D&D 5E Wandering Monsters: Monster Mashups

[I'm A Banana]

But they need to put something in the core monster manual, and they need to have something to draw from when making adventures and other products. Unless you only want setting specific books--"The Forgotten Realms Bestiary" as the first monster book? "Heroes of the Forgotten Realms" instead of the PHB?

That's where the "example" vs. "default" distinction comes in.

The MM should have a lot of examples. The adventures are a bit of a different beast, but they're all examples, too. This is how you can do this. This is how you might do this. Lets say you do it like this. They need to assume I am not using it, they need to sell me on using this. Give me a good example that makes me want to use it.

The MM should not operate on defaults. It shouldn't assume that my orcs are going to be the orcs it describes. They might be. They might not be. It's not the place of the books to tell me what is true in my games. It's the place of the books to help me make true what will make my own games stronger. It's not a consistent baseline, because all good games are hyper-local. The orcs might work for my game, and they might not. Presuming that they work and that I'm going to use them -- that most games are going to use them because it forms a "consistent baseline" -- is problematic.

 

[GX.Sigma]

That's where the "example" vs. "default" distinction comes in.

The MM should have a lot of examples. The adventures are a bit of a different beast, but they're all examples, too. This is how you can do this. This is how you might do this. Lets say you do it like this. They need to assume I am not using it, they need to sell me on using this. Give me a good example that makes me want to use it.

The MM should not operate on defaults. It shouldn't assume that my orcs are going to be the orcs it describes. They might be. They might not be. It's not the place of the books to tell me what is true in my games. It's the place of the books to help me make true what will make my own games stronger. It's not a consistent baseline, because all good games are hyper-local. The orcs might work for my game, and they might not. Presuming that they work and that I'm going to use them -- that most games are going to use them because it forms a "consistent baseline" -- is problematic.

I just disagree with that. Yes, there should be a default assumption of what an orc is. In fact, there already is. If someone says "orc," you know what they're talking about. If you want orcs in your campaign to be Lawful Neutral seafaring merchants, that's cool, but that's not the orc that people think of when they hear the word "orc." The MM should describe the normal orc.

What's the difference, though? How would a MM of examples be different than a MM of defaults? Other than saying "or it can work however you want it to work because you're the DM" at the end of every sentence (which should be a given anyway).

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

That's where the "example" vs. "default" distinction comes in.

The MM should have a lot of examples. The adventures are a bit of a different beast, but they're all examples, too. This is how you can do this. This is how you might do this. Lets say you do it like this. They need to assume I am not using it, they need to sell me on using this. Give me a good example that makes me want to use it.

The MM should not operate on defaults. It shouldn't assume that my orcs are going to be the orcs it describes. They might be. They might not be. It's not the place of the books to tell me what is true in my games. It's the place of the books to help me make true what will make my own games stronger. It's not a consistent baseline, because all good games are hyper-local. The orcs might work for my game, and they might not. Presuming that they work and that I'm going to use them -- that most games are going to use them because it forms a "consistent baseline" -- is problematic.

But that's not what Default means. It means "If you (or WotC) don't use your own (thier own world-) specific orcs, these are the orcs we've created."

Whereas examples could cover multiple settings, which would be less useful to most people, as they will typically choose a single setting to play in.

 

[howandwhy99]

Pixie Dust as a magic item should be written up now.

I like the Ettercap write up and the pixie dust collector angle. I don't care for the Aranea idea as that already has its own mythology attached to it. However, it isn't a bad idea at all. Don't call it an Aranea and it's an interesting idea.

Lamia could definitely be in league with demons, but I strongly suggest not overusing popular ones in the game. Lamia shout out for a Middle Eastern setting, 1001 nights or something like it to define them. Shedu and Lammasu too. Demons roam the countryside there as Daevas (divs) as do Peris and giant scorpions and nomadic raiders. D&D shouldn't be stuck in European mythology only. (I hope the Ogre Magi/Oni escapes at least)

I also didn't really care the jackalwere idea. They are one of the more used and interesting monsters largely forgotten now. They have a heritage in D&D and I'd use that first before coming up with a new one. If you were do define them beyond their loner / bandit leader status, I would go with perhaps a couple cultural angles not normally used.

First, I would look to were jackals live and draw from those cultures. The Balkans and northern Turkey have some awesome cultural traditions to draw from even as far as Azerbaijan. Done right those areas can drip with flavor. The Second group would likely be Egyptian. The center of secret cults with their needs all provided for mean they don't roam and live quite different lives than other jackalweres. Perhaps they are even tied to the Assassin's Guild or one or more Rashasa? These aren't two different monsters, but their cultural statistics and the maps designed from them would be significantly different. We might even go so far as subraces like Halflings do, but it isn't necessary if the lands are nearby.

 

[CAFRedblade]

I don't know how story branding makes the game take a back seat. Having these connections and ecology that links these monsters can only serve to make the game richer. DMs who are new to the game can draw upon those connections for inspiration. DMs who are experienced can ignore them or use them at their discretion. Having things linked together doesn't make the game any weaker...

A lot of folks look at the MM, and really the entirety of the core rules as a toolkit. We love to have some suggestions on monster groupings, but would prefer things a little more generic perhaps. As I wrote above regarding the environment/ecology of the Ettercap. Was the 2nd ed, 1 page description a little long winded, perhaps, but there is an enormous amount of information therein that people can use, and hooks to tie monsters together. I would love to see the same info presented on the 2nd ed page of the Ettercap recreated in a modern (Monster Vault?) format and compare it to the original.

Good point. I admit, I don't know very much about Araneas. I really want to keep the corrupted ettercap, I think a constant diet of pixies turning you into some even-more-horrible monster is fantastic. If they go with a non-aranea version and cook up something new, then I'm still on board.

I had heard of the creatures, and probably read them over in previous monster books, but I think there is enough history for currently created monsters to say, well, we have an Ettercap, if they are exposed for a prolonged time to pixie dust, either in general or from eating, they change into a different/evolved form. I think people are upset about the suggestion of using an established creature instead of creating a new one.
An example is that in 4th ed. they have the basic Rust Monster, but if it eats enough Magical items, it evolves into a deadlier variant.
The fandom has had similar issues regarding the re-purposing of the name Archon for 4th ed Angels, and a few others.

I think this is more targeted at convention play and adventure writing. If the writers crafting an adventure for use in Forgotten Realms are working from the same notes, more world consistency is achieved. Orcs behave like orcs, regardless of who's writing the adventure. If the DM running said adventure wants to change it up, they are welcome to. But how often have you flipped through an adventure, tilted your head, and said, "What the hell? Why is a beholder doing that? I thought they were supposed to hate all other creatures."

Again, this goes back to some people, like myself, who would prefer basic suggestions, general trends, perhaps some hints at greater links, in the form a more generic toolkit. But for specific settings, FR, Eberron, GreyHawk, and many more, each have their own ecology in which the monsters will interact. Orcs don't behave exactly the same between FR and Eberron, or Dark Sun (if they even exist there, can't remember) I love to see some general behaviours that the monsters follow so I have baselines when creating my own campaign setting or plunking them down into an established setting.

The 2nd ed monster write up for example, has a section on the Ettercap's general description (even with a picture) a bit of a long winded, but informative combat section, and the two sections, one on Habitat/Society and the other the Ecology which outlines general tendencies, and related monsters
( "Often (40%), 2d4 spiders of some monsterous type" ) and looking over to the spiders page you have Huge, Giant, Phase, Sword and Gargantuan spiders, with several variants of a few of those listed in the two page spread on spiders.

Again, I have no problem with a listing under Hags perhaps to say they like dark, web infuse/infested forests, and can often be found nearby to Ettercap lairs and/or vice versa. Or that Pixie dust is a valuable commodity for illusion spells, that Ettercaps find them a delicacy, and that Hags harvest the dust from Ettercap webs or demand tribute from them. Heck, Ettercap poison is valuable at 1000gp an ounce on the Black Market. I love these types of details, little bits and pieces of hints and suggestions.

This is where I think an Ecologies of Faerun/Eberron/Whatever setting, even as a PDF, would be a good addition. You can say, in FR, these creatures have ties and in this manner, expanding on the generic, established ecologies of the MM, or altering them to suit the setting.

I also think your example of the Beholder proves the idea of the WTF, if you have such a strict, Point A to Point B to Point C ecology listed in the MM, and have convention designed adventure that skews that established ecology by starting at Point Y and jumps to Point ZA and Point 8B, then I think it's even more confusing.

I don't picture this as a give-and-take barter. No, the ettercap skitters out of the woods near the dark and scary hut, where the Hag lives. The hag emerges, and the ettercap fights down the urge to flee. The hag stretches out a bony, clawed hand. The pixie dust is relinquished, and the Hag tucks it away in her pouches. Then she produces three elf eyeballs from a jar and hands them over. The delighted ettercap skitters away.

Ah, but it was presented as a trade in the article, what you have there is Demanding Tribute. Why? Perhaps so that the Hag doesn't eat the Ettercap, or the Hag provides a service back to the Ettercap, food scraps as you write above. These things are low intelligence, but could be taught, but that would seem to me to be more a of localized event, or perhaps a cultural one from the Hag's perspective. Do all Ettercaps entreat with all Hags in this manner, that's what bugs me.

The 2nd ed habitat of the Hag details general interactions with Giants and Ogres, and they like to live deep in forests, so I can see how in a forest environment the two creatures may interact and come across each other. But due to their general natures and individual ecologies I find it difficult to come to grips with the presented interactions as if they were common amongst all Hags, Ettercaps and Pixies (including variants of Hag and Pixie[technically a form of Sprite in 2nd ed]).

Perhaps the ettercaps don't realize it's happening? They don't have a magical progress bar telling them they're at 14 / 20 pixies eaten to assume their new form. Rather it's a gradual progression to a point where they will change. They don't eat pixies to change form, they change form because of all the pixies they've eaten.

I would easily believe that, since they are solitary creatures unless having a mate. But as mentioned above what/where is the motivation to collect pixie dust and trade/give it to Hags on a wide enough scale that it is something that is commonplace to a species...


Now, with all that said, the general plot hook is a good one. Somewhere in the FR is a forest that is tied closely with the Fey Realm. Close enough that Pixies and other Sprites cross over either unintentionally or perhaps intentionally, but a single or pair of Ettercaps have made this corner of the Forest their home and have found a taste for Pixie flesh. A covey of Hags knowing the value of the pixie dust and able to use it to enhance their illusions and disguise spells demand tribute from the Ettercaps. And so, they gather it up and trade it over for those delicious Elf Eyeballs they get so infrequently.. But it's not something I see happening multiple times across a setting, It's a great adventure seed, but shouldn't directly be part of the monster's writeup. Perhaps a Chapter of Adventure seed ideas could be part of the MM that does this very thing, pulls various tid bits together from the monster write ups and ties them together for newer DM's to help them craft encounters. This is something I'd love to see done.

 

[Stormonu]

I applaud them for looking for ways to make monsters more interesting, and thus likely to get used in more folks games. But I don't want them to go overboard (like they did with the CoolNoun Adejetive names), which this article gives me the feeling they're going to do. Linking a monster to one, maybe two monsters is helpful. Half a dozen gets silly.

Out of the examples, the ettercaps hunting pixies is interesting, but I'm not sold on the trading to hags. And certainly not them becoming araneas. I'd like to see some lamias be cultists to Graz'zt, but not all of them because personally, I'm not much for using demons in my game (they're the "too easy villian behind all the bad stuff" for me). And I downright dislike the jackalwere connection.

 

[the Jester]

So, it's a tough balance.

I quite like the ettercap/feywild/pixie dust kind of thing. Real nice. Resonates with the monster's mythopoetry (evil spider guy) really well. It's a good hook. Not necessary, but it adds and doesn't subtract and that's awesome.

But the "It turns into an aranea!" is unadulterated doofus-juice.

I'm totally with KM here. There is no need to invalidate the old aranea this way. Leave the aranea alone.

Aside from the 3rd Ed BoVD, is it mentioned anywhere else? I do think it's cool, love my D&D demonology (D&D&D).

From the 1e Monster Manual 2, essentially Graz'zt's first appearance in D&D:

Graz'zt is served by lamias and will always have from 1-3 with him at all times. He is also liekly to have 1-3 succubi or a Type VI demoness with him in his lair.

Emphasis added- note that a "Type VI" was, in 1e, what we now call a balor. Graz'zt hangs with she-balors. Yikes.

 

[Weather Report]

From the 1e Monster Manual 2, essentially Graz'zt's first appearance in D&D:

Ah, right on, wish I could check it out, mine's currently packed away.

I am with you and KM on the ettercap turning into an aranea, I don't even like aranea anyway.

 

[steeldragons]

I do hope some [or even one] of the developers peruse this thread before things go to far. Since it seems a hands-down across-the-board agreement that the aranae transformation is a non-starter/highly disliked...a rare case of near-universal agreement among ANYthing D&D! lol...So, hope they see this and ditch it.

The trading with hags and jackalwere ideas seem to be in a second place for "no likey"...albeit with a dash of "that's cool for a single adventure idea", which definitely does not say to me "put it in the MM and make it a part of the jackalwere or hag story."

I'll throw out the "spider-herder" as my #3 stupid idea [from this article], though not many have commented on that aspect. Hanging with spiders? Hunting with spiders? Co-existing/communicating with spiders? Fine. Cool. Everyone knows this. Heck, I'd even go so far as to say "have some fey-charm ability to control/command spiders." That could work.

As someone said above, I think it was KM, nothing about ettercaps says "nurturing shepherd-treant-like protectors of their kind." Having "spider-herders" built into their MM entry is a baaaaaad idea...and totally unnecessary. They have [or like having] spiders around them/in the same vicinity. Great. Period. End. They go around their web-blanketed woods herding and protecting spiders?...uh why? Spiders are pretty damned self-sufficient critters...as are, apparently, ettercaps.

 

[steeldragons]

Pixie Dust as a magic item should be written up now.

I did that ages ago in my campaign world. Essentially, borrowing from the pixie's "naturally invisible unless they want to be" shtick, I made Pixie Dust = where Dust of Disappearance comes from.

To give it a twist, I made it Dust of Dis-/Appearance. Sprinkle it on stuff/people you want to make invisible. It does that. Throw it on something already invisible and it becomes visible whether it wants to be or not [i.e. cancels spells, invisibility items or natural abilities]...and can function as a minor Glitterdust or Faerie Fire spell, providing a low level light source.

EDIT: Not to be confused with Dust of DIS Appearance! lol. Immediately conjuring up the Arch-devil...TPK to ensue.