What kind of monster do you like best?

What monsters do you want to use more in your game?

  • Mythological creatures like medusas and mummies

    Votes: 206 51.8%
  • Classic fantasy monsters like unicorns and dragons

    Votes: 198 49.7%
  • Iconic D&D monsters like rust monsters and rot grubs

    Votes: 147 36.9%
  • Entirely new creatures that explore new directions

    Votes: 164 41.2%

Mythic monsters all the way, especially serpentine/reptilian in appearance.
Basilisks, nagas, couatls, hydras, medusae... they just cry "I'm cool!"
Although some D&D baddies like yuan-ti or saskrith also are my favorites.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Buttercup said:
None of the above. I like simple monsters like goblinoids, kobalds and the most deadly of all...humans.
Ditto.

Maybe it's because I didn't grow up with D&D, but as a player I really dislike it when every encounter turns into a "weird monstrocity of the week" freakshow.

I did wind up voting for classical and mythological. Not that we need any more of those, but they fit best with my own preferences for a fantasy campaign. I have no problem with only encountering one such monster or type of monster in an entire campaign though - the rest of the encounters being with animals and/or intelligent, standard races.
 

Monster's in my Pocket.

My favorites?

I checked iconic D&D. My favorite category, however, is undersea creatures. Open ocean, the deep sea, the ocean floor, and underwater caverns, are all very mysterious and exciting. I like sahuagin, aboleths, kraken, triton, merfolk, shark variations, and most others. Regular monsters, modified to exist underwater, provide something different and challenging when compared to their surface counterparts. This is so even when they are compared to many of the more exotic land creatures. Extremely mundane conversions, in rules and appearences such as say, a goblin with gills and a trident, are obvious exceptions. You can probably guess why I'm not a huge fan of sea elves (though I tolerate them). Creatures designed purely to thrive underwater are strange and alien in both body and mind.

Underwater enviroments are by themselves inherently challenging, but are not nearly as daunting as extra planar enviroments, especially to lower level parties. This gives them greater accesability. The fact that they exist in our own world, unlike the plains, gives them a greater feeling of realism, and gives players and DMs a more fundamental understanding of them. For higher level parties, extra-planar, underwater enviroments populated with aquatic outsiders (along with non-outsider forms of life) provide an alternative use for this type of creature. Under the sea is such a vast enviroment, which can never (by my reasoning) be fully explored and understood. Why then, in a game where such fantastic exploration is possible, even feasable, has so little been devoted to its exposition?

Also, I like my creatures to be xenophobic. However, I can't stand when this facet is exaggerated to the extent that the creatures have no option other than to attack, and ergo be attacked, on site. I also like kobolds, like many other posters. When I use them, I keep their xenophobia in check, and allow PCs, even lawful good ones, to interact with them. They are lawful, and while evil, they are clever enough to interact with others when it suits them. I make the same considerations with mind flayers, sahuagin, and other creatures with intelligence. Consider that humans' xenophobia does not prevent them from interacting with others, even if such situations eventually disintigrate. Role playing is the name of the game. Any monster for which this is not an option is predictable and often boring.

I very much like how with the new edition monsters are easily upgradable. Kobolds for example, can be threats even to powerful parties. if the little guys' group is composed of 10th level fighters and rogues with +2/+3 equipment, and/or they are lead by some 13/14th (approx.) level priests and sorcerers, even high level characters will have to show respect. This is something which would have been unheard of in older editions. Unintelligent monsters can be upgraded with more HD. In their case some of my favorites are beasts like the remorhaz, behir, hydra, vermin type critters (especially when made intelligent), and most magical beasts. So why not combine these methods for upgrading creatures? Who wouldn't like to see a more powerful 4HD or 5HD base creature (maybe sahuagin or kobold) variant, with special powers, maybe even psionics? Then, with the ability to add class levels, you can create a seriously fun, different, and intriguing menace.

On the other hand I've had enough dragons, basic type elementals, and undead. I like these three alot, but I feel that they have been done to death (get the undead pun?). Another overrepresented group are unaugmented animals, especialy when one considers the various supplemental bestiaries. When you add real world references into the mix, mundane animals are probably the creatures least needing additional development.

Keep the creatures' combat tactics, society, and ecology in mind when they are designed. Don't include superfluous, or unexplained abilities. They confuse DMs and often make creatures seem unrealistic. Lets consider a mountain dwelling bat with gills? If it doesn't hunt in (partially?) submerged darkened caverns, such a creature would be silly and confusing. Always keep quality before quantity when it comes to monster references. New and useful information, is always preferable. We don't need any more forgetable critters, or rehashed references dedicated to pre-existing beasts. I hope my post was helpful.

Sincerely,
Bill
 

I'll also change silver dragons to British Silver Bulldog Dragons in my campaign. I'll also change the alingment to Chaotic Good and give them an appreciation of humor starting with dry British humor all the way to outright bathroom humor.
 


Tav_Behemoth said:
Which iconic D&D monsters are you always glad to see again or feel have never gotten their due?

I think I'd substitute "Ironic" for "Iconic" any day. It isn't that I don't take the game seriously, but I prefer to think of monsters as fun and idiotic and scary and powerful and just as likely to emerge red fanged and horrible from the fray as to emerge unknowlingly dragging the unobserved toilet paper from the outhouse of the gods.
 
Last edited:

This bit is on topic:

I like all monsters. I like to tweak 'em! I like new ones, old ones, classic ones, D&D ones, and mythological ones. Pretty much all of them except stupid ones (that does *not* include flumphs, folks - they ROCK!)

And this bit is WAY off topic:

To The Great Bear King - the song "Big Rock Candy Mountain" was performed by Burle Ives.
 

WillieW said:
I think I'd substitute "Ironic" for "Iconic" any day. It isn't that I don't take the game seriously, but I prefer to think of monsters as fun and idiotic and scary and powerful and just as likely to emerge red fanged and horrible from the fray as to emerge unknowlingly dragging the unobserved toilet paper from the outhouse of the gods.

LOL! Very witty, WillieW! Spoken like a true Irishman ;)
 

Admit It....

I think everyone on here really loves flumphs and giant space hamsters, but is just too scared of being embarrassed and ostracized to say so or actually use them in an adventure. ;)

I actually used both once, in a very nonserious adventure titled "Mechahamster vs. the Great Black Flumph of Doom". The title says it all....
 

David Howery said:
I think everyone on here really loves flumphs and giant space hamsters, but is just too scared of being embarrassed and ostracized to say so or actually use them in an adventure. ;)

I actually used both once, in a very nonserious adventure titled "Mechahamster vs. the Great Black Flumph of Doom". The title says it all....

A giant-sized version of a sweet and lovable real-life creature... or a seemingly sweet and lovable creatures that kicks PCs in the can... What could be better?
 

Remove ads

Top