The Gaming Den

Posted: **Tue Sep 30, 2014 11:30 pm**

I guess the monster book came out today.

We've talked a bit about Pit Fiends and the Tarrasque being really lame and I've btiched incessantly about Storm Giants being unable to break down doors.

Now I would like to hear more about high-level monsters that are stupid and/or boring. And/or retarded. I hope someone will tell me about some of them.

Posted: **Wed Oct 01, 2014 1:48 am**

I know that this isn't at all what you're asking for; but ....
some guy did a cover-to-cover - I haven't bothered watching it, mainly because it's way too long for my patience.
Also, Angry DM did a review. He goes in to a couple of rants - as Angry DM is prone to do - and even breaks down some encounter-building math.

Sorry for the early de-rail.

Posted: **Wed Oct 01, 2014 2:28 am**

Ugh, D&D videos? Just shoot me now. I still haven't recovered from MC Killzalot.

Posted: **Wed Oct 01, 2014 4:51 am**

Well, I got my Monster Manual today and one of the first things I noticed was that granting wishes is now something that only "a rare few" djinn/efreet are able to do, and any one of them can only grant three wishes to any single individual once. So, somebody decided to get in front of that Candle of Invocation nonsense.

Posted: **Wed Oct 01, 2014 3:18 pm**

I haven't dipped into it too much, but so far the Legendary/Lair actions seem pretty underwhelming.

The primary disappointment is that they have some serious bullshit races included, and not one single ethergaunt to be seen. Come one, guys. You had one job.

Posted: **Thu Oct 02, 2014 1:28 am**

I just got mine in the mail. First two things of note. Zac s has no tha ks or contributing credit, and the table of contents has a giant frog eating a dude. Both are plusses.

Im reading it today/tommorow so feel free to ask questions

**i could probably do a things i hate page by page for this book. I am on page 12 so far....

Posted: **Thu Oct 02, 2014 2:41 am**

The lich... my personal make-or-break monster regarding d&d mystique because I damn love me some immortality as goal for my wizards.

Yes, there's still a way for PCs to do it.

Fuck you, the method is called SUCK DM COCK.

Monster Manual wrote:Wizards that seek lichdom must make bargains with fiends, evil gods, or other foul entities. Many turn to Orcus, Demon Prince of Undeath, whose power has created countless liches. However,
those that control the power of lichdom always demand fealty and service for their knowledge.

Also, seems the ritual is now weaksauce and you need to feed your phylactery a box of kittens a day in order not to rot away.

Liches used to stand for autonomy incarnate, the triumph of the arcane paradigm and luciferan philosophy: Becoming your own god. Now they're just pawns of the lower planes.

Posted: **Thu Oct 02, 2014 3:39 am**

Dogbert wrote: Also, seems the ritual is now weaksauce and you need to feed your phylactery a box of kittens a day in order not to rot away.

Can you go into more detail?

Posted: **Thu Oct 02, 2014 4:17 am**

CapnTthePirateG wrote:Can you go into more detail?

Monster Manual wrote:A lich must periodically feed souls to its phylactery to sustain the magic preserving its body and consciousness. It does this using the imprisonment spell. Instead of choosing one of the normal options of the spell, the lich uses the spell to magically trap the target's body and soul inside its phylactery. The phylactery must be on the same plane as the lich for the spell to work. A lich's phylactery can hold only
one creature at a time, and a dispel magic cast as a 9th-level spell upon the phylactery releases any creature imprisoned within it. A creature imprisoned in the phylactery for 24 hours is consumed and destroyed utterly, whereupon nothing short of divine intervention can restore it to life.

A lich that fails or forgets to maintain its body with sacrificed souls begins to physically fall apart, and might eventually become a demilich.

There. No more Baelnorms for you.

Posted: **Thu Oct 02, 2014 4:40 am**

How often is "periodically"?

Posted: **Thu Oct 02, 2014 5:21 am**

Foxwarrior wrote:How often is "periodically"?

Your guess is as good as mine. The book says how long it takes to digest a soul, but not how long it takes before needing a new one.

Posted: **Thu Oct 02, 2014 5:58 am**

Update: Now wizards having an Imp familiar for the shared Magic Resistance becomes mandatory.

Posted: **Thu Oct 02, 2014 6:00 am**

I am seriously unimpressed. The balor has NO spell-like abilities and no ranged attack options. It can seriously get kited to death. Many of the outsiders are now just melee brutes. It's seriously boring. The lack of spell-like abilities overall kind of bugs me. When I make monsters, I like to give them spell-likes not just for versitility in combat, but for them to have more of an effect outside of combat as well. It just makes them feel more like they're powerful and it's also just plain more interesting.

Also, most of the art is lame.

Posted: **Thu Oct 02, 2014 7:00 am**

Dogbert wrote:
Foxwarrior wrote:How often is "periodically"?
Your guess is as good as mine. The book says how long it takes to digest a soul, but not how long it takes before needing a new one.

The punishment being turning into a demilich does not do much to discourage ignoring this.

Posted: **Thu Oct 02, 2014 8:06 am**

Now we get to see the mental gymnastics the 5mind goes through to rationalize how shitty all these monsters are. When I showed them the Pit Fiend, they said it was great that they don't have interesting abilities because 3e Pit Fiends took a long time to fight.

Posted: **Thu Oct 02, 2014 5:03 pm**

Night Goat wrote:Now we get to see the mental gymnastics the 5mind goes through to rationalize how shitty all these monsters are. When I showed them the Pit Fiend, they said it was great that they don't have interesting abilities because 3e Pit Fiends took a long time to fight.

That's just the current mindset of the "Grognard and their kids" crowd. They want to change D&D into what they falsely claim it was when they were kids. D&D was originally just a Fantasy/medieval Miniatures Wargame, and not an RPG. The role-playing followed naturally, and playing without miniatures and movement squares, as in "theater of mind," was because certain groups couldn't afford miniatures and developed a different style, then it became their preferred style, which lead them to believe it was the one-true-way all this time.

Posted: **Thu Oct 02, 2014 6:47 pm**

OD&D had some weird design choices if it was supposed to be a wargame... like the Tomb of Horror's emphasis on DM telepathy, monsters that eat your brain if you put your ear against a door, etc. Seems like Pit Fiends and Red Dragons with interesting narrative abilities fit right in.

Posted: **Thu Oct 02, 2014 9:26 pm**

hamstertamer wrote:
Night Goat wrote:Now we get to see the mental gymnastics the 5mind goes through to rationalize how shitty all these monsters are. When I showed them the Pit Fiend, they said it was great that they don't have interesting abilities because 3e Pit Fiends took a long time to fight.
That's just the current mindset of the "Grognard and their kids" crowd. They want to change D&D into what they falsely claim it was when they were kids. D&D was originally just a Fantasy/medieval Miniatures Wargame, and not an RPG. The role-playing followed naturally, and playing without miniatures and movement squares, as in "theater of mind," was because certain groups couldn't afford miniatures and developed a different style, then it became their preferred style, which lead them to believe it was the one-true-way all this time.

Or maybe instead of dragging up this tired and pointless aside you could just accept that 4th Ed was too gamist for many people and this is an over reaction. The game suffers from the removal of game language, but I see no reason to mention a very dead system with the goal of insulting people for saying 4th ed didn't feel like D&D.

I don't understand why people feel the need to bring up chainmail and Gygax's intentions, it has no bearing on modern design and most of the stated goals and mechanics are a list of "don't"s.

Posted: **Thu Oct 02, 2014 10:36 pm**

Sakuya Izayoi wrote:OD&D had some weird design choices if it was supposed to be a wargame... like the Tomb of Horror's emphasis on DM telepathy, monsters that eat your brain if you put your ear against a door, etc. Seems like Pit Fiends and Red Dragons with interesting narrative abilities fit right in.

You can probably blame Gygax for that one, he was all over player disempowerment.

Posted: **Fri Oct 03, 2014 8:49 pm**

This just in, fresh from the GitP forum: The Tarrasque is still totally an epic monster because it can make improvised ranged attacks if you try to kite it.

Posted: **Fri Oct 03, 2014 9:21 pm**

nockermensch wrote:This just in, fresh from the GitP forum: The Tarrasque is still totally an epic monster because it can make improvised ranged attacks if you try to kite it.

That thread makes me laugh/cry/both.

Posted: **Fri Oct 03, 2014 9:33 pm**

Scrivener wrote:
hamstertamer wrote:
Night Goat wrote:Now we get to see the mental gymnastics the 5mind goes through to rationalize how shitty all these monsters are. When I showed them the Pit Fiend, they said it was great that they don't have interesting abilities because 3e Pit Fiends took a long time to fight.
That's just the current mindset of the "Grognard and their kids" crowd. They want to change D&D into what they falsely claim it was when they were kids. D&D was originally just a Fantasy/medieval Miniatures Wargame, and not an RPG. The role-playing followed naturally, and playing without miniatures and movement squares, as in "theater of mind," was because certain groups couldn't afford miniatures and developed a different style, then it became their preferred style, which lead them to believe it was the one-true-way all this time.
Or maybe instead of dragging up this tired and pointless aside you could just accept that 4th Ed was too gamist for many people and this is an over reaction. The game suffers from the removal of game language, but I see no reason to mention a very dead system with the goal of insulting people for saying 4th ed didn't feel like D&D.

I don't understand why people feel the need to bring up chainmail and Gygax's intentions, it has no bearing on modern design and most of the stated goals and mechanics are a list of "don't"s.

Since I'm one of the people that has said "4th Ed was too gamist" and "4th ed didn't feel like D&D" that must mean I was insulting myself, or maybe I wasn't insulting anybody, or maybe you don't know what your talking about.

Posted: **Fri Oct 03, 2014 9:40 pm**

Sakuya Izayoi wrote:OD&D had some weird design choices if it was supposed to be a wargame... like the Tomb of Horror's emphasis on DM telepathy, monsters that eat your brain if you put your ear against a door, etc. Seems like Pit Fiends and Red Dragons with interesting narrative abilities fit right in.

What's even weirder, is that G.G. promoted the idea that players use miniatures in AD&D. He even wrote the spell descriptions in inches instead of feet/yards/meters.

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2014 2:59 am**

Update: Lizardfolk are the new master race among monsters. The lowliest lizardfolk mook (CR 1/2) has 22 HP and AC 15. How come they're not d&d land's lords and masters is a mystery.

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2014 3:49 am**

Noticed that the Succubus and the Nymph didn't make the cut. Looks like "death by snu-snu" monsters are not welcome in the new dynamic.

The sprite artwork is a little... umm... loli?

The Gaming Den

5e Monster Manual: Please tell me about the shitty monsters

5e Monster Manual: Please tell me about the shitty monsters