D&D 5E Wandering Monsters: Changing Shape

[Blackwarder]

Once more unto the breach!
In today wondering monsters column James talkes about Lycanthropes! I always had a soft spot for them, Especialy wererats, ever since I read the 2e PHB introduction to play. I must say though that the recent obsession with werewolves in the mainstream media completely turned me off...

Anyway, head over here to read the latest WM column: http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand/20130226

Warder​

 

[Blackwarder]

Having finally read through the article I must say WOW! I'm really impressed I could find nothing that I object to in this article, seriously I half expected WotC to tow to the new line of werewolves being some sort of misunderstood noble savages, but they didn't.

Anyway I really liked it.

Warder

 

[Li Shenron]

I think the article has mostly good ideas, but Werewolves are such a fantasy staple with so many variants (maybe second only to Vampires) that every gaming group is likely to consider their own variation (storywise, not necessarily mechanical variant). In any case, the article's proposals are fairly standard so they make a fine starting point for everyone.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

I prefer envisioning doppelgangers as sinister social manipulators who use their disguise ability and natural cunning to amass personal power and advance their causes. This makes them a scarier threat and prime adversaries for intrigue and conspiracy plots.

Describing them as cowardly hedonistic grifters whose main purpose is to live off the efforts of others completely takes the wind out of their sails. "Laziness" is a poor motivation for an adversary, in my opinion.

(Of course Wyatt's description doesn't prevent me from depicting them as I prefer in my game but I think they make more interesting and more useful creatures my way.)

 

[steeldragons]

Like it. And even moreso that there's finally been a column (again) that I can say I agree with, pretty much 100%.

Only quibble would be making "Weretigers" into "Werecats" and explaining that they can be tigers or lions or pumas or lynx or what have you. That said, Weretigers are the D&D tradition and the one with actual folkloric/mythological roots. So I'm ok with weretigers. (That, and the fact that each separate type of cat would require its own write up as they each behave and live very differently. So the other different cat-kinds could definitely come in some later monster book/supplement.)

I did always like the Foxwoman idea also (and another with mythological roots)...and would just assume they are added under "Lycanthrope" and listed as "Werefox" instead of their own separate kind of creature...since they're not. But, again, some other/later monster material is fine for them.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

Mostly liked it. But where are the werehyenas, the werefoxes, etc.? And I'd definitely make wereboars Chaotic rather than Neutral. (Maybe Chaotic Neutral.) And, as someone else said, Lycan refers to wolves only. Fix that please!

 

[pemerton]

I didn't really get the wereboar-orc nexus - where does that come from?

Also, I didn't really follow this:

Doppelgangers are parasitic shapechangers that live off the efforts of others.

<snip>

a doppelganger that is serious about maintaining a specific false identity usually keeps its victims alive and close at hand so it can behave and speak authentically.

<snip>

They're neutral—selfish and hedonistic, but not malicious​

Taking someone prisoner so that you can periodically read their thoughts to maintain the disguise whereby you betray all their friends and steal all their wealth seems at least somewhat malicious to me!

 

[Wednesday Boy]

I sure hope they include the seawolf in D&D Next. I think we can all agree that it's a crutial lycanthrope for most of our campaigns.

And, as someone else said, Lycan refers to wolves only. Fix that please!

Personally I prefer calling all werecreatures lycanthropes despite the inaccuracy. I think it's because it sounds more arcane and fantastical than werecreature. And 'therianthrope' strikes me as pedantic. But I can appreciate why people dislike using lycanthrope too generally.

I didn't really get the wereboar-orc nexus - where does that come from?

I don't know the rationale behind pairing wereboars and orcs but their entry in the 2nd Ed. Monstrous Manual mentioned that they do as well. Maybe Wyatt included it because it had a historical root in D&D? (Also, in a 2nd Ed. module our party met a wereboar while infiltrating an orcish city but I can't remember if that was something written into the module or something my brother, the GM, added.)

 

[Klaus]

Orcs, boars and wereboars are connected since the "pig-headed orc" days of 1e. Nothing more to it than that.

D&D already has an extensive treaty on Lycanthropy/Therianthropy, in the form of Van Richten's Guide to Werebeasts. In most campaigns, werewolves are the most common werebeasts, so the name probably began with them and was applied to all other strains.

 

[pemerton]

I don't know the rationale behind pairing wereboars and orcs but their entry in the 2nd Ed. Monstrous Manual mentioned that they do as well.

Orcs, boars and wereboars are connected since the "pig-headed orc" days of 1e.

2nd ed AD&D isn't an edition I know very well, but I'm going to have to pull out my AD&D MM and see what it says about this whole wereborar-orc nexus.

My only recollection of a wereboar in a module is in A2 Secret of the Slavers Stockade - where there are wereboars in the kitchen who throw axes at PCs who enter! (But no orcs that I recall.)

The only other time I remember using a wereboar was when I ran H2 Thunderspire Labyrinth - I changed the boar the gnolls are tormenting into a wereboar instead. The PCs rescued and befriended him.