I was wonder if anyone else had a monster that they were disappointed with because it doesn't live up to the myths around them? I realize that a lot of monsters and races have been altered from their origins and generally I'm ok with it. Trolls share little in common with the myths around them, but the changes drop some of the silly aspects in favor of scary. I'm good with this, though I wouldn't mind seeing a troll with two or three heads that are smarter than their kin and can sling spells too. Still some of the monsters just don't live up to the myths.
For me, the big one is the Bunyip. In Pathfinder they are CR 3 I believe but in myths they had all sorts of powers and was widely feared by Aboriginies. They were highly dangerous, ellusive, shapeshifting, creatures that could cause floods that turned those swept up by it into black swans. For a creature that is supposed to make Hippos look like cuddly teady bears, having them 2 CR below Hippos (not saying that they don't deserve that CR 5) is disappointing. I'd much rather have Bunyips be something players soil themselves about when I pull them out. I'd probably also make them an outsider or, possibly, a dragon rather than a magical beast.
That's mine, what's yours?
I always have a hard time with Lovecraftian monsters in a Pathfinder game; it's virtually impossible to bring the proper level of despair and hopelessness in without making it a TPK.
Mummies. And The various Genies.
Devils. Just never really liked the way they are presented/ worked. Mechanically they offer very little that would inspire me to use them as deal makers of any sort.
Or at least that was my stance until the contract devil came out in the bestiary 3. Now all Devils in my campaigns have a special GM ability to summon a Contract Devil to finish paperwork with mortals.
Succubus still have this issue to me, but Paizo has made it a bit better with the new gift ability.
Ogres always seemed a bit 'Meh' to me. They work well for Bosses against level 1-2 and great bodyguards for levels 3-4 then they are just a mound of XP you need to cut thru.
I've been thinking of trying to come up with a template sort of like the Oni template that could be applied to Ogres, Goblins, Trolls, etc. to make them more like their mythical fey counterparts. Unfortunately the Fey monster type and bruiser don't go together well.
The Tarrasque kind of bugs me that it isn't a Dragon, when it was a Dragon in France who's rampage was stoped by some saint.
Dhampyr are another one that bugs me. Traditional myth was that they were people who lost some one close to a vampire and became resistant to it's powers and could sense vampires(probably explaining how someone survived a disease that killed other family members in those days). They were still completely human. The 3.5 WotC book about Undead had a feat in it that did this nicely. Unfortunately the Wikipedia article seems to have been attacked by those who like rewriting things to support their truth in the years since I last read it and went with the whole half undead thing, otherwise I'd post it.
Draugr.
This is more a 3.5 complaint, but after having played skyrim I wanted to throw them in. So I looked up the draugr and all their powers, and realised they were pretty bad in the rules, to make them the mythic draugr would require a lot of work. These creatures were warriors with witch spells and with all sorts of other horrific powers.
Agree on devils, they are never as cool as the devils in Black Butler or death gods of other sources.
I always have a hard time with Lovecraftian monsters in a Pathfinder game; it's virtually impossible to bring the proper level of despair and hopelessness in without making it a TPK.Clearly, you must only use them when you expect a TPK!
The problem isn't so much with Lovecraftian monsters as it is with Lovecraftian characters.
Lovecraft had a bad habit of having all of his characters react as he expected an idealized version of himself to act, and since even an self-idealized version of Lovecraft was a whiney, cowardly little sh...sorry, I mean, sensitive, well-bred intellectual, that's how everyone in a Lovecraft story reacts.
But since most writers, readers, and role-players aren't that interested in that kind of "hero", absent a built-in mechanic like CoC sanity checks a party facing a Lovecraftian monster is always going to be more, "I made my wis check? Good, I fireball it."
|
I always have a hard time with Lovecraftian monsters in a Pathfinder game; it's virtually impossible to bring the proper level of despair and hopelessness in without making it a TPK.Clearly, you must only use them when you expect a TPK!The problem isn't so much with Lovecraftian monsters as it is with Lovecraftian characters.
Lovecraft had a bad habit of having all of his characters react as he expected an idealized version of himself to act, and since even an self-idealized version of Lovecraft was a whiney, cowardly little sh...sorry, I mean, sensitive, well-bred intellectual, that's how everyone in a Lovecraft story reacts.
But since most writers, readers, and role-players aren't that interested in that kind of "hero", absent a built-in mechanic like CoC sanity checks a party facing a Lovecraftian monster is always going to be more, "I made my wis check? Good, I fireball it."
That's more or less why "Lovecraft in D&D" doesn't really float the boat with me. It's about the only facet of Golarion that leaves me cold.
[
Lovecraft had a bad habit of having all of his characters react as he expected an idealized version of himself to act, and since even an self-idealized version of Lovecraft was a whiney, cowardly little sh...sorry, I mean, sensitive, well-bred intellectual, that's how everyone in a Lovecraft story reacts.
Please, don't apologize. Lovecraft was a rascist @#$%head. Still it doesn't mean I can't enjoy the mythos and throw the monsters in.
The Carbuncle disappointed me, but I suspect that disappointment may have been what they were going for with that particular monster.
I was expecting something bigger, tougher, and a lot prettier.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lovecraft had a bad habit of having all of his characters react as he expected an idealized version of himself to act, and since even an self-idealized version of Lovecraft was a whiney, cowardly little sh...sorry, I mean, sensitive, well-bred intellectual, that's how everyone in a Lovecraft story reacts.
God forbid not every story features a 1920's John McClain shooting up R'lyeh with a Tommy Gun. And really? Cowardly? The overwhelming majority of Lovecraft's protagonists display an overwhelming lack of cowardice, which quite often leads to their own demise. In fact, I challenge you to list five Lovecraft protagonists that qualify as "cowardly".
Please, don't apologize. Lovecraft was a rascist @#$%head.
I find it amusing how these days it's politically correct to vastly overstate Lovecraft's racism. Did he display some? Yes...but compared to most opinions of the time period, his racism is fairly mild.
We're talking about a guy who is frequently accused of antisemitism, yet apparently it's a strange variety of antisemitism that makes it acceptable to mock Hitler's view of race and accept a Jewish wife.
It's also rather notable that most of the fictional individuals that get racism comments directed against them contain far more than just the "taint" of foreign blood, as they're quite often cultists or half-breeds (and I'm not talking about half-white, half some other race...I'm talking half-human, half something else.).
The biggest problem with Lovecraftian adventures in Pathfinder/D&D is that, especially since 3.X/d20 came around, there's been an overwhelming resistance to having any sort of encounter that is not "level-appropriate". It'd definately hard to build any sort of atmosphere when the expectation of the players is that unless bad luck strikes particularly hard, they shouldn't really worry too much about dying.
I find it amusing how these days it's politically correct to vastly overstate Lovecraft's racism. Did he display some? Yes...but compared to most opinions of the time period, his racism is fairly mild.
While this is my opinion, it is based off of his letters and not his stories. I was willing to attribute his stories to being a product of his time, until I read some of his letters and would have probably would have punched him in the mouth. He was fairly outspoken about his rascism compared to many in New England at the time especially when you take into account all the letters he wrote. Also, I found more talk within the stories about other races and mixed races than with hybrids. "Mongoloid" was used about as often as "Cyclopean".
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Having read a reasonable amount of fiction from around the period Lovecraft was writing, he comes off as pretty racist by the fiction standards of the day. It doesn't show up in all his stories, but when it does show up, it can be pretty appalling. Like the one about all the degenerate races living in the neighborhood, where it fell so far it got swallowed up. Holy cow.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
With Lovecraft nothing rests easily, or peacefully.
The only way Lovecraftian monsters work is if the PCs literally cannot hurt them. This is hard to do without just saying 'no, you can't hurt it'.Oh, I don't know. Give almost anything regeneration 40 (with no mortal means of bypassing it) and certain immunities to save-or-die effects and the PCs will soon learn fear. This is particularly creepy-yet-not-TPK if it's a swarm of, say, critters with 3 hp apiece - with a burrow speed. "We hacked them. We incinerated them. We hurled them into pits and we bathed them in acid and we drove poisoned spears through all their organs. And then they got up and kept attacking. The gods have forsaken us!"
A good way to create a Lovecraftian situation might be to not make it a monster at all, use a Haunt.
Instead of an ghostly trap, re-skin the Haunt as a place where an alien reality is seeping into our own.
God forbid not every story features a 1920's John McClain shooting up R'lyeh with a Tommy Gun. And really? Cowardly? The overwhelming majority of Lovecraft's protagonists display an overwhelming lack of cowardice, which quite often leads to their own demise. In fact, I challenge you to list five Lovecraft protagonists that qualify as "cowardly".
Cowardly might have been the wrong word to use, but it has to be said that most of Lovecraft's characters seemed to go crazy from things that, while certainly disturbing and arguably PTSD inducing, often don't seem to be the kinds of situations to send a normal person into a lifelong gibbering fit.
|
|
Please, don't apologize. Lovecraft was a rascist @#$%head. Still it doesn't mean I can't enjoy the mythos and throw the monsters in.
In his earlier stories he was definitely reflecting his isolated upbringing in Providence, with that region still being a bit insular today. However, I would say that he definitely began to see the world differently after returning from New York. His extensive travels in his later life were probably a chance to play catch up on his previous isolation. Lovecraft's views had softened say by the time he wrote At the Mountains of Madness and this contrasts with say, The Horror at Red Hook.
|
|
I find it amusing how these days it's politically correct to vastly overstate Lovecraft's racism. Did he display some? Yes...but compared to most opinions of the time period, his racism is fairly mild.
We're talking about a guy who is frequently accused of antisemitism, yet apparently it's a strange variety of antisemitism that makes it acceptable to mock Hitler's view of race and accept a Jewish wife.
This!
Lovecraft's view of race was probably older than even the time period he was into which he was born. Remember most of his early education came from the library in the attic and the fact he was more than a bit of a shut in.
We look back on Lovecraft through our PC paranoid lens. Yes, in his times people had a very different view of race. However, I think his racism is overstated. Lovecraft began to evolve as a person and his particular view of race diminished as he was gained more exposure to the world.
Lovecraft's protagonists were almost reckless in their pursuit of hidden knowledge. So I am not sure how they are cowards? Many of them confront the danger head on or are seeking knowledge of a person who has disappeared under mysterious circumstances. Even in the more Dunsian story, The Music of Eric Zann, the protagonist shows a queer courage when he believes the old man is imperiled.
In many popular representations of Lovecraft himself, he is depicted as an Indiana Jones type character. Someone who pursues knowledge at great personal risk.
|
|
"Mongoloid" was used about as often as "Cyclopean".
Mongoloid is a term used by anthropologists for traits common in native peoples of the Arctic, Asia and the Americas. Now is the problem he is using this term to describe the physical characteristics of people or are we looking back on his work again with that PC lens?
"Mongoloid" was used about as often as "Cyclopean".Mongoloid is a term used by anthropologists for traits common in native peoples of the Arctic, Asia and the Americas. Now is the problem he is using this term to describe the physical characteristics of people or are we looking back on his work again with that PC lens?
It's also a pretty offensive term for someone with Down's Syndrome, and as for Lovecraft, yes he was racist, as anyone from that time period would be considered today, now as a group can we just move the hell on?
I've had an occasional issue where I would want to run a dragon and the numbers behind the beast simply wouldn't fit, but I think that's because dragons are currently too generalized. They generally don't have enough spell casting for what I want out of a spell caster and don't have enough scare or range as a martial monster for me to want to use them as such.
And once you plop a dragon on the field everyone assumes it's big guns time.
However I did swarm the players with swarms of tiny dragons once -- it was a beautiful thing.
|
"That is not dead which can eternal lie
Yet with strange aeons even death may die."
With Aeons now being a creature type in Pathfinder, this line makes me think of them teaming up to gank Pharasma...
The Tarrasque, back in the day, was kind of a pushover. When we ran the Bloodstone games, a wall of force stopped him cold, and the illusionist peppered him with chromatic orbs over and over until he failed a save and died. Because of a strange part of the adventure, where, if you fail to leave a room properly, you have to start over in the tarrasque room, and fight him again, we had to do this *twice.*
|
|
I always have a hard time with Lovecraftian monsters in a Pathfinder game; it's virtually impossible to bring the proper level of despair and hopelessness in without making it a TPK.
Create an sanity score. Add up all the ability scores or just the mental ones. Every time you see a lovecraftian monster you make a will save to avoid losing sanity. When your sanity hits zero you are insane and useless. Now the game is trying to defeat the enemy before you lose your mind.
If you plays the Call of Cuthulu game then you can see I roughly adapted the sanity mechanism from there.
The only way Lovecraftian monsters work is if the PCs literally cannot hurt them. This is hard to do without just saying 'no, you can't hurt it'.Oh, I don't know. Give almost anything regeneration 40 (with no mortal means of bypassing it) and certain immunities to save-or-die effects and the PCs will soon learn fear. This is particularly creepy-yet-not-TPK if it's a swarm of, say, critters with 3 hp apiece - with a burrow speed. "We hacked them. We incinerated them. We hurled them into pits and we bathed them in acid and we drove poisoned spears through all their organs. And then they got up and kept attacking. The gods have forsaken us!"
Regeneration 40? *chuckle* Maybe coupled with DR 50/- and something like Stunning Critical and lots of attacks.
Though the "no mortal means to bypass it" is intriguing. Can't really overuse that trope though, otherwise it's just cheese.
Right now the only thing that makes them nervous is mind flayers, because that was the last time they had their butts handed to them, due to use of "psionics is different."
I can craft things that they cannot hurt; the problem is justifying their existence.
There's a few nasty hidey-holes out there, however, and the things in them are even nastier.
EDIT: I've considered using San, but starting to use San in a campaign after 5 years of running it kind of falls into the category of "ruining versimilitude" for me.
I've never liked the very idea of a Sanity score... but then I've been told being around me too long can cause sanity damage so maybe it's just me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PC 1:"This old abandon house contains a cult that must be stopped for the good of humanity -- let us venture in and... what are you doing?"
PC 2:"Setting it on fire."
PC 1:"But why?"
PC 2:"Dude if you barge in the cult might get away -- we burn the place down and pick off the survivors that come running out in a panic."
PC 1:"But what if there is a book in there?"
PC 2:"Yeah remember the last book poor Jimmy picked up and read? About that the hospital called, his face isn't going to grow back and he's still screaming. The book can burn too."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with many of the mythical beasts is the fact that they became too generalized; the minotaur was a fearsome creature because there was only one, and he was cursed by Zeus (not that that is uncommon, mind you; half of Greece was cursed by Zeus, and the other half by Hera). Similarly, Medusa is badass when its just her. Once you have an entire race of Medusa, they become lame.
Once a particular creature becomes an entire race, its power and majesty must become watered down, otherwise the civilized world will drown in legendary killing machines. Thus Ogres are now relatively low level bruisers, scary when first encountered but soon just sword fodder.
The Law of Conservation of Ninjiustu strikes again!
The problem with many of the mythical beasts is the fact that they became too generalized; the minotaur was a fearsome creature because there was only one, and he was cursed by Zeus (not that that is uncommon, mind you; half of Greece was cursed by Zeus, and the other half by Hera). Similarly, Medusa is badass when its just her. Once you have an entire race of Medusa, they become lame.
They're not Medusas, they're Gorgons. Medusa is the name of one of the Gorgons; there can be a race of Gorgons, but only one Medusa.
I hate how DnD (and Pathfinder, by extension) got this one wrong. It makes me nerdrage.
(Yes, I know Gorgons are bull-like creatures in the Bestiary, but that doesn't resemble any mythic Gorgon I'm familiar with.)
|
|
They're not Medusas, they're Gorgons. Medusa is the name of one of the Gorgons; there can be a race of Gorgons, but only one Medusa.
[tangent] Based on the powers they were said to have in mythology (throw flames from their hands, scales of brass, enemies of the gods, fully immortal, etc.) Stheno the Mighty and Euryale the Far-Springer would make neat unique encounters. [/tangent]
To be honest, just about every mythological creature is disappointing in Pathfinder and/or D&D these days. I think that it's a product of escalation. Trolls and Hydras use to scare the living crap out of us. Now they are used as cannon fodder for creatures that don't even have a basis in mythology (that I am aware of). I think they are just made up monsters to fill the void of CR 12+ that we used to only require of handful of creatures since few every actually reached that level before 3E.
They're not Medusas, they're Gorgons. Medusa is the name of one of the Gorgons; there can be a race of Gorgons, but only one Medusa.[tangent] Based on the powers they were said to have in mythology (throw flames from their hands, scales of brass, enemies of the gods, fully immortal, etc.) Stheno the Mighty and Euryale the Far-Springer would make neat unique encounters. [/tangent]
Theyre stated in the Tome of Horrors as unique monsters.
Lessee..... CR 22 and 20 respecively, immortal, brass claws w/ rend, Pertifying gaze attack, DR/Epic and Good, plus a boatload of other defences.Seems pretty good, only thing not in there is throwing fire.
In related news, I remember a version of the myth where Perseus stet the severed (and still dangerous) head of Medusa into a bronze shield. That would make a killer artifact.
light shield that grants the wielder the gaze attack of Medusa.
(Yes, I know Gorgons are bull-like creatures in the Bestiary, but that doesn't resemble any mythic Gorgon I'm familiar with.)Topsell's Historie of Foure-footed Beastes.
The game's more interesting with gorgons and medusas, rather than just one.
That says "Catoblepas" we already had one of those! But youre right, more monsters are more fun.
I usually feel a bit disappointed with dragons. This could come down to me not GMing encounters with them very well, but I always like them to be bigger and tougher. The last time I threw a green dragon at my group, the paladin almost ended the encounter in one round.
Big thing to remember is that they have a good int score and they are old. Therefore between being smart and experienced, you can justify the use of almost any advanced tactic. One of my favorites is from OOTS actually. Dragon casts anti magic field on itself. They have a fly speed of like 100. If they need buff time, they can simply fly up to get it. The only thing I don't get is why they don't have flyby attack. Don't let the PC's dictate the terms engagement against a dragon. If it is old enough to have that mythic feel to it, it knows better. Also don't stick it in a cave.
The problem with many of the mythical beasts is the fact that they became too generalized; the minotaur was a fearsome creature because there was only one, and he was cursed by Zeus (not that that is uncommon, mind you; half of Greece was cursed by Zeus, and the other half by Hera). Similarly, Medusa is badass when its just her. Once you have an entire race of Medusa, they become lame.They're not Medusas, they're Gorgons. Medusa is the name of one of the Gorgons; there can be a race of Gorgons, but only one Medusa.
I hate how DnD (and Pathfinder, by extension) got this one wrong. It makes me nerdrage.
(Yes, I know Gorgons are bull-like creatures in the Bestiary, but that doesn't resemble any mythic Gorgon I'm familiar with.)
You are correct. I was merely going with the D&D/Pathfinder meme; medusa and gorgons are different creatures in the game.
I respect your nerdrage on the subject; I feel the same.
The mythical, immortal beast that slays gods and kings, known as "Katana" to mortals, clearly does not live up to its' legend... ;-)
But what if it's made from adamantine?
The mythical, immortal beast that slays gods and kings, known as "Katana" to mortals, clearly does not live up to its' legend... ;-)But what if it's made from adamantine?
Will we as gamers ever bee free of this INJUSTICE!!!!!!