D&D 5E Wandering Monsters: Living Traps

[steeldragons]

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.

Annnnd, just like that, I'm back on the encyclopedic boat. Steel Dragons are particularly fickle type of dragon today, it seems. hahaha.

You are correct, of course. It sounds good as a theory...and as you cite, very good for tables in any configuration...but there are just too many D&D critters that overlap in too many areas.

For example, all of this talk of "disease monsters"...I would not put rot grubs there. Yes, they're curable by Cure Disease...it kills or expels them from the body. But they are not, say, a cerebral parasite. They're grubs. And if Disease is to become a classification for monster, does that put lycanthropes in that camp? Vampires? Both lycanthropy and vampirism are considered "diseases" by many...and/or "curses" by many more. But their transmission certainly points to "disease." But both shapechange...does this make them "shapechanger diseases"? It's the lycanthrope's primary thing -changing from person to beastial form- but vampires can do many other things...and are undead...

Vampire
Undead, Shapechanger, Disease, Humanoid, possibly Spellcaster...possibly Diabolic...monster

That's not an entry I want to see.

The arbitrary lines are simply too blurry in way too many instances.

Scratch what I suggested above. Keep it A-Z with notations or, I believe the 3-4eism is "keywords", for "trap-monster."

And yes, please many many appendices and table break downs by, not just keywords [fairy encounters, undead encounters, dragon encounters, trap encounters, et. al.] but level/CR, terrain, etc..."trap monster" goes in a trap monster table, "undead monster" in an "undead" table, etc...

"Environmental/hazard" keyword for your plants or other creatures that would somehow be part of the environment but not mobile/active "monsters"...something like ye olde "mudmen" which are magical manifestations of magically "infected" mudholes, but do not exist separate from nor can leave those particular magical mudholes...am I recalling correctly or dreaming up that there is some kind of sentient blizzard critter? That would be "environmental", etc...

Thank you for getting me back on the path of righteousness, Jester.

 

[GX.Sigma]

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?

If you're looking for lycanthropes, you can go to the index and look up lycanthropes (which is probably what you'd do anyway).

 

[JasonZZ]

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.

Alternatively, have the actual entries in alphabetical order, with each critter having a number of tags (humanoid, demonic, undead, shapechanger, silly, trap, whatever). In the front you have a series of tables by tag, each giving the name and page for any monsters with that tag.

 

[Tovec]

If you're looking for lycanthropes, you can go to the index and look up lycanthropes (which is probably what you'd do anyway).

Doesn't address the problem. Where do they go?

Also, if you have A-Z then you don't NEED to, you can just open to any random section of the book then ask yourself if you are before or after L and go from there; instead of having to go a table or index.

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

Use the index, just like those who can't remember if a Succubus is a demon or devil do.

 

[Cyberen]

Actually, Monstrous Compendium as a binder was a nice feature of 2e.
You could chose your own organisation : by alphabetical order, by "type" whatevzr that means, by power level, by climate/terrain... You could even play with a dozen pre-selected critters.
Unfortunately, the "book" was not very durable...

 

[the Jester]

Use the index, just like those who can't remember if a Succubus is a demon or devil do.

But reorganizing the book like was suggested makes it harder to find stuff for no real improvement. That's pretty much the definition of pointlessly reducing the play-value of the book.

Actually, Monstrous Compendium as a binder was a nice feature of 2e.
You could chose your own organisation : by alphabetical order, by "type" whatevzr that means, by power level, by climate/terrain... You could even play with a dozen pre-selected critters.
Unfortunately, the "book" was not very durable...

Yeah, the binders were terrible IMHO- the pages fell out, after vol. 2 it was literally impossible to keep things alphabetized, etc. It was a nice idea, but the execution- well, notice that TSR gave up on the binder concept several years before the end of the 2e life cycle.

 

[Orius]

Actually, Monstrous Compendium as a binder was a nice feature of 2e.
You could chose your own organisation : by alphabetical order, by "type" whatevzr that means, by power level, by climate/terrain... You could even play with a dozen pre-selected critters.
Unfortunately, the "book" was not very durable...

I don't think I've ever seen anyone priase the Monstrous Compendium.

The concept was interesting. One consideration behind 2e seemed to be reducing the book count that 1e had gotten to at the end of its life, and the MC was probably central to that -- a DM only needed to bring the various MC pages for a given session to the table rather than 1e's MM, MM2, FF, and whatever other books had monsters like probably OA and MotP. Of course, 2e's book load absolutely exploded in core alone wthout even getting into the settings. And the binder itself has a reputation for flimsiness, the pages were apparently prone to ripping, can't keep anything alphebetized etc. The fact that TSR replaced it with the Monstrous Manual at the height of their "let's not bother with customer surveys" phase speaks volumes as to just how unpopular that binder must have been.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Doesn't address the problem. Where do they go?

Either in Men or in Humanoids, depending on how those sections shake out.

Also, if you have A-Z then you don't NEED to, you can just open to any random section of the book then ask yourself if you are before or after L and go from there; instead of having to go a table or index.

The alphabetical order works if you know the name of every monster you're looking for. If you're looking for monsters to populate an adventure, maybe organization by type or environment is better.

 

[Weather Report]

Use the index, just like those who can't remember if a Succubus is a demon or devil do.

The Succubus is a demon; despite that article that tried to force Malcanthet to be a devil.