Ath'kethin
Elder Thing
After some careful thought, I'd say I'm mostly #3. I'll adjust aspects of a monster on the fly sometimes (and well in advance sometimes), but the adjustments are always based on the fluff and RP potential of the creature.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E [POLL] Your experience running monsters
- Thread starter Sacrosanct
- Start date
I voted #2 but really wanted an option #6.
I run monsters out of the book as written all the time, but also throw in custom monsters on a regular basis. Sometimes that's minor tweaks to existing monsters, sometimes it's just making up new monsters based on the guidelines in the DMG. Sometimes I add class levels to an existing monster or use a troll's stats to represent what I describe as a deformed dog-like creature.
Sometimes a gnoll is just a gnoll, other times it's been specially blessed by the dark gods and has special abilities. It depends on the story I want to tell and whether there's a monster stat block that works for what I need.
It also depend on party level. Lower levels? I can pretty much use monsters out of the book. Higher levels? I'm more likely to customize.
I run monsters out of the book as written all the time, but also throw in custom monsters on a regular basis. Sometimes that's minor tweaks to existing monsters, sometimes it's just making up new monsters based on the guidelines in the DMG. Sometimes I add class levels to an existing monster or use a troll's stats to represent what I describe as a deformed dog-like creature.
Sometimes a gnoll is just a gnoll, other times it's been specially blessed by the dark gods and has special abilities. It depends on the story I want to tell and whether there's a monster stat block that works for what I need.
It also depend on party level. Lower levels? I can pretty much use monsters out of the book. Higher levels? I'm more likely to customize.
Shadowdweller00
Hero
I frequently find the stat blocks too limiting to accurately simulate the world I'm trying to portray, so I have to adapt them. For example: What happens when the giant tries to just step on the little bug-men that keep stabbing it with needles? Or pick one of them up and slam it against a wall? What happens when the gargoyle perching on a crumbling cliff picks up one of the many boulders to drop on the soft-skins shooting it with arrows?
I try to work out and balance particular mechanics I think might come up in an encounter beforehand where I can. I do find that monsters often need a bit of help to provide the challenge they are supposed to - particularly as character levels go up.
I try to work out and balance particular mechanics I think might come up in an encounter beforehand where I can. I do find that monsters often need a bit of help to provide the challenge they are supposed to - particularly as character levels go up.
rgoodbb
Adventurer
For one group of friends that know the MM inside out, I am having to use the stat blocks but completely re-flavouring them so #2 is out for me. I recently used a spectator stat block but skinned it as an exotic hovering bird with four wings each of which shot quills. One side of their four wings was shiny to reflect spells. They thrummed when they hovered and changed colour in flight etc. This helped me hide what they where to the players.
With four wings, they thought they were up against Stirges. Ouch!
I'll go with #1 I think.
With four wings, they thought they were up against Stirges. Ouch!
I'll go with #1 I think.
happyhermit
Adventurer
Yeah, I guess #2 is certainly true for me so I'll go with that. When I use monsters from the book I most often use them essentially as presented, and I don't have any problems (of course that's an absolute so it can't possibly be true, and I have players so of course I have problems). However, as presented means that they have the ability to attempt all the specified generic actions that they could, plus "improvised" actions that any PC could try in my games. If they could try something and it makes sense for them to do so (and I'm not feeling lazy) then they will try it. So, playing the monsters true to character is pretty important to me, but just because that's how we like to play and not specifically to increase challenge (most of the time). I also often change the monsters or don't use MM versions at all, but again, not usually just to increase the challenge. So yeah, I use them RAW, except when I don't, either way my players feel challenged in general.
Quickleaf
Legend
I'm a balanced blend of #3 (focus on the role-playing part to boost their impact) and #6 (increase everything: stats, items, time planning, etc).
Generally, it depends on the source of the monster. Monster Manual? I lean toward #6.
Volo's Guide or Tome of Beasts (Kobold Press)? I lean toward #3, as those monsters feel a bit more robust.
Often, it depends on the context in which I'm using the monsters, the size/power of the PC party, and the particular monster. For instance...
Recently ran a fight with a seven-headed pyrohydra (CR 13) vs. 6 11th-level PCs and supporting NPCs. Mechanically it was a souped-up hydra (CR 8) with fire-breathing and legendary actions (a reactive tail slap & using its breath to cause pool to boil), but I also hid it in an oasis pool, allowing it to surprise some PCs / all NPCs and drag grabbed PCs underwater in its jaws/coils.
Lore-wise, I made it an ancient monster summoned by evil fire mages to despoil the oasis & discourage anyone from rebuilding after their raid. The PCs found a cracked brass puzzle-sphere at the bottom of pool that they rightly suspect was expended (like a scroll) to summon the pyrohydra. They may later learn it was summoned from the Straits of Varrigon between Planes of Fire and Water (Plane of Steam), which may be relevant as their adventure will take them to the Inner Planes at some point, and they could visit the Straits of Varrigon, e.g. as a sneaky route to sail into the City of Brass undetected.
There's another layer of lore, with similar engraved metal puzzle-scrolls being used by elven desert tribes in the setting, hinting that the elves may have been the ones to first bind pyrohydras...but somehow the evil fire mages got that knowledge.
While it very much felt like a "throw away" encounter initially – a fight to blow off steam & break up lots of interaction/exploration – the more the players investigated the more there was to discover about the creature, adding needed depth to an otherwise shallow experience. The mechanical changes helped it survive long enough against such a potent party in order to use its powers and provide a semblance of threat.
Generally, it depends on the source of the monster. Monster Manual? I lean toward #6.
Volo's Guide or Tome of Beasts (Kobold Press)? I lean toward #3, as those monsters feel a bit more robust.
Often, it depends on the context in which I'm using the monsters, the size/power of the PC party, and the particular monster. For instance...
Recently ran a fight with a seven-headed pyrohydra (CR 13) vs. 6 11th-level PCs and supporting NPCs. Mechanically it was a souped-up hydra (CR 8) with fire-breathing and legendary actions (a reactive tail slap & using its breath to cause pool to boil), but I also hid it in an oasis pool, allowing it to surprise some PCs / all NPCs and drag grabbed PCs underwater in its jaws/coils.
Lore-wise, I made it an ancient monster summoned by evil fire mages to despoil the oasis & discourage anyone from rebuilding after their raid. The PCs found a cracked brass puzzle-sphere at the bottom of pool that they rightly suspect was expended (like a scroll) to summon the pyrohydra. They may later learn it was summoned from the Straits of Varrigon between Planes of Fire and Water (Plane of Steam), which may be relevant as their adventure will take them to the Inner Planes at some point, and they could visit the Straits of Varrigon, e.g. as a sneaky route to sail into the City of Brass undetected.
There's another layer of lore, with similar engraved metal puzzle-scrolls being used by elven desert tribes in the setting, hinting that the elves may have been the ones to first bind pyrohydras...but somehow the evil fire mages got that knowledge.
While it very much felt like a "throw away" encounter initially – a fight to blow off steam & break up lots of interaction/exploration – the more the players investigated the more there was to discover about the creature, adding needed depth to an otherwise shallow experience. The mechanical changes helped it survive long enough against such a potent party in order to use its powers and provide a semblance of threat.
Last edited:
Li Shenron
Legend
I voted the third option: currently I am still using the stats as-is, no need yet to apply modifications to create variations (probably because I just haven't run the game too long already), and I do follow the flavor text as a basis, but I also vary the behavior of monsters and the circumstances of the encounters.
For example, I might have 3 stat-identical ogres in an encounter, but one of them could be a fanatic that fights to the last breath, another a down-to-earth individual who can bargain or run for his life, and the last might be even angry at the other two and willing to endanger them purposefully.
For example, I might have 3 stat-identical ogres in an encounter, but one of them could be a fanatic that fights to the last breath, another a down-to-earth individual who can bargain or run for his life, and the last might be even angry at the other two and willing to endanger them purposefully.
Similar Threads
- Locked
- Poll
