D&D 5E New Wandering Monsters - Hulking Out

[MarkB]

I like the description of Umber Hulks, but the idea of Umber Hulk cities does intrigue me. Maybe the Umber Hulks that roam closer to the surface are feral outcasts, and the majority of Umber Hulks who live in their cities are more cultured and socialised.

I don't know if Chuul have an existing 'backstory', but they feel like they should be associated with some other more powerful aberrations - maybe they're created by Aboleths, a variant of the Aboleth's transformative touch that is used to mutate creatures into monstrous warrior-slaves.

The Grey Render doesn't really grab me. It's rather boring stats-wise, and its bonding instinct is a little weird - is it some vestige of a formerly-more-social creature's instincts, or is there some benefit to the Render?

 

[Kinak]

The Grey Render doesn't really grab me. It's rather boring stats-wise, and its bonding instinct is a little weird - is it some vestige of a formerly-more-social creature's instincts, or is there some benefit to the Render?

I'm not sure if there is in canon, but my understanding was that they were created by wizards to act as bodyguards. So the "bond" was intended to be whatever the wizard wanted them to guard. They don't bond with their own kind so they don't attach to their parent before the wizards can get to them.

Which I actually like. It nicely ties up the "Why did a wizard do it?" follow up to "A wizard did it."

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Sunseeker]

One word: Confusion.

Give it to the Render. Maybe hint that it's the reason that it gets emotionally attached to some random place or creature, maybe that it sees it's own reflection and gets affected by it's own power.

 

[urLordy]

I'm not sure if there is in canon, but my understanding was that they were created by wizards to act as bodyguards. So the "bond" was intended to be whatever the wizard wanted them to guard. They don't bond with their own kind so they don't attach to their parent before the wizards can get to them.

I disliked the Grey Render until I read this. Funny how an effect is good for me after I realize a good cause.

 

[Klaus]

I like the description of Umber Hulks, but the idea of Umber Hulk cities does intrigue me. Maybe the Umber Hulks that roam closer to the surface are feral outcasts, and the majority of Umber Hulks who live in their cities are more cultured and socialised.

As I mentioned in the article's comments, I'd like to see a mention of Neogis in DDN. The "umber hulk cities" could easily be the ruins of fallen neogi enclaves (think of At The Mountains Of Madness).

 

[avin]

Never used Hulks, used grey render once.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

What's stopping any other dumb brute NPC from "bonding" to something? Forming emotional connections isn't a niche. I say again, there are a ton of big dumb guys in the game already -- make one bond to someone or something, and not just be standing in a 10 x 10 room guarding a pie, and you've got the grey render covered.

 

[Plaguescarred]

I found the Umber Hulk, Chuul and Grey Render description good enought and think they all should have at least average intelligence.

I think Chuul better fit as monstrosity than aberration since its just a monstrous beast with no magical or psionic powers.

I am skeptical about rumors of Umber Hulk cities though. They’re smart, but they lack culture or community being mainly solitary predators. I wonder what such city would look like?

 

[steeldragons]

What's stopping any other dumb brute NPC from "bonding" to something? Forming emotional connections isn't a niche. I say again, there are a ton of big dumb guys in the game already -- make one bond to someone or something, and not just be standing in a 10 x 10 room guarding a pie, and you've got the grey render covered.

This is what I don't get. You want the dim-witted ogre stroking his lil' kitty? The abominable snowman taking care of his pal George, "And I will luv'em n' squeeze'em. George is my friend"? Or at least a half dozen anime demon-ogre-monster things that attend little children? So...do those. A whole separate monster just for this idea of a "loveable oaf character"?

Wasted of space. Take it out.

Chuuls, never really hear of. Don't remember. Never used 'em. You need some "underwater brute", I suppose. Though how the mentioned piscodaemon or a merrow doesn't cover the ground sufficiently, I don't get.

Umber hulk cities? Really guys? They're monstrous dangerous underground predators...and iconic D&D. They're not hunting for treasure...They're not looking for slaves...They don't ccare if their people rise up and take over the world...They want to eat you. Bite your face off dead. Plain. Simple. All they need to do/be.

Why does every-blessed-thing need to be a "race" with these guys?! Things, that is to say "creatures", particularly legit "hulking monsters", can "have a role" and "be connected" in the D&D world without cities. They don't need to spawn some oh-so-alien separate culture. Hidden in their weirder-than-weird society... yet, obviously, they must have a coherent teachable/learn-able language! They have insectoid eyes and mandibles...if you must, and I'll still argue against it as completely unnecessary/changes for changes sake nonsense...I'll grant you, MAYBE, a hive set-up or ant-like colony but still low-to-animal intelligence. Umber Hulk cities? Pff.

 

[the Jester]

Give it to the Render. Maybe hint that it's the reason that it gets emotionally attached to some random place or creature, maybe that it sees it's own reflection and gets affected by it's own power.

This isn't aimed specifically at shidaku, but his post got me to thinking.

What is it with trying to retcon stuff just because? What if someone out there has a campaign that has developed both grey renders and umber hulks in different directions? Why does there seem to be this urge to rewrite decades of D&D lore in a lot of these discussions? (Again, this is about far more than just shidaku's post; the designers and a lot of the discussion seems to treat established D&D lore as completely dispensable.)

Take, for example, the talk about slaadi. "Should they be demons or should they be more Lovecraftian?" What's wrong with, even if we EXPAND the lore on something, not DISCARDING the lore about it? They are distinctly NOT demons; making them demons just disrespects all the campaigns that have heavily featured slaadi as forces of Chaos but not evil.

A perfect example of how to expand the lore on a monster the right way IMHO: Gibberlings, as (re-)presented in the Gates of Firestorm Peak. The treatment of gibberlings in there didn't throw away or overturn anything; but it expanded the lore on them in fantastic (and fantastically creepy!) ways.

A good example of how to do this wrong, in a way that is subtle but potentially campaign-shaking: The switch of orcs from LE to CE in 3e. What if someone's campaign has a huge emphasis on orcs, with a great deal of effort on the dm's part gone into their elaborate system of laws, their military organization, etc? Suddenly the lore on orcs doesn't support that campaign's vision of them. Worse yet, there are a bunch of mechanical bits that need tweaking, rewriting or fixing to be of use in that dm's game. And for what? Because a few designers decided that their vision of orcs fit CE better.

That's a minor issue, by the way, compared to the kind of wholesale rewrite that, say, titans got in 4e. What if my campaign featured "classical" Titans as major npcs or mythological figures? Suddenly a TON of D&D lore is at odds with my game (at least with 4e lore)- titans aren't elemental; they aren't necessarily evil; I don't have viable stats for them; I have a good half-dozen or more monsters I can't use in the books; etc.

I think D&D needs to respect its precedents, recognize that, yes, there ARE 20-year-long campaigns running (and those groups are ones where someone buys every book released for the system), and not change things for the sake of change. Get rid of umber hulks? No. No, never. They have played a central part in a TON of D&D over the years (see especially Spelljammer), and even if none of those settings, adventures or whatever move you, they all move SOMEONE. The game should develop and expand lore without disrespecting and discarding it, IMHO.

Just food for thought; obviously, YMMV.