Monsters that are a Waste of Pages

[the Jester]

Throughout the history of D&D there have been a whole ton of monsters. Many of them are iconic, such as red dragons, balors or goblins; others have become traditional D&D monsters over time, like rust monsters and green slime.

And yet there are plenty of others that are odd, lame or weird to the point of being barely usable. For example:

1e had quite a few of these, but perhaps the best example is the denzelian from the original Fiend Folio. Move: 1". Treasure Type: Nil. No. of Attacks: Nil. Damage/Attack: Nil. Special Attacks: Nil. Special Defenses: Nil. Level/X.P. Value: Not applicable. Sooo... we have here a creature that can't fight or run away (1" = 10'), has no treasure and isn't worth any xp. Why is it in the book??

2e gave us the spanner, a bridge that could... talk to you. Or maybe throw you off of it. While there were a ton of "gotcha!" monsters in 2e and earlier editions, did we really need another one? Especially one that was this lame?

3e threw the tojanida at us. What the hell? Who thought this was a good idea? Who said, "Screw the intellect devourer or son of Kyuss, let's throw in turtles that can squirt water at you!" Given how many weird planar monsters were already in the 3e MM, I would have preferred just about anything to the tojanida. Yes, even the spanner.

4e hasn't given us much (that I've seen) that isn't interesting. Although... why in God's name was the kruthik a MM1 pick? Why not a more classic monster that could fill roughly the same role? I mean, kruthiks are okay, but they really aren't anything especially great, and D&D has tons of great monsters in its history to draw on. So why some beast that is a lizard-bug with no real hook to it?

What are some examples of monsters that you think are a waste of pages?

 

[RangerWickett]

I think dwarves are kinda useless. And I liked the tojanida.

Shriekers used to be pretty boring. Oh, it's a screaming mushroom. Whatever shall I do?

 

[malraux]

Oh, it's a screaming mushroom. Whatever shall I do?

The scare the crap out of my characters, not because of the shrieking, but because something canny enough to install an alarm system put them there.

 

[Dragonbait]

I was never a fan of "amped-up" races and unnecessary or unexplained subraces. In 3E there was a blue minotaur that was more minotaur and earthen than a regular minotaur. There were regular ogres then a separate race for elite ogre warriors called the skullcrusher ogre (they seemed to be described as a subrace of ogres and not just a clan of elite fighting ogres). 4E groups these into a single race, so it sometimes makes it harder to tell if things are subraces or just skilled warriors of the particular race.

The slew of demons and devils that seemed to overlap quite a bit. One group that comes to mind: Spine devils, Spike devils, Barbed devils. I'm more lienient on the demons, since they are a choatic mess, but devils are supposed to be well-organized. Why do they need so many similar types.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think the older MM philosophy of "interesting thing to encounter" helped engender a lot of these weirder things. They're not there to fight, per se, they're there to encounter. And in that respect, a talking bridge is kind of cool. Or, in 3e, also there for PC's to use (tojanidas were a summon, forex).

4e has abandoned those ideas in favor of a "kill everything you see" approach. Which is one way of doing it.

But it's mixed. Even if the MM is only filled with things you're going to stab with swords like 4e is, there's always going to be some things that just aren't very inspiring to stab with swords.

For example, you could have a failure of motive (evil monster is evil and also hates puppies is not going to give someone a reason to use the critter), a failure of meaning (Wait, Asmodeus uses angels? I thought he was the master of devils? Aren't angels and devils enemies? might cause you just to avoid the critter altogether), or a failure of milieu (I don't like Lovecraftianisms in my High Fantasy! might lead you to dodge all the tentacled delight that D&D has to offer).

But it's all pretty subjective.

 

[Mengu]

It's nearly impossible to have a useless monster in 4e. Everything is so reskinnable, we can just borrow ideas from this and that, and make a monster quite easily. As such, every monster idea has merit in some manner. Even something very simple that you might not think is worth the proverbial ink on paper because anyone with half a brain can create that creature, gives precedent to create simple creatures.

One might think the xorn is a weird creature you might never use, but if you're trying to make a standard creature that attacks three times with a standard action and are looking for precedent, there you have it. Or you're looking to give a trencher mercenary a minor action "dig in", and are wondering what kind of bonus to give it, you can take a look at the xorn again.

In previous editions, I used monsters out of the box all the time, and created my own on the odd occasion. In 4e, this is reversed. I make nearly all my creatures to fit my needs, with the odd exception being something simple like an Ogre Savage I might use as is. And yet, I value monster entries more in this edition than in previous editions. I'm always combing through the monsters in the compendium looking for traits and abilities to fit my needs.

 

[Herschel]

Berbalangs suck. Annoying and not fun are they.

 

[Mengu]

Berbalangs suck. Annoying and not fun are they.

Huh, we fought one of these and I thought it was one of the more entertaining solo fights. As a matter of fact, we didn't even realize it was a solo fight for the most part. The DM had beefed it up a bit for our numbers since we have a party of 6. So it probably wasn't exactly the same, but I definitely like the concept for the way its action economy works.

 

[Reaper Steve]

4e hasn't given us much (that I've seen) that isn't interesting. Although... why in God's name was the kruthik a MM1 pick? Why not a more classic monster that could fill roughly the same role? I mean, kruthiks are okay, but they really aren't anything especially great, and D&D has tons of great monsters in its history to draw on. So why some beast that is a lizard-bug with no real hook to it?

Back before 4e was announced there was a series of articles about redesigning monsters and also the concept of 'traction.' (They may not have been in the same series, but both of these concepts were topics du jour around the same time.) Traction being 'getting something to stick.' Monsters we consider 'iconic' are those that developed traction in the years/editions since they were introduced.

I remember a designer (Mearls, I think) mentioning that kruthiks were/are a monster that they are pushing... the designers want kruthiks to gain traction and become an iconic D&D monster. I think it's met with reasonable success.

 

[Neonchameleon]

In 4e: Old school Purple Worms and Dracoliches?