the post above, it's bad. I pass on it automatically.

For a contest like this, I don't like the passive sound of "pass" in terms of progressing to later rounds - you're not trying to beat the curve or not be as bad as the others, and it's not like a test where everyone "can pass". You're trying to create something compelling. So win, don't pass.

P.S. Merry Christmas!

[Cpt_kirstov]

Ernest Mueller wrote:

Monsters grouped by "their powerz happen to synergize" but that would have nothin gto do with each other realistically get a auto-pass.

yeah, a theme, in my opinion, needs to have some interaction between the elements in it, even if it is not directly. Look at real life (straying a bit) pick any movie 'theme' and there are certain movies/books that influence others, either directly (quotes, direct references, or scenes in the later movie) or indirectly (to use one mentioned above, whenever you look at a small group of humans vs extraterrestrials you compare it to Aliens) I want at least one of the monsters to not only fit a theme, but define it The other beasties should then run off of the defining creature's definition and expand upon it.

Spoiler:

I havn't read the preliminary rules for the round so I'm not sure how possible this is word count wise, but in a perfect world, that is what I look for, it just ups the portability and ease of use when you as a DM know what the feeling you are trying to portray is, and are looking for creature(s) to fit it

[Steven Helt]

Agreed. I have seen enough 'servicable' entries in this contest. I am ready for someone to rock the monster stage the way Iskandria rocked the country stage. To me this round didn't have a clear winner (eh..maybe the nightmare). I am ready for one superstar to earn my stalkerish love with these three monsters. Don't try to just advance to the final round - win superstar this round.

As to theme: I don't care. You do well to make theme a compelling part of your entry. But that's more a tie-breaker to me. Give me unique monsters with synergistic abilities, some sort of plot connection, an origin that is underexlpored in the game, and solid statistics. This round I will be heavily reviewing correct blocks because those are the meat and potatoes of encounters. Interesting monsters with bad stats or high CR monsters with a +4 fort save are going to get panned by me. You have to rock an original, playable, exciting idea, then you have to rock the rules and math, and after that you need to rock the theme in case someone else's entry is as good as yours.

DO NOT give me three more demons or devils. Three of one type I can live with, though that's a weak theme. Theme is 'anything that connects them' or theme is 'a powerful dramatic or mechanical element that compels a DM to add all three creatures to his game, not just one'.

Ooh. another good point. This round is three creatures. Not one creature and two supporting nimrods. Not one great creature and two creatures you didn't have time to finish. One fantstic creature might get you a lot of attention, but the others have to have something to offer.

And of course: your entry has to be almost as good as my entry would have been. That is subjective, I know, but like some other voters, you beat me, so you can't submit a lesser entry than me. This round has to be your best effort.

OK, superstars

[French Wolf]

There are so many monsters in the books I have and only a few ever get put to the sword.

I am sure that half the superstars will produce a theme and monsters that I'll use. It is that theme which will carry the day.

My biggest hope is that someone can use the psionics as well as they did in the villains. I've never played with them before. But those villains with flaming hands and the rest fanned my interest.

Or clever undead, the Libris Mortis is a great book for giving a DM ideas, and a good theme will do that.

Stat blocks and writing skills are less important because these are 8 of the best. Someone will have to seriously mess up for those to matter.

For me, the theme's the key.

[Steven Helt]

I am tired of psionics now. The downside of its use in the last round is that I am not interested in putting up with more. I won't squeeze and entry just because it has psionics, but that entry had better be pretty good.

[Dan Jones]

Also, come up with a pretty rocking theme. "They all have 6 toes" is a not a rocking theme. "They're all lions that turn into arms, legs, and torsos and form a giant contruct" isn't that great of a theme either.

Maybe look at some philosophy or ecology or history and come up with a cool theme that way.

[Curaigh]

For what is worth undead, construct, aquatic are not themes. They are subtypes. If all the undead became so because they drowned then you have a theme. If all the constructs are of precious metals you have a theme (and a wizard with way too much money). (OK lame themes, but themes none-the less). Personally I would rather see three different subtypes creatively linked. As with most of my votes something with a high yoink factor is a definate must, so make something I want to play.

[Starglim]

Curaigh wrote:

Personally I would rather see three different subtypes creatively linked.

That's an excellent point.

[James MacKenzie]

Curaigh wrote:

For what it's worth, undead, construct, and aquatic are not themes: They are subtypes. If all the undead became so because they drowned then you have a theme. If all the constructs are of precious metals you have a theme (and a wizard with way too much money). (OK, lame themes, but themes nonetheless)... (snip...)

I hope that the people evaluating the monsters keep an open mind about what constitutes a "theme". While I don't expect to see any truly lame themes, it's very disheartening for the contestants to read dismissive criticism while they're unable to respond and discuss the isues involved. If someone's theme revolves around a particular subtype, that's still a theme.

[Steven Helt]

Again I say: rock me with uniqueness and playability. Choose whatever theme you want. The cooler the better, but my focus is much more the monsters than the themes.

And for what it's worth, I dig high CR monsters. I would rather have small medium and large, if they're all gona be in a badass encounter, but I am not gonna be put off by reading CR18 or 20. I have players who will job those guys no matter what you or I do with them, so something that will last more than a few rounds or put some genuine fear in their eyes is exactly what I'm looking for.

[Dan Jones]

They should also be really fun to run. For example, I'm not a big fan of mind flayers because they're just kind of frustrating. They have ridiculously high SR for their level, and that mind blast has a huge area of effect AND it lasts way too long. There's nothing fun about being stunned for 7 rounds in a fight that lasts 5 rounds. I've houseruled they get to re-Save every round, if only so the player can do SOMETHING. Kind of like Hold Person.

I like the idea of an attack/effect that forces the PCs to take a certain action, or have a penalty of some kind, but I hate effects that eliminate the player from participating or that force the player's character from taking NO actions in a round.

It's also why I'm not a huge fan of medusa. Medusa clerics that use animate objects to make their statues fight for them, I can get behind. Just let the PC control their animate statue. Too bad a medium-sized animated statue is only CR 1 or 2, so not that effective in a battle with a CR 15 or so baddy and its opponents/allies.

[mythfish]

ancientsensei wrote:

or theme is 'a powerful dramatic or mechanical element that compels a DM to add all three creatures to his game, not just one'.

Huzzah! Well said.

[ericthecleric]

Here’s a theme (see if you can spot it):
Monster 1: Ghost of Christmas Past
Monster 2: Ghost of Christmas Present
Monster 3: Ghost of Christmas Future

Bah… humbug!

More seriously, a theme of “time” for one entry might be interesting.