The Gaming Den

In the vein of the other thread, what monster BS are you done with?

Here's mine:

--Intelligent monsters not being built like PCs. I mean, seriously..... think a little hard and it seems pretty racist to think all monsters of a type can use the learned skills like the exact same weapon proficiencies..... it's like saying all Asians know martial arts.

I can seriously live with the default gnoll being a WAR1.

--I'm OK with there being Ancient versions of intelligent monsters. I am not OK with Hatchling versions. Statted out Babykilling is like statted out sex.... unnecessary AND icky.

--No more [noun]/[adjective]/[verb] + [monster name] passing off as a new kind of monster. Blackscale Lizard man and Salt Mummies are insulting.

--Non-standardized mechanics. See 3e undead, and what it takes to get their HD to interact with every other mechanic correctly like HPs and turning.

--Cultures as races. I can live with five kinds of elves in my campaign without my head exploding.


More later............

I'm done with alignments in general, but I'm really done with racial alignments.

I'm done with monsters who exist to fuck over player abilities and equipment. The Rust Monster, Disenchanter, and Thought Stealer aren't just stupid looking - the very concept is insulting. A literal insult on the people playing the game.

I am done with monsters who have adaptive coloration to look like other, equally dangerous monsters that happen to encourage different tactics. Fake zombies who are secretly living plants, fake zombies who are secretly constructs, fake zombies who are secretly just dudes with really bad skin, and of course the fucking gas spore just have to go.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:I'm done with alignments in general, but I'm really done with racial alignments.

Do continue.

I'm done with "If this kills you, you're dead forever" monsters. Decide whether you want easy resurrection in your game then STICK WITH IT.

I'm done with completely unplayable monsters. Even in a game where 90% of the monsters are pure evil, the remaining 10% are often unplayable for no good reason, when honestly they often have statlines that read awfully similar to some kind of high level adventurer, due to themselves being designed to have such a culture or just being coincidentally a monstrous version of a particularly kind of PC.

The [awesome] tag. I sort of see the reason for it (dragons are always supposed to be scary, and [awesome] ensures that going by the CR system you never get to fight a level-appropriate dragon), but encounter composition should be up to the GM.

On recolors: umpteen types of dragon annoy the fuck out of me. Seven is the maximum.

Duckbunnies and their ilk. If I can't imagine Conan looking cool while fighting it, I don't want it.

Homosexual angels, heterosexual demons. Just no. Also, cult of pretty.

- Dragons in general. I hate the fucking things and the amount of dragonwank that every damn fantasy setting ever seems to indulge in. In ALL my games, dragons are an extinct species, a legend, and can fucking well stay that way. I have yet to hear one complaint about it.

- Giant whatever closet trolls. These monsters are boring as all hell to run, and don't even fit their CRs properly.

The Tarrasque: Big, dumb, nonflying and apparently supposed to be a CR 20 challenge. People talk like killing it is a big deal. It's not. It has no place being called a near epic challenge. This goes for a lot of high level brute monster, but especially the Tarrasque.

PCs: Anything built with the PC creation system shouldn't be a challenge the PCs face and are expected to deal with in one combat. It's fine to use that system for NPC allies who stick around for a bunch of fights or even recurring villains, but if it's just your average cannon fodder, I don't want to waste my time on stating it like it was anything other than a speedbump. I don't expect my PCs to spend all that time making a character to kill him in the first fight, as a DM I'm certainly not going to do that for multiple NPCs.

Boring Beatstick Races: This goes for basically any monster that does nothing special other than swing a weapon at you and hit hard. I don't need 5 different types of boring brutes that all fight the same damn way. Either make a mechanical reason for me to care if it's a hobgoblin soldier or an orcish soldier or just combine the races. We seriously don't need a fuckload of varieties of a boring ass concept. If I want to dress an orc up in a different costume, I can easily do that without wasting space in the monster manual.

Starmaker wrote:... Homosexual angels, heterosexual demons ...

Care to elaborate?

I'm done with monsters who are exactly the same as another differently named monster except for a few skill point bonuses that will never become relevant in combat (or any other challenge for that matter).

Itay K wrote:

Starmaker wrote:... Homosexual angels, heterosexual demons ...

Care to elaborate?

Yeah, that and the "cult of pretty" thing too.

I'm done with monsters that lay down game winning spells or similar effects. It's like turning fights into "roll a d20. If it's a 1, then TPK!" That's retarded.

I mean, the heroes have HP for a reason: so they can see how close they are to losing. Enemies should deplete that resource, because it increases tension as you see your HP get dropped by a lightning bolt, then you barely make the save against a fireball for half damage, and so on.

On the flip side, since it's not a DM vs. PCs thing, the DM doesn't really have any real tension with respect to a monster's survival. So I'm sort of fine with battle winners being in the hands of the PCs, but it's bull shit to have enemies do that stuff.

RobbyPants wrote:

Itay K wrote:

Starmaker wrote:... Homosexual angels, heterosexual demons ...

Care to elaborate?

Yeah, that and the "cult of pretty" thing too.

Teh ghey is of teh debbil. All sexy time is of teh debbil.

I'm done with Party vs. 1 monster fights being the norm. Only the scary stuff like dragons and beholders should be able to stand up to an entire party.

I'm done with game systems not having a subsystem for trivial characters that makes them easy to generate. Since these are supposed to be weak balance concerns are not that big of an issue.

I'm done with absolutes. In most cases just because it doesn't cause issues because the players cannot control a monster does not mean it's ok to give them immunities. Seriously the only creatures that should have immunities in the 3.xMM are the goddamn elementals.

I'm done with monster abilities only being thought of as combat abilities. All monster abilities should at least have a minimal amount of thought as to how they interact with the world. It's not ok for that incorporeal undead I can't think of the name of to turn an entire city into the same kind of creature within a single night.

I'm sick of monsters getting abilities that are not ok for PC's to have because they are too good. The only kind of abilities it's ok to be exclusive with are thematic that are inappropriate for pc's and ones that would break up the party (There is a good reason to tell the player he can't play a giant when the rest of the party wants to go dungeon crawling in medium sized dungeons).

I'm sick of a game system letting a cheap tactic like fly work on high level monsters. The terrasque is a prime example of this, it's level 20 yet a level 3 spell trumps it.

I'm done with high level monster just having abilities slapped on and some kind of modifier like LA or CR attached. High level monsters that are really unique should be built as classes. Not only does this allow them to scale but it also puts some constraints on game designers that will help with balance.

I'm actually sick of Monsters have a different level system than PC's. This would cause issues except I'm also done with single monsters vs. the party as well.

Thymos wrote:I'm done with game systems not having a subsystem for trivial characters that makes them easy to generate.
...
I'm actually sick of Monsters have a different level system than PC's.

You sir, are hard to please.

-Username17

Monsters that can't keep up with the tactical game, but the game pretends they're still a threat anyways. This is really just another way of saying 'The Tarrasque Problem' but also applies to all the other beatstick brutes whose only valid option is auto attack. Either you engage them in a straight stat contest and almost certainly lose, or you negate them entirely by having actual options at your disposal. Which means either your party literally fails at life, or proceeds to get lots of free XP and loot.

Monsters that exist for no purpose other than as a DM wank tool. This means all monsters that only exist to break and/or steal shit, or those that don't inherently do this but can be used that way such as a rogue only used to ensure you aren't level appropriate by stealing your shit or a Sundertard. Monsters that are merely powerful and therefore could be use as a wank tool or simply be used as a hard fight like dragons are fine provided they aren't being used as a wank tool. But the color coded for your convenience thing is still bullshit. High level rogues are also fine, just not as thieves. It's only when something's sole purpose is a DM wank tool, or that it is actually being used that way that it is offensive.

Immunities. No, not having immunities. NOT having them. Without those you just use the same tactic over and over instead of having to adapt and think of alternatives.

'ORBIZARD uses Sleep!'
'It's super effective!'
'Enemy ORCUS fainted!'

If this can actually happen your game is bad and you should feel bad.

FrankTrollman wrote:I am done with monsters who have adaptive coloration to look like other, equally dangerous monsters that happen to encourage different tactics. Fake zombies who are secretly living plants, fake zombies who are secretly constructs, fake zombies who are secretly just dudes with really bad skin, and of course the fucking gas spore just have to go.

But butterflys do it frank, so it must be okay!

I don't like Rust Monsters. I don't like having a million different kinds of something taking up space in official books, 2 or 3 tops and I can make up the rest myself. If it's a PDF though, then that's okay, because obviously there's no limit to PDF page count.

FrankTrollman wrote:

Thymos wrote:I'm done with game systems not having a subsystem for trivial characters that makes them easy to generate.
...
I'm actually sick of Monsters have a different level system than PC's.

You sir, are hard to please.

-Username17

I should have specified.

I want named non trivial monsters to use a similar system.

I want trivial mooks to use a different system.

I forgot to specify between the two.

In the case of 1 v party monsters I think the right way to go is to actually build that monster as a collection of multiple characters.

A dragon could have a mage as the head, 2 fighters as the hands, and a barbarian or tankish thing as the body.

Like the dragontank, where the head heals the other parts? and the wheel makes an uber charge attack?

It'd be weird if you "killed" the "body" first though, and then it was just a head and claws.

Koumei brought up that very same idea for monsters some time ago

http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=55238

Lokathor wrote:Like the dragontank, where the head heals the other parts? and the wheel makes an uber charge attack?

It'd be weird if you "killed" the "body" first though, and then it was just a head and claws.

Well in the actual dragon tank battle, you can't hurt it fast enough for that. So you'd have to ensure the head can keep everyone alive, so your only real choice is to kill it first. But even so, treating multiple beings as a collective entity is very weird.

You mean like swarms?

NineInchNall wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:

Itay K wrote: Care to elaborate?

Yeah, that and the "cult of pretty" thing too.

Teh ghey is of teh debbil. All sexy time is of teh debbil.

Duh. Alignment conventions of 3E D&D: Everyone ugly is evil. Everyone pretty is good. Unless they are sexy, in which case they're evil. Unless they're gay, in which case they're still good.

Oh no, we've done this conversation before.

(jeebus)

Doom314 wrote:Oh no, we've this conversation before.

This sentence no verb.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:

Thymos wrote:I'm done with game systems not having a subsystem for trivial characters that makes them easy to generate.
...
I'm actually sick of Monsters have a different level system than PC's.

You sir, are hard to please.

I think he means not that they have a different generation system, but that they arbitrarily use different numbers. The CR system in d20 was screwy, but it's not as bad as trying to remember that a level 3 zombie is actually a level 6 challenge for a party of four level 4s. It's okay if a level 4 zombie is a level 4 challenge for a level 4 player and a level 1 for party of 4 level 4s. Or that one PC/NPC at level var num x is worth static num number of level x monsters.

Starmaker wrote:Duckbunnies and their ilk. If I can't imagine Conan looking cool while fighting it, I don't want it.

But... That's where they came from.

-Crissa