D&D 5E The Flumpf Is Back

[Kobold Avenger]

I like the Flumph and I gave reasons why I like them, in that it's a sign that monsters don't have to be deadly serious and make sense and be something that'll be fought for 5 rounds at an appropriate challenge rating.

 

[pemerton]

I have owned the Fiend Folio since about 1985 and have never used the flumph. And I don't anticipate that changing. It was a silly monster then, and it remains one.

This view has nothing to do with challenge ratings (which didn't exist in 1985 - back then we have monster levels and Don Turnbull's Monster Mark), nor with the view that monsters are there to be fought. It's about what makes for engaging and exciting story elements.

 

[thalmin]

Well, we will see if the folks at Wizards manage surprise us and turn the Flumpf into a usable, engaging, unique monster.

 

[the Jester]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against people liking what I don't like, but no one likes the Flumph, especially not the people who got it put in the book.

You don't speak for everyone. In fact, I do like the flumph. While I recognize that not everyone does, the flumph enthusiasm that got it put into the MM for the first time should tell you that someone likes them. I don't know why you think the people who supported the flumph being in the MM don't like it. These same people don't want wasted space in the MM any more than you do. The flumph is, in fact, a cool monster that shows that not all monstrous things are evil, not all good things look pretty, things are weird, not all monsters are necessarily for fightin', etc. Personally, I like the flumph better than the tojanida, phantom fungus, violet fungus, sprite and any number of other creatures that have been in Monster Manuals before.

 

[Richards]

I have not only used flumphs in my campaign, but necessity caused me to design and make my own flumph mini out of construction paper and a bent paper clip as a stand, to show it hovering at about face level to the PCs.

Johnathan

 

[pemerton]

I like the flumph better than the tojanida, phantom fungus, violet fungus, sprite and any number of other creatures that have been in Monster Manuals before.

I'll certainly agree that the flumph isn't the only creature I dislike, from the FF or other MMs. Gaseous spores are up there. And sheet phantoms!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I like the Flumph and I gave reasons why I like them, in that it's a sign that monsters don't have to be deadly serious and make sense and be something that'll be fought for 5 rounds at an appropriate challenge rating.

I'm always interested by stuff like the bolded bit, because my experience, totally speaking personally here, is that D&D is very rarely deadly serious and rarely makes total sense, even with the most serious business monsters and so on - so adding stuff like the Flumph seems kind of like bringing clowns to a comedy jam where everyone is laughing it up, because people were "too serious" or something. Honest question: do you feel like you need "comic relief" monsters much?

 

[Dausuul]

The flumph is a comedy monster. No doubt about it. I would never dream of using it in a serious game. But I've run wacky comedy games in the past where the flumph would fit right in.

I'm not sure what burns my bacon more: The people who made it some kind of hipster-esque campaign to include the Flumph or the fact that the devs acknowledged and acquiesced to that faction.

What is this, meta-hipsterism? Hipsterism has become so popular now, it's lame?

If the whole Monster Manual is crammed with old joke monsters, I'll be the first to complain, but we can spare a page for the flumph.

 

[TwoSix]

It makes perfect sense, considering that a "meta" aim of 5e is to consolidate and expand the IP of "Dungeons and Dragons". That's why there's a focus on Forgotten Realms, as the most well-known and developed D&D brand. Doing things like taking some of the well-known features of previous editions and republishing them in the new core material helps tie new players into the older, existing community. Making the Player's Handbook and Monster Manual a glossary of existing D&Disms makes it so the 14 year old who buys the new book can come into a forum like this and not be immediately confused by jokes about flumphs.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It makes perfect sense, considering that a "meta" aim of 5e is to consolidate and expand the IP of "Dungeons and Dragons". That's why there's a focus on Forgotten Realms, as the most well-known and developed D&D brand. Doing things like taking some of the well-known features of previous editions and republishing them in the new core material helps tie new players into the older, existing community. Making the Player's Handbook and Monster Manual a glossary of existing D&Disms makes it so the 14 year old who buys the new book can come into a forum like this and not be immediately confused by jokes about flumphs.

That makes sense, actually.