D&D 5E Wandering Monsters: They Grow on You
Right there wit'cha.
Definitely worth an initial consultation. One can never be too careful. lol.
Not to derail the thread or start a debate. That's what you would prefer. That's fine and dandy.
For the record, in case any designers are pokin' around here though, I feel the need to disagree.
Myconids and Treants are easily portable to your faerie world/realms if you wish. Walking talking trees, mushrooms...flowers, whatever, are all good ole' fairy fun...shades of Disney's Fantasia and all of that. Heck, maybe there's some arch-fey-lord who delights in conjuring lightning storms to fill his realm with shambling mound guardians...I, personally, would fully expect to encounter a treant or two (or a whole grove of them/more than would be in the Material world) in a Land of the Faye. But I wouldn't want their established/default backstory to be they are from/born there.
But the general design has been really overstuffed with assigning planar connections to every-blessed-thing. This is from the Shadow plane...That is from places connected to, if not within, the Feywild...These guys over here are connected to the dreaded elemental plane of horseradish...which, as every sage knows, intersects the plane of ketchup to create the border plane of cocktail sauce...[feared by piscodaemons throughout the multiverse!
]It's overkill. Nothing wrong with some magical fantastical creatures existing in (and being native to) a fantasy world filled with magic.
I'm more than happy to not see any references to "the fey" in these entries.
EDIT: Upon a reread, this just occurred to me...
Did you mean "more closely allied with fey"? As they mentioned elf/faye interactions in the article. Did you mean you felt they should be more openly friendly with fey creatures? ...in which case...I see no problem with that and just ignore the above. hahaha.
/EDIT
Last edited:
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
It's all about what you want to use them for.
The myconids as presented in earlier e's were solid "weird cantina creatures." In an encounter, they weren't interesting because of the fightin', they were interesting because of the other challenges (how do you communicate with them? How do you persuade them you're not hostile?). A lot like the slaadi or the aarakocra or the modrons.
I think these versions get at what makes them interesting, with the possible partial exception of the treant. I follow Wyatt's logic here, and it's an interesting place to go, but it does change the dynamic a bit: treants were CG before, and changing them to N transforms the dynamic from "helpful tree person" to "nature-guardian." That's not necessarily a good or bad thing, I don't think it makes the critter any better or worse, just different. I think I'd be happier with a range of alignment for the treants. Some groves are CG, some groves are N, some groups are LE...maybe making the species as a whole N? I dunno, it's interesting to think of.
The myconids as presented in earlier e's were solid "weird cantina creatures." In an encounter, they weren't interesting because of the fightin', they were interesting because of the other challenges (how do you communicate with them? How do you persuade them you're not hostile?). A lot like the slaadi or the aarakocra or the modrons.
I think these versions get at what makes them interesting, with the possible partial exception of the treant. I follow Wyatt's logic here, and it's an interesting place to go, but it does change the dynamic a bit: treants were CG before, and changing them to N transforms the dynamic from "helpful tree person" to "nature-guardian." That's not necessarily a good or bad thing, I don't think it makes the critter any better or worse, just different. I think I'd be happier with a range of alignment for the treants. Some groves are CG, some groves are N, some groups are LE...maybe making the species as a whole N? I dunno, it's interesting to think of.
Storminator
First Post
I've always wanted to do a "treant" encounter underground, where it's just the roots attacking you.
MarkB
Legend
I've never seriously read up on Myconids, dismissing them as "silly mushroom creatures", so most of what I read here was new to me, and I like it a lot - I could actually see myself using these creatures in a campaign now.
Shambling Mounds are okay, but they're rather boring as written. They need more of a 'schtick' - not necessarily a motivation, but something that makes them more interesting. One thing I can think of would be for them to have no real limitations on growth - as they consume food they just keep on getting bigger, and bigger, until they can no longer move and become a gigantic, malevolent terrain feature covering an entire swamp.
Treants were always painfully-obvious Ent expies, and this article does them no favours in that regard. Whilst the Tolkien lore is rich and flavourful in its own right, I'd really like to see the D&D version having some measure of identity of its own.
Maybe give them something of an expansionist agenda - not to the extent that they willingly make war upon civilised lands, but they do very much believe that the world would be a better place if it were just one big forest, and they'll do their best to expand the borders of their forest into untenanted lands, usually by temporarily animating mature trees rather than by planting saplings.
Shambling Mounds are okay, but they're rather boring as written. They need more of a 'schtick' - not necessarily a motivation, but something that makes them more interesting. One thing I can think of would be for them to have no real limitations on growth - as they consume food they just keep on getting bigger, and bigger, until they can no longer move and become a gigantic, malevolent terrain feature covering an entire swamp.
Treants were always painfully-obvious Ent expies, and this article does them no favours in that regard. Whilst the Tolkien lore is rich and flavourful in its own right, I'd really like to see the D&D version having some measure of identity of its own.
Maybe give them something of an expansionist agenda - not to the extent that they willingly make war upon civilised lands, but they do very much believe that the world would be a better place if it were just one big forest, and they'll do their best to expand the borders of their forest into untenanted lands, usually by temporarily animating mature trees rather than by planting saplings.
I'm not overly impressed with the myconids, but that isn't Wyatt's fault. As he himself points out, the hook for myconids is "mushroom-people of the Underdark." There isn't a lot you can do with that. Points for effort, at least.
I like the shambling mound. I especially love the unnatural silence of a swamp infested by them. It's one of those touches that creates an atmosphere of mystery and danger in a good D&D adventure. The bit about lightning strikes is... interesting. I kind of want them to either do more or less with that. Either make lightning strikes an integral part of shambler biology (perhaps their animation is temporary, triggered by storms), or skip it.
The treants are basically exact copies of Tolkien's Ents. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't get me excited to use them. I find "protector of the trees" to be a rather boring shtick, and anyway we have dryads for that.
I like the shambling mound. I especially love the unnatural silence of a swamp infested by them. It's one of those touches that creates an atmosphere of mystery and danger in a good D&D adventure. The bit about lightning strikes is... interesting. I kind of want them to either do more or less with that. Either make lightning strikes an integral part of shambler biology (perhaps their animation is temporary, triggered by storms), or skip it.
The treants are basically exact copies of Tolkien's Ents. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't get me excited to use them. I find "protector of the trees" to be a rather boring shtick, and anyway we have dryads for that.
Last edited:
Dryads aren't really that, though. They are the caretakers, maybe. The watchers...they'll help grow or heal plants and trees in their area...but, to my understanding/interpretation at least, they aren't really "protectors" or have the abilities that let them be so. They are, like, a faye extension of the forest made manifest. Traditionally "Tree nymphs." They exist in the pristine untainted natural places...are embodiments of them. If the trees die, so do they. They are as much in need of a treant's protection as the forest itself.
Tonguez
A suffusion of yellow
The myconid hippy circle thing is interesting especially emphasising their use of hallucinogens and rapport spores. That explains the collective crazy that can afflict some of the race and gives a clear hook for mushroom-pc interaction.
Of course that they should also be given DR so they can only be killed by jumping on their head-caps
The Shambler is so-so and imho would be better off as a plant elemental
And yeah the Treant needs work away from fey although just how you present a non-evil talking tree dufferently to Tolkien aint easy
Of course that they should also be given DR so they can only be killed by jumping on their head-caps
The Shambler is so-so and imho would be better off as a plant elemental
And yeah the Treant needs work away from fey although just how you present a non-evil talking tree dufferently to Tolkien aint easy
Last edited:
Stormonu
Legend
Honestly, I thought this was going to be about good ol' green slime and yellow-musk creepers. As for the actual content, I'm okay with it, but I wish they'd expound on treants a little more to get them past being Tolkien rip-offs.
As for additional articles, if it hasn't already been done, I'd like them to do an article on monsters-turned-hazards. Back in 3E, some of the "monsters" I was familiar with and that seemed iconic to adventures - green slime, yellow mold, rot grubs and a couple others - were turned into hazards, removed out of the MM and seemed to be sentenced to an obscure paragraph in the DMG. I don't beleive these guys made into 4E (except maybe the rot-grub swarm). And I'd like to see them come back big into the game, possibly even put back in the MM, even if they are essentially 'traps'.
As for additional articles, if it hasn't already been done, I'd like them to do an article on monsters-turned-hazards. Back in 3E, some of the "monsters" I was familiar with and that seemed iconic to adventures - green slime, yellow mold, rot grubs and a couple others - were turned into hazards, removed out of the MM and seemed to be sentenced to an obscure paragraph in the DMG. I don't beleive these guys made into 4E (except maybe the rot-grub swarm). And I'd like to see them come back big into the game, possibly even put back in the MM, even if they are essentially 'traps'.
Similar Threads
