Iconic Monster Use - The Displacer Beast

[arwink]

I've been known to use 16 in one encounter

I like the displacer beast, though it often has very little to do with its displacement ability. There's just something about the shoulder tentacles and six legs that bypasses goofy and nails the cool response in the depths of my subconscious.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Five to six times, but only once in a tabletop game, and that was in the early '90s. All the other times were in the old SSI Gold Box games.

 

[EyeontheMountain]

Why not put out a frequency distribution next time. 3-4 tiems for a newbie or 3-4 times for an old old veteren is a totally different answer.

For my answer, I have used them about 5-6 times in the last 25 years of gaming. Not much.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I ran a great encounter with a Shadow templated Displacer Beast a while back. I think that's the only one since 3e came out that I've run. Most of the other times I've used them have been in 2e, but that was only a couple of encounters themselves. So, not often.

 

[Warbringer]

When I can find them, yes

 

[Kalshane]

I've been playing for 17+ years and I've encountered (and thrown at the players) plenty in my day.

Well, if you count the arcade game... the tons more!

Same here. Those fights were always a pain. It was easy enough to figure out which one was the real one, but the huge reach on the tentacles and all the jumping around made them tough to beat.

 

[megamania]

I have used them only a few times and have yet to use a pack lord but want to soon.

 

[Hussar]

Again, as far as the skewing based on how long you've been playing, I argue that it doesn't really matter. The majority of players have still used Displacer Beasts very sparingly. As it stands right now, about 70% of gamers have used them 4 times or less. Even counting the 16+ as simply grog vote, it still stands that a very iconic monster is barely ever used.

The reason I'm doing these is to look at what people are talking about when they talk about "stripping" the flavour from iconic monsters when they get remade. Well, if a creature is almost never used, then the flavour doesn't really matter does it?

 

[Raven Crowking]

The reason I'm doing these is to look at what people are talking about when they talk about "stripping" the flavour from iconic monsters when they get remade. Well, if a creature is almost never used, then the flavour doesn't really matter does it?

Yes, it does.

I almost never use ogre magi. Nonetheless, I absolutely hate the Mearls rewrite. I seldom use sphinxes, but I would hate any rewrite that made them more like orcs. Likewise, changing the description of housecats to make them breathe fire would be lame, no matter how many or how few cats I used in adventures.

To my mind, as both player and DM, the potential states of monsters (i.e., what might be encountered) has a real effect on how you feel about what is encountered.


RC

 

[Voadam]

Well, if a creature is almost never used, then the flavour doesn't really matter does it?

The flavor could be why it is never used. Or the fact that there are tons of options to choose from. Even though I've never used a displacer beast, I think the old 1e picture of them is really cool and evocative (anorexic 3e one not as much).

Even though I've been DMing for over 20 years I haven't used anywhere near to the full number of monsters presented in the basic rulebooks in any edition, not the red box basic set, not the 1e MM, not the 2e Monstrous compendium or manual, not the 3e srd. The only monster sourcebooks I've used every monster in were modules which had the small number of new monsters integrated into their scenarios.

I use a lot of variety in monsters but choosing or making the right one for a specific scene is my goal and priority as a DM. I occasionally try and work in specific monsters because I think they are neat or I want to try them out, but there are a ton of monsters out there and mostly I just want the right monster for what I'm doing in the game instead of making the game right for using a monster.