| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's annoying when people take that article as scripture.
It's entertaining, sure. But I disagree with a lot of it.
|
Pretty much anything that's in the "cute animal that's really a semi-dangerous monster" class. So squirrelly things, rabbity things, small-doggie things, etc.
And their giant oversized versions too.
Any creature that's just a mishmash of animals with no specific characteristic or interesting background. So a beast that has a wolf's head, a snake's body, scorpion's legs, and eagle's wings, and no special feature at all (excluding its appearance), well it can remain at home and quiet too.
The owlbear is fine 'cause it's iconic. The cloaker is just bearable, but has no simpathy (and the Paizo Revised version did a lot to improve its station).
Things that are silly but do not "click" with me. I love the flail snail but positively despise the flumph.
Some cryptids. Chupacabras are great, mothmen not so much.
Sometimes, there are creatures that you think are too wierd or dumb to use, but then you read an adventure that uses them in a neat/cool way. In those cases, I'm thrilled to add that creature to my repertoire.
Usually, those uses of those wierd creatures are accompanied by an awesome drawing that give a never-before-seen look to the monster.
I personally never used those "goemetrically shapped creatures" (I forget their names) from the first edition D&D. I could never get passed the idea of being threatened by a pack of giant living cubes and pyramids (with mouths and eyes, lol).
Ultradan
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes, there are creatures that you think are too wierd or dumb to use, but then you read an adventure that uses them in a neat/cool way. In those cases, I'm thrilled to add that creature to my repertoire.
Usually, those uses of those wierd creatures are accompanied by an awesome drawing that give a never-before-seen look to the monster.
I personally never used those "goemetrically shapped creatures" (I forget their names) from the first edition D&D. I could never get passed the idea of being threatened by a pack of giant living cubes and pyramids (with mouths and eyes, lol).
Ultradan
You won't be disrespecting Modrons while I'm around. They are one of the coolest monsters in D&D history. Don't judge them by silly illustrations - the Planescape line and the Great Modron March adventure do them justice. It's such a crying shame that they are closed IP.
Angels and Archons. Pretty much any do-gooder outsiders. I get why they're there, and their existence makes sense. It's just that my players shouldn't expect any help from the heavens.
...except that the older I get, the more I find myself using monsters I used to think were stupid. Mimics. Does anyone else remember the stupid 1E MM picture of the treasure chest fist? Now one of my players is walking around with a dagger named Gnasher that just outgrew its sheath, and it's turned out to be a mystery in our game that really has legs (literally?). This week the party will face two monsters from Fiend Folio, one of which is patently ridiculous, but I'm certain that the way I'm running it, it's going to go over great.
TL;DR: Never say never.
I mostly avoid the following:
-Dinosaurs (fantasy with dinosaurs has never been my thing)
-Were-animals (don't like them)
-Dwarfs (I would never let one of my players kill a dwarf. Rather, I put elves)
Animals in general do not often feature as encounters in my games, but just because I rarely find a situation in which they would properly fit, except when the party goes out of its way to hunt for stuff.
On the other hand, Elementals, Constructs, and Undead are my favourite.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Succubus, and most demons -- they simply don't work for what they are supposed to be.
Umm honestly? I'd use them all, if I found them to be fitting for the situation, or just too cool to pass up. And since the group I run likes to switch things up, the odds of me getting to use good-aligned outsiders is pretty good.
There is nothing in either Bestiary that looks too stupid or silly to use to me.
Alas, Beholders R.I.P.
I removed a post. That word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
You won't be disrespecting Modrons while I'm around. They are one of the coolest monsters in D&D history. Don't judge them by silly illustrations - the Planescape line and the Great Modron March adventure do them justice. It's such a crying shame that they are closed IP.Sometimes, there are creatures that you think are too wierd or dumb to use, but then you read an adventure that uses them in a neat/cool way. In those cases, I'm thrilled to add that creature to my repertoire.
Usually, those uses of those wierd creatures are accompanied by an awesome drawing that give a never-before-seen look to the monster.
I personally never used those "goemetrically shapped creatures" (I forget their names) from the first edition D&D. I could never get passed the idea of being threatened by a pack of giant living cubes and pyramids (with mouths and eyes, lol).
Ultradan
Didn't mean to disrespect. I'm sure that if they were somehow included in a Pathfinder adventure (with a cool idea and/or illustrations) I would probably use it.
:)
Ultradan
|
Mimics. Does anyone else remember the stupid 1E MM picture of the treasure chest fist? Now one of my players is walking around with a dagger named Gnasher that just outgrew its sheath, and it's turned out to be a mystery in our game that really has legs (literally?).
Mimics can be awesome. I actually consider them as less monsters and more magical traps to catch the unwary.
oh yes there are a few....
but from the bestiary only? hmm.. wow.. i think i've used every monster in it over the years. Not every variation and not in pathfinder form. But most of the monsters in there have been around since 2nd ed if not longer.
Now the Bestiary 2, there are a few in there I generally flip right past. I don't think I would ever have a use for the Aeons, the jabberwock.. neat to have but probably not,
Oh and there it is.. I must have this one in some form or another for every edition.. I will not use the Krenshar.. something about it has always irked me.
and props to the modron love in this thread! :)
|
|
I dislike 'you must do this one specific thing to beat this monster' creatures, such as some oozes, golems, swarms, will-o-wisps, etc. That sort of gimmick monster is cool in horror movies, where X percentage of the cast are intended to get eaten before the hero, the girl and the token black guy (or child) figure out that it's deadly allergic to selenium, but I'm not scripting a syfy movie, and none of the people at the table described their character as wearing a red shirt. The party may die, but it won't be because the party flat-out can't hurt the monster because they didn't prepare the right spell.
Most of the stuff I didn't like in earlier editions, monsters with specific meta-game-y screw-the-players sorts of abilities (like nilbogs) didn't carry over to 3.X, or didn't retain the exact abilities that made them as meta-gamist, so there's fewer critters in the 3.X Monster Manuals and the PF Bestiaries that make me say, 'oh, hell, no.'
Anything that seems 'silly' generally doesn't fit with the grittier mood of games I run, set in places like Hollowfaust or Freeport. A storyline about going on a series of side-treks to put a ghost to rest, or stopping an evil cult from calling up a Lovecraftian horror, really doesn't benefit from the presence of flumphs or modrons or pixies and faerie dragons.
I've got my favorites from the Fiend Folio as well (Qullans!), but if they don't fit into the theme of the game / setting I'm using, I won't stretch to include them, not when there are a zillion other options that might fit better, thematically.
|
|
Swarms - Auto damage, no attack, no save? No thanks.
Hobgoblins - Idk, I use goblins, bugbears and orcs fine, I've just never see the point of hobgoblins.
Anything with Ability Drain or Negative levels - These are just too much of a pain.
Rust Monster - A creature whose whole schtick is to destroy the PC's equipment? Pass.
|
|
Anyone remember the Xeg-Yi and Xag-Ya. That was a weird pair of creatures, pretty much designed to destroy whatever you were holding/wearing.
*EDIT* Actually - now that I think about it, I try to avoid having too many intelligent humanoids in my games. Not sure why, although maybe because I would expect them to come into constant conflict with each other and be committing genocide on each other all the time.
Okay, I'll bite: How can modrons be used in a cool way?
I'm not saying they can't. I'm saying that without outside help, my imagination isn't up to the task of arriving at a cool way for modrons to be used. Help me see it.
Well, if I'm ever tempted to use a Protein Polymorph, I sure as hell won't call it that (but I don't see myself as ever doing so).
Weren't the Xeg-Yi and Xag-Ya the positive and negative energy creatures? I seem to recall reading an article a long time ago where the designer admitted that he just didn't like the idea of the Positive and Negative planes having no creatures in them.
Never cared for the Modrons. I thought it was a silly way to represent pure law; irregardless of the illustrations. But I also didn't care for Planescape, the Lady of Pain (especially) or the whole Blood War thing. Sigil? Ugh. I never understood why a fantasy version of the Mos Eisley Spaceport would be at the center of the planes. Though I realise I'm in the minority about Planescape which I know was very popular; it was just most definitely not for me.
SJ
|
|
I removed a post. That word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
You're removing malapropisms too?
Back to the topic: I don't like Gelatinous Cubes because they're silly. Rust Monsters are just there to annoy the players, so they are a no-no.
Ofcourse, you can always add flavor to the less exciting monsters. A Kobold doesn't always have to be just a Kobold.
http://www.headinjurytheater.com/article73.htm
Very funny article :)
I want to use the "Room of Death" now.. Does that make me a bad GM?
As to the topic at hand: I don't like the Froghemoth (because I think the whole concept is silly), or indeed most monsters that have so-called "immunities" that end up being disadvantages.
http://www.headinjurytheater.com/article73.htmVery funny article :)
I want to use the "Room of Death" now.. Does that make me a bad GM?
As to the topic at hand: I don't like the Froghemoth (because I think the whole concept is silly), or indeed most monsters that have so-called "immunities" that end up being disadvantages.
You reminded me of this thread > 15 most retarded D&D monsters < from a ways back in time.
Funny (good) stuff.
:)
I dislike 'you must do this one specific thing to beat this monster' creatures, such as some oozes, golems, swarms, will-o-wisps, etc.
Ooh...you beat me to it.
"What? You don't have anyone in the party capable of casting Death Ward* at the moment? Then you are bad players and your PCs deserve to die."
:-/
*Replace Death Ward with your favourite "immune to a specific instadeath power" spell, as needed.
Orcs.
I don't use orcs at all. They don't even exist in my world. It may seem strange, but there's an oversaturation of 'savage' races and the big green lads are sufficiently cliche nowadays that I don't care for them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I'll bite: How can modrons be used in a cool way?
I'm not saying they can't. I'm saying that without outside help, my imagination isn't up to the task of arriving at a cool way for modrons to be used. Help me see it.
"The previous night, we had laughed amongst ourselves. Fighting cubes, triangles, and whatnot, how silly. Well we weren't laughing now. Row after row of perfectly symetrical cubed bodies, moving with exacting precision. The gaps between each of them was never more than an inch apart. Each one, implacable, knowing no fear, no remorse, no pity. Just an unyielding desire to drive us before them. Each one knew exactly what it needed to do, and did it without hesitation. We weren't fighting individual units, but the perfect army. When one fell, another one stepped into its place, with no thought about its dying comrade. It was fighting a wall... a wall that moved and stabbed and killed.
Above us, in perfect flying formation were the pyramids. When they fired their bows, you could use their rows of arrows as a plumb line, they were so precise. They knew exactly when and where to strike, and struck they did. In the back were the other shapes. Six sides, eight sides... who knows how many sides. Each one moved with purpose, that purpose being to wipe us all out. Yet the worst part, the very worst part, was they made no utterances. No voice was raised in command, no sounds passed their lips. Only the sound of our men screaming and dying to their utterly implacable advance.
We didn't stand a chance." -- Seargent Viktor Thrinko, Battle of Russet Fork.
My players still talk in awe of their first encounters with vargouilles and krenshars.
I'm not sure there are any monsters I won't use - I just have to find the right "hook" for them first.
I'm thinking monsters from the Bestiary, mostly. Guys that are canon, mainstream Pathfinder.For me it's the Vargouille. Screaming floating flying head that paralyzes and then kisses you? Srsly? -- I know it's loosely based on a "real" monster from folklore. But... no.
Okay, that's mine. Yours?
Doug M.
Gibbering Mouther
Neothelid
Vargouille
Xorn
I don't see any monsters that I would never use, but I do see plenty of monsters that would require just the right scenario to not come as a cheesy and/or silly.
|
|
As they're portrayed out of the box, devourers and the like whose whole schtick is to utterly destroy a PC beyond any hope of recovery.
It's too much of a "@#$% YOU, PLAYER!" for my tastes, telling them that the character they've invested so much into doesn't even get an afterlife epilogue.
After cosmology adjustments, merely cautious about using them.
I don't see any monsters that I would never use, but I do see plenty of monsters that would require just the right scenario to not come as a cheesy and/or silly.
I'm kinda of this same mentality. There's really not a lot of monsters in any of the bestiaries that I would consciously decide NEVER to use. However, there some monsters I would use a lot more readily than others, and some monsters I may never get around to using. I doubt I'll get around to using some of the more obscure dinosaur or megafauna critters, for example, since they have more of a "lost world" type feel that I typically reserve for remote places.
I haven't warmed up to some monsters simply b/c I don't grok them too well yet (example: the yrthak). This tends to be because they don't have a strong or obvious enough hook in my eyes to catch my fancy yet. So I'll probably use other monsters before I use these.
The Tarrasque. From a concept point of view it reminds me of Godzilla(who I like) without the atomic ray. It wakes up destroys a few cites, kills a few people and goes away. It is not worth the CR in 3.5 or Pathfinder. I would have to make changes to it, and at that point it is not the Tarrasque anymore. Strangely enough I just got an idea to try to make a quest that focuses on putting it to sleep(killing it) forever.
|
|
Some cryptids. Chupacabras are great, mothmen not so much.Hey!
Worry not. The rendition of the Moth-man concept in Nephandum (an italian developed product, IIRC translated in english by the folks at Mongoose publishing), called "Falenoide" (rough translation: moth-oid), gives the cryptid justice IMO.
Not so much a human with a spandex catsuit, a funny mask and bright red wings. Just scary, marrow eating, mind warping and wicked.
|
|
I'd heartily recommend the book "The Mothman Prophecies" - it's a very interesting and somewhat creepy read full of high weirdness that is never adequately explained. I'd also recommend the movie that was based on it, although the movie has a completely different tone and story, and is much more of a traditional horror story.
Also, "Indrid Cold" is just a great name. I've stolen it on more than one occasion.
Monsters I just won't use? Hmmm, that's a tough one. I'd say about 90% of the monsters found in 3.5 products like the Monster Manual II, III, IV, and V. Mostly because I felt a lot of them were kinda stupid, poorly thought out, or (worst of all) mechanically trash. The stupid/poorly thought out can be revised, and refluffed, but if I have to do that and change the stats & CRs around...well I'll just make a new monster.
Otherwise, I'm pretty open to monsters. I've used a wide variety of creatures, and still haven't used everything in the core MM or Bestiary. I'm pretty fond of animals, and I actually do like Dinosaurs in my settings (my younger brother has a fondness for domesticated dinosaurs as pack animals and mounts. He also likes the "Cold Ones" from Warhammer Fantasy, which are essentially raptor-mounts).
I even have to admit to using the monsters that most of the others here consider unfair or not cool. Swarms are pretty common, especially at lower levels in a lot of my games (I guess I just have to admit finding stuff like the scarab swarm in the Mummy to be ominous). I've even used monsters that can break your stuff.
For a high level game I was running (around level 20), there was a CR 21 Nightwalker that was converted to Pathfinder from 3.5. It sported a DC 39 fear gaze, and more frighteingly a DC 49 Crush Item special ability. That was also in the same game where a trap could end with you in a room full of Black Pudding and Stone Golems. >.>
I think I prefer using humanoids most of the time though. I will say I've never had an urge to use the shapechanging protoplasm monster (phasm?), but I have used Gelatinous Cubes. ☺
I'd say I don't really use D&D Vampires very much. I think they're kinda lame. Simultaneously too strong and too weak (which while some might call that balanced, I call it lopsided). Their goofy strengths and weaknesses make them unsuitable for many of the roles or plots I'd like to use vampires for, and their modifiers make them overly difficult to use with certain NPC archtypes and still be fair/balanced; and I generally prefer vampires that are statistically closer to wights or lesser vampires.
Speaking of wights, I love 'dem suckers.
Dark Creepers and the other "Dark folk", not sure where they came from. As far as I know they sort of sprung up in 3rd edition and I don't really understand why they got printed in the Bestiary. Why would I use them and not just use drow?
Monsters I just won't use? Hmmm, that's a tough one. I'd say about 90% of the monsters found in 3.5 products like the Monster Manual II, III, IV, and V. Mostly because I felt a lot of them were kinda stupid, poorly thought out, or (worst of all) mechanically trash. The stupid/poorly thought out can be revised, and refluffed, but if I have to do that and change the stats & CRs around...well I'll just make a new monster.
Aye! Same here.
To that I'll add about 50% of the monsters from most 3.5 supplements. Tomb Tapper? I'll stick with my vargouilles, thank you...
'findel