Unique Monster Trait Tables

[Connorsrpg]

OK - read the link...and well, I liked a lot of the Generators and I liked your explanations. Yes, a lot of them might not help 'on the spot' but they are good for planning. (Well, that is how I like to use them...and on the spot...I hope mine can be both).

Anyway. Say you rolled a Big Cat on some encounter chart - here are some twists to that encounter based on a few random rolls on my charts again:

1. Feat - wow, got this one again, and I reckon there would be many cool feats to add to the big cat (but don't have options with me at moment ).
2. Slow - Cat recently had rear leg mangled in trap. [half speed]
3. Strong - Larger muscle bulk [+4 Str, or if you prefer, +2 to Str-based checks]
4. Old - [Suggested mod was to reduce 2 levels. If this is done on fly, simply -2 to all checks, speed, damage, etc]
5. Template - Rolled to add a template (have book refs as to where these are on chart, but, again, don't have books - but I feel entries like this are important so those extras like templates get used. A draconic cat would be cool - see pic).
6. Lower Dex - Cat is clumsier than most. [Lower Dex by 2; or -1 to Dex related checks, defenses etc).
7. Fighting Another Encounter - roll another encounter.

Note - I have a chart indicating what encounters are doing, and this last entry was from that. There are several different charts to give encounters something different/unique. BUT, should I not be including these here? Should this thread just be for distinct physical characteristics?

What about personality traits (like the orcs above)? Happy to go with your preferences mkill. Your thread and all.

BTW: Not sure this is going to remain relevant to 5E/Next, but it is a GREAT thread idea you could probably post elsewhere

 

[mkill]

[MENTION=19265]Connorsrpg[/MENTION]: I like what you are doing there, but it fits a different purpose. Your tables assume the DM has time - time to roll on separate tables, time to look through a document with several pages, time to go back to his library and get a book, time to completely rewrite the monster with a template... It's a different tool with a different scenario.

My scenario is that the DM is improvising - maybe the PCs ran off an unexpected thread. Maybe some friends came over and saw the books, and someone suggested rolling up characters. Now you want to put a flameskull on the table, and you need just one little twist. In my scenario, you have 10 seconds - then the PCs start talking, drawing their swords, or throwing fireballs. It can be little tidbit to throw at the party before they roll initiative, or a first clue that you later build upon.

Speaking of Flameskull... I love this monster. Just coming up with different ideas how this monster came to be gave me the next table.

d10
1 Apprentice betrayed by his master
2 Volunteer to guard an ancient secret
3 Head templar of an ancient fire cult
4 Last prank of an illusionist with a penchant for riddles
5 Created by a rival as a victory trophy
6 Scholar who wanted to continue studies eternally
7 Failed lich transformation
8 Fire sorceress who wanted to keep an eye on her progeny
9 Innocent victim of a ruthless necromancer
10 Amnesiac trying to rediscover his past

 

[Connorsrpg]

[MENTION=55985]mkill[/MENTION]

Yeah, I see what you are doing here. I understand the large charts I attached are better for planning. I was just using them to generate the small tables to attach to each monster. To get ideas for the monster tables you are doing.

So the 1-7 stuff is for that, but I guess I should at least go to 10 (as it is hard to roll a d7 ).

As I said, this makes for a great thread title. Perhaps you should do it in the General RP, as it could be VERY useful. As for 5E/Next...I could certainly see a use for these in each monster. As stated - could even cut back on stat blocks.

Anything in particular I should eliminate from the above egs? (Obviously, I would normally have just written in a relevant feat for that entry, but didn't have my books). I thought the 1-7 charts I was doing were for the 10 sec approach? (As for template - I guess that could simply be changed to "Odd Appearance" - the cat has draconic heritage? No need for rules really, though others had rule mods. Get the point about applying whole template thing - perhaps a +2 AC would suit the pic)?

BTW that flaming skull chart is very good. Something like this could certainly accompany the monster description.

 

[Vegepygmy]

The trouble is, what happens when your players have fought more than 10-12 of that monster?

1. Throw up your hands in despair and quit the game, because it's obviously broken?
2. Use your own imagination?

 

[mkill]

Hill Giant

d10
1 Hunter: will barter furs and meat; attacks poachers [Giant spear: 2d8 damage]
2 Brash youth: Looking for a fight to test his mettle; surrenders if outmatched
3 Village guard: Protects his settlement; allows passage for a fee
4 Outlaw: Attacks caravans for treasure
5 Mountain recluse: Just wants to be left alone
6 Curious fellow: Likes stories of the little people, flees if attacked
7 Lumberjack: Trades wood items in exchange for help [Axe: 2d8 damage]
8 Sweettooth: Trades gems and trinkets for honey or candy
9 Shaman: Wears leaf coat and ceremonial mask [Heal +7, Nature +8, calls Treant if attacked]
10 Village Idiot: innocent and child-like [Int 5, Wis 3]

 

[Dog Moon]

1. Throw up your hands in despair and quit the game, because it's obviously broken?
2. Use your own imagination?

OR, you could start thinking of WHY there are the main 10-12 options.

WHY are there so many Orcs missing eyes? Obviously, Orcs are violent and should have scars, but why are so many missing a specific eye? Perhaps these Orcs are considered blessed by the other Orcs and they are looked to for leadership. Or perhaps they are undergoing some sort of ceremony that will grant that greater powers, such as by a secret Beholder worshipped by the Orcs that is unknown to the PCs. Later maybe some of the Orcs will have eyes on the sockets that don't match and these eyes will have differing powers of the beholder. Green eyes = petrification, black eyes = Inflict, etc.

Half the point of me looking at other books is the trying to figure out why things are as they are. Why do Golems travel in Gangs? Why do Otyughs speak Common? That sort of thing. Such a simple question can lead to so many other ideas. But I think it's important to have a beginning, somewhere to start. Varying options for races is the perfect spot for that.

 

[mkill]

OR, you could start thinking of WHY there are the main 10-12 options.

Because the guy who wrote the list wrote down the first 15-20 things that came to his mind, crossed a few out and posted the rest.

As I said, it's not exhaustive or representative of all possible Orc encounters, it's just some random ideas that would make fighting an orc more memorable. You might as well argue that 44.4% of the population of Middle Earth are hobbits because of their prevalence in the Fellowship.

WHY are there so many Orcs missing eyes?

Gruumsh

 

[Libramarian]

It's not stupid to point out that one would rapidly exhaust 10 or 12 descriptions.

Of course you can make up your own results after using the ones there. That's not the point.

The point is that random roll tables take up a lot of space and you've got to have high standards for what to include in a book that is expected to serve as a reference work for 5-10 years. If it something gimmicky that people use once or twice and then ignore, that's good enough for a spitball blog post but not good enough for the MM.

Rolling on a table is a rule, and must be tested for usefulness before stuffing it into the game, like any other rule. You don't get to just toss in random appearance tables any more than you get to toss in optional combat rules that pop into your head.

You seem to be unaware that the vast majority of random roll tables posted in OSR blogs are not actually used by anyone. People just like to look at them. They're decorative.

 

[Connorsrpg]

[MENTION=6688858]Libramarian[/MENTION]

I am shocked! What's this 'people don't use them'? They are my favourite part of any book to me.

But I see your point, especially with common creatures and humanoids at that. Simply use the NPC Traits charts for those...and there are MANY of those and will no doubt make an appearance in the DMG Next time around too.

However, small tables for more unique creatures like the flaming skull are very flavourful and can add a lot to the game (no rules either). I would suggest sticking with these types of ideas if it is a push for 5E/Next.

Regarding space. Again, I don't see it as wasted. In fact small trait/weapon/power changes can be handled exactly like this rather than whole new stat blocks. One shaded text (like later 4E supplements) that detail one power that can be added on or replace a power for the main stat block would be a far better use of space than printing 6 stat blocks for orcs with different weapons/concepts. I like the idea of an orc stat block modified with one line for archer, berserker, etc. AND these 'could' be done as additional tables, but probably will just be listed...

 

[mkill]

It's not stupid to point out that one would rapidly exhaust 10 or 12 descriptions.

For orcs and goblins, maybe. But how many purple worms do you fight over the lifespan of one edition? Zero, maybe one, max 3 if the DM totally has a thing for purple worms. A MM has what, 300 monsters? That's 3000 rolls...

Of course you can make up your own results after using the ones there. That's not the point.

It is. It's the argument that defeats the above point.

The point is that random roll tables take up a lot of space and you've got to have high standards for what to include in a book that is expected to serve as a reference work for 5-10 years. If it something gimmicky that people use once or twice and then ignore, that's good enough for a spitball blog post but not good enough for the MM.

I think "something gimmicky that people use once or twice" is a good description for 90% of D&D monsters. Tarrasque? Rust Monster? Gelatinous Cube? Black Pudding? (And these are the good examples...)

Rolling on a table is a rule, and must be tested for usefulness before stuffing it into the game, like any other rule. You don't get to just toss in random appearance tables any more than you get to toss in optional combat rules that pop into your head.

I'd be very happy if someone playtests this to check how useful it is.

You seem to be unaware that the vast majority of random roll tables posted in OSR blogs are not actually used by anyone. People just like to look at them. They're decorative.

Which is fine, really. If a random table has enough cool ideas that you can pick even without rolling, it's useful. Have you seen the character generation in the Maid RPG? That's random tables done well.

Most, however, take too much time and produce boring, trivial, or unuseful results. If I need half an hour to find out that there are three fifth-level human guards with halberds on patrol, that's 30 mins of prep time wasted.

Now, can you guys stop stelling me why it doesn't work? I keep repeating my arguments from page one. Why don't you get creative instead and try making your own table?