"The next ______"?

[Shade]

I definitely think it is possible, but not necessarily easy. The main ingredient is time.

A new subtype, on the other hand, can hit coolness immediate. Look at the meteoric rise of the swarm subtype. Briefly mentioned in BOVD, then expanded in FF, it immediately spawned numerous monsters and made it into the MM 3.5.

While not a guarantee for success, the following elements seem to be common for "iconicness"

• A good backstory
• Links to other creatures
• Fills a niche that was heretofore unfulfilled, but probably needed.
• Deeply embedded in a particular plane, world, or area
• Expandable: Able to make many interesting creatures associated with it (ie. mind flayers). Of course, this may eventually lead to its death of coolness (i.e. many people's current opinion of drow).
• The immediate feeling that you could build an entire campaign around them.

I do think that some of the monsters new to 3E have a shot at iconic-ness over time. I think the following all have a good shot at iconicness.

• Chronotyryn: It has a cool niche (time mastery), is an unexpected type (magical beast rather than outsider), and is thematically tied into Acheron.
• Abominations: Each of the creature's of this subtype from the Epic Level Handbook could have an entire campaign built around them.
• Nerra: Given the right placement in a module or expanded out in a future book like Lords of Madness, these guys could really shine. They are from a little-used plane with lots of potential.
• Aspects: Similar to swarms, these things fill a niche that has long been unfulfilled. Want your 10th-level characters to battle Tiamat...here's your chance.
• Deathless: First introduced in Book of Exalted Deeds and then expanded upon in Eberron, this allows for good undead that actually make sense. Of course, I'd also mark this one as the most likely to be done to death (pun intended) quickly.
• Symbionts: Another nice niche that needed filling, once again brought to us by the Fiend Folio.
• Ragewalker, Siabrie: These two demonstrate that fey can kick your ass, big time.

 

[Klaus]

You want to design cool?

Hire a great artist.

I totally agree.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

...[*]Ethergaunt (very cool villains, but useless for PCs, too smart and too weird and too genocidally xenophobic to become D&D party members).

Oh, you mean like the drow used to be?

 

[francisca]

True. But I think we can all agree that if they swapped the githyanki drawings for bullywug drawings, the outcome would have been very different.

Not arguing that.

But if I (for one) read the description, and they sounded like another bit of Generic Evil Humanoid Fodder, I would have passed. It was a nice little confluence of inspiring art and a neat little write-up.

 

[Taren Seeker]

I also think that a monster has to have a "Manipulator" feel. To be a really good campaign villain it needs to be intelligent, tough, able to work behind the scenes and come at the party in different ways, be it through different attacks or by other creatures that it controls/dominates/pays/whatever.

I think the Yugoloths were a good attempt at that in 2e when they made them the manipulators in Planescape. Unfortunately they didn't make the initial 3e cut. *shrugs*

 

[Tuzenbach]

This reminds me, if you're going to have a cool monster, HAVE A COOL NAME.
I'm terrible at cool names, but sometimes I get tired of fantasy naming cliche's, here are three I can think of:

1. the hyphenated syllables: Kubla-Khan, Shadar-Kai, Bobba-Fett, etc.
2. the double vowel: Khaasta, Saarkrith, Oomdaaliiduu or whatever.
3. the "word combo" Ethergaunt, Undermountain, Buzzkill, etc.

When I see these types of names I instantly know that I'm reading something fantasy related. Of course cliche is usually something that's overused because it's cool, so I can understand why they're used.

All too true!

 

[I'm A Banana]

You want to design cool?

Hire a great artist.

This is 100% true, but it needs to be more than just an artist who can draw the creature well.

Add to the list of cliches the illustration of a creature looking intimidatingly out of the page, on a white background, with nothing but the creature itself.

Blech.

A good bit of flavor needs context. Art needs to focus on that context as much as the creature, IMHO. Don't just show us the Khen Zai looking cool, show us what they look like when they're revealing their insanity to an unsuspecting mortal, show us the terror in that mortal's eyes. Show us their lairs, ziggurats, as they exist on the ethereal. Show us khen zai cities, show us what it looks like when an ethergaunt materializes into town.

Writing-wise, you also need context. What are the societies of ethergaunts like? How do they live their daily life? What makes them come to the Material plane, and what kind of plots do they get involved in? Who are their allies? Who are their opponents?

That's one situation in which the Shadar-Kai beat the Ethergaunts. They had fractured souls and equipment that bonded with them. The ethergaunts had items, too, but they were "fantasy tech," which has been done before.

The yanki had the Astral citadels, they had Red Dragons, they had the Mind Flayers, and the Githzerai. They had a plot alongside of them. You can't design a new Githyanki just as a monster for players to encounter. It has to be designed first as a setpiece...which runs pretty counter to how the designers at WotC today work with their game.

 

[GrayIguana]

Agreed

You want to design cool?

Hire a great artist.

The art is what attracted me to D&D, and it is the hook that often draws me to read further. I also agree that there has to be more than just the creature on a white background. I'm reminded of a picture from Queen of Spiders (I believe) of the drow priestess sitting on a spider throne, tentacled rod in hand and Hezrou servants in front of her. That sets an image that makes you take some notice.

I also don't believe you can design or formulate coolness as it pertains to the next best thing. Cool means different things to different people. All an artist/designer/writer can do is create what they believe is the best thing. I also think a lot of things are cool that aren't generally accepted by the masses.

If I remember correctly, even Drizzt wasn't supposed to be the next big thing. I believe I read somewhere that he was originally intended to be a side character while the barbarian was the focal hero.

 

[Land Outcast]

If I remember correctly, even Drizzt wasn't supposed to be the next big thing. I believe I read somewhere that he was originally intended to be a side character while the barbarian was the focal hero.

And so we have another example of coolness being not something that a monster/character can achieve, but an inherent attribute of the character.

 

[JediSoth]

The 1E Fiend Folio had a great in-your-face cover of a Githyanki and, from the moment people saw it, they wanted to know what that creature was.

Nah, I think it was just the wierd, marble-bag-lookin' elbows.

JediSoth