Wandering Monsters - Golems

[dkyle]

I think this may be the crux of our difference in opinion. In 1E/2e/3e (haven't kept up with 4E's statblocks), there was more than only combat information in the statblock - from Environment, Intelligence, % in Lair to even a Special Abilities line that might have abilities listed that had little or no bearing on its performance in combat. In othe words, the statblocks used to convey more information than mere combat stats.

I guess what I'm ultimately aiming for is clarity: if you've got a statblock with combat stats, then it should be stats that are conducive to build fun and engaging combats.

If you want to also include other "world building" or "quest hook ideas" sorts of information, then fine, but these don't really need to be mechanics, assuming D&D's traditionally anemic non-combat mechanics, and even if they are mechanized, there's no need to have them clouding up the combat stats.

I don't want to see a monster - like good ol' green slime, yellow mold and rot grubs - removed from a monster manual simply because they don't have a combat stat block.

My solution wouldn't be to remove them, but to have a combat statblock that represents their essential features as closely as possible while still being a useful tool for creating fun and engaging combats, then have suggestions for the DM on how the creature can instead act as an obstacle that is profoundly difficult to fight, and suggestions for how the players might deal with it outside of combat, or weaken it in some way that makes it a fightable challenge using the provided statblock. If there's an actual non-combat system (which D&D hasn't really had outside 4E's Skill Challenges), then include whatever stats would be useful to interact in a compelling way with that system.

 

[Balesir]

Nothing is there "to be fought". The stat blocks are there to use IF the PC's decide to fight.

This I essentially agree with, but the previous discussion was about creatures that were intended to be impossible to fight or simply fruitless to fight. Engaging in a sort of arms race with the players to make such creatures "unfightable" seems to me to be a waste of time; far better to define them such that the encounter is not really a "combat", as such. [MENTION=70707]dkyle[/MENTION] put it well in his later post:

My solution wouldn't be to remove them, but to have a combat statblock that represents their essential features as closely as possible while still being a useful tool for creating fun and engaging combats, then have suggestions for the DM on how the creature can instead act as an obstacle that is profoundly difficult to fight, and suggestions for how the players might deal with it outside of combat, or weaken it in some way that makes it a fightable challenge using the provided statblock. If there's an actual non-combat system (which D&D hasn't really had outside 4E's Skill Challenges), then include whatever stats would be useful to interact in a compelling way with that system.

So green slime, for example, becomes something more akin to a natural hazard or a trap than a conventional "monster". Rather than shoehorning such things into the combat mould (pun intended), handle them as terrain or as exploratory hazards, as fits the circumstance in which they are encountered.

 

[pemerton]

I think the problem I had with 4e is that they did it half way which is annoying. They partially followed the canon instead of throwing it ALL out and starting new.
5 alignments which kept LG and CE, but tossed the rest just frustrated people who understood what LE and CG were, and even the NG and NE people, not to mention the LNs and CNs who didn't think they belonged to unaligned. If you are going to do it, do it the full way.

Obviously you know your own mind, but you need to be careful about generalising to others.

I'm very familiar with the 9 alignment system, but much prefer the 4e system, which is a variant on the original D&D L/N/C approach to alignment.

 

[Tovec]

OK, but that's essentially the same. Why should an animated suit of armor be immune to Disintegrate?

The primary reasons I guess is that it almost always has, and why NOT?
It may have been an ability pulled out of a hat way back when, but now it is something that is generally associated with golems. Don't like it? Remove it in your games. I can even be persauded that they should add rules for if you want a non-magic immune golem. But asking why all golems are immune (at least to some extent) seems as fruitless to me as many other such conversations I'm having these days about the roots of creatures in DnD.

Plus, as I said, why not? I love the magic immunity of the creature, they're pretty well damage immune from mundane sources too, even if you have magic weapons - though not if you have a golfbag.

I strongly dislike rust monsters as well.

Okay, rust monsters are out, for you, and so are golems. I could guess other creatures you dislike too. How many of these no longer belong in the MM because you dislike them? Can we do that with creatures I dislike or find silly or useless too?

But "screw [X]" monsters are pointless because they serve no real purpose. If a DM wants to "screw [X]", he can do so, trivially, whether there's a monster in a Monster Manual designed to "screw X" or not.

I suppose in a certain sense some golems can be used as traps, or equally as creatures depending on what they are doing. If it is stationary, guarding a specific spot and killing trespassers it might work as a trap. If it is being sent after someone to kill then, then it is really more of a creature.

As far as the "screw X" comment - there are lots of creatures that can do it. I don't see why golems are so unique there. You complained that they screw casters, but casters who are doing their job well are still as capable of taking them down - just as fighters who have that golfbag of weapons are able to. If either of those types lacks the specific tool then the creature is immune. That is pretty cool. There aren't many creatures that are blanket immune to things. That is part of their charm - at least to me.

Meanwhile, it's a trap for unwitting DMs who don't want to screw anyone over, but just wanted a monster made out of clay, for all their players to have fun fighting.

A completely valid point. Suggest that to WotC. There is certainly room for non-immune golems too, at least in my opinion. If you want a golem made out of clay that isn't a "clay golem" then that is excellent. I imagine, however, that this version of the clay golem would look fairly close to the magic-immune version. In such a case, why not remove the immunity for that creature in your game?

That'll depend on how much of a pain it is to get special metals weapons. Certainly, "resists unless [X]" is less of a screw over than "immune".

Okay, so would the creature work equally well if it had really high spell resistance. Or major bonuses to all magical schools? Maybe immunity isn't the worst thing in the world, considering there are a number of spells that bypass.

But really, I'm not fond of special metals based DR either.

Again, that is a whole other kettle of fish. If you don't like something I really can't convince you its a good idea or that you Should like it. It isn't my job. All I can do is try to explain why others may like it.

Also, should we all modify our games, or completely alter the core because of your personal preference (or lack thereof) of something?

If they're preprogrammed, why does killing the controller matter? The article even suggests that golems have no dependence on their creator being dead or alive. And "preprogrammed" doesn't mean much beyond fluff anyway, unless there are specific mechanics for it. Otherwise, it's just the same DM control that all monsters have.

This is a valid point. I don't know why the programming stops them once the caster is dead. I assume its for the same reason summoned creatures should be un-summoned when they die? I guess that the magical act of binding an earth spirit only lasts so long as the caster is alive, or so long as the golem is protecting a sigil - I think they said.

Honestly I was just giving that as a defense of why they aren't too terrible to face. If you are a high level caster and have the choice; do you summon the demon that is chaotic and powerful but likely to kill you if it has the chance, or the devil who will try and steal your soul, or the fire elemental that will burn your place to the ground? Or do you pour that magic into a suit of armor that can walk around, be sent to a location to guard it, can target a specific person until they are dead and have no choice but to follow your commands (unless they go berserk)? Personally in that case I'd be looking for the mindless creature that obeys only me. The fact that it is permanent and magic immune are big shiny extras, and make them great guards or assassins.

In any event, I see little reason to publish a monster that is not meant to be fought. A DM doesn't need statblocks for "this monster is nearly impossible to fight; find another way!". We can do that ourselves. It's trivial. What's not trivial is having balanced, fun fights, that engage all players. A monster that doesn't serve that end is a waste of a statblock.

I know you dismissed this already. But certain creatures are only meant to be fought if they are fought intentionally, by the players. The tarrasque is never meant to be fought and certainly cannot be killed. Its stats still belong in the game. Although I would assume you probably have a problem with the tarrasque too. It is also immune and insanely powerful after all, can't have that.

Of course, ideally, I'd like to see systems that use statblocks for social and explorational encounters with creatures as well as combat, but we didn't get that (outside of the generic "skill challenge") in 4E and there's no sign that it's coming in DDN, either. So, as long as stat blocks are only extant for combat, I don't see the point of having stat blocks for creatures that are never intended to be fought.

Tarrasque. Pit Fiends. Golems. All of these are insanely strong. All of these should probably never be defeated by PCs, at least not to any great extent. All belong in the MM, as they have been for SEVERAL versions already. Several forms of dragons probably belong in this group as well, but there are a lot of weaker forms that people want to try and slay at lower levels - much to many people's chagrin.

There is a big difference between you can avoid this thing and it cannot be fought. There is an equally large difference between hard to kill, and impossible, or should not be attempted at all.

I'm making a distinction between "what appears in the Monster Manual", and "what a DM uses in his campaign".

For everyone apparently.

The statblocks in the Monster Manual are just building blocks for making combat encounters, because fun, engaging, balanced combat encounters are the difficult part of running a game.

This can easily turn into a large thread to be argued about by itself, so I'll let it go too.

That doesn't mean monsters, in actual practice, need to be all about "fight, fight, fight". It's easy to take a balanced monster and make it impossible (or just more difficult) to defeat in combat, until the players have done X, Y, Z. It's very much not easy to take a monster that's not designed to be fought, and make a balanced combat encounter out of it.

This all sounds like my own arguments though.

There is indeed nothing wrong with having such creatures. There's just little point in having them as statblocks in the MM as such.

I don't understand this. There are several creatures in the MM, that belong there, that are probably not going to be fought too often. However, if they are ever needed then it would be especially helpful to be able to easily crack open the book and find stats on them, nymphs included.

I don't see why you'd need a book to tell you how to make a monster that can't be fought head-on.

You are confusing Can't and Shouldn't.
One is an impossibility, one is difficult but possible. You shouldn't try to fight a golem head on, because they are hard to beat. That doesn't mean you can't. Nor does it mean they shouldn't have stats if you do.
9/10 it is (or should be) advisable to avoid a [let's specify strong - as per above] dragon. He has a lot more HP, muscle, magic, breath-weapon, etc. and will kill you. Now, if we used your system we would have no stats for when a dragon is fought. , I guess when that happens the PCs just lose. Dragons are environmental afterall and don't belong in the MM anymore.

Now, I could see including "non-combat challenge" monsters in the MM, but they should be clearly marked as such, and would be there to provide tools for a different sort of encounter. You might even have an entry for "story golem", which is effectively invincible until the players acquire the right item, in which case you jump to the "combat golem" statblocks, which provide mechanics appropriate for building a fun combat encounter with the golem.

There might be certain things, namely certain plants or fungi, or oozes maybe some animals or vermin too - but only some; that belong in the "non-combat" category you are defining. I don't know how you would classify any other creature as "non-combat" though. Nymphs probably don't need to get into fights often, but when they do they will have tactics and abilities that are hugely different from an elf (or are elves non-combat?). Even things like oozes can make grisly enemies, trust me I almost died to a VERY active one a couple of weeks back. It doesn't belong in the MM? Why not? Only because you define it as such, is the only reason I can find.

That may well be true in the way you run the game. But once the players do decide to fight something, then the statblocks are there to be fought. There's no other reason to have them there.

Again, that is exactly my point. Golems are difficult to fight. But they can still be fought. So they belong in the MM, I'm glad you agree.

I think his point was that they have historically (until 4e) had MORE information than just how to fight these creatures (or how these creatures fight) in the MM. More information so that you can use just the MM and run a full encounter with a creature. Is this bad to you? Would you rather I have to bring a monster mindset book AND a monster stats book to game?

The presence of fightable statblocks in the monster manual does not imply that all monsters encountered in your game must be fightable, or "meant to be fought". The monster manual is there for you to use as you see fit.

Wow, my point exactly - again!

At most, you shouldn't need any more than a few quick ideas in the accompanying text about how a dryad might behave outside of combat, and how the PCs might need to do something first before they can reasonably fight a dryad using the provided statblock.

But here we come into conflict again, what does that mean exactly?

And then if a DM just wants a woodsy spellcaster, and isn't particularly interested in it being a major mythological being, they have a statblock they can use like any other, without actually limiting your desired take on the dryad in any way.

But if a DM is just looking through the book without any idea what a creature IS or what it DOES then it means they HAVE TO come up with something, instead of just having something ready for them to play. DMs may be familiar with a dryad, but there might be other or more unorthodox creatures that benefit from having fuller descriptions than just "use X ability on round 1, use Y on round 2, use Z on round 3, then restart at X."


:HOLY UNRELATED BATMAN::

Obviously you know your own mind, but you need to be careful about generalising to others.

What was generalized incorrectly?

I'm very familiar with the 9 alignment system, but much prefer the 4e system, which is a variant on the original D&D L/N/C approach to alignment.

Okay, I'm happy for you? Does this all relate to the word "understand" in that quote? I wasn't specifying that people who prefer any of the cut alignments MUST prefer them to the 5. I'm merely saying that it is frustrating if you use the 9 alignments and are now restricted to 5 that do not adequately relate to your previous alignment.

Yeah, not sure what the gripe was/is.

 

[howandwhy99]

Early Clay Golems went berserk because they were possessed like a creature might be by evil spirits (or any spirits) who sought personal control of the vessel. I'm guessing this is a consequence of the population of the Ethereal realm.

Each melee round the clay golem is in combat there is a 1% cumulative chance that it will be imbued by a chaotic evil spirit. If this happens the clay golem immediately passes from the control of the cleric and attacks any living thing, moving to the closest one to attack, and proceeding on to the next after killing it. This behavior will continue until the golem is destroyed, for control can never be regained

-Though I'd say you could perform an Exorcism on it, if you could manage to secure the thing.

Early Flesh Golems may have had some of the leftover animating spirit from the bodies they were made from, at least if they were made from previously living creatures. That's my take leastways.

For each turn of melee a flesh golem engages in there is a 1% per melee round cumulative chance it will go berskerk, attacking at random anything in sight. The monster's master has a 10% per melee round chance of regaining control of the golem.

 

[Balesir]

Tarrasque. Pit Fiends. Golems. All of these are insanely strong. All of these should probably never be defeated by PCs, at least not to any great extent. All belong in the MM, as they have been for SEVERAL versions already. Several forms of dragons probably belong in this group as well, but there are a lot of weaker forms that people want to try and slay at lower levels - much to many people's chagrin.

I would draw a distinction between just "strong/powerful" - such creatures as big dragons, pit fiends and even the tarrasque would fit here - and "immune to being fought", which is what was being supported for the golem. Strong, powerful tough stuff is quite possible to beat - it's just hard and requires high level characters. Nothing wrong with a tough or even undesirable challenge

Building a "monster" that just can't be hurt by combat powers, though, is another kettle of fish. It speaks to the "monster" in question being more in the nature of a puzzle or hazard than an actual "combatant", as such. The statistics needed for such a challenge are not the classic "combat stats", is all I'm saying.