Bodaks and Harpies and Rust Monsters...oh my

[AllisterH]

The discussion about the new "rust monster" is something I wonder about how other DMs dealt with "one trick monsters".

What I mean by those is monsters that have one defining feature in their stat block such as the Bodak....My problem with these monsters is that if I as a DM didn't leave out hints about the monster, the increased likelihood of TPK (or in the case of the rust monster, total item kill) jumped up way significantly past their actual challenge level.

So I never used them as random monsters in dungeons or wilderness encounters.

However, if I did give hints, the monster became ridiculously easy to beat. For example, check out how well, weak a Bodak is without its signature ability. I might as well just give out the xp and skip the battle because without its death ability, the boadk jsut gets mulched by any character 3 or even 5 levels lower.

So how do other people deal with such monsters?

 

[Fenes]

I'd not use a bodak, nor similar "deadly" monsters.

 

[Raven Crowking]

By using a combat engine that doesn't take an hour to resolve a single fight, I can leave out clues, use the monster, and not worry about just giving out XP. The challenge, in this case, is not that the PCs beat the creature in a fight, but that they are able to piece together the clues in order to do so effectively.

IMHO, of course.

And, since I prefer sandbox games, it doesn't especially bother me if the players fail to pick up on the clues, either, so long as they are able to see why they should have with 20/20 hindsight.


RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The discussion about the new "rust monster" is something I wonder about how other DMs dealt with "one trick monsters".

What I mean by those is monsters that have one defining feature in their stat block such as the Bodak....My problem with these monsters is that if I as a DM didn't leave out hints about the monster, the increased likelihood of TPK (or in the case of the rust monster, total item kill) jumped up way significantly past their actual challenge level.

So I never used them as random monsters in dungeons or wilderness encounters.

However, if I did give hints, the monster became ridiculously easy to beat. For example, check out how well, weak a Bodak is without its signature ability. I might as well just give out the xp and skip the battle because without its death ability, the boadk jsut gets mulched by any character 3 or even 5 levels lower.

So how do other people deal with such monsters?

After many many debates on save or die effects and monsters, I think the essence is this:
The goal of fighting a Bodak or a Medusa is not to fight it without a very good and reliable protection. The "end-game" against it is not a 3-10 round combat. The "end-game" is an adventure or skill challenge to learn how to defeat its defenses. The final confrontation exists just to see if your defense actually works.

This also means that dropping hints is necessary. If the PCs don't pick on them, okay, but than it's their fault.

Monsters like the "Real Bodak" or the "Real Medusa" should probably not be treated like monsters in the game term sense.

 

[Pbartender]

So how do other people deal with such monsters?

Generally, I don't worry about it.

If it's a creature they don't now much about my players are pretty good at using their knowledge skills, and simple observation of the monster's combat tactics to figure out what the monster can do. Then, they use that info to formulate a plan -- usually in the midst of battle -- to defeat it.

I like it, because it makes for a challenging start to an encounter and a rousing turning point that ends with a satisfying victory.

Also remember, that despite monsters having weakness that nullify their strengths, not all characters can exploit those weaknesses. If there are more enemies than can be "locked down" by exploiting that weakness, then the party still has to deal with those that can't.

 

[Holy Bovine]

I guess I deal with such monsters by ignoring them. I don't think i have ever used a rust monster or bodak. This mainly springs from I am not excited with their concepts and find them a trifle boring. I've felt this way about both of those particular monsters for a long time (ie pre 3E). I don't know if I'd put harpies in the same category as you are not completely hosed with a failed save - unless the whole party fails! Oddly I do like medusa probably because it is relatively easy to restore stoned PCs (and a cool idea if the whole party gets stoned is to have them revived months or years later by another group of adventurers - always wanted to try that one!).

 

[billd91]

Generally, I don't worry about it.

I don't worry much about it either. In the old school, adventuring was a dangerous profession. And I came up through AD&D as an old school gamer.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Holy Bovine wrote: Oddly I do like medusa probably because it is relatively easy to restore stoned PCs (and a cool idea if the whole party gets stoned is to have them revived months or years later by another group of adventurers - always wanted to try that one!).

Sorry for sidetrack...but In had to say we did this and it was awesome. Our gaming group went seperate ways and got back together for a few days some years later.

Our previous campaign ended with the heroes (led by two wemics) in an Egyptian-like campaign being turned to stone in a distant desert temple. Being heroes the rulers sent missions to find them. New players got to play the new PCs and find the stone statues in snad buried temple.

The big shock to the old characters - it was 800 years later. (Hieroglyphics had been found talking about these wemic heroes, and they were needed again to face off against a similar threat). Players loved it...and so did I

OK back to OP. Um, I never really think too much about this, but then again I haven't really used these monsters, not out of any hate, just haven't come up yet. But I like the idea of a creature having a really good power, that can also be a weakness. Good on the players/PCs if they work it out

C

 

[S'mon]

My 3e campaign is a low magic setting, there are no high level casters around to cast raise dead, stone to flesh, etc. So I tend to reduce the deadliness of insta-kill monsters; often if the PCs survive the fight the effect ends - kill the ghost and its aging effect ends; kill the gorgon and the magic medallion can restore the 'stoned' PCs, kill the spectre and the levels it drained are restored. Dead PCs stay dead, though.

 

[steenan]

What I like to do is having the "one trick" monsters still be deadly, but not instantly. 4e went in good direction, but weakened them too much. What I aim for is not letting the PCs defeat the monster with their normal tactics, but giving them a chance to run and return better prepared if they hadn't get the clues earlier.

It works well both for killing effects and for hardcore mind controll (domination).