D&D 5E Wandering Monsters: Morons and Salads

[GX.Sigma]

Modrons and Slaadi are the topic of this week's Wandering Monsters.

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand/20130416

What do you think?

I'm strongly of the opinion that they should just stick with the Planescape versions. These monsters were described comprehensively in one of the most loved campaign settings ever. What's the problem, berk?

 

[Alzrius]

I'm strongly of the opinion that they should just stick with the Planescape versions. These monsters were described comprehensively in one of the most loved campaign settings ever. What's the problem, berk?

Agreed. Go with the classic versions of these iconic and underappreciated monsters.

 

[Celebrim]

Obviously, I have strong preferences on the Slaad. I've never really used modrons, ironicly, until recently.

My biggest objection to both is they aren't as iconic of representatives of their philosophies as I would like. You can see that in some of the direction I take with the Slaad, both in the flavor (where I dismiss some of the rigidity that Slaad are given especially in 2e) and in mechanics (where I drop the essential froginess of the Slaad as a requirement and bring more individuality). If I ever got around to completing the project, you'd see a lot more of that as well as a fundamental explanation for some of the apparant incongruities - notably Ygorl, the Grey Slaads role as executioners, and the generally uniform body plan - that nonetheless is rooted in individuality.

 

[Zaukrie]

I see the argument for slaadi being aberrations, but I am opposed. They are chaos, nothing more or less. I would keep the modrons as is in the olses times, though the art could be improved. The beauty of both is that they are unique in the universe, and not within any classification.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I feel like this is kind of a response to the complaint from his last article that Slaadi and Modrons don't fit into the Celestial/Fiend dichotomy.

I feel like calling one a construct and one an aberration is a little like calling a Pit Fiend a "humanoid" or a genie an "elemental." Yeah, okay, I can see what you're saying, but they're not really the same thing, are they? Slaadi aren't Lovecraftian horrors. Modrons aren't artificial life given an artificial soul. These things are different. I'm not against it per se, but it seems like you're kind of making both terms a little meaningless.

"Er...Aberration is anything involving body horror...except a medusa, I guess? And, um, Construct, that's...yeah...anything made of metal or clay or wood or I guess flesh with a flesh golem but not undead and also these immortal things."

It's really just a vote in favor of getting rid of these "types" all together in my mind.

I also think that the noble attempt to dislodge modrons from their place of alien entity is misguided. Part of the appeal of modrons (slaadi, too!) is their alien mindset, how they fundamentally conceive of the world differently, and their "drone"-ness is part of that, as is their hard-wired Lawful sense. I don't see modrons as a self-policing force, always worried about someone bucking the trend, I see them as mostly outward-looking, seeking to police and understand the rest of us.

Which is why Rogue Modrons (or "Outcaste" modrons) occur: sometimes, one of the drones just can't quite comprehend the outside world's chaos.

I don't get "goofy" from their appearance, generally. I get "alien." I get "this thing has warped its body to resemble the fundamental order of existence, its biology is something esoteric, it is not a natural creature of my world." Hell, modrons might be good aberrations.

I'm not interested in modrons that act like normal people, or modrons that don't represent order in their body form.

The slaadi changes seem less extreme to me. And OF COURSE I want Slaad lords.

Like the wise people above said, stick with the Planescape version. It's a good version. If someone doesn't like the modrons because they think they're silly, that's fine -- not every monster needs to be usable by every player.

 

[jadrax]

Slaadi aren't Lovecraftian horrors.

'think of ‘em as my independent exploration of Lovecraftiana. (I didn’t discover H. P. Lovecraft until a couple of years later.)... Think “Lovecraft mythos”, as invented by someone who hasn’t read Lovecraft (or heard of him).' - Charles Stross, Creator of the Slaad, 2008

 

[I'm A Banana]

'think of ‘em as my independent exploration of Lovecraftiana. (I didn’t discover H. P. Lovecraft until a couple of years later.)... Think “Lovecraft mythos”, as invented by someone who hasn’t read Lovecraft (or heard of him).' - Charles Stross, Creator of the Slaad, 2008

Hehehe, cool!

But I think that kind of shows my point -- they aren't quite the same thing. There's similarities, but also marked and important differences to preserve. I'd be fine with them being aberrations, I think, but that just goes to show that these terms aren't greatly useful in telling you what a thing is like. It's like trying to pin down a music genre. It really depends on perspective.

 

[Klaus]

First, let me say that I'm a huge Planescape fan.

That being said, I voted for making slaadis "Aberrations". They have enough in common with Dagon and the deep ones (imagine the "Innsmouth look" as being induced by slaad infestation) visually, and they're supposed to be madness-inducing in their pure chaos. Not sure if that warrants making them more psionic, though.

And I voted for at least an attempt at reimagining modrons, if only to see what comes out of it. I'm pretty sure that even if WotC redesigns modrons visually, they'd still ask the public if they prefer the new looks or the old ones.

 

[GSHamster]

I think these two monsters point out the folly of overarching monster types. Given the choice of "fiend" or "aberration" for slaadis, I guess I would vote for aberration. But really, they're just slaadis. Not really fiends, not really aberrations.

Same thing with modrons. Constructs are the least-worst type for them to be in, if they have to be in a category.

In my opinion, rather than putting monsters in separate categories, the categories should just be tags that can apply to a creature. That way you can add multiple tags, or no tags if you prefer.

 

[Campbell]

I've always found slaad funny. Beings of pure chaos that are color coded by potency, and follow the exact same path of raising power. Chaos in D&D doesn't know its already lost. Even chaos incarnate follows the whims of an ordered multiverse.