The need for monsters as beings rather than statblocks.

[ren1999]

How about a compromise? An easy to read stat table with just the facts, then a paragraph of roughly the same dimensions with a concise summary of all the best Hook Horror ecology?

 

[Janaxstrus]

Not sure where anyone is getting "crab" or "cockroach" from Hook Horror...but ok.

Having an exo-skeleton does not make one a crustacean or roach.

 

[keterys]

Not sure where anyone is getting "crab" or "cockroach" from Hook Horror...but ok.

Having an exo-skeleton does not make one a crustacean or roach.

Cockroach is a reference to its ecology, which cites it is distantly related.

Crab is a reference to its use and fighting style - that is to say, it's a heavily armored melee combatant that uses two claws to grab and rend its prey, often from hiding. Just like how giant crabs are used in D&D adventures.

In case it comes up, beetle references are probably also appropriate since its body is compared to that of a beetle in its description

 

[Yora]

Just look at the critter:

[sblock]

[/sblock]

Roach-Crab with a vulture face.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Hook Horrors aren't that interesting. They're bipedal crabs that leap from the ceiling in the Underdark.

I agreed with the rest of your post, so didn't quote it.

I disagree with this. I was a biology minor in college just because I found it so interesting. I don't think that I have a unique interest in the "neat things about animals" so long as we focus on mainly the neat parts rather than a full writeup of every little thing. I probably care more about the mundane, but if you read any Cracked.com article about animals, one can see the interesting appeal of lots of animals, and just how crazy they can be.

E.G. Foxes. I don't want to read a whole long thing about the mating habits, diet, etc etc etc of foxes, and then read the same thing about stoats, or ermine, or mink, or weasels, or fishercats etc. However, the mother fox being willing to attack something the size of a bear to defend her young IS something that I'd include in the entry.

But conversely, I do want to know the mating habits and diet of the fox, as it's relevant to the ecology. I just don't want to read the same basic thing over and over, nor do I want to take up a ton of the entry to say such things.

I think every animal has something pretty interesting about it (and so should every monster). Heck, I think "A modestly intelligent group of opportunistic hunters who will callously add intelligent prey to their larder, so long as it helps, rather than endangers, their tribe of alien-thinking cockroach beings." Is a pretty interesting monster, myself, YMMV.


I wonder if a solution to some of this, similar to the statblock categories in third edition, might be an ecology index? In science it's done all the time: e.g. carnivore vs. omnivore vs. herbivore. I'm referring here to the categories or types in 3e of, for instance,"incorporeal" where all of the properties of "incorporeal" were listed at the back of the book.

In play I found this cumbersome in some cases, because if I didn't have it memorized I needed to look at the back of the book for the 50% miss chance or whatever. But that was usually in on the fly combat.

However, since the ecology of the monster could be important in some instances and entirely irrelevant in others (random encounters or somesuch), I wonder if this would be less cumbersome for an "ecology index" rather than a "combat relevant stats by type" index?


I'd have to go through dozens of entries to see exactly what would go "in the back" as opposed to "in the entry", but I certainly think that anything mundane and repetitive could go in the back with a simple category or descriptor like "carnivore" "insectoid" "arboreal" "amphibious" "monogamous" etc as a way to look up further details.



Maybe hook horrors would fall under "insectiod" (which might include appearance and diet, perhaps even mating and their clutch of eggs), "familial" (which would mean that they care for one another and their children rather than a "to each his own" style), polygamous (not taking a single mate), and group hunters (3-10) (this would fall under the old "number encountered" section of monster manuals going back at least as far as AD&D).

So from the keywords/phrase/classification of "insectoid, familial, polygamous, group hunters (3-10)" we'd know almost their entire ecology. Any additional interesting facts or contradictions could then be added within the specific entry. e.g. if they had all of insectiod except that insectoids normally are solely carnivorous in the index entry and hook horrors are omnivorous we'd have: "insectoid (but omnivorous, preferring meat), familial, polygamous, group hunters (3-10)".



All of that said, I'd still want to be able to read the ecology as interesting society and ability tidbits, written as descriptive text rather than as it's own statblock. While I think using classification as a tool would be an excellent way to dodge writing the same thing over and over, I'd hate to see it become an "ecology statblock" of keywords that again cause the creature to be treated as a (ecology) statblock rather than as a being.

 

[Stormonu]

Like others, I really got the impression this article was about the mechanics and they were intending to use the 2E books for the ecology and such - or at least, I'm hopeful that's where they're going since they photocopied every monster in existance for reference.

It does bother me though that the monsters in the playtest document and in the article weren't given skills at all, not even placeholders. I bring this up because of Mearls noted setting its Wisdom score based on its perception instead of giving it a slightly lower Wisdom (I don't see a mutated cockroach being either very "wise" nor "willful" - two components of Wisdom) and a skill bonus to Perception. I'd hate to see a general ability score inflation on monsters to cover what might only be a bonus to one or two aspects of a creature's repitoire.

Perhaps the hook horror should have Skills: Climb +3, Peception +3, Stealth +3 and a Wisdom of 9.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Looking over all those references:
What, if anything, would change about the stat block given as a result of any of that? I'm not seeing it. Maybe something for hunting together, like a wolf pack type ability? Doesn't seem necessary, but that's the only thing that sprang to mind.

Hook Horrors aren't that interesting. They're bipedal crabs that leap from the ceiling in the Underdark.

One trouble with the Hook Horror as presented is that the Horrors aren't even interesting at that.

To quote myself from the post that inspired Aberzanzorax:

If you want to make your hook horror actually interesting, give it a "No one looks up" ability giving it advantage when attempting to hide on the ceiling, and a "Death from Above" attack; the Hook Horror can drop safely from a ceiling that is 30ft or lower and land on its feet as a free acttion. If it does so it retains any advantage it had for being hidden from its foe for the attacks it makes this turn.

Now. Instead of a crab that climbs instead of swims you have something really scary. A monster that hides on the ceiling, drops into the middle of the enemy, and then rends them into pieces.
​

Those two traits I've given it give the monster a lot of personality by themselves. Rather than an armoured crab they make the monster a fast and brutal ambusher with an inherent method of hunting that's mechanically supported and therefore encouraged by the physics of the gameworld. And it's still in the combat statblock, but makes the Hook Horror fight differently from a generic crab-thing.

 

[The Red King]

Tribes of alien-thinking cockroach beings unite!

 

[Neonchameleon]

And for another Hook Horror that is both five times as interesting and five times as evocative as the one [MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION] presented:

Prey Still Wriggling: A Hook Horror who has a small or medium creature impaled may move at 20ft per round, including climbing. A Hook Horror needs one free hook (plus its feet) to climb.

Tenderise: After biting, a Hook Horror may drop an impaled small or medium creature instead of attacking with its hooks. This creature counts as being hit automatically by one of the hooks but is no longer grabbed. In addition they take falling damage as normal and end up prone. If another creature is underneath they take damage equal to the falling damage taken by the tenderised creature and are knocked prone unless they succeed on a reflex save (DC??).
​

OK, so the wording of Tenderise needs cleaning up. But we again have a very scary and dynamic creature with an evocative favoured method of hunting. Tear into the prey, climb up the wall, drop it either on something sharp or on other PCs until it stops fighting back. And the way the statblock is written ties intimately in to the ecology. Prey Still Wriggling ... Small or medium creature... We know mostly what it hunts and how it hunts, and even in what state it likes it prey. (Still wriggling but not fighting back; negative hit points rather than dead).

Add the ecology index and we're most of the way there.

 

[keterys]

Now. Instead of a crab that climbs instead of swims you have something really scary. A monster that hides on the ceiling, drops into the middle of the enemy, and then rends them into pieces.

Good posts! I'll admit that I much prefer the more 4e style of non-casting monsters having more unique abilities. I'm slightly dubious of Tenderize, but I love the other two... and I'd cheerfully use Tenderize if it were on a monster I was DMing

Alas, Can't XP you.