The most POWERFUL classic monsters! (Read intro before voting!!!)

[Celebrim]

In a post 1st edition environment, this is to me really an unanswerable question. No monster type can be refered to in its totality any more, if indeed they ever could. Asking 'what monster is most powerful' is really a campaign specific question because any monster can be advanced in hit die, given templates, given class levels, and/or given a higher point buy, and be made into something that the PC's will find truly terrifying.

For instance, Advanced Fiendish Half-Dragon (Black) Paragon Lenerean Pyro-Hydras tend to strike notes of fear in most anything.

So, really, we might want to ask 'What non-unique monster first printed before 1982 (does that cover all the classics?) do players least want to face.', but even this question depends alot on which edition of the game we are talking about.

First edition players had a particular dislike for Will-O'-Wisps, and a generally disliked meeting Beholders, Black Puddings, Shambling Mounds, Mind Flayers, Rust Monsters, and Thesselhydras. Which one you disliked the most depended alot on personal temperment and class. Dragons tended to be one shot wonders (BREATH WEAPON!!!) and were feared because thier high end damage generally exceeded everyone's hit points but maybe the fighters, and if you couldn't take them down quick, someone died. Vargoille remained intensely disliked regardless of level. Cloakers could be quite powerful if they attacked in numbers. Rot Grubs, Green Slime, and Yellow Mold varied from insanely lethal to annoying depending on how they were used.

Virtually everything else that was particullarly feared after level 9 had class levels - Drow, Liche, NPC's, Shades, Vampires (with spell casting abilities), etc.

 

[Grendel]

Stirges

 

[TiQuinn]

Monsters are, ultimately, a scapegoat and a proxy for issues that can not be resolved -- an enemy fabricated as an imaginary solution to a real problem.

Kenjib -

That statement right there could be the crux of one REALLY interesting campaign setting.

 

[kenjib]

Kenjib -

That statement right there could be the crux of one REALLY interesting campaign setting.

Interesting. Hmm... Taking a literary trope and making it, well, literal! So, is King Beowulf inventing the dragon to try to reclaim his glory as his kingdom crumbles, a great fraud perpetrated by a failing has-been in order to buy a heroic legacy through valiant death, or does the dragon actually truly come into being because of King Beowulf's failings as a monarch -- a bogeyman, the destruction of which will suddenly clear away all of his more pragmatic problems and make everything perfect again. Furthermore, where imagination is concerned, does there need to be a distinction between these two possibilities? Do we only not experience the fantastic now because deep down, we truly don't believe in (thus invent) it?

Fascinating idea TiQuinn. What exactly did you have in mind?

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

So, really, we might want to ask 'What non-unique monster first printed before 1982 (does that cover all the classics?) do players least want to face.', but even this question depends alot on which edition of the game we are talking about.

A little bitter, are we?

 

[Geoffrey]

I voted for demilich. Look at the Tomb of Horrors and the Return to the Tomb of Horrors. Acererak the Demilich is the most formidable villian (as well as the one with the most story potential) of any D&D monster I've ever seen.

 

[TiQuinn]

Interesting. Hmm... Taking a literary trope and making it, well, literal! So, is King Beowulf inventing the dragon to try to reclaim his glory as his kingdom crumbles, a great fraud perpetrated by a failing has-been in order to buy a heroic legacy through valiant death, or does the dragon actually truly come into being because of King Beowulf's failings as a monarch -- a bogeyman, the destruction of which will suddenly clear away all of his more pragmatic problems and make everything perfect again. Furthermore, where imagination is concerned, does there need to be a distinction between these two possibilities? Do we only not experience the fantastic now because deep down, we truly don't believe in (thus invent) it?

Fascinating idea TiQuinn. What exactly did you have in mind?

Wow, Kenjib! I've been thinking about it, and I was going in a very similar direction!

I began thinking of a scenario where an infamous dragon has apparently returned to the countryside that it terrorized 30 years ago. A paladin and his comrades supposedly slew the dragon, with only the paladin surviving the conflict. The truth is, however, that he fled in fear when members of the party began to die. One of the remaining members of the party managed to deal the death blow, but died from his injuries shortly after. The paladin, in desperation, fear, and a moment of irrationality, personally took the credit for the dragon's death. He lost his paladinhood, but no one was the wiser. He retired and became a wealthy landowner in the area.

Now, come back to the present, and the same (ex) paladin is brooding about his lie and his unheroic act. He has been miserable all these years but has never had the courage to step up and admit his lie. If only there was another challenge that he could face, and actually defeat, it would sooth his conscience.

Soon after, a dragon, bearing a remarkable resemblence to the first dragon begins to attack farms on the outskirts of town. The dragon could be real, or it could be an illusion, but in any event, it only exists because the paladin subconsciously WANTS it to exist. The town has hired several groups of adventurers to defeat the dragon, but each time, they are led into a deadly trap set by the dragon, who seems to know what each party was planning. This is also a result of the subconscious jealously and hatred the paladin has for any party that would try to rob him of his victory.

This is where I was starting to go with the idea. I really like the concept of people subconscious creating these challenges either due to guilt or greed. Perhaps the true enemy of the campaign is an entity that has the power to create illusions based upon the nightmares of others. Without the "fuel" provided by people, this entity can't create these powerful illusions, so where does the true evil lie?

 

[Hand of Evil]

While dragons, mind-flayers, drow all kick major ass it has always been 'humans' that are the greater foe.

 

[Al]

Well, it was a close run thing until I saw the demilich in there.

Simply put, anyone who has read the ELH would be crazy to vote otherwise.

Trap the Soul 8/day, with crazy DCs and four negative levels on a successful save.
Paralysing Touch at will, again, with an insane save DC.
A raft of Spell-Like Abilities at will.
Immune to practically all spells.
Effective immunity to turning.
Damage Reduction 30/- (yes, you read that correctly).
+10 to all mental stats
+20 to a bunch of skills

...and all the spells and abilities of the previous lich.

Now, where's the possible competition?

 

[kenjib]

This is where I was starting to go with the idea. I really like the concept of people subconscious creating these challenges either due to guilt or greed. Perhaps the true enemy of the campaign is an entity that has the power to create illusions based upon the nightmares of others. Without the "fuel" provided by people, this entity can't create these powerful illusions, so where does the true evil lie?

Does it need to be an entire setting, or would a creature and module be just as effective? How would you extrapolate this concept to the "big picture" of an entire setting -- especially when different peoples' microcosms begin to clash. Why are all of the king's subjects part of his nightmare?