Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Wandering Monsters: Living Traps
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6141159" data-attributes="member: 92511"><p>Ahhh, @<em><strong><u><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=22779" target="_blank">Hussar</a></u></strong></em> , my friend. And thus, balance is restored to the multiverse. *satisfying exhale* Things just wouldn't be the same if we agreed <em>all </em>of the time. lolol. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But...they <em>can</em> 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.]</p><p></p><p>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."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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*</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I completely agree. Monsters in the MM. That is what they are...that is my actual argument and point.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>These creatures are all <em>threats</em>, 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 <em>creatures</em> who are threats to the PCs. That makes them monsters, not "traps."</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p>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."</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 6141159, member: 92511"] Ahhh, @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=22779"]Hussar[/URL][/U][/B][/I] , my friend. And thus, balance is restored to the multiverse. *satisfying exhale* Things just wouldn't be the same if we agreed [I]all [/I]of the time. lolol. But...they [I]can[/I] 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 [I]threats[/I], 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 [I]creatures[/I] 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. [SIZE=3][SIZE=2][/SIZE][/SIZE] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Wandering Monsters: Living Traps
Top