Quote from: RPGPundit;1024878Never tried beaver. And I've tried some weird stuff.

Reread that subthread and pretend you're 13 years old again.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1024933Reread that subthread and pretend you're 13 years old again.

Anyone who says that with a straight face is less of a genius than they think.

Quote from: Bren;1024948Anyone who says that with a straight face is less of a genius than they think.

Never said I was saying it with a straight face.  I am fully aware Pundy may simply have been ignoring it; it was about as subtle as a dump truck.

I'm ignoring his ignoring.

Two good candidates imo are the Bowler and the Giant Cricket.

For the first imagine the boulder chasing Indiana Jones in the first movie. Except it's a sentient version of the boulder. I think it's possibly a good monster terrible name imo.

The second is harmless and the only reason to kill it is because it makes noise. To me it's always like a waste of ink and art in the First Edition monster manual II.

A lot of this has to with presentation. Good art and good description can redeem the silliest monster.

Case in point, the tatzelwurm of Alpine lore. It looks like a cat/snake hybrid, so Pathfinder decided to ignore that completely when they adapted it. If you look on google or deviantart, you will find plenty of neat-looking tatzelwurms.

Or the fearsome critters of jokes and hoaxes like the axehandle hound, jackalope, snallygaster, wild haggis and drop bear. You can use those to lend an air of Seussian surrealism and humor to a campaign.

On the other hand, monsters that were interesting in folklore became stupid when adapted to monster manuals. The peryton was originally fairly creepy in its weird backstory where they were lost souls cast out of Atlantis as it sank and hated humanity as a result, but D&D ignored all that in favor of making it into yet another bland random encounter. A crow with a deer's head will only ever look silly no matter how fearsome you try to draw it.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1025124A lot of this has to with presentation. Good art and good description can redeem the silliest monster.

Case in point, the tatzelwurm of Alpine lore. It looks like a cat/snake hybrid, so Pathfinder decided to ignore that completely when they adapted it. If you look on google or deviantart, you will find plenty of neat-looking tatzelwurms.

Or the fearsome critters of jokes and hoaxes like the axehandle hound, jackalope, snallygaster, wild haggis and drop bear. You can use those to lend an air of Seussian surrealism and humor to a campaign.

On the other hand, monsters that were interesting in folklore became stupid when adapted to monster manuals. The peryton was originally fairly creepy in its weird backstory where they were lost souls cast out of Atlantis as it sank and hated humanity as a result, but D&D ignored all that in favor of making it into yet another bland random encounter. A crow with a deer's head will only ever look silly no matter how fearsome you try to draw it.

Yes, except the Jack-a-lope is real and actually pretty tasty. I have featured them and the Chupacabra, Giant Swamp Boar, and Montock monster in my campaigns for years as rare creatures that are more prolific in the campaign world than the real world.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2231[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2232[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2233[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1024955Never said I was saying it with a straight face.

I know. I meant Pundy, not you. Though sticking what I said right after quoting you wasn't the best way to make my meaning and reference clear.

Quote from: MonsterSlayer;1025130Yes, except the Jack-a-lope is real and actually pretty tasty. I have featured them and the Chupacabra, Giant Swamp Boar, and Montock monster in my campaigns for years as rare creatures that are more prolific in the campaign world than the real world.

You could also go the opposite route and increase their numbers to the point that they are considered mundane and jackalope ranches are a thing.

I read an article about how to redeem some of the silly monsters. The last monster was the strench kow and the advice was never to use it. Someone else managed to redeem that one too.

With regard to silly hybrid animals like the owlbear, duckbunny, and spiderhorse, I would just go the Avatar: The Last Airbender route of them being natural to the fantasy world. Since it is fantasy land, there is no reason for it to be limited to real animals. Actual medieval bestiaries believed that hybrid animals were naturally occurring, utterly mundane, and that all animals were basically hybrids originally created by spontaneous generation like morphic fields in Doctor Who. Although I would go the route of depicting their anatomy as contiguous rather than patchwork frankenstein.

I hadn't read the other posts. Man, you guys are NOT helping our case with the rpg.net intellectualoid crowd here.

Pages and pages of dinosaurs, most without illustrations even, the large equivalent of cattle and manatee.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1025692I hadn't read the other posts. Man, you guys are NOT helping our case with the rpg.net intellectualoid crowd here.

I was going to reply per RPG.net... but nah. I just want to know what an "intellectualoid" is?

I have an image of an insect/alien creature with 6 legs and its brain sticking out behind its fly looking eyes. You've been playing too much DCC.

And as a fellow DCC player, I know you have to have some "dumb" creatures to add to this list. I love DCC but they come up with some whack stuff that gives the Fiend Folio a run for its money.

So where's your list?

Quote from: RPGPundit;1025692I hadn't read the other posts. Man, you guys are NOT helping our case with the rpg.net intellectualoid crowd here.

Being able to turn silly on at a whim is a gift.  Being able to turn it off again, as needed, is a skill they lack.  I fail to see why a case should even be attempted.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1025692I hadn't read the other posts. Man, you guys are NOT helping our case with the rpg.net intellectualoid crowd here.

Since when do you care what rpg.net thinks of you/us? Haven't you made a lifestyle and identity out of their dislike of you?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1025722Since when* do you care what rpg.net thinks of you/us? Haven't you made a lifestyle and identity out of their dislike of you?

That sounds like he cares. If he didn't care he'd ignore them.

Quote from: Bren;1025731That sounds like he cares. If he didn't care he'd ignore them.

You are of course right. I guess I should say, "don't you like it when they think poorly of you? Isn't that your thing?"