Immortals Handbook - Epic Bestiary (Epic Monster Discussion)

[dante58701]

Ok folks...seriously this creature is merely a base. I made it for you guys to make up for the crappy ideas I had in the past. I like the ideas for adjustments thus far.

Hey Krusty...feel free to implement changes in the basic creature. I love the whole tome scale idea. Im hoping that you'll be able to adapt it to go into one of the bestiaries. I kinda like the idea of making an unofficial contribution. Feel free to change the fluff as well, I was half awake when I did that. Sleepyness causes creativity in me, though not always very logical creativity.

Ill check back in a few days to see what you've all come up with. Maybe even a finished creature will be there for me to smile over deviously and kill my gamers characters with.

 

[Pssthpok]

EDIT: nevermind.

 

[Ltheb Silverfrond]

...
Ill check back in a few days to see what you've all come up with. Maybe even a finished creature will be there for me to smile over deviously and kill my gamers characters with.

If you just want to kill PCs, I suggest giving a Hecatonchieires levels in Hulking Hurler, and have it throw 50 moons at them. Or give it 10 levels in dervish and give it all the multi-dexterity feats, and have it fight with 100 Vorpal Wounding Scimitars of Speed while using A Thousand Cuts. Literally 1000 attacks.

 

[dante58701]

I prefer "some" subtlety...If I truly wanted to kill off the characters in the game I could just say..."YOU'RE EGO SWELLS AND YOUR HEAD EXPLODES. YOU ARE NOW DEAD!!! SO SAYETH THE MIGHTY DM!!!"...but where is the fun in that? lol!!!

 

[Ltheb Silverfrond]

Yes, subtlety is indeed a good thing.

I think its easier to make a monster from a "What niche does this monster fill or why does it exist" standpoint than a "This thing kills you via powers A, B, C, D, E, and F and feats X, Y and Z." method. 1 to 4 simple, appropriate powers make for a more memorable monster than just a collection of things it *could do*.

It just seems easier to have a monster that does just one or two things pretty well than, say, your above Naga example, (No offence intended, just using it as an example since it is readily availible) which is torn between using its magic or it's poison and melee abilities or its charming effect, or using its ability to hide to spring a surprise attack while using its great speed and manuverability to lure foes into traps; It still only has so many actions a round. (Though I do like the integrated Archivist levels; Simple, yet different) But as a player, I would probably only remember it as a "tough naga," not the divine guardian of legend it is supposed to be, (unless there was sufficient build-up or warning) because there doesnt seem to be anything "legendary" (and no, I don't mean the Cosmic power) about it.
It doesnt have any unique powers to it. Its venom is deadly and its ability to spit venom is nasty, but its powers are so varied its hard to tell what the thing is "supposed" to do. (Granted, it is a sentient creature; it can do what ever it wants)

That is to say that making a monster that only does one thing, but does it rediculously well, like my example of the Hecatonchieres Dervish, isn't the correct method either. It gets tedious as a player to contend with an opponent optimized to use an attack form that a player, or a party, can't match.

Believe me, I have designed quite a few "killatron" monsters in my time. (Many were pointless, inflated Hit Die versions of basic monsters or monsters with so many templates it was hard to tell what the base was) The best advice from concept to execution to finishing touches is this (And U_K and others have said it before): "Keep it simple"

 

[dante58701]

I like creatures that have a handful of options to choose from. Realistically speaking, they should have about as many options as the serpent I posted, though they should have a preferred method of attack. I think that monsters with only one or two abilities are rather boring and way too focused. Primarily because every time a character runs up against one they know how to defeat it the next time around. If a creature has a about 6-8 abilities it might get confusing for the DM if they aren't very experienced, but lets face it...what DM should be running any campaign if they lack the experience to adequately prepare a party for a deadly encounter with a creature like the above serpent. Some creatures should have a slew of abilities, while others should be the standard hack n'slash lame monsters that most people seem to enjoy these days. I for one hate hack n'slash. It takes away from character ingenuity and makes the game too easy. Not to mention creatures should have abilities that they can use out of combat as well. Not everything is about combat. Players who start down that road should really consider finding a PC game and stick to computers where hack n'slash is what it's all about. Limiting a creature to one or two primary abilities at epic levels is like snipping off a giants balls and taking away it's special abilities.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey guys!

I think that the best way of tackling an epic monster is to give it no more than four (unique?) abilities:

1. Special Attack (Melee)
2. Special Attack (Ranged)
3. Special Quality (Defensive)
4. Special Quality (Miscellaneous)

I think this is another reason why, when adding divine abilities to immortals, you generally try and use as few as possible (by that I mean use Cosmic or Transcendental abilities whenever possble).

Of course these four things won't take into consideration the likes of damage reduction, potential spell-like abilities, traits and so forth, which are pretty standard fare.

 

[dante58701]

One must not forget to take a monster's physiology into account though. Espsecially ones based on cobras. Cobras in the real world tend to have a variety of special attacks and special qualities that tie in together. There is a cobra that bites, spits, coils, and sneaks up on prey. Though it's name eludes me for now. Then there are sea snakes and the like that do their own weird things.

I think going with 4 special abilities is good, though only if you take into account natural abilities as well. Like monkeys, they fling their poo...which can be blinding. But they dont mention that in D&D. Another example is the Gorilla, which will bite it's prey and leap on them. Esentially a pounce attack. Then there is the frilled lizard with it's intimidating frills and the gila monster with it's poisonous claws. Most people miss these things entirely and relegate complex monsters to the realm of simplicity.

I think limiting things to 4+natural and logical abilities makes sense. Anything more than that hits ludicrous speed.


One question, should deities be limited to taking esoteric and under, or should deities be allowed to take abiltiies that are beyond esoteric if they pay full price for them in divine slots. Im considering allowing this so that a PC can play a time traveler in one of my campaigns without resorting to further ascension.

 

[WarDragon]

I think going with 4 special abilities is good, though only if you take into account natural abilities as well. Like monkeys, they fling their poo...which can be blinding. But they dont mention that in D&D. Another example is the Gorilla, which will bite it's prey and leap on them. Esentially a pounce attack. Then there is the frilled lizard with it's intimidating frills and the gila monster with it's poisonous claws. Most people miss these things entirely and relegate complex monsters to the realm of simplicity.

Gorillas are strict vegetarians, and thus do not have "prey." They fight only in defense.

Gila monsters have toxic saliva, not claws.

 

[Ltheb Silverfrond]

One must not forget to take a monster's physiology into account though. Espsecially ones based on cobras. Cobras in the real world tend to have a variety of special attacks and special qualities that tie in together. There is a cobra that bites, spits, coils, and sneaks up on prey. Though it's name eludes me for now. Then there are sea snakes and the like that do their own weird things.

Not to nitpick, but snakes, for example, never are both poisonous and constrictors. (Though a quick wiki lookup reveals that scientists speculate all snakes are at least mildly poisonous)

And yes, "natural" abilities should be obvious, but what I meant was 4 "main" powers. A Naga, even a divine one, might not have super-deadly venom. The DC to resist it might be high due to high HD, but it doesnt have to be a main weapon. In my view (which might not be the best one) a foe with a simple attack routine is much easier to run than one with half-a-billion feats and special attacks.
Example: I typically run dragons less as spell-casters (using magic more as a backup if it can't melee or to escape) and more as melee combatents. (Either using their high fly speed to strafe foes and sunder ranged weapons, or Melee those who can persue. No "dragons stuck in a dungeon" here)

Now granted, some monster are universally complicated. (Beholders, Hecatonchieres, Any spellcaster) But generally they have one or two "Main things" they do (Ex: Beholders: Antimagic cone and Incapacitating Eye rays) and a few "Minor things" (Ex: A Beholder can bite, and use its Telekinesis to disarm)

I guess what I am trying to say is that even if a Monster's abilities are thematically appropo, that doesn't make it perfect. I think in an hour or two I'll post a "Plutonium Golem" and my logic behind its powers.