D&D 5E Wandering Monsters - I Don't Know What It Is, But I Like It!

Klaus · May 21, 2013

New WM, focusing on a variety of good creatures: shedu, lammasu, hollyphant, moon dog, ki-rin, baku, couatl, opnicus and phoenix.

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand/20130521

Klaus · May 21, 2013

Here's my reply from the Comments section:

I like the 4e approach, where the Phoenix and the Thunderbird are basically advanced versions of the Roc. The different monster types strengthen each other that way.

Ki-Rin are often called "the unicorn of the East". A case could be made to make it a celestial offshoot of the unicorn race.

Lammasu could be easily rolled in with the Androsphinx: an androsphinx that swears an oath to protect the innocent would be referred as a "lammasu sphinx".

Alternatively, the lammasu and the shedu could be two variants of the same creature. I've also seen the Manticore rolled into such a category (looking much like a lammasu with a scorpion tail).

Moon dogs (and their stronger cousins, the moon lions) could take more visual cues from the Chinese foo dog.

And

Upon further research, it seems there is strong evidence towards merging lammasu (or rather, lamassu) and shedu: they are considered to be female (lamassu) and male (shedu) aspects of the same creature (although shedu is a much rarer name). By making them both bull-bodied, you can further distinguish lamassu and sphinxes.

Also, the "immortal guardian" aspect is called a "tutelary deity" in scientific papers.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamassu

the Jester · May 21, 2013

There's a problem with the survey- unless you pick one or more creatures to never see again in D&D, you can't move on and answer the other questions. What if I like all these beasties?

Klaus · May 21, 2013

the Jester said:
There's a problem with the survey- unless you pick one or more creatures to never see again in D&D, you can't move on and answer the other questions. What if I like all these beasties?

That's a problem, yeah. But I'd say "choose the one you like the *least*", as if there were no room for all of them in the book.

Alzrius · May 21, 2013

Klaus, I personally disagree with your assertions. D&D has a long, and I think very colorful, history of distorting monsters from their mythological and literary sources - as well as differentiating monsters that appear to have similar cultural origins, such as the roc, phoenix, and thunderbird - and I'm of the opinion that this has created a much more diverse set of monsters to abet the choices of opponents (and allies) that GMs have in their games.

Besides which, it also makes for great articles about the unavoidable stupid monsters.

Kinak · May 21, 2013

The immortal guardians angle is nice. It is nice to have options other than the usual undead/constructs/oozes in long-sealed dungeons.

Just in general, these monsters just need more hooks. Even when I'm running evil campaigns, I don't really feel any reason to include most of these creatures.

The only mileage I've gotten out of these creatures in the last twenty years is coatl as a background element in Eberron and phoenixes as spell component sources. But it's possible they show up in other people's campaigns who are very happy with them, in which case I won't begrudge a few weird classic monsters showing up.

Cheers!
Kinak

Jeff Carlsen · May 21, 2013

It really sounds to me like they need another classification. Immortal guardians is a bit of a mouthful, though. Not that I have an alternative off the top of my head.

Nymrohd · May 21, 2013

While I find the baku ridiculous, I could say the same for half the entries in any oriental monster compendium (how was that giraffe-lion-elephant thing called? Shirokinokatsukami? And I thought Hesiod was on crack . . .) so I am reserving judgement on what is and what is not ludicrous.

I agree that the shedu and lammasu are pretty much the same creature in different types and could become a single entry. I would never agree with the phoenix being anything but a separate creature, it seems peculiar to me to associate it with the dumb and bestial rocs. Same thing about manticores and lammasu having any relationship; they may be similar in form but they are vastly dissimilar in culture.

The immortal guardians angle can be expanded to guardians of information as well. Also they could be native antagonists to villainous monstersl FR and Eberron have made a connection between the couatl and the yuan-ti for instance. The phoenix could for instance oppose demonic and devil intrusions in the prime and inner planes (must be a reason they can banish with such a massive caster level in previous editions after all).

Weather Report · May 21, 2013

the Jester said:
There's a problem with the survey- unless you pick one or more creatures to never see again in D&D, you can't move on and answer the other questions. What if I like all these beasties?

Yes, annoying, I am going to hold off filling in the survey.

And he isn't suggesting a monster type called Immortal Guardian, is he?

Also, why does he regret the Hollyphant being 2-feet long, that's original and badass, a tiny flying celestial elephant with great magical power.

Savage Wombat · May 21, 2013

I kind of like the Immortal Guardian idea, as long as it's not a unique creature type - maybe a sidebar or subtype. Make it clear that these are intended as good-aligned opponents, and you're not necessarily going to lose your paladin-hood if you confront one. I'm suddenly remembering the owl-like guardian of the library from Last Airbender.

D&D 5E Wandering Monsters - I Don't Know What It Is, But I Like It!

Klaus

First Post

Klaus

First Post

the Jester

Legend

Klaus

First Post

Alzrius

The EN World kitten

Kinak

First Post

Jeff Carlsen

Adventurer

Nymrohd

First Post

Weather Report

Banned

Savage Wombat

Hero

Similar Threads