D&D 5E Monsters of Many Names - Wandering Monsters (Yugoloth!)

[MarkB]

I hate the names - all of them.

It's not about the re-naming to get away from biblical references - I like "tanar'ri" and "baatezu" just fine, and find them reasonably evocative.

But "yugoloth" trips off the tongue like a drunken warthog, and it only gets worse from there. The starting "standard" loths aren't too bad, but all the others the article lists are hideous concoctions, as though the authors thought a concept would automatically become more magical simply by sticking "loth" on the end of it.

The concept of interdimensional mercenaries is pretty uninspiring, too. Give these critters a stake of their own in the Blood War, or find them a motivation beyond it.

EDIT: I'm no keener on "daemon" as a name - it's too similar to "demon" and does nothing to give them their own identity.

 

[Weather Report]

I forgot about Stench Kows...I can see the art in my head, miss them, which book are they in, again (1st Ed MM2)?

 

[Dausuul]

This. I wish they'd take more time and give each monster type not just a thematic hook, but a visual hook as well. "Well, these guys are an orderly hierarchy and want to crush you under their booted heel" and "These guys are a rampaging horde that just want to grind your bones and drink your soul" sounds different in print, but doesn't always seem so different when you fight them. I'd rather them stick to a "winged humanoid with some aberrant features" for devils and "bestial ravagers" for demons.

Unfortunately, it's tough to do that kind of overhaul at this point. The iconic demon is a giant, bat-winged red humanoid that has a bunch of magical abilities and an affinity for fire; whereas the iconic devil is... a giant, bat-winged red humanoid that has a bunch of magical abilities and an affinity for fire. Both pit fiends and balors are firmly established, as are most of the lesser demons and devils. Look how much flack they took in 4E just for moving the succubus from the "demon" to the "devil" category.

If I were designing them from scratch, I would portray devils as a single race of humanoids, bright and fiery, with horns and batlike wings. Each devil would be a powerful entity commanding legions of constructs and enslaved souls. Demons would be a hodgepodge of dark, bestial, mostly earthbound creatures. Devils would attack with fire and cold, while demons fought with lightning, poison, and acid. But it's several editions too late for that. 1E could have done it, of course. 2E could have got away with it, probably. 5E? Not a chance.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yeah, we can avoid the revolution.

What we CAN do is get intimate with the heart of the creatures.

2e already did that to a large degree (though I think they missed the mythos of gehreleths as a sort of "filth-eater" kind of entity), so the best that 5e can probably do is reflect that.

For those that don't like that, there's still more demons and devils than you could realistically ever use in a campaign, so I don't think we're taking anything away from them.

 

[Echohawk]

Also, the stench kow is the worst name and monster concept in the history of D&D. I deserves to never appear in print again for all time, and I don't think it has since its first and only appearance.

So far, the Stench Kow has appeared in print at least five times: in the Monster Manual II, Monstrous Manual, Polyhedron #133, The Tome of Horrors and in The Tome of Horrors Complete. The Polyhedron articles is all about Stench Cow recipes.

 

[Shemeska]

So far, the Stench Kow has appeared in print at least five times: in the Monster Manual II, Monstrous Manual, Polyhedron #133, The Tome of Horrors and in The Tome of Horrors Complete. The Polyhedron articles is all about Stench Cow recipes.

I wasn't counting 3PP, so give me a pass on the last two if you would. But I really have no business forgetting the 2e and Polyhedron source.

Ugg. It's not my day. :/

 

[Larrin]

This article isn't bad, but it's very shallow and there are rather a number of things inexplicably left out:

(snipped lots of stuff that I want to look up later. Thanks! I am intrigued)

Speaking as someone who never experienced 'Daemons' in any sort of memorable sense, it actually is a bad article. It gives me no actual flavor to interest me I read it an I see this:

" [insert latin/greek]oloth is a [insert noun-prerably animal] and and they have [insert number] arms. They are evil and they are mercenaries, but they are not devils or demons. They have magical powers that are arbitrary"

They don't tell me why a bat-winged two/four armed mercenary is something I should care about. No part in my mind says "Lets use that monster" and like much of the daemon entries I've read before contributes to them being forgettable to me. I've alway liked the idea of daemons, but decided I'd use my own creations rather than what was presented in MM's etc.

Shemeska gives me the idea that there is real depth here, and I hope to find the things he mentions and have my opinions changed!

 

[TerraDave]

Just glad to see the 'loths and demodands mentioned.

I think more in depth background ala planescape is good...especially in supplemental material. I am not saying use 4Es MMI brevity...I don't think any of use would be happy with that, but you have to have enough, but not more, in the main books.

 

[Pour]

I'd prefer the 'loths in a Planescape-specific or planar MM to best serve the fan base who love them as they are. I just don't see why they should be on the slate for MM1. I appreciate supporting all levels and lorehounds out of the gate, but many, many more monsters deserve to come before these guys, in my humble opinion. I don't hate them, but I really feel they are the least compelling beside demons and devils (which will already take up sizable space, I'd imagine). If you're going to go back to the classic scheme, go for it, but unless 'loths get a more interesting rewrite, I don't want them taking page count from greater depth in the demon and devil sections (hopefully even a few demon lords and archdevils). I'd rather have a few new monsters other than the 'loths first go, even.

 

[Kaodi]

I hate the names - all of them.

It's not about the re-naming to get away from biblical references - I like "tanar'ri" and "baatezu" just fine, and find them reasonably evocative.

But "yugoloth" trips off the tongue like a drunken warthog, and it only gets worse from there.

I think this may be a case of "to each his own" big time. When I was younger I liked "tanar'ri" , but these days I think "yugoloth" is vastly cooler than either that or "baatezu" .