D&D 5E Wandering Monsters: Living Traps

[Sunseeker]

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

If all a mimic could do was turn into a treasure chest, that's a pretty one-trick phony.(meant to say "pony" but the mis-type of "phony" fits well)

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

Any sort of slime that is a monster is basically an ooze variant. Mold are fungi, and in that regard they're acceptable monsters, but they'd be more useful as tools of more sentient fungi than some goop on a wall. That's trap territory. Like, lets say Pale-Orange Mold could be spawned by some kind of Fungus plant monster, then controlled(grown, moved, shrunk, etc) by said monster. It's a "creature", but it's also a trap.

 

[RichGreen]

Can you find an ear seeker when you check a door for traps? Our group tends to check for traps, then listen, then open the door, when we are being cautious.

Does anyone else remember goldbugs? Think they were in the original Fiend Folio. I also ran a fun Spelljammer adventure featuring yitsan - horrible creatures similar to those in Alien(s). Their eggs looked like gold coins... The answer to all these things is to use sparingly in an interesting encounter or don't use at all.

Cheers


Rich

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think it's a solid idea to have a range of lethality for things like rot grubs and throat leeches. This becomes especially true if healing is more difficult and less expected than it is in a 3e/4e style game -- if HP attrition is a real threat, then having a throat leech that does some damage until someone takes care of it, or an ear seeker that deals some damage, and having each maybe have some bang-on effect (can't speak after drinking a throat leech; can't hear after an ear seeker goes into your brain) that might be removed with some healing or rest...that becomes essentially an encounter with a single kobold or a single goblin or something: easy to solve (a few die rolls) but potentially hazardous.

It's worth noting that these critters aren't just punishments for random PC behavior, either: they come into play when a PC tries to gain some advantage. The PC tries to dig into places to get treasure, or the PC tries to bypass using rations and water and tries to survive in the dungeon, or the PC tries to listen at every door in order to get the drop on enemies. Saying that sometimes, these actions might get you damaged/afflicted and harassed, sounds totally like fair game. Heck, even if it WAS just random, it's no more random than any other creature encounter. Viewing the ear seeker as a "punishment" for listening at the door is like viewing a wandering monster as "punishment" for walking down a corridor.

They're part of the challenge, not just unfair "gotcha" critters (ESPECIALLY if they're not of the nigh-instant-death variety).

 

[Stalker0]

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.

Its an interesting idea, should all traps and hazards go into the mm? Basically making the mm the single place to go for all "obstacle" type info the party might face?


While it seems to go against the very name monster manual, the idea makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[Klaus]

Trap monsters should be statted as traps. Disease monsters should be statted as diseases. Both types of things should be in the game, either in the DMG or the MM.

 

[steeldragons]

Is this...I am musing after reading KM's latest article...perhaps the dawn of a new "Monster Manual", I wonder?

With a nice thorough explanation of the term "monster" in D&D. It is more than the creatures that go bump in the night [or try to burn you to a crisp]...but the creatures [emphasis on creatures] that provide threats to PCs in all manner of different ways. To whit...

The bulk, obviously, goes to the "Magical Creatures"[or "Fantastic beasts" or whatever you'd want to term it] section of the book. Your goblins and dragons, demons and giants, minotaurs and centaurs, maybe even your elves and humans*. The "monster" monsters.

Then an "Arboretum" section. For your carnivorous plants, your treants and shambling mounds, myconids, molds and fungi. The "plant" monsters.

A "Bestiary" section. For stats on all of your "normal/real world" animals and their giant/dire varieties. Not just stats for things like lions and bears and giant snakes that you might fight...but things you can use: animal companions, normal mounts [as opposed to pegusi or griffons that would be in the Bestiary], small furry, feathered or scaled critters for familiars. Your "animal" monsters.

Then you have your "Living Hazards" section of the book. For whatever doesn't fit in other categories. Your "trap" monsters.

* Alternately, your could have a "Humanoids" section for PC and "monster" races with extended societal information and sub-types. Humans, elves, dwarves, goblins, lizardmen...your "people" monsters.

I do heartily agree that "trap-monsters" would have "trap monster" stats/info. "monster monsters" would have what we think of as "full" stat blocks AND thorough descriptions. Something that is a "hazard" but not a "trap", might have another "in between" kinda stat block and info.

This is preferable to maintain the traditional MM alphabetical format throughout, and then just say under the name of the critter "trap monster" or "magical beast" or "demonic humanoid" or whatever with the appropriate stat/info.

But I'm not hating the idea of a D&D MM broken into thematic "type" sections (alphabetical within sections, obviously) vs. a straight encyclopedic book.

 

[the Jester]

Has anyone here ever used rot grubs or ear seekers?

Yes to rot grubs; I don't recall ever using ear seekers but I probably had them in a dungeon somewhere back in the early days (1e and Basic, maybe even during 2e).

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.

YES!! The whole "We won't bother to stat up anything a party of good-aligned pcs isn't going to fight" approach 4e took to monsters was very disappointing. Where are my shedu, my foo beasts, my sylph?? Also the 'playstyle enforcement' approach of "We won't bother to stat up all these awesome classic monsters because they're gotcha monsters!" Thanks, but a lot of groups actually do use and like those things, so let's not leave 'em out this time, eh?

This is preferable to maintain the traditional MM alphabetical format throughout, and then just say under the name of the critter "trap monster" or "magical beast" or "demonic humanoid" or whatever with the appropriate stat/info.

But I'm not hating the idea of a D&D MM broken into thematic "type" sections (alphabetical within sections, obviously) vs. a straight encyclopedic book.

Please no. The problem is that this approach makes it difficult to find anything with any level of ambiguity in it. If you have a "Humanoids" section and a "Magical Beast" section, where do you put lycanthropes? If you add a "Shapechanger" section, where do you put oni and mimics?

Alphabetical works well, with certain subsections for especially large but tight categories (e.g. demon, devil, dragon, elemental, etc). I love the idea of an appendix with tables of all the (f'rex) trap monsters, etc. so it's easy to find the info, but I think it would be a poor overall organizational tactic.

 

[1of3]

I think that article missed the most important part: Culture. Lurkers are intelligent. According to Forgotten Realms: Underdark they even have their own town in the underdark. And they keep Darkmantles as pets.

As an aberrant species with society, as opposed to solitary beholders and mostly solitary aboleths, I like them very much. Instead of listing them with those other trappy monsters, I'd like a comparison with Grell and other abberant races.

The sexual dimorphism idea is quite nice, I think.

 

[the Jester]

I think that article missed the most important part: Culture. Lurkers are intelligent. According to Forgotten Realms: Underdark they even have their own town in the underdark. And they keep Darkmantles as pets.

As an aberrant species with society, as opposed to solitary beholders and mostly solitary aboleths, I like them very much. Instead of listing them with those other trappy monsters, I'd like a comparison with Grell and other abberant races.

The sexual dimorphism idea is quite nice, I think.

Uh... I don't have FR:U, so this kind of baffles me.

Are you sure you aren't thinking of cloakers?

According to the 1e MM, lurkers are non-intelligent (Int 0). Trappers are highly intelligent, though (Int 13-14).

EDIT: And that right there is a significant difference between them!

 

[1of3]

Oh, yeah. Cloakers. Sorry. I was confused, as the article mentioned grey bellies and manta-like appearance. Which fits Cloakers as well.

According to the 1e MM, lurkers are non-intelligent (Int 0). Trappers are highly intelligent, though (Int 13-14).

EDIT: And that right there is a significant difference between them!

So a dimorophism or metamorphosis between Cloakers and Lurkers would be more appropriate, it seems.