Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5520810" data-attributes="member: 4937">The Girallon is the 'Great White Ape' of Barsoom given a different name.  It would therefore make since in D&D on mars.I love the creepiness of this monster.  One of my favorites.  You can never have enough excuses for using the gibbering mouther in your game.Ditto.  In 1e it was a quite hard opponent (one of the hardest in many ways).  In 3e it just hasn't come up.Agreed.  I've placed one, but never had one encounter in my game.  I've fought one as a PC though.  Oddly, me too, though I'm sure most of that problem is I've almost never played on either side of the table above 12th level.  So the basic problem is usually one of lack of need.   I've placed a Storm Giant in my current campaign, but don't anticipate it becoming an antagonist - it's more of a sand box thing.  But thats why I like it.Classic monster tropes always deserve a place in your game.No idea.  Spiders are creepy and cool.  Supernatural spiders that are always just behind you are even creepier and cooler.I feel your pain.  So many ideas, so little gaming time. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />  I really need to use these more than I do.  It seems half the time I use them, they are Bone Nagas which is almost cheating.Demons & Devils: I've only used any of these 2 or 3 times and on those occasions I'm pretty sure that the players never even knew what they were.   Most have never appeared in my game and probably never will.   From a fantasy perspective, I don't think that brutish monsters is nearly the most evocative implementation of the idea, and from a real world perspective I don't think occultism is a good focus of the game especially if well implemented.   Combining the two thoughts, I'm glad that fiends are done badly in D&D but don't see that as a reason to make use of them in my game.  There are plenty of cthulhuan aberrations, feys, genii, undead and other wierdness to fit the niches here that D&D puts them in and it helps keep my game PG-13.   I find the templates in 3e make the official fiends even more pointless, as you can whip up a more evocative incarnation of evil by applying a template or two to a monster and reskinning them.Angels & Archons: Likewise, I've only used any of these 2 or 3 times as well.  Its difficult (though not impossible) to use them in an adversary role, and having them show up otherwise (sans a calling spell) tends toward deus ex machina.Blue Dragon: I've got nothing against them, its just for some reason I've never had one turn up in the game I've run.  I guess I need more deserts and grasslands.Dire Lion/Dire Tiger: While I love dangerous animals as obstacles, after a while, 'big animal' not only gets a bit absurd but lacks the well rounded abilities necessary to challenge high level characters well.  When I need a big animal, it seems I always go for a prehistoric version or 'bear'.  Magmin: No problem with the concept.  Never came up, and I find Magma Mephits to be more well rounded foes.  By the time 'lava' becomes a terrain hazard in my games, most monsters I challenge players with have spellcasting, missile weapons, or can fly, or all three.Nightmare: For the life of me, I don't know why not.  Lack of oppurtunity I guess.  Also, many of my adventures are coastal, and so bad guys usually are known for their ships rather than their mounts.   I guess I need to set a campaign in the continental interior.Tarrasque: The thing speaks for itself.</blockquote>

Verification