D&D 5E Wandering Monsters: Living Traps

[Plaguescarred]

I love these and want them all in! I think their description was good enought. I like that some monsters are designed as Hazard/Trap too!

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's also worth noting that, IMO, the Monster Manual should contain trap monsters.

It's a book of interesting encounters, not just a list of things to use in the combat system.

 

[Sunseeker]

I like the idea of one large, shapeless monster that takes on various non-specific inanimate forms. So we could just generally call the "Mimic" any creature that takes on the form of a stone, a stalagmite, or other feature-few object and awaits for unsuspecting adventurers or creatures to approach. I don't really see the need to have a dozen different types of "monsters that turn into harmless objects". I think we could simply use "mimic" and come up with some locational variants. I mean, imagine how a mimic might work in a swamp, or a desert, areas devoid of common outstanding formations or areas of constant movement?

I tend not to use "gotcha" monsters like the bugs listed towards the bottom, I'd rather you "listen at the door" and "hear nothing" only to walk into a room that was being magically silenced and are totally taken by surprise. Plus, I don't really enjoy killing my players since I run non-standard parties and a necessary-level cleric is not always around.

 

[Zustiur]

I want a book containing traps and hazards. Some of these would be ideal candidates for entries in that book.

Sent via Tapatalk 2

 

[Hussar]

The is a great deal of difference between a shrieker and other sorts of alarms. There is the ecological factor. Shriekers are scavengers and fill that niche in an ecosystem. Creatures have properties and are worthy of consideration beyond thier use in an encounter.

Monsters need a place in the game world that goes beyond combat/mechanical considerations. I don't need a book that is just full of stats to fight. If the mindset with Next is that monsters are only useful as far as how well they perform in an encounter then it has already failed to get the concept behind a campaign world before release.

True, but, none of this applies to mechanics. There is no reason that a scavenger needs to be in the MM. Add in the line, "Shriekers eat dead stuff" into the hazard description.

Again, why do I need a full combat stats block for a creature that can't fight?

 

[Hussar]

It's also worth noting that, IMO, the Monster Manual should contain trap monsters.

It's a book of interesting encounters, not just a list of things to use in the combat system.

Why?

Why do trap monsters need full monster writeups? I'm not saying they need less writeups, just, why do they need full stat blocks? Who cares what the strength rating of a shrieker is? Does it really matter what the Con score or what skills a Yellow Mold has?

Then again, if you want to add a section to the Monster Manual for Hazard/Traps that would be groovy too. It got buried in the DMG in 3e and I think that was a mistake. Make it a big, bold section with lots of examples. Sure, put it in the Monster Manual.

But, I don't think that living trap/hazards need to be given a full monster stat block. It's a waste of space.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Why?

My next article is going live in a few hours. You should see a link on the sidebar. I'll point you first to that.

But I'll hit a few other points here:

Why do trap monsters need full monster writeups? I'm not saying they need less writeups, just, why do they need full stat blocks? Who cares what the strength rating of a shrieker is? Does it really matter what the Con score or what skills a Yellow Mold has?

I think your assumption that there is one "monster stat block" that is applied to all monsters in every circumstance might be a little off-base, given this. Maybe a Shrieker gets a "trap-style" stat block that doesn't reference a Strength score, since pit traps don't have STR, either.

I'd also note that more information is generally a better way to default toward compared to less information. If a DM wants to figure out if the halfling PC can stand on the Shrieker without it snapping, maybe he could use the thing's Strength score. More props give you more options and more bits to hang rulings and rolls and stories and adventures and scenes on. It's more grist for the mill.

Then again, if you want to add a section to the Monster Manual for Hazard/Traps that would be groovy too. It got buried in the DMG in 3e and I think that was a mistake. Make it a big, bold section with lots of examples. Sure, put it in the Monster Manual.

I'm with you, there. "Traps go in the DMG" has been responsible for me personally nearly ignoring the presence of traps unless I take a deliberate concerted effort for over a decade of playing this game. My article goes into a bit of why I think MM's work as a place for this kind of info.

 

[pemerton]

Has anyone here ever used rot grubs or ear seekers?

I probably used ear seekers back in the 80s - I don't really remember.

I use rot grubs not longer after 4e's MM3 came out and included them. It was in my version of the Well of Demons (from H2 Thunderspire Labyrinth).

Two tieflings had been "guests" of some gnolls, and under interrogation. The gnolls had put rot grubs into the tieflings' drinks. As the PCs were talking
with the tieflings, having beaten up the gnolls, one of the teiflings suddenly collapses, disgorging a rot grub swarm and reanimating as a rot grub zombie.

It was a fun encounter, and I heartily recommend rot grubs to anyone whose been thinking of using them!

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

<snip>

They're ALSO useful in other kinds of games, if you ratchet down the lethality.

I enjoyed my 4e rot grub encounter. I'd also be happy with "rot grub infestation" as a disease, as suggested by [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] (welcome back!) and others upthread. I'm not especially interested in "sudden and unavoidable death" monsters, but that's not particularly relevant to rot grubs anymore than it is to medusae, the catoblepas, etc.

 

[Li Shenron]

And why isn't beating it up until it falls apart a valid response to some traps?

It is. But it's just not worth handling it as a combat, if the trap isn't fighting. So if you want to destroy the trap, you just say "I bash the trap until it falls apart" and you just do that, without the need to roll.

What can happen, is that a still-untriggered trap (or a trap that can strike repeatedly) might be sprung by attacking it. This could also be the case of a trap-like monster or hazard (e.g. striking a mold, releases its effect each time and requires another ST). Still, it doesn't typically need combat rules, although there might be exceptions.

 

[Orius]

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.

Yeah, I have to agree. I've taunted my players about ear seekers in the past when they'd listen at doors just to keep them paranoid, but I've never really bothered using them. They are basically an old-school arms race monster for RBDMs and their players: PCs don't listen at doors, the DM has them get surprised at every door they open. So the PCs listen, and the DM then uses ear seekers liberally to punish them. Then the PCs start using mesh cones to listen, and then the DM does something like throw a ton of situations that require massive item saving throws. It's puerile. I suppose it's ok for a game where people want to play hard-assed old-school but it probably shouldn't be an element of general play. Ditto with the throat leeches. Rot grubs aren't too bad in the right situations, or if they're presented like a disease, but none of these things should really be used liberally in a game, because like Wyatt said, they slow things down as the party goes through a bunch of precations to avoid DM dickery.

I like the idea of one large, shapeless monster that takes on various non-specific inanimate forms. So we could just generally call the "Mimic" any creature that takes on the form of a stone, a stalagmite, or other feature-few object and awaits for unsuspecting adventurers or creatures to approach. I don't really see the need to have a dozen different types of "monsters that turn into harmless objects".

Yeah, mimics are supposed to be able to do that anyway.

I don't see why lurkers and trappers need to be seperate monsters, TBH. If they're used at all.

I prefer the darkmantle to the piercer. The darkmantle is simply more versatle. All the piercer does is drop from the ceiling.

Shriekers aren't too bad. Yeah, they're an excuse for the DM to roll for more random encounters, but they at least have a sort of place in the game ecology.

Mold and slime can probably be treated as hazards rather than monsters.