D&D 5E Wandering Monsters: Basic Beasties

[pemerton]

I've never used the bulette and have no strong views - except that if they're going to bring back in the elf and dwarf thing, why not go whole hog and mention them munching on halflings in their burrows?

The manticore seemed fine to me except for the implication that I will have to count spines per day. Make it an encounter power or something equally easy to track.

The owlbear was less than gripping. The pseudodragon was fine as far as it went, but made me have a response I've had to several of these columns - why all the fiddly detail? For instance, why of all dragons can only a pseudodragon see into the astral and the aether? There is also [MENTION=3586]MerricB[/MENTION]'s point about the relationship of the pseudodragon to the faerie dragon - personally I would be happy to see the two rolled together in some way, or at least receive a more-or-less uniform treatment, given that they occupy pretty much the same story space in the game.

 

[Stormonu]

Ugh, horrible response choices. And why does it always seem no matter what's written, the majority always chooses "4"? Do people not really care and just plan to run things they way they've always done it or do they actually like what's presented?

Bulettes are "stupid, mean and fearless" but smart enough to never eat elves and dislike the taste of dwarves? If they're going to go that route, they forget to mention that 1E bulettes loved digging into halfling burrows to get at the small snacks inside - or that they preferred horseflesh.

I dislike the absolute statement "owlbears CAN'T be trained." It should be mentioned as possible, but very, very difficult - and likely the owlbear will turn on it's master without magical compulsion.

No mention of the psuedodragon's finicky, cat-like nature; if not well-treated they've been known to abandon companions. No building on how shy they are that ties into their chameleon ability - I actually missed the statement of their chameleon ability because it was glossed over.

Other than that, the entries seem pretty dry and on the money. Just too short for my tastes.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

Weird article this week. Normally I will have a strong opinion one way or the other on each creature. All of these felt like, "yeah, that is what they are" with no adventure hooks or anything that interesting about them in terms of environment. It just felt like a cut-and-past from a couple of past Monster Manual but leaving out the interesting bits.

I wonder if they aren't testing these particular creatures as much as they are seeing how minimal they can make the descriptions. It got a whole line of threes from me. Although thinking about it now, I should have ranked it lower. The article just took me by surprise given how evocative some of the other recent entries have been regardless of whether I agreed or not with the direction that they took individual monsters.

 

[MerricB]

I dislike the absolute statement "owlbears CAN'T be trained." It should be mentioned as possible, but very, very difficult - and likely the owlbear will turn on it's master without magical compulsion.

One of the cooler quests in the Lords of Waterdeep game is "Domesticate Owlbears." It takes wizards.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Is the PM button broken for you guys too?

I don't believe so.

 

[Klaus]

It needs more, so much more.

Bullette: why doesn't it eat elves? The leap to use four claws is kinda silly: just say it can pounce onto a victim, or say it leaps out of the ground and crashes into its prey like a battering ram.

Manticore: I prefer the spikes as an encounter... er, once per rest power. Counting spikes is a no-no for me.

Owlbear: I prefer the Feywild-native owlbear of 4e to the "a wizard did it".

Pseudodragon: It is too perfect a sentry: tiny, invisible, telepathic? Time to fire the rogue! Also, on a purely aesthetic note, a strong, scorpion-like tail would work better than a flexible tail with a stinger at the end. And it needs some definition beyond "they make good familiars!"

 

[Kinak]

What do you think of these beasties?

To quote the survey, "I’m ambivalent—it has its points, but it still needs a certain something to really bring it alive."

They were all weirdly specific while cutting off story hooks. I'll run them, or not, as I always have. But Wizards can do way better.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[the Jester]

Loiosh

Best pseudodragon in fiction ever.

 

[MarkB]

To quote the survey, "I’m ambivalent—it has its points, but it still needs a certain something to really bring it alive."

That was my response in the survey, straight down the line. They're all workmanlike descriptions of the beasts as they exist in D&D, but contain nothing inspiring at all.

For the Bulette, while I know it has an established history in D&D, there's nothing particularly evocative about it for me. It has that "land shark" label, but it doesn't look anywhere near sleek and deadly enough for that.

Personally, I'd consider a flavour and appearance re-skinning to make the Bulette a little more like the Graboids from the Tremors movies. Maybe even extend it to giving them a multi-stage life cycle, but without slavishly copying the movies.


With the manticore, that "dimly intelligent" part doesn't do much for them. I'd consider bringing them back to purely animal intelligence, or else leave their actual intelligence score as it is, but emphasise an attitude of low, vicious cunning that dictates their interactions with both masters and prey.


Owlbears are desperately in need of some form of hook or special feature that brings them out of being just a weird not-animal for the DM to use when he's tired of apes or bears. Stop with the "probably" malarkey about their creation, and build something interesting upon their origin story. Like, maybe their arcane origins leave them with a craving for arcane magic, and they will favour magical beasts and arcane casters as prey, singling them out with a weak innate Detect Magic sense.

In addition to eating magical prey, they like to line their nests with any magical items they find, either upon their victims or that they happen to find within their territory. An owlbear which manages to include sufficient arcane magic in its diet and surroundings may achieve a dim level of intelligence, becoming a smarter hunter and possibly learning to communicate. Arcane casters can occasionally tame an owlbear to serve as a guardian by providing a constant supply of magically-infused food and housing, but if the supply is ever interrupted for even a single day, the owlbear will return to its untameable feral nature.


Pseudodragons are your standard magical pet, and a little too idealised in that role. Give them some form of culture, goals and motivations of their own and they may start getting interesting.

 

[Savage Wombat]

As to the question of always voting 4: Most of these entries seem to me to deserve an answer of "Yes, you have successfully parroted back the original MM version of the monster. However, you could have tried harder." That's why I personally wind up with 4 a lot.