Monsters of Suck

[Celebrim]

I think my list would be different than whats being focused on so far.

For example, I think a Bodak is a 'Monster of Suckitude'. It's a weak and uninteresting monster... that just happens to have a death gaze. Ditto for the 'Death Eye' from everyone's favorite hit and miss tome the Fiend Folio.

The Flumph is not to me a monster of suck. Sure its dumb looking and inexplicable in a fantasy setting, but in a more sci-fi alien setting its a great interesting monster with a variety of challenging and unusual abilities. The big problem with the Flumph is not that it is wacky, but rather that its acid spikes attack is far to brutal and damaging for a party that would actually be challenged by a 2HD monster.

Now, the Aleax. That's a monster of suck.

 

[Voadam]

For example, I think a Bodak is a 'Monster of Suckitude'. It's a weak and uninteresting monster... that just happens to have a death gaze.

I feel bodaks are really cool . . . in terms of flavor. Undead created by the touch of ultimate evil is a cool thing to work with. Mechanically I hate them. Save or die gaze is their big thing, a poor mechanical tool at the game table.

 

[Shroomy]

I don't think the flumph sucks, the Dungeon adventure "Box of Flumphs" is a great usage of a much maligned creature.

 

[Fishbone]

A few monsters that I think are a bit lame
Destrachan
Delver
The fungii
Feyr
Nilbog
Orcwort
Ahuizotl. "But its mythological!" Yeah, and its a really friggin' stupid myth.
Century Worm
Wolf-In-Sheep's Clothing. One of my all-time faves yet it always gets a lot of complaints
Mimic. Ditto. Basically all the Gygaxian "That's not really a codpiece!" monsters are hated
Beholder. This thing is way overCRd and a mechanical nightmare to boot.
Megapede
Sporebat
Bearhound
Owlbear
Dragonspawn
Topiary Guardians. Oooh, run, its a triceratops gardenia!
That moronic pink thing with a bunch of teeth all over it. Who the hell approved that?

 

[Celebrim]

I feel bodaks are really cool . . . in terms of flavor.

What I've found is that the flavor of a monster is often lost on an adventuring group. It's not like the adventurers get to read the background information from the monster manual whenever they see a monster in the dungeon. It takes a while to set up the flavor of a monster using the setting, bits and peices of discovered backstory and so forth.

I'm not going to bother for something as mechanically uninspiring as a Bodak.

 

[LordVyreth]

I'll second the wolf in sheep's clothing. It's a killer tree stump...with teeth...and tentacles...and it lures adventurers in with a fake bunny. In terms of evolutionary plausibility, that makes the gelantinous cube see reasonable, and even the classic "mad wizard" theory suggests an extremely bored individual.

And am I wrong, or did this thread somehow get to page two without the piercer getting one mention?

In terms of modern monsters, I like them, but I can see how the jovoc could get some votes due to their sheer gimmicky nature. The topiary guardians are worth a chuckle or two for the punnish name (I should talk; I homebrewed a library guardian monster called the book wyrm,) and the century worm certainly earned the jokes based on its artwork and abilities. I'd personally pick the mob template, too, but that's less a monster and more a sub-type I find to be broken.

 

[el-remmen]

evolutionary plausibility

Who says evolution - whether Darwinian or Lamarckian - exists in D&D worlds?

 

[Celebrim]

Who says evolution - whether Darwinian or Lamarckian - exists in D&D worlds?

I think it is pretty clear from most D&D cosmologies that everything is intelligently, or unintelligently if you prefer, designed.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The topiary guardian is actually pretty neat. Every wizard's garden should have one. I'm lucky that the symbol of the Tarsisian Empire already has a pre-made topiary garden for it, allowing the local baron to have some very inconspicuous guardians at his castle.

 

[el-remmen]

I never even heard of a topiary guardian before this thread (except in The Shining ). . . what book is is in? I really like the idea of it.