D&D 5E Elementals - good start, can we get some more variety please

[RangerWickett]

James Wyatt wrote about elementals here: http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand/20121211

I generally like what's there. However, I hope they can spare enough Monster Manual space to take one of the things I like best from 4e: monster variety.

I mean, sure, I know that classically an efreeti gets powers X, Y, and Z, but if that set of powers is the only one that shows up in the 'official' Monster Manual, it ever so slightly encourages people to think they all do that. By contrast, you could easily prompt a lot of creativity if you had, say, two extra examples of efreet. That alone would prompt GMs and players to think, "Oh yeah, these guys can have a lot of diversity."

So you have monster entries for "efreeti," "efreeti soldier," and "efreeti deceiver." The basic entry is the iconic efreeti. The soldier is less powerful and has none of the shapeshifting magic powers; basically he's a grunt, an efreeti who gets bossed around by those who have actual magic. From a gameplay standpoint, he also gives the GM a handy way to give an efreeti lord some bodyguards without having to track a dozen guys shapeshifting and creating illusions.

Then you have the efreeti deceiver, who plays down the 'burn burn burn' aspect, and plays up the 'shapeshift, trickery, and misleading people into bad situations' aspect. You want the party harassed by an efreeti in the desert, trying to lead them to their deaths, or want a merchant who uses her powers to gain control of a mortal city? I bet you'd be more likely to plan those sorts of plots if the Monster Manual presents an efreeti deceiver than if you just have the "jack of all trades" efreeti.

So basically, I like what they have. I just don't want them to populate the entire City of Brass with thousands of efreet with identical stats.

 

[KidSnide]

So basically, I like what they have. I just don't want them to populate the entire City of Brass with thousands of efreet with identical stats.

Agreed. Elemental archons also came into play here. I don't think many people felt it was necessarily a good idea to take the term "archon" and apply it to something completely different. (That's mostly just confusing.) But it was a good idea to create a race of elementals that had more variety and personality than the traditional type.

I think creating a generic design for genies is very difficult. Genies that work as they do in Oasis of the White Palm (immensely powerful beings with near god-like wish granting power) work differently than genies in Al-Qadim (bound beings in service to sha'ir), which work differently than genies in a "invade the City of Brass" game (cannon fodder and the occasional boss enemy). Many other monsters have a gazillion variants, but one is clearly canonical. I'm not sure that's true for genies. For genies, I think the design needs to account for each of the usage scenarios.

-KS

 

[Plaguescarred]

I think James was spot on for Elementals and Genies. Oh and Distant Land = Zakhara

For the Planes its better from a principle of inclusion so it works for all.

 

[TerraDave]

This applies to everything...goblin sneak, goblin slinger, goblin chieftain...

I would like to see:

1) more variations on classic monsters then more monsters overall. (then you have other books with those monsters and their variations).

2) Ease in customizing monsters. Which i think means 4E math with maybe some additional 3E type options.

But, as for the elemental variations, they are borderline for the 1st monster book. Variations might be better in a MM2, Manual of the planes, or some other book.

 

[howandwhy99]

Beyond multiple examples I'd really prefer explicit communication in the books that these are example monsters. That we don't have to use them all in our homebrew settings or even use them as is. That this is a toybox of fun, not a required list. This is the difficulty in a business atmosphere where branding has so much importance. Especially with a game where branding is actually detrimental to creative game play.

We should have some base statisical creature that people can identify for each monster's base design, so we don't just get the same dozen boring archetypes for every monster type. But there should be explanations on why each creature is the way each is too.

Genies were actually really diverse, if you stop thinking of them as separate species and stop looking for combat roles to differentiate them. Why are all Elementals humanoid-shaped is a far better question IMHO.

 

[Li Shenron]

I just don't want them to populate the entire City of Brass with thousands of efreet with identical stats.

Human cities are populated with thousands of humans with identical racial features and different ability scores... and some with class levels!

That's the most important thing for me. The game must have a system for adding class levels on top of a monster's race. If not class levels, at least class features, but monsters need to be customizable in order to achieve variety, and there must be some default rules for doing that. Maybe more than one way to do that, if necessary!

At least such rules should have three requirements:

- they must allow a high degree of flexibility (how much exactly is not written in stone, but the more the better)
- they must be reasonably simple and fast to apply (which is of course a trade-off with flexibility)
- they must allow for a reasonably reliable re-calculation of the CR/XP, in order to use the modified monsters into an encounter

That said, I then totally understand the benefit of your suggestion of having multiple sample entries in the MM for two reasons: (1) a lot of people prefer not to have to do any work, at least when they aren't yet used to the ruleset, and they deserve some variety too; (2) those "samples" actually tell a lot about the society of that creature and this is useful even if you don't use them for combat (although in this second point WotC should really strive for the tradition of D&D, not "trying something new" or totally reinvent traditional creatures into something unrecognizable).

I really think there is enough room for all these things in the game, and already in the core: sample entries in the MM (not necessarily for all the monsters, but the most iconic/traditional ones for sure, and all the brute beasts without a society don't really need this), a system for adding* class levels to monsters, and another for adding single powers/features and re-calculate the XP.

*(note: it doesn't have to be a pure addition like in 3ed... actually I think it would be much better if it worked in a "gestalt" way so that if you take a 10HD giant and want a cleric giant, or a wizard giant, or a barbarian giant etc. you can still have it with 10HD and basically the same CR/XP; I think this should be possible in a way that whatever chosen number of "racial HD" are replaced by class levels)

 

[Nellisir]

My response to the article was basically "yawn". Sure, it was "right", but they weren't exciting. Same old, same old - particularly elementals. So more variety would be great.

 

[Tovec]

My problem with genies is that I've been playing DnD for several years now and I've never had occasion to use any form of Genie except for the wish granting kind. In fact I don't understand where all these Genies come from. I don't see the basis for them in any direct stories that I am familiar with. Minotaurs and medusa were from greek myth, fiends and celestials are common in almost all cultures, even giants show up from time to time too.
Most elemental are rare even in mythology. Usually they are some other kind of creature with fire powers. Rock, water and air are fairly rare. That is probably why there are fire giants, fire genies and fire elementals in addition to demons and devils all in the same monster manual. I would just like more information on how genies are supposed to work in anyway outside of the 'they have wishes to be used' way. That is the only context I have for them is singular, like the minotaur. Is it just a DnDism that makes them into entire societies with rules and different variations and customs and locations? Just like minotaurs are a race of creatures, except on a larger scale? This article didn't answer that for me at the least.

And yes, for the record I have used elementals in general, but I haven't used them often and I find them lacking in my experience, and this article does nothing to change that opinion.

 

[Klaus]

I pretty much agree with everything said upthread.

As for where the genies come from, I tried to give genies a bit more useability in my "Elemental Patrons & Palaces" article on Dragon (to coincide with the release of Heroes of the Elemental Chaos). Specially the marid pharaoh Lureq, which I turned into an Osiris-type figure living in a palace out of a Moebius story.

 

[Nellisir]

In fact I don't understand where all these Genies come from. I don't see the basis for them in any direct stories that I am familiar with. Is it just a DnDism that makes them into entire societies with rules and different variations and customs and locations? Just like minotaurs are a race of creatures, except on a larger scale? This article didn't answer that for me at the least.

Read A Thousand And One Nights, aka Arabian Nights. Genies are a class of spirit creatures in Arabic & Islamic lands, somewhat like faeries are in Western Europe. Their stated origins vary depending on the culture, but they are mythological and folkloric, not "fictional". Genies in those stories usually appear alone, but I believe there are references to rulers & such that imply a larger culture. They are not, however, broken up into different elemental tribes like D&D, but then again, very little in folklore is.