D&D General In Search of "the" Ideal Monster Presentation

Quickleaf

Legend
Yes - I do not want to be told much of anything about the creature's alignment, for example. Habitat and general behaviours are fine, but let me interpret the creature as I need to for my story. I am constantly reminding my players that just because some behaviour has traditionally been true of monsters in other settings, or the MM, doesn't mean it is true at my table.

For example, one party attacked a hag on sight on the principle that she had to be evil, when her motivation was a lot more complicated than that (and a lot more benevolent than the folks who had hired them). This wound up biting them in the butt.
I can get behind “typically evil” not saying very much of actionable value for a GM. I’m wondering where you draw that line?

Away from my MM but I believe the Hag entry mentioned that new hags are created through devouring infants and dark magic, being swapped out for the infant who was taken like a changeling whose identity isn’t revealed until their 18th year. Something like that. Is that within your tolerance for habitat/ecology or not?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Clint_L

Hero
I can get behind “typically evil” not saying very much of actionable value for a GM. I’m wondering where you draw that line?

Away from my MM but I believe the Hag entry mentioned that new hags are created through devouring infants and dark magic, being swapped out for the infant who was taken like a changeling whose identity isn’t revealed until their 18th year. Something like that. Is that within your tolerance for habitat/ecology or not?
Definitely not. I completely ignore stuff like that when it comes to sentient creatures. In my games, everything that is sentient is an individual. That doesn't mean there aren't different cultures, etc., but nothing has to be of an "alignment" because of the way it is born.

I might interpret that entry as "amongst many there is a naive superstition that..."
 

Tonguez

A suffusion of yellow
I can get behind “typically evil” not saying very much of actionable value for a GM. I’m wondering where you draw that line?

Away from my MM but I believe the Hag entry mentioned that new hags are created through devouring infants and dark magic, being swapped out for the infant who was taken like a changeling whose identity isn’t revealed until their 18th year. Something like that. Is that within your tolerance for habitat/ecology or not?

yeah I'd stick those things in a separate "Lore & Rumours table" stuff that Bardic knowledge might turn up but which doesn't have to be true.
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
Humanoids are given descriptors and short ideas for cultures (plural, at least one or two each of good, evil, and neutral, or something else along those lines). And they'd have mini-templates (a tiny number of traits, speeds, and stat bonuses) but not stats. Then there's an NPC stat section in the back; each type of NPC should have different variants for different tiers of play. So basic guard, advanced guard, guard captain, mega-guard, etc.

Throw the racial template on the NPC stat of your choice. Viola!

Not only will this give people ideas for using each humanoid in a variety of ways, whether we're talking good orcs or evil halflings, but will cut down on having a ton of nearly-identical statblocks spread across the books. There's not that much difference between an orc bandit and a hobgoblin bandit and a human bandit and an aarakocra bandit and an elf bandit other than the racial differences.

I know that this would make the humanoids less ready to run right out of the book, but I think that in the long run it could be a useful format. It also means that if you run without racial stat bonuses then you can't say "I don't know where to put mine!" (as several people said in threads about removing those racial bonuses, because apparently it's difficult to realize that a big burly orc is probably quite strong unless the book tells you so) because they're right there in the mini-template to use as a guide.
 

dave2008

Legend
Definitely not. I completely ignore stuff like that when it comes to sentient creatures. In my games, everything that is sentient is an individual. That doesn't mean there aren't different cultures, etc., but nothing has to be of an "alignment" because of the way it is born.

I might interpret that entry as "amongst many there is a naive superstition that..."
I'm down with demons, devils, and such being born evil or born from evil. That doesn't rule out the possibility they act differently, but the general rule is they are evil. I like some villains to be clear.
 

Quickleaf

Legend
Definitely not. I completely ignore stuff like that when it comes to sentient creatures. In my games, everything that is sentient is an individual. That doesn't mean there aren't different cultures, etc., but nothing has to be of an "alignment" because of the way it is born.

I might interpret that entry as "amongst many there is a naive superstition that..."
Gotcha. Where is the line for you? I could call something a hag, offer NO descriptive text or lore, and just give its stats, but at what point does it lose its “hagishness” / cease to have a life outside of combat?

I’m assuming you don’t just want a book of pared down stats, so I guess I’m trying to drill down to your specifics - what is acceptable/useful to you insofar as non-stat block material for a monster entry?
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
Oh yeah, I have a section just for intelligent/semi-intelligent social creatures. Nothing super in depth or anything, but a quick chart for people who want to mix up the stereotypes.

monsterculture.jpg
 

Tonguez

A suffusion of yellow
I'm down with demons, devils, and such being born evil or born from evil. That doesn't rule out the possibility they act differently, but the general rule is they are evil. I like some villains to be clear.
yeah Planar Evil and mundane evil are an old debate, but mundane evil needs to be killed off and buried. Good and Evil should only apply to the Outer Planes

Humanoids are given descriptors and short ideas for cultures (plural, at least one or two each of good, evil, and neutral, or something else along those lines). And they'd have mini-templates (a tiny number of traits, speeds, and stat bonuses) but not stats. Then there's an NPC stat section in the back; each type of NPC should have different variants for different tiers of play. So basic guard, advanced guard, guard captain, mega-guard, etc.

Throw the racial template on the NPC stat of your choice. Viola!

I really like the idea of Humanoids being done with templates
showing how the standard Humanoid can be tweaked to fit the various Monster Roles (as per 4e).

Then you can use the extra space for lore and culture :)
 


TBH I find the attitude expressed by @Clint_L to be sort of presuming that monster write-ups should be written with a specific kind of DM in mind - a DM who (a) is experienced and (b) wants to have a bunch of their own lore rather than the default. This is something I can't agree with.

If you (general you) want monsters to have their own lore at your own table, you can already do that.

But a new DM, or a DM who doesn't want to have to come up with a bunch of lore, shouldn't have to. There should be enough detail to "plug and play" a monster both in and out of combat at the very least. More intelligent monsters will necessarily require more write-up than, say, animal-like predators. Monster write-ups for specific settings can be more detailed.

Overall
I prefer a single monster to a page, with maybe a two-page spread for more significant monsters. If a single monster is getting more page count than that, it should be for lore, random tables, and maybe a variant stat block. If you're using a large font size, you might have to go to a two-page-spread per monster across the board.

Also, the entire description, both lore and stat block, should be focused towards using the monster in play. If page count permits, more lore can be provided that is not "play-focused", but if you've got maybe one column, or part of a column, you need to make the most of it.

I should say I'm quite partial to the designs that @Sacrosanct has posted. I don't care for the way the Hacklopedia uses all those paragraphs - I'd prefer bullet points, myself - but I'm not prepared to opine on the content proper since I can't read it.

Monster Lore
If you're inexperienced or don't want to put in the work to come up with a bunch of lore, the monster lore should be sufficient to fit a monster into the "presumed default" setting for a game, such as a "kitchen sink" fantasy setting in the case of core book 5e. If the monster book uses different assumptions make sure to spell them out in the intro!

For instance, the Mercenary example in the Monster Overhaul is decent, since they're not so fantastic that a lot of work needs to be done just to give us, the reader, an idea of what mercenaries might be like.

Using the Monster
This is an area where I think 5e has done pretty badly, and I would say most versions of D&D and D&D-clones aren't too good at it. This includes some of the stuff @Leatherhead brings up - suggestions for how to plug an encounter with that monster into your game without only revolving around the combat stat block. ENWorld's A5E does a decent job at this, I'd reckon.

For instance, the Mercenary example in the Monster Overhaul is decent. I don't care for the way the random tables don't appear to have any relationship to any of the text on the rest of the page - I'm assuming, though, that there's another page in the spread missing that fills that particular gap.

Monster Stat Blocks
In general, I'm a fan of the 4e/5e stat block format, which basically gives you everything you need to run the monster in a combat encounter right on the spot. (I prefer the 4e and nouveau-5e style of not having to include digging through your PHB for spell descriptions, although the WotC implementation of the nouveau-5e style does leave a good deal to be desired.)

So, for instance, the Mercenary example in the Monster Overhaul is not a great stat block to my mind, since there's a huge gap between its "HD" line and the next actual game statistic line.



I tried to "walk the talk" with the 4e-like I'm working on at the moment. The thread is over here, but for convenience of reference, I'm reproducing the monster pages in this thread. The monster is the aboleth Deep One, which will likely be one of the most complicated monster stat blocks.

The lore page (which will probably either be in a two-page spread with a full-page picture or with the gameplay page):
888 Deep Ones 3.01024_1.jpg


The gameplay page:
888 Deep Ones 3.01024_2.jpg


The stat block page:
888 Deep Ones 3.01024_3.jpg


If the gameplay and stat block pages are on the same two-page spread, then, in theory, everything you need at minimum to run the monster on the spot is right there at a glance when you open up the monster book, with the lore on the previous two-page spread for when you want to refer to it. The lore includes ecology, lairs, and even a "choose your own lore" element.

The Deep One's stat block also reinforces the brief snippet on its tactical behaviour: it (1) tries to daze or sicken opponents to leave them vulnerable to (2) its attempts to dominate them, and then (3) if that succeeds it can bring them permanently under its control. This three-step process also gives player characters time to try to stop it! It also has off-turn actions it can take that either reinforce why fighting one in its lair is dangerous or reinforce why it always wants to fight with thrall allies.
 

Remove ads

Top