The needed monster that's never appeared in the MM1 -- or at all, in some editions

[Celebrim]

KM has nailed it -- sea serpents are an "encounter monster", not a bag of HP with an attack bonus.

Wait a minute... are these two mutually contridictory things?

I need a definition of 'encounter monster' I guess.

My first impression based on KM's post is just that it means, "Monster which is played in a logical and adept fashion by the DM, taking reasonable advantage of the terrain and its advantages as a creature."

Are you suggesting that you thought Sea Serpants should be played out something like a monster in Ultima IV or something, and that it just stands there and goes toe to toe with the PC's for a round or two in its square and then dies?

Why play pen and paper games at all? No wonder people don't like 3.X and are clamoring for a new edition.

 

[wedgeski]

I'd do it as an Encounter Monster, rather than as a normal monster.

100% full of good stuff.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I read this post and thought, Man, that is weird. I talked to James about it and he says he'll make it happen for the first MM after we have robust aquatic rules (DMG2 maybe? No promises!).

Wow, can't ask for better response than that. Thanks, Logan!

 

[Lackhand]

I don't think that they're contradictory, but they don't blend into each other, necessarily. It's a bit like giving an attack bonus to a god, which implies that the number will get used directly.

In KMs monster-attack-scenario, the actual statistics of the sea-wyrm don't really matter.

It didn't really make any attack bonuses on the players, just used gravity to do most of its dirty work. A lot of forcing reflex saves, sure, but it makes more sense to run the encounter as you would an avalanche than you would an ogre.

So, sure, you could have statistics for the wyrm... but why bother, when the actual stats you'll end up using are for the sinking ship?

 

[Wormwood]

....though I admit, entirely, that there is a lot of videogame influence behind the "Encounter Monster" way of doing things.

I daresay that's why they work so well.

And yeah, this is the kind of stuff that makes me excited to play D&D.

 

[Celebrim]

I daresay that's why they work so well.

And yeah, this is the kind of stuff that makes me excited to play D&D.

So if I told you my DM ran a sea serpant encounter like that for me when I first played Isle of Dread way back in like 1985 when video games still looked like Ultima IV???

This is really starting to baffle me. What in the world have you guys been playing for the past 20 years?

This 'encounter monster' (isn't that an oxymoron) thing. It isn't inspired by video games in any way. It's just that now, finally, video games are getting sophisticated enough that they can sorta kinda have the level of complexity and nuance and emersion that you had in Pen and Paper more than 20 years ago.

 

[Celebrim]

I don't think that they're contradictory, but they don't blend into each other, necessarily. It's a bit like giving an attack bonus to a god, which implies that the number will get used directly.

In KMs monster-attack-scenario, the actual statistics of the sea-wyrm don't really matter.

But even KM didn't suggest that.

It didn't really make any attack bonuses on the players, just used gravity to do most of its dirty work. A lot of forcing reflex saves, sure, but it makes more sense to run the encounter as you would an avalanche than you would an ogre.

Does it? Really?? So you are saying that like a falling boulder, the sea serpant will play out exactly the same way regardless of what the players do to it? (Tangentally, I thought balance checks would be more obvious and appropriate than reflex saves.) What happens if the player readies a missile attack for 'When the sea serpent pops up to eat Quegqueg'? What happens if a player jumps in the water to try to attack the sea serpent directly? What happens if a player tries to grab ahold of the sea serpent and 'climb aboard'? What happens if a player summons an aquatic monster to fight the sea serpant?

Of course you need stats for the monster. It's an encounter with a monster. That this monster uses terrain and tactics to evade direct combat with the PC's is an example of playing the monster well. That the monsters presence and attacks effect the environment is an example of DMing adroitly. But the fact is that the encounter is with a monster and the PC's actions must be judged on how they effect a living creature, not how they effect gravity.

It's one thing to have a sophisticated well-thought out plan for running an encounter with a monster that includes appropriate and emersive atmospherics and intelligent tactics by the monster, but its quite another thing to claim that you don't need the monster and that the encounter runs on rails because the PC's can't or won't do anything to effect your plan. This is like saying, "When the kobolds lob bottles of oil over the wall as a grenade based attack, sure, you could have statistics for the kobolds... but why bother, when the actual stats you'll end up using are for the flaming oil?

 

[Wormwood]

So if I told you my DM ran a sea serpant encounter like that for me when I first played Isle of Dread way back in like 1985 when video games still looked like Ultima IV???

This is really starting to baffle me. What in the world have you guys been playing for the past 20 years?

The essence of the Encounter Monster is that the monster simply becomes window dressing for the overall scene.

There is no need to have any stats whatsoever for the Sea Serpent in the above example. Just like you wouldn't need any stats for Kong or the Stampeding Dinosaurs on Skull Island.

If that's how your DM ran things for you in 1985, then mazeltov. But for some of us, this is somewhat of a departure from standard D&D 'encounters'.

 

[Nebulous]

I'd do it as an Encounter Monster, rather than as a normal monster.

Excellent, excellent idea! And well worded to boot. Against such unbeatable odds (in most circumstances) this works much better as an encounter. This is EXACTLY the kind of thing that should detailed in the Dungeon Master's Guide, with the level of detail here.

 

[Celebrim]

The essence of the Encounter Monster is that the monster simply becomes window dressing for the overall scene.

I'm having a really hard time separating this from the 'overall scene is window dressing for the monster'. Typically, something like this might come from a wandering encounter and the DM improves ominious scene setting (or not, sometimes BANG! Action!!! is fun too), tries to give the monster some realistic tactic, and then waits to see what the players do about it.

There is no need to have any stats whatsoever for the Sea Serpent in the above example. Just like you wouldn't need any stats for Kong or the Stampeding Dinosaurs on Skull Island.

You don't? If you don't need stats for those, why do you need stats for anything? Again, is this a game, or is 'encounter monster' just a clever cover phrase for 'DM plans that are on rails'?

If that's how your DM ran things for you in 1985, then mazeltov. But for some of us, this is somewhat of a departure from standard D&D 'encounters'.

Again, no wonder you hate D&D.