GX.Sigma
Adventurer
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand/20130604
Has anyone here ever used rot grubs or ear seekers?
Has anyone here ever used rot grubs or ear seekers?
D&D 5E Wandering Monsters: Living Traps
I haven't used Rot Grubs in D&D, but I have used similar flesh eating grub critters in other games (notable WFRP and AFF). There is nothing like a few zombies filled with flesh eating parasites to really make adventures question their choice of profession.
Ear Seekers on the other hand I can not ever see me using.
Whizbang Dustyboots
Gnometown Hero
Ear seekers are dumb arms race monsters. Players who aren't prepared for them die, so players then have listening cones with metal meshes they use to listen at doors, and ear seekers are no longer involved in the game. Rot grubs and other hazard-monsters are much more versatile and feel like a part of some sort of eco-system.
Ditto the throat leech, which basically seems to exist to force spellcasters to cast Create Food and Water.
Ditto the throat leech, which basically seems to exist to force spellcasters to cast Create Food and Water.
I can recall using rot grubs....once, I think. Back in the day. Standard "reaching in/searching for a shiny in a pile of trash" came out with rot grubs. Put the torch on em. Took the damage, got the shiny. Figured it wasn't really worth it as an interesting encounter.
Throat leeches and ear seekers, never.
I've already decided/made lurkers and trappers the same critter...and their related to mimics. This:
Yes. It is "clear how and whether these creatures can attack creatures that aren't caught inside them." They can't! End of story. There doesn't need to be any further story. You don't need to come up with something else for them to do. They get 1, one, uno attack. Seems pretty clear to me. They're trying to snag you all up in their folds and suffocate you. If you are outside of their folds...HIT THE BLOODY THING to hopefully kill it before it kills your friends inside!
I don't quite see why shrieker was in this list, mentioned violet fungi in its entry, but didn't think both sorts of fungi should all be listed together....but 3 kinds of mold (yellow, brown and green slime) do.
I also don't get why green slime isn't considered a "mold" since it was explicitly stated that it is a plant life. But then, I suppose it could be thrown in with the oozes...but they didn't do that either.
I am also not on board, and I know this is not a popular view, but I am not a fan of drawing these ever more fine arbitrary lines of "monster vs. trap" or "nuisance" or "environmental condition" or "terrain difficulty" or whatever else nonsense made-up terms they continue to assert as part of the "design." It's a living thing, make it a monster or leave it out. If its not important or distinct or interesting or dangerous enough to be an entry in the Monster Manual, just take it out/dump it.
Stop trying to make into other things. This is just another change for changes sake article.
Throat leeches and ear seekers, never.
I've already decided/made lurkers and trappers the same critter...and their related to mimics. This:
is the kind of line that pops up in these articles that just makes me nuts.
Yes. It is "clear how and whether these creatures can attack creatures that aren't caught inside them." They can't! End of story. There doesn't need to be any further story. You don't need to come up with something else for them to do. They get 1, one, uno attack. Seems pretty clear to me. They're trying to snag you all up in their folds and suffocate you. If you are outside of their folds...HIT THE BLOODY THING to hopefully kill it before it kills your friends inside!
I don't quite see why shrieker was in this list, mentioned violet fungi in its entry, but didn't think both sorts of fungi should all be listed together....but 3 kinds of mold (yellow, brown and green slime) do.
I also don't get why green slime isn't considered a "mold" since it was explicitly stated that it is a plant life. But then, I suppose it could be thrown in with the oozes...but they didn't do that either.
I am also not on board, and I know this is not a popular view, but I am not a fan of drawing these ever more fine arbitrary lines of "monster vs. trap" or "nuisance" or "environmental condition" or "terrain difficulty" or whatever else nonsense made-up terms they continue to assert as part of the "design." It's a living thing, make it a monster or leave it out. If its not important or distinct or interesting or dangerous enough to be an entry in the Monster Manual, just take it out/dump it.
Stop trying to make into other things. This is just another change for changes sake article.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
I see Wyatt's in fine "badwrongfun!" mode this time around.
Ear seekers, rot grubs, and the like, have a place in a more challenge-oriented, casual, disposable kind of game. If the challenge is to survive the dungeon, killing PC's for caution, for greed, and for carelessness are all fair game. Heck, that's part of the fun when you play these kinds of games.
They don't work well in more story-focused games, but that's not all D&D is. Wyatt's wrong to disregard other game styles, here.
They're ALSO useful in other kinds of games, if you ratchet down the lethality. They are interesting challenges, scene-setting kinds of obstacles that help keep characters from feeling comfortable in what is essentially an alien, harsh, deadly environment. No, the water in the dungeon might not be safe. No, you can't just dig around in every pile to see if it has treasure. No, you can't always listen to see what might happen in the next room. Sometimes, that's a bad idea (even if it's not always 100% DEADLY).
I'm on board with 99% of the article in considering these critters as traps or hazards or diseases -- that's what they are, that's what they should be, that's the smart way to treat them.
But I will note that he forgot the vanguard for this: the rust monster. If any monster is a trap (and a lot of 1e monsters were!), that one is, and demonstrates handily the insanity of trying to turn everything into a combat monster.
Ear seekers, rot grubs, and the like, have a place in a more challenge-oriented, casual, disposable kind of game. If the challenge is to survive the dungeon, killing PC's for caution, for greed, and for carelessness are all fair game. Heck, that's part of the fun when you play these kinds of games.
They don't work well in more story-focused games, but that's not all D&D is. Wyatt's wrong to disregard other game styles, here.
They're ALSO useful in other kinds of games, if you ratchet down the lethality. They are interesting challenges, scene-setting kinds of obstacles that help keep characters from feeling comfortable in what is essentially an alien, harsh, deadly environment. No, the water in the dungeon might not be safe. No, you can't just dig around in every pile to see if it has treasure. No, you can't always listen to see what might happen in the next room. Sometimes, that's a bad idea (even if it's not always 100% DEADLY).
I'm on board with 99% of the article in considering these critters as traps or hazards or diseases -- that's what they are, that's what they should be, that's the smart way to treat them.
But I will note that he forgot the vanguard for this: the rust monster. If any monster is a trap (and a lot of 1e monsters were!), that one is, and demonstrates handily the insanity of trying to turn everything into a combat monster.
Hussar
Legend
Steel Dragons said:
This I'll disagree with. Anything that can't really move on its own, like molds and slimes, really should just be a trap. Why bother with a full monster write-up? If it can't attack, as you say, then it doesn't need those stats. Rot Grubs, Throat Leeches and the like? Traps. They're pretty binary. There's not a whole lot of difference between an acid trap on the chest and a bunch of rot grubs. Mechanically, they're pretty much exactly the same.
Same goes for shriekers. They can't actually hurt you, so, why do they need hit dice and AC? What's the difference between shriekers and an Alarm spell?
And, if you make these things into traps/hazards, they get treated differently. Maybe the rogue or druid can do something about that trapper instead of just beating on it with lumpy metal things.
I'd actually go the other way and have a fairly lengthy section in the DMG for living hazards. I know the Environmental series (Sandstorm for example) had really cool environmental and living hazards for their specific environments. Makes space in the MM for actual monsters.
GX.Sigma
Adventurer
Because you might want to attack them?
Elodan
Adventurer
This.
Ahhh, @Hussar , my friend. And thus, balance is restored to the multiverse. *satisfying exhale* Things just wouldn't be the same if we agreed all of the time. lolol.
But...they can attack. I'd say smothering you to death in fleshy folds is a pretty potent attack. I'm talking/thinking in their 1e terms, where trappers/lurkers were/could be the size of an entire room [or most of one]! They can kill you...they can kill several party members at a time. Hitting you with a cloud of spores and/or doing cold damage to you can kill you. Yes. They attack. You can attack them back. They are living things [not that big a point in favor since all undead are also considered monsters, but you get the point, I trust.]
As for the mechanics...getting hit with a cloud of spores is no different, mechanically than taking damage from any area effect spell. You have to be in range. You get a save. All attacks, from any monster, are binary. They hit you or they miss. This doesn't say, to me, "Since it's binary they should be a trap."
As GX already said, cuz you can hit them back. You can make them stop what they're doing. AND, to any cautious/intelligent adventurer who comes across one and has a bad time of it, one would think in future, the next time you might see one before it starts shrieking, you can come up with a plan (or area/ranged attacks) to keep it from doing its thing. So yes, they need HD and AC. By this reasoning, should we then make some sentry at a guard post with a bell or horn...just make that a trap too? No, you say? Why not?
Ropers don't move...or don't move quickly/very much, have camouflage to their surroundings, only attack in a limited range/area to their location. Why aren't they up for "trap-creature" status? Or, why aren't all carnivorous plants on this list?
And why should this be the case [that if they are traps they are treating differently]? There's absolutely no reason a rogue or druid couldn't try to do something with them if they are listed, as monsters, in the monster manual. As I said, deciding to call them traps is simply changing for changes sake.
Are not all monsters a "living hazard"? Other than undead of course...or golems...does that mean the whole MM is just undead and "living" statues? Carnivorous plants, they're just "environmental concerns" now, I suppose? As i said earlier, why the shrieker but not the violet fungi? From Wyatt's article I can only surmise that it's because it has "branches" that can lash out to attack you...but it can't really move...but it's a still a monster? Why the molds but not the oozes...and for gods' sake, think of the puddings! *shakes fists in anguish to the sky*
I completely agree. Monsters in the MM. That is what they are...that is my actual argument and point.
I'm on board that throat leeches and ear seekers are nothing more than deterrents for a particular type/style of play (or to dissuade, such). They were, and rot grubs to a degree, a simple "f-- u" critter for nasty DMs to assault their players with. Those kinds of things don't really require being monsters any longer. Or certainly not in the primary "core" MM. Hey, maybe they do show up in some Environmental hazards book as periphery critters for DMs that want that kind of thing.
As Whizbang [I think it was] said, I am inclined to leave rot grubs in the MM since they give the feeling of belonging/serving some actual ecosystem role and those sorts of minor contributions to internal consistency are almost always fine in my book. Shriekers, similarly fulfill this roll. A symbiotic creature [in this case a fungi] that has adapted to its environment. Sure. Why not.
My point is, if all the creature is is a nasty "gotcha dead" for mean DMs, then they don't really need to be in the MM. D&D isn't really that kinda game anymore. It can be, certainly. And I agree, in part, with Kamikaze Midget that the writer should not be discounting that style of play outright. But I have no indications that that antagonistic/DM v. player concept is what 5e is trying to be again, nor does removing the throaters or earwigs make it untenable. And those critters can always be added in some kinda supplementary release. No problem.
Actual critters with actual purposes [beyond "gotcha dead"], even if they're not swinging swords or breathing fire, are "monsters", even if only in the broad sense of the word (i.e. anything that's not a PC). They belong in the MM.
And, since when/where does it say that if you can't fight things on both sides of you that you're not really a monster? Anything with only 1 attack is now a trap?! Come. on.
These creatures are all threats, yes. Are they the biggest or most mobile or most damage causing? No. [though I'd certainly say getting changed into green slime in 3 rounds might be the most horrible possible end for a PC, waaaay beyond getting hacked or clawed or spell-ed to death]. But they are all viable creatures who are threats to the PCs. That makes them monsters, not "traps."
That means, yes, they get HD and AC and number of attacks and movement rates (even 'nil'), etc...They can be fought or interacted with in some fashion -Maybe the druid knows how to rub just the right place on the edge of a trapper to lull it to sleep while you walk across. Maybe the ranger spots the piercers so the mage can throw a sleep spell at the ceiling. Maybe the rogue ties an oil-soaked rag to his 10' pole to -very quickly- "mop" a swathe into the green slime and sets it alight.
I see nothing in this position that does not, simply, support my assertion that this article is just more suggesting of changes where they needn't be.
If you want to consider them "trap monster" or "living hazard" or whatever bs, though doing so in no way changes what the creature is or how one would interact with it (again, changes for changes sake), then put that under their entry in the MM.
Or is the argument that "if we make it a trap then a rogue can detect and diffuse it. If it's environmental, the druid can do something" or whatever. That and "we can put them someplace else/reorganize them."
Is that all there is to this position? This oh so needed and relevant alteration that it required an article proposing and purporting it as a matter of design that required thought and examination?
Cuz I see no reason, for the interaction, your characters can't/couldn't do that already when they were "monsters." For the organization, they are creature threats, that makes them monsters. That puts them in the Monster Manual.
Hussar
Legend
Do trees need HP? I can attack and kill a tree. Just how many times do I have to hit a tree with an axe to "kill" it?
Doors have HP and hardness ratings. Why not go with that? Give it a Break DC and be done. Why do I need a full monster write-up for something that can be summarized in about two sentences?
SD said:
Well, mostly because ropers aren't binary. If they miss, they can attack you again. If the Brown Mold misses you, it's done. It can't come and get you, it can't attack you again unless you jump into it again.
The difference between trap monsters and say, plant monsters, is that trap monsters are pretty much entirely reactive. They can't actually do anything and are mechanically no different than any other trap. The PC has to do something to set off the trap. Once the trap has been sprung, it might reset (depending on the trap) but, so long as the PC doesn't do whatever triggers the trap again, the trap won't go off again.
Ropes specifically are a bit of an odd case, but, they're weird enough that I'd leave them in the MM. At least they can talk. They're more a very slow NPC than a trap.
As far as carnivorous plant monsters, heck, I'd make most of them into trap/hazards. Why is a Giant Sundew taking up space in the MM? It's 100% a trap monster. You wander into it, it grabs you and eats your face. That's it. Fungi/mold/slimes? Yup, traps.
3e made trap monsters a bit of an after thought in the DMG. I'd put trap/hazards into a big section with lots and lots of advice and make them cool.
Similar Threads
