So a recent thread had a discussion about monstrous disappointments-
What monsters have you tried to use that didn’t or can’t give you what you want as they are written? For me the first one that springs to mind is werewolf. They just don’t instill he kind of fear or revulsion I would like.
www.enworld.org
Which ended up in a conversation about monsters that are terrifying, and, for that matter, whether or not monsters in 5e are (or can be) terrifying. I've been a little preoccupied with things recently, but I wanted to return to the topic, because I think that there are some interesting issues that can be teased out of the conversation, provided that we first identify what it means for a monster
qua monster to be terrifying.
So I would start by making this assertion: 5e monsters are not, as a rule, terrifying. Scary. They are not, in and of themselves, objects to be feared. But in order to understand why I think that, a few things need to be understood first.
1. Tucker's Kobolds.
So, from way back in Dragon 127 (and the concept long predates this, but it's a useful term for purposes of discussion), we have the idea of Tucker's Kobolds. If you've never heard the term before, allow me to quote a certain scene from Game of Thrones and say, SHAME SHAME SHAME! Look it up. But the basic concept is that any monster (in this case, kobolds) if played intelligently, strategically, and maximizing terrain and so on (aka, TACTICS FTW!) can be, for lack of a better word, terrifying. And, for the most part, I think that you can still design an encounter and use monsters intelligently and use tactics to truly strain the players. You can still have "Tucker's Kobolds."
2. Be unfair.
So players will do things like, say, focus fire and if a particular target will get up again if not dealt with, will make sure it stays down. ....Monsters can do that too. Heck, wouldn't a zombie just start feasting on a fallen foe (aka auto-crit) once it has fallen? And yet, many DMs rarely do this, using the typical D&D "inverse ninja" strategy when it comes to fighting. "First, attack the meatshields, and when the meatshield goes down, move on to the next moving target while the meatshield gets healed ...." The whole "whack-a-mole" problem arises because monsters allow it to. Again, monsters are more scary when they are more likely to truly kill you, or to target the weak PCs first when possible. Combine this with (1), and combats become much, much more difficult and, perhaps, scary.
3. Narration.
Monsters, and their abilities, can be terrifying if narrated correctly. I have used the telepathic powers of the nothic, for example, in LMOP to create a sense of terror and dread in players; this, too, can be scary.
4. Newness.
So a common example used to say 5e monsters are scary is that monsters can scare new players, and everyone else is jaded. There is some support for this! From Dragon Magazine #10 (October, 1978):
One of the problems with D&D is that the players always know too much. This is news? “You obtain surprise over three Clickclicks.”
“Clickclicks? Oh, yeah, they’re in Supplement Three. Hand it to me. And where’s Greyhawk? It had a note about them.”
A pause. “We shout out ‘November’.”
“That’s right, the Clickclicks fall over dead.”
In other words, whether it's yet another troll metagame discussion, or just a newbie encountering zombie for the first time in any edition, there is never a time like your first when it comes to D&D.
So, all those four factors aside, why do I think that monsters in 5e aren't scary?
The issue with 5e's monsters are inherent to 5e's style.
So I've now DM'd a lot of people that have started out as complete newbies to D&D and have progressed to veterans. And the one thing I have consistently noticed is that, relatively quickly, they have grokked the salient driving force in 5e. Whatever small bells and whistles a monster might have, it is, in the end, a bag of hit points. Whatever resistances it might have, whatever abilities it might possess, in the end all you need to do is just cause more damage. Every monster is a nail, and DPR is the hammer. Once that salient point sinks in, the monster
qua monster is no longer scary, or even that interesting. The tactics or combat might be, but never the monster itself. Perhaps there might be a save or suck here, or a nifty effect there, but it's all going to be somewhat familiar.
Now, contrast that with older editions (here, OD&D, B/X, and 1e) where monster abilities were much more a la carte. You would have abilities as disparate as:
Save or die.
Level loss.
Permanent loss of hp.
Permanent loss of ability score.
Percentile magic resistance.
Strong effects outside of save-or-die (like petrification that really mattered). And system shock,.
Permanent aging.
...and then you'd have all the weird little effects that are too numerous to mention ...
Now, there are many valid reasons for getting rid of most of these; in fact, I would say that the transformation of the game to one where there is significant effort inherent in the character creation process and it's more "heroic fantasy" pretty much demands removing or altering some of these effects (for example, save or die to save or suck).
However, these same changes are what removes the terror from the monsters themselves. Undead are a useful example of that; a wight or wraith was terrifying in old editions, just because of what they were.
I would end by saying I don't necessarily think that there is a better or worse approach to it, but the approach is different and removes much of the inherent fear of particular monsters.
Anyway, those are my thoughts- throwing it out there for other comments.
My point was using monsters to break important equipment - like destroy spellfoci of various casters thereby limiting their spellcasting potential, crushing the shields of sword and board warriors, smashing the bows of archers...etc
