Comments on: No Stock Monsters

By: Martin

Martin — Wed, 05 Oct 2005 15:13:43 +0000

Good tip, Jason — I hadn’t thought of that.

By: Jason

Jason — Wed, 05 Oct 2005 02:45:13 +0000

One thing that I’ve found that helps with non-stock monsters (and this works best with SRD located monsters, or some other place where you can cut & paste wholesale) is to throw it into your word processor, edit any changes into the document, then print it. That way, you’ve got all the relevant information on the customized monster right at hand.

By: Martin

Martin — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 15:33:53 +0000

(Pocket) I would wonder if people would want to post some of their odd monsters for stealing? I’ll do it when I get more time.

If you mean posting full monster writeups, I think that would be a bit off the beaten track — but ideas, or summaries of what you changed? Fire away!

By: Pocket

Pocket — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 05:59:13 +0000

This is a cool blog! As a DM who has DMed a LOT of low level campaigns, I began to get bored with Orcs and Goblins. What I do is run a combination of stock monsters with new monsters that I make up.

I think it increases the excitement of final encounters for players to be fighting their way through stock henchies to find some unknown monster at the end. One does always have to be aware that players can be caught completely caught off guard and unaware by new abilities, so I usually just give new monsters one or two bizarre abilities at most.

I don’t have a lot of time, so this allows me to add some spice without spending too much time designing new monsters. I would wonder if people would want to post some of their odd monsters for stealing? I’ll do it when I get more time.

By: Alan Scott

Alan Scott — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 03:34:05 +0000

Were I ever to run a fantasy campaign, I’d avoid stock monsters. Not so much because the players know them and their abilities, but because using unique monsters will make the setting less “greyhawk”.

By: Martin

Martin — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:22:23 +0000

(Joe) The threat of many stock monsters with powerful abilities like turn to stone, death touch, blindness, paralysis, etc is mitigated by player knowledge.

True, but you can also tweak the encounter slightly to show the players a creature’s deadlier abilities before they get into combat — a garden of statues, etc. This has the added benefit of inspiring nervousness over a palette-swapped monster’s known abilities, as well.

By: Joe

Joe — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 03:59:41 +0000

I think Rudolf Kraus is right in that palette swapping can be interesting but needs some limits. The threat of many stock monsters with powerful abilities like turn to stone, death touch, blindness, paralysis, etc is mitigated by player knowledge. The litmus test here is whether the PCs can reverse (or escape) the monster’s ability during the encounter. Getting knocked out of the game without knowing you were doing something heroic/stupid is no fun. Monsters that walk through walls, resist lightning, spit sticky goo or whatever are all fair game.

By: Martin

Martin — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 18:58:42 +0000

(I’m back from my trip now. )

(Don) Were I to ever run D&D again (ha!) I would do the exact opposite as you, Martin: 100% stock monsters from the core books only.

Along with what Judas mentioned, I can definitely see the appeal of this.

(Frank) The stumbling around having no clue what’s going on was cool when I first started playing. I don’t think that’s cool anymore.

I’m not sure it’d be as dramatic as that — after all, a seasoned player (one target audience for this idea) will be able to adapt to an unexpected monster pretty well.

Even though I haven’t responded to all of these comments individually, they were all enjoyable — and illuminating — to read.

By: Crazy Jerome

Crazy Jerome — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 03:04:12 +0000

I mostly run long campaigns. One of the things I like about that is that I can introduce “new” or otherwise changed monsters (as discussed in the article) when the campaign starts. But I limit myself to relatively few creatures–unless a particular encounter demands something odd. Therefore, the monsters become defacto stock as the campaign progresses.

I don’t mind prep time, but I want some milage out of that prep. My players enjoy this, because they get the fun of the new and the increasing advantage as their characters learn about the world.

By: ScottM

ScottM — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 23:19:59 +0000

I too lean toward more stock creatures and/or palette changes, since prep time is precious. Plus the monsters have meaning, like Judas’s Eye Tyrant example.

You illuminate the drawbacks well; another drawback is seperating PC & player knowledge. How much does the average adventurer know about dragons? Alignment? Breath weapon? That plus its intelligence? Do you want to make that same decision for each creature you fight?

For context: we fought a white dragon 5 or 6 sessions back. We had a lot of trouble figuring out: would our characters know that it wouldn’t keep its word? Different players came up with different answers… which really messed with group cohesion, characterization, and implementing a coherent response.

By: Rudolf Kraus

Rudolf Kraus — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 03:18:00 +0000

Oh, I agree whole-heartedly with Sarlax. In my current home game, the townsfolk don’t venture out very far on winter nights, because of snow beasts. The players have no idea that they are baboons with white fur, and a tolerance for cold. It adds a lot of intrigue, and I did basically nothing.

While modifying monsters is fun, don’t overdo it. If a creature has really crazy abilities, it’s appearance should match. Poisonous monsters in our world are usually brightly colored, for example. If players move up to the hulking form in the shadows and get turned to stone for their trouble, they might be a bit mad.

With the previous snow beast example, it was clear that the town had walls and a night watch, and as soon as they started buying expedition supplies, they were warned to be careful.

By: Sarlax

Sarlax — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 21:01:01 +0000

The bulk of the adventures I’ve run have been published, which means that they’ve been more or less entirely staffed with stock monsters. I’ve experienced the same sense that my players have become bored with the standard fare.

I’ve found that templates are best reserved for specific-purpose encounters. If a key encounter involves a hydra infused with infernal power, go ahead and apply the half-fiend template. If, however, you’re just running a suprise ambush, those orcs don’t need the shadow creature template.

To make a particular monster more memorable and to reduce the instinctive metagaming that can occur with player knowledge, I like to do the palette swap with a minor ability change.

Consider an ogre. It deals 2d8+7 damage and wears hide armor. Change that to 1d8+9+1d6 acid and convert the hide armor directly into a natural armor boost. Call the great club an acid-injecting tongue stinger, and now you’re ogre is the Kal-Ereth, frog fiend!

The real strength of this method is that it can be done right at the beginning of the encounter with no preparation.