| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Artemas Entreri |
Posted - 09 Jul 2012 : 17:27:12
D&D nowadays seems flooded with varieties upon varieties of undead, planar creatures, half-breeds, etc. For gaming and novel purposes, do you prefer it to be this way or do you prefer the simplistic view of only having the general monsters for any given area? |
| 26 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Dennis |
Posted - 11 Jul 2012 : 00:37:30
I don't really mind the staggering number of monsters. It's not an issue of how many monsters there are, but how well they are used. Some are redundant, others are quite interesting. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 10 Jul 2012 : 17:15:37
I like simple and repetitive. Giants, goblins, standard dragons etc. In other words more or less the ones found in the D&D game and early Ad&d. Some surprises like the Pamplest will show up to surprise the players if it fits the adventure.
The whole half this half that and dire- bla, bla thing was among the biggest turn-offs whit the 3ed. for me. Undead I prefer to keep limited, there were to many to begin with in the game and planar creatures I usually just wing at the moment, why should the player know anything specific about a creature from another dimension to begin with? |
| Diffan |
Posted - 10 Jul 2012 : 16:23:09
I like simple for novels because they're easier to relate to. In a D&D/FR novel, one someone mentions a Zombie, I don't need to know it's a Putrid Fleshrending Ghoul when a simple "zombie" suffices.
In game terms, however, I have no problems with specific, detailed, extraordinary, and various types of monsters including Dragons and Undead (and devils/demons to lesser extent). That, to me, helps provide better battles and story to the game part. I've used a lot of monsters outside the Monster Manual 1 in both 3E and 4E and all it really does is provide more flavor with a "balanced" approach. For example, a cookie-cutter Zombie might only be a dangerous threat from 1st thru 4th level, but a Plaguetouched Ghoul that drains your Con or Healing Surges is a dangerous foe up through 9th or 10th level. |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 10 Jul 2012 : 15:35:41
I don't like simple, and how 4e did their monsters was too simple for my taste.
I like variety, even if its say an orc with the half fiend.
so I guess I'm in between |
| Markustay |
Posted - 10 Jul 2012 : 15:26:09
Both the Utter East and Kara-Tur have histories that include armies of 'golemic' warriors as well.
Since both can be associated with Imaskar, along with Raumathar, its fairly easy to connect the dots and figure that at some point the Imaskari were experimenting in this direction. They probably saw trouble brewing with their slaves and were looking for an alternative... too bad for them it was too little, too late. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 10 Jul 2012 : 15:16:21
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
quote:
For my money, if a race isn't in a Realms book, it prolly doesn't need to be in the Realms. I make exceptions for three of the Eber-whatsit races, though: shifters and changelings are an obvious fit for the Realms, in small numbers (not even communities, maybe a dozen or so in large cities), and I've worked out how to introduce very small numbers of warforged to the Realms (four different types, with maybe 40 individuals, on the entirety of Toril, since the different types were invented; and one of those different types is a one-off).
Wooly, i would be really interested in hearing your ideas on the warforged. I was always fascinated by that race and would love to place it in my own Realms lore but could never come up with a satisfactory explanation other than some mad wizard invented it. I was originally thinking something to do with Raumathar as they seemed to use robots a lot in their war with Narfell, but then how would any have survived as the two empires destroyed themselves almost completely.
I developed one theory that draws on the Raumathar. So if you're interested dazzler, I'll dig up my own notes for this as well. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 10 Jul 2012 : 15:06:14
In my Misbegotten Realms, I am currently mashing-together Halruaa and the Five kingdoms. Thats gonna give me Warforged, along with any other goodness I want to steal from Eberron. The capital of the Halruaan Condfederacy is Sharn.  |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 10 Jul 2012 : 12:20:43
I look forward to reading and borrow the ideas. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 10 Jul 2012 : 10:55:04
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
quote:
For my money, if a race isn't in a Realms book, it prolly doesn't need to be in the Realms. I make exceptions for three of the Eber-whatsit races, though: shifters and changelings are an obvious fit for the Realms, in small numbers (not even communities, maybe a dozen or so in large cities), and I've worked out how to introduce very small numbers of warforged to the Realms (four different types, with maybe 40 individuals, on the entirety of Toril, since the different types were invented; and one of those different types is a one-off).
Wooly, i would be really interested in hearing your ideas on the warforged. I was always fascinated by that race and would love to place it in my own Realms lore but could never come up with a satisfactory explanation other than some mad wizard invented it. I was originally thinking something to do with Raumathar as they seemed to use robots a lot in their war with Narfell, but then how would any have survived as the two empires destroyed themselves almost completely.
I went the Raumathar route with one type of them. 
I've got two of the flavors entirely written up and ready to present. I need to tweak the third flavor some, then write up the example one, and then I'll present them all here. (Since the fourth one is a one-off, I'm not planning on writing it up. Besides which, other than what it is, I don't have that one figured out!  ) |
| GRYPHON |
Posted - 10 Jul 2012 : 10:25:47
Something in between... |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 10 Jul 2012 : 08:49:57
quote:
For my money, if a race isn't in a Realms book, it prolly doesn't need to be in the Realms. I make exceptions for three of the Eber-whatsit races, though: shifters and changelings are an obvious fit for the Realms, in small numbers (not even communities, maybe a dozen or so in large cities), and I've worked out how to introduce very small numbers of warforged to the Realms (four different types, with maybe 40 individuals, on the entirety of Toril, since the different types were invented; and one of those different types is a one-off).
Wooly, i would be really interested in hearing your ideas on the warforged. I was always fascinated by that race and would love to place it in my own Realms lore but could never come up with a satisfactory explanation other than some mad wizard invented it. I was originally thinking something to do with Raumathar as they seemed to use robots a lot in their war with Narfell, but then how would any have survived as the two empires destroyed themselves almost completely. |
| Mapolq |
Posted - 10 Jul 2012 : 07:19:04
I voted "Other".
I don't mind new monsters and races being introduced. The setting has room for all of them. As long as you're focused on detail and don't make sweeping changes and generalizations, you pretty much can't go wrong. Suppose WotC creates ten thousand new types of monster. Each species has a nook and cranny, and on average there's a thousand individuals of each type on the whole planet. Sure, some species will have more, but most will be extremely rare. After all they weren't previously mentioned, so they couldn't just suddenly be there unless you do a ret-con or an RSE. Do the numbers, and you still haven't got to a fifth of the human and near-human population of Faerūn.
Make the entries on new monsters vague about the quantity of individuals. Don't make whole cities of them spring up from nothing which tell you there must be ten thousand so-and-so creatures here, and five thousand there. For that matter, don't do that with humans either. All the nations and major cities on Faerūn have already got a name and varying quantities of lore about them. If you have a new idea, don't just put it there or wipe the slate so it can fit. Developments are fine. The Kingdom of Many-Arrows, Muranndin, the Duchy of Velen are developments. Not everyone will like them, but they're plausible to a degree. Again, it's about adding detail. The presentation of genasi in the 3e FRCS was fine. They exist, but they aren't that important, so no one bothered to tell you about them before, since there were so many other interesting things. Now with the Spellplague *thousands* of genasi come to Calimshan to fight in the genies' wars and if that wasn't enough, suddenly many humans in Calimshan turn out to be genasi in disguise. They were likely breeding in secret since the First Era of Skyfire, but no one actually noticed. At present they comprise pretty much the whole segment of free people in a nation that should have roughly 1 million inhabitants going by the size of the main cities, and a 10 to 1 slave to freeman ratio is already pushing it, so should we suppose there's about 100,000 genasi in Calimshan who came mostly out of the blue? There's a striking difference in presentation.
Let's do a further comparison, now with with Dambrath in the 3e era. To my knowledge the population of Dambrath wasn't given, but the sum of the populations of the listed cities are about the same as that of 4e Calimshan. There are many undetailed cities, though, so let's suppose 2 million souls. It is stated that 15% percent of the population, or 300,000, is Crinti, which is defined by being at least 1/32 drow or First Blood. It's not that difficult to believe that a force of about 5,000 drow may have conquered Dambrath 500 years ago and ruled by proxy until eventually a large ruling caste (the Crinti) emerged and consolidated their power.
Now the Arkaiuns have killed all the Crinti, torched their cities and reverted to a nomadic lifestyle after centuries of being a city-dwelling and ranching people. I really can't understand some decisions.
Well, I went a bit on a tangent there with the negative opinions about 4e, but I think the point still applies to the subject.
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 10 Jul 2012 : 06:27:31
I'd rather have just a few major races/monsters, and then templates to 'spruce them up'.
In other words, like where they were going at the the end of 3e, and (from what I've been told) what they did in 4e. I don't need 40 varieties of Orc - I need one Orc and 40 templates (archer, juggernaught, feral, Shaman, tainted, corrupted, Eldritch, Winged, Aquatic, Giant, Dire, etc, etc).
In fact, I've been whittling-down the amount of undead by working on a set of universal undead templates (inspired, believe it or not, by the Facebook game Vampire Wars). There should be only two types of undead - reanimated and incorporeal. I can take those two and build everything else off of them. |
| Tren of Twilight Tower |
Posted - 10 Jul 2012 : 05:21:41
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
I would prefer the simplistic or in-between route. The saturation of monsters is mind-boggling.
And I have to wonder how any locale within the ecosystem could realistically support that many animals. It seems like they would deplete the crops and each other before very long. Even if you're gonna have a wild variety of different types, there just shouldn't be that many specimens of each; they should be few and very far between, just for mutual survival's sake.
I am reminded of the book version of Jurassic Park, in which it was stressed that the island couldn't possibly sustain the genetically engineered excessive population of dinosaurs for long because they needed room to grow and roam and not cramp each other's style. The greater predators had to be able to prey on their favorite foodstuffs without infringing on those of their neighboring predators, but the park's management just hadn't set things up that way.
This is like deja vu, all over again . . .
Except we're expected to just say, "Hey, with magic, anything's possible." 
Could not have said it better myself. Thank you.
Talking on the subject, The Year of Rogue Dragons is coming to my mind as an excellent example of how many variations of a certain monster type we have - i.e. dragons. Fantasy or not, it is too much. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 10 Jul 2012 : 04:59:46
I would prefer the simplistic or in-between route. The saturation of monsters is mind-boggling.
And I have to wonder how any locale within the ecosystem could realistically support that many animals. It seems like they would deplete the crops and each other before very long. Even if you're gonna have a wild variety of different types, there just shouldn't be that many specimens of each; they should be few and very far between, just for mutual survival's sake.
I am reminded of the book version of Jurassic Park, in which it was stressed that the island couldn't possibly sustain the genetically engineered excessive population of dinosaurs for long because they needed room to grow and roam and not cramp each other's style. The greater predators had to be able to prey on their favorite foodstuffs without infringing on those of their neighboring predators, but the park's management just hadn't set things up that way.
This is like deja vu, all over again . . .
Except we're expected to just say, "Hey, with magic, anything's possible." |
| The Sage |
Posted - 10 Jul 2012 : 03:15:11
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by ericlboyd
quote:
Originally posted by Varl
The monsters of the game have always been one of my favorite features of the game. The more the merrier, but there does come a time when you look at sheer volume of creatures available to a DM and imagine a world where you've decided that all of them are in the game world somewhere. It'd have to be a planet the size of Jupiter.
I do enjoy the player vacuums they create, though. Eradicate this over here, and that moves in to fill the void left over, so that no two visits to the same location always have the same creatures. Something always moves in.
In 3.5e terms, I have to say that I reached a point of saturation on the "sentient races" front. A variant of an existing race (e.g. poison dusk lizardfolk) great ... a new race, forget it.
I don't think the collective effort of Realms authors has come anywhere close to saturation on "semi-animals" (e.g. new, non-Earth-native, non-dinosaur animals and magical beasts)
I'll agree on that... That's part of why, other than the book Races of the Dragon, I didn't bother with any of the 3.5 Races of Whatever books.
I can't quite agree.
While some of the additional races brought into the core D&D system via these books, were kind of "forgettable," we also had some real gems that have become interesting additions to the game -- like Illumians and Goliaths, for example. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 09 Jul 2012 : 22:27:39
quote:
Originally posted by ericlboyd
quote:
Originally posted by Varl
The monsters of the game have always been one of my favorite features of the game. The more the merrier, but there does come a time when you look at sheer volume of creatures available to a DM and imagine a world where you've decided that all of them are in the game world somewhere. It'd have to be a planet the size of Jupiter.
I do enjoy the player vacuums they create, though. Eradicate this over here, and that moves in to fill the void left over, so that no two visits to the same location always have the same creatures. Something always moves in.
In 3.5e terms, I have to say that I reached a point of saturation on the "sentient races" front. A variant of an existing race (e.g. poison dusk lizardfolk) great ... a new race, forget it.
I don't think the collective effort of Realms authors has come anywhere close to saturation on "semi-animals" (e.g. new, non-Earth-native, non-dinosaur animals and magical beasts)
I'll agree on that... That's part of why, other than the book Races of the Dragon, I didn't bother with any of the 3.5 Races of Whatever books.
For my money, if a race isn't in a Realms book, it prolly doesn't need to be in the Realms. I make exceptions for three of the Eber-whatsit races, though: shifters and changelings are an obvious fit for the Realms, in small numbers (not even communities, maybe a dozen or so in large cities), and I've worked out how to introduce very small numbers of warforged to the Realms (four different types, with maybe 40 individuals, on the entirety of Toril, since the different types were invented; and one of those different types is a one-off). |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 09 Jul 2012 : 21:41:05
I definitely agree with that, the slightly different varieties of races that they started throwing in at the end of 3.5 was a little overwhelming and a lot of monsters never get used in my campaigns.
But saying that it is always handy to have all kinds of wierd and wonderful creatures to carefully place and craft an encounter around to surprise and challenge PCs. if the number of monsters was limited then eventually a player might get bored of killing the same things over and over again.
Its always better to have more resources than you need so that you can pick which bits you want to use, and change or leave the rest. I apply the same rule to monsters. |
| ericlboyd |
Posted - 09 Jul 2012 : 21:27:21
quote:
Originally posted by Varl
The monsters of the game have always been one of my favorite features of the game. The more the merrier, but there does come a time when you look at sheer volume of creatures available to a DM and imagine a world where you've decided that all of them are in the game world somewhere. It'd have to be a planet the size of Jupiter.
I do enjoy the player vacuums they create, though. Eradicate this over here, and that moves in to fill the void left over, so that no two visits to the same location always have the same creatures. Something always moves in.
In 3.5e terms, I have to say that I reached a point of saturation on the "sentient races" front. A variant of an existing race (e.g. poison dusk lizardfolk) great ... a new race, forget it.
I don't think the collective effort of Realms authors has come anywhere close to saturation on "semi-animals" (e.g. new, non-Earth-native, non-dinosaur animals and magical beasts) |
| Varl |
Posted - 09 Jul 2012 : 21:05:52
The monsters of the game have always been one of my favorite features of the game. The more the merrier, but there does come a time when you look at sheer volume of creatures available to a DM and imagine a world where you've decided that all of them are in the game world somewhere. It'd have to be a planet the size of Jupiter.
I do enjoy the player vacuums they create, though. Eradicate this over here, and that moves in to fill the void left over, so that no two visits to the same location always have the same creatures. Something always moves in. |
| Kilvan |
Posted - 09 Jul 2012 : 20:39:27
Some monsters are a bit ridiculous, but I don't mind, I just don't use them. I'm glad some monster types, Evil Outsiders especially, offer a very wide variety. I do not object to undead and dragon types/subtypes, as long as the mechanics are interesting and the fluff at least makes some sense (it usually does). Later MMs even took the space to give some Realms lore for all new monsters. |
| Bladewind |
Posted - 09 Jul 2012 : 20:27:01
Variety is the spice of life, and in D&D that life itself is full of flavour. The more the merrier.
It does get tedious for players who like to adhere to the "know thy enemy" philosophy. |
| Kilvan |
Posted - 09 Jul 2012 : 20:23:53
In any given quest, I try to mix the encounters so that we do not fight the same fight twice. For example, in a Troll lair I will try to use different subtypes of trolls (MM3 I think), a Wartroll chieftain, which is actually controlled by a Mindflayer. Add one encounter with a random underdark creature in the way, and you got yourself a nice middle level quest of 5-6 different encounters.
Wiping an orc camp gets boring really quick (looking at you NWN2).
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 09 Jul 2012 : 19:49:23
quote:
Originally posted by entreri3478
The variety of undead in today's D&D is staggering.
That's been a recurring theme since 2E. The monster designers seem to favor new flavors of dragon, and new types of undead, more than anything else. And it has been ridiculous for a very long time. |
| Artemas Entreri |
Posted - 09 Jul 2012 : 19:37:27
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
Well, I think variety is always good, but iconic monsters (when not abused) can create the best effects and reactions. In a 4 years campaign, I don't think I ever used the same monster twice, but then I use more NPCs from evil organizations than actual monsters. That's for the gaming purpose, for novels I never really care about non-sentient or stupid creatures anyway.
So I guess something in between for me.
I am with you on this one. In either a campaign or a novel, the NPC's tend to make the story interesting for me and the monsters just add a little flavor.
The variety of undead in today's D&D is staggering. |
| Kilvan |
Posted - 09 Jul 2012 : 19:23:32
Well, I think variety is always good, but iconic monsters (when not abused) can create the best effects and reactions. In a 4 years campaign, I don't think I ever used the same monster twice, but then I use more NPCs from evil organizations than actual monsters. That's for the gaming purpose, for novels I never really care about non-sentient or stupid creatures anyway.
So I guess something in between for me. |
|
|
