What's the quintessential D&D monster?


log in or register to remove this ad

Rust Monster. Like green slime and a lot of other quintessential D&D monsters, it's a puzzle and a monster. The first time you meet it you get royally screwed. You need to figure out how to work around the rust attack to get it. Since it's low level and not as lethal as green slime, it's one that pops up whenever the DM feels like being a tool. The Beholder is this philosophy gone over the top.

[hijack class="nostalgic rant" style="droning" /]
But it is quite hard to pick. So many monsters just say D&D for me. But last night I was thumbing through the monster manual and I was struck with the number of monsters that just don't have the right feel. I guess it depends on your introduction to D&D, and every book has crappy monsters, but I can't figure out why they selected some of the ones they did over the gems they left out.

Skum - ? - Yet another aquatic humanoid. They have nothing distinctive about them, except for the Aboleth connection, and the fact that they're Aberrations rather than monstrous humanoids. With Kuo Toa, Locathah, and Sahuagin around there is no reason to have these guys in there.

Phantom Fungus - Maybe it's just the picture, but having fungus with teeth just seems wrong.

Tojanida, Ravid, etc.

I love the Monster Manual, but it feels like there are so many monsters that just shout D&D for me that were left out in order for these tepid creatures I'll probably never use to be included.

I have to imagine they were balancing # of monsters/CR/Environment/Type, but it still seems wrong that something like Thri-Kreen don't make it in, but the Skum do.

(I am glad that they recovered stuff from OD&D, the Aranea was one of my first encounters, as X1 was my first RPG experience).
[/hijack]
 



francisca said:
A thought did occur to me that the D&D trolls are so unlike other trolls in myth, literature, and other games that they might be the quintessential D&D monster.

D&D trolls (and paladins) are straight out of Poul Anderson's "Three Hearts and Three Lions".

I'd go for beholder.
 

A'koss said:
My vote would be for the Bulette which I don't believe has any mythological roots.

Cheers,

A'koss.
Actually, there is a French myth that the bulette is based on. IIRC, it looks an awful lot like the MM bulette.

I'll try to hunt down the site that I found it on.
 

Green Slime isn't a monster, it's a "hazard"... :)

But if we're including monsters from earlier editions, my vote goes to either "Slovenly Trull" or "Wanton Wench"...

-Hyp.
 

Beholder, albeit for slightly different reasons.

From a game standpoint, beholders are just rocking monsters. They offer a ton of coolness. They are one of the few monsters that isn't underpowered (relative to the party) by a concept taken from mythology -- I mean, unicorns in mythology are powerful creatures, but really, their only power is being good and pure and knowing when things are evil, so in D&D, they get shafted. Detect Evil, Cure Light Wounds, and that random teleportation thing. Feh. In mythology, they're hugely powerful, but in D&D, they're lame.

Beholders, though, don't have any mytholgy to draw from, so they can just be effin' NASTY. And that's great.

Also: beholders offer the ability to challenge the party across a wide range of levels right out of the book. A 5th-level party has some chance to defeat a beholder if they can get the drop on it -- it doesn't have THAT many hit points, and it's AC isn't spectacular. I think I threw my first beholder at the party when they were 9th level, and it was an ugly fight (because the party wasn't surprising it), but they got lucky, and felt great.

But a 15th-level party can STILL be challenged by a beholder, because it's such a glass cannon. Sure, it only lasts a round if the party is ready for it, but if it gets the drop on the party, it can wipe out half the team before they know what's up.

C'mon... who here hasn't had the party walk into an enormous dark cavern, their pitiful light spells flickering against the dooming darkness... and then the lights go out, every spell on the party suddenly drops, and a moment later, the unarmored party wizard is hit by a 375-lb rock for 13d6 damage (Most a beholder can lift with telekinesis, and can throw it as a ranged attack modified by Int -- and against the AC of magically bereft wizard, that's a pretty easy hit for a boatload of damage.) Even a 20th-level wizard can get hurt by that.

And even when my 20th-level party took on the forces of hell themselves, even when they were fighting advanced half-fiend gorgons and advanced half-fiend manticores (with unlimited tail spikes per day and boosted Dex instead of Str), what was the party worried about? The 9 beholders floating overhead whacking people with bunches of ranged touch attacks per round.

Beholders, man. It's all about the beholders. People say that D&D has its own mythology, which is different from normal mythology and separate, and which creates problems in making things interesting (eg, how much work do you have to do to make giants as cool and frightening as they are in Norse legends, or to make the Fey as mysterious and deadly as they are in Celtic myth?). But beholders are perfectly in line with D&D mythology. They're just absolutely rockingly perfect.
 

I think a lot of people are missing the point - with 3.X ed's templates, we can have a

Gelatinous Half-Dragon Beholder.
Insectoid Drow Symbiotic Flumph (A drumph? a flumow?).
Fiendish Tauric Illithid-Owlbear.

Oh man. I gotta stat these puppies up. Heh, that gives me an idea.

Vampiric Half-Celstial Puppy of Legend.
 

Yo, Deeg,

The owner of the magic shop in my big long campaign was a half-dragon beholder 15th-level wizard. The dragon half was Silver. He was conflicted. It didn't end well. :D
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top