. . . maybe because the picture in the monster compendium for your game of choice looked dumb, or you didn't like their ability suite, or they were too powerful/weak, you don't use psionics, etc.
Mine all seem to come from the Fiend Folio: I will never populate a campaign I run with Xvarts, because that picture just looks SO stupid. . . a giant head with legs growing out of it. Please. besides, there are so many other humanoid tribal races, did we really need one more? Also, the picture of the Tiger Fly (giant wasp with a man's badly drawn head) will prevent them from ever being used in a dungeon of mine. And the whole idea behind a CIFAL (a large group of bugs developing sentience and forming into a humanoid monster) just rubs me the wrong way.
What, if any, creatures would you never put into one of your adventures? And why?
The fiend Folio stuff is all from a series of D&D articles from very early White Dwarf before it sucked.
The Cifal is an interesting one as it is a nod to a Spider Man villain called Swarm. Creatures like it have appeared in horror novels too. But yeah, FF had alot of oddities. Blame the UK!
Creatures never used. Otyugs, never liked them. Boring Beetles and Rot Grubs as not keen on instakill critters.
For 5e, the new piercer looks stupid and have reverted it and a few other monsters back to something less moronic. Currently been replacing Half-Dragons with Dragonborn as the HD entry seems almost redundant. Why wasnt it merged into the Dragonborn?
I've run a couple of Fiend Folio only campaigns. The Xvarts are nasty bastards, but in general the FF is best used 2 ways - as the only MM for the campaign, or you pick very specific beasts that fit in your campaign and you build a campaign MM from the various MMs you own.
There isn't a monster I would not use...but it has to make sense for the world I am creating. THAT more than anything determines the monster choices.
Drow.
Unless I were to run D1-2 and D3.
i dont know about specific monster but i would never have the party encounter anything with levels in elemental warrior
fuck that prestige class with a rusty adamantium 10 foot pole
I finf the D&D devils and demons to be awfully ununspiring and dull.
I mean, really: a balrog? Donkey Kong? Frog man? Guh...
Quote from: Spinachcat;822738There isn't a monster I would not use...but it has to make sense for the world I am creating. THAT more than anything determines the monster choices.
That's my thinking on it. Nothing gets ruled out off the top... just on a per-setting basis.
None of the D&D-related games I've run lately have had dragons (though there've been rumours) and my (non-D&D) setting has mostly custom made creatures.
I tend to avoid 'gotcha' monsters such as those bugs that live in doors and crawl into the ears of Thieves trying to use Hear Noise ability - ear seekers?
Quote from: S'mon;822820I tend to avoid 'gotcha' monsters such as those bugs that live in doors and crawl into the ears of Thieves trying to use Hear Noise ability - ear seekers?
I only once used them but crossed them with the brain controlling worms from Wrath of Khan. I handed a secret note to the player which said something like: "a worm is in your brain, controlling you: convince the other characters to go into room X where Mother is and you'll get bonus XP".
It was fun.
Edit: this is motherfucking post 666!!! I'm pleased.
i prefer fiendish possession to vermin controlled
Quote from: IggytheBorg;822693. . . maybe because the picture in the monster compendium for your game of choice looked dumb
I didn't use the aboleth in 3e because of the picture, but I want to use it in 5e because of the picture.
unless they used a different picture for 3.5 i dont see a problem with it
We always avoid psionics, so any creatures that used a good bit of that are out for us.
Someone's gotta say it.
Flumphs.
I was waitin' for that one.
I think the problem with the flumph is its name... like a pillow falling on a bed. Not threatening.
I can't say that I would ever see myself actually using an Illithid, or a Drow. They seem so overdone. I suppose they're fine contextually, but I'm never going to create that context. I guess - keep the Underdark in the Underdark.
//Panjumanju
Quote from: SowelBlack;822839We always avoid psionics, so any creatures that used a good bit of that are out for us.
but that means no illithids
the idea of a game of d&d without illithids just seems alien to me
Quote from: tuypo1;822936the idea of a game of d&d without illithids just seems alien to me
I see what you did there. :)
Also, they're not Illithids, they're Mind Flayers. N00b.
;)
I used to be really down on good-aligned monsters because I felt they stole a bit of the PC's evil-fightin' limelight. I've softened a little in on the issue in my old age.
I still hate angels in D&D. Fantasy should feel... pagan. I re-skinned the 5e angels as Valkyries.
Quote from: tuypo1;822936but that means no illithids
the idea of a game of d&d without illithids just seems alien to me
Most illithid psionic abilities can be converted into some kind of magic (plane shift or dimension door for probability travel, etc.). I never used psionics in my campaign, but had an illithid encounter planned for the next phase of a campaign that ended when we all went to college. no psionics necessary.
ah i see
I don't think there's any specific monster I'd NEVER use. Generally, I use a very small selection of monsters in any given campaign (apart from quite a few 'unique' monsters). I generally feel that a small selection works better, I know that tends to go against the dominant line of thought.
Quote from: IggytheBorg;822693What, if any, creatures would you never put into one of your adventures? And why?
First and foremost: the (most hated) Modron!
Mind you, I could very well put robots in my adventures, even sentient robots. But a modron sounds so definitely stupid and imbecile to me... I hate it. I totally hate it.
I don't like mimics too. Things that takes the appearance of a chest or of a rug. I don't like them. It just seems like a "gamey" thing to surprise players, but in my opinion it's a complete nonsense that breaks my suspension of disbelief.
I also don't like disenchanters and rust-monsters that seem to be there only to hinder adventurers. I could very well accept (and find interesting) a demon that drains magic or an undead that rots magical items through negative energy. But as they were done these monsters are just silly "gamey" things.
Quote from: Turanil;823205First and foremost: the (most hated) Modron!
Mind you, I could very well put robots in my adventures, even sentient robots. But a modron sounds so definitely stupid and imbecile to me... I hate it. I totally hate it.
I don't like mimics too. Things that takes the appearance of a chest or of a rug. I don't like them. It just seems like a "gamey" thing to surprise players, but in my opinion it's a complete nonsense that breaks my suspension of disbelief.
I also don't like disenchanters and rust-monsters that seem to be there only to hinder adventurers. I could very well accept (and find interesting) a demon that drains magic or an undead that rots magical items through negative energy. But as they were done these monsters are just silly "gamey" things.
i dont know about earlier editions but my bigest problem with the modrons in 3e was that there rate of reproduction was never given because what fun are modrons if you dont know how fast you have to kill them to reduce there population. farming primus for xp would be great fun though you cant do that with kord unless you have an evil party and you cant do it with ollidarma because something is bound to go horrible wrong.
I don't think I've ever used Modrons, but I can theoretically imagine something where I would.
What I hate so much about Modrons, is their incredibly cheesy and meta-gamey aspect. I mean: there were devils in hell, and angels in the heavens. So the game designers thought they had to put something between them; if there is a lawful-neutral plane, there must be specific creatures there. But they came to the soooo LAME idea that these must be creatures shaped like cubes and triangles, that live in mechanical devices that look like giant watches (with nice gardens on the surface :rolleyes: ). This idea is just lame, and so far fetched from anything typical sword & sorcery fantasy. I simply hate it. :rant: By the way, the modrons thankfully disappeared from 3e, and were replaced by robots (i.e. "inevitables"), which was much better where my tastes are considered.
I haven't used undead or demons in a long time. They're over-exposed in my circles and don't provoke the sense of wonder/horror I want.
Quote from: Turanil;823696What I hate so much about Modrons, is their incredibly cheesy and meta-gamey aspect. I mean: there were devils in hell, and angels in the heavens. So the game designers thought they had to put something between them; if there is a lawful-neutral plane, there must be specific creatures there. But they came to the soooo LAME idea that these must be creatures shaped like cubes and triangles, that live in mechanical devices that look like giant watches (with nice gardens on the surface :rolleyes: ). This idea is just lame, and so far fetched from anything typical sword & sorcery fantasy. I simply hate it. :rant: By the way, the modrons thankfully disappeared from 3e, and were replaced by robots (i.e. "inevitables"), which was much better where my tastes are considered.
3e did have modrons in the manual of the planes web enhancment (the manual of the planes actually got 2 web enhancements the modrons and a kickarse plane travailing inn)
but like i said it had the major flaw of not showing how fast they reproduced.
I kind of liked the hierarch modrons - the ones with the humanoid appearances - but the cubes/triangles/rectangles were pretty stupid. I'd never use them for that reason.
ETA: I kind of liked the idea of the rust monster and the disenchanter as presenting a challenge to the party. How to take this thing out/avoid it without having it damage your stuff? Or how to deal with the consequences if they do. In a similar vein, I had plans for a desert based portion of the campaign, and one thing I was going to harp on was the idea of dustdiggers killing horses or other pack animals. Again, to see how the PC's dealt with a practical, non-combat problem.
i quite like monodrones as cannon fodder
although as i understand it the pre 3e modrons looked a lot difrent
as for disenchanters yeah there a great enemy
There is no monster I'd *never* use. In fact, come to think of it, I look for ways to use all the monsters.
Demons/Devils as presented may look like schlock-monsters - but if you present them as intelligent (assuming they are in fact intelligent), give them a Hat of Disguise (or whatever) or allow them to appear as whatever you want, and just use their in-born abilties, and you *create* the horror. They're quite terrifying.
I've managed to use Space Hamsters. Yep. And terrorized my PC with them. Oh sure they weren't the the typical large cuddly hamsters - they were cannibal saber-toothed predatory hamsters that fucked some PC's up.
I also have used monsters as a conceit that a smart civilization might actually leverage these creatures for their own use. I've had cities with these large sewage pits that they put several Otyugh's in for the express purpose of garbage disposal. It also was handy for the purposes of disposing of undesirables.
There are monsters I've never used - but I try to give them all a chance, or at least work an angle that keeps people's eyebrows raised.
I never use ocean/sea monsters. I just never run sea adventures. And I really dislike the idea of underwater adventures.
Not a fan of Bullywugs. Their existence seems insulting somehow. I don't know why. It might be because I thought they were stupid in the D&D cartoon.
Quote from: S'mon;822820I tend to avoid 'gotcha' monsters such as those bugs that live in doors and crawl into the ears of Thieves trying to use Hear Noise ability - ear seekers?
Quote from: Turanil;823205I also don't like disenchanters and rust-monsters that seem to be there only to hinder adventurers. I could very well accept (and find interesting) a demon that drains magic or an undead that rots magical items through negative energy. But as they were done these monsters are just silly "gamey" things.
I agree with S'mon and Turanil. "Gotchas" and "gameyness" are the main things I generally avoid.
Quote from: Gabriel2;823794And I really dislike the idea of underwater adventures.
Why?
Quote from: Gabriel2;823794Not a fan of Bullywugs. Their existence seems insulting somehow. I don't know why. It might be because I thought they were stupid in the D&D cartoon.
4th edition agreed with you. Their entire entry there was written as a sly joke, and even
the world despised them so much that
when a PC killed one the PC got hit points back as a gift from nature.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;823808Why?
I just don't like the idea of them. Just a preference thing.
Quote from: Gabriel2;823815I just don't like the idea of them. Just a preference thing.
Oh come now, there must be specifics. I'm not judging you, I'm just curious. I don't like the idea of many things, but I can also explain the specifics. For instance, I don't like the idea of Egypt-themed dungeoneering because I associate it with the laziest of Saturday morning cartoon antics and can't take it seriously in a tabletop game as a result.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;823820Oh come now, there must be specifics. I'm not judging you, I'm just curious. I don't like the idea of many things, but I can also explain the specifics. For instance, I don't like the idea of Egypt-themed dungeoneering because I associate it with the laziest of Saturday morning cartoon antics and can't take it seriously in a tabletop game as a result.
I honestly can't think of a reason why. As I think of it, I realize the dislike for on sea/under sea adventures is almost entirely tied to swords and sorcery implementations. Something about them in that context turns off my happy switch. It's nothing logical to it.
It is odd because the first thing I wanted to do with D&D back in 81/82 was something like The Odyssey.
Who knows, it might just because I don't know how to swim.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;8238084th edition agreed with you. Their entire entry there was written as a sly joke, and even the world despised them so much that when a PC killed one the PC got hit points back as a gift from nature.
You suppose this is where WoW got the idea for Murlocs? God, I hated those bastards.
Quote from: IggytheBorg;823851You suppose this is where WoW got the idea for Murlocs? God, I hated those bastards.
Murlocs predate 4e's mocking interpretation of bullywugs, but the general patheticness of bullywugs predates murlocs.
Sloppy, slothful, limp aquatic critters is kind of a minor cliche I think, water being a poetic metaphor for those traits and all.
I never use "good" gnomes, if that counts.
Gnomes are the most superfluous and least interesting demi-human race, IMO. Dwarves are my favorite, elves can be very cool in certain situations (even if I don't like them as much as dwarves), and even halflings can be useful sometimes. But I have never felt a desire to use gnomes.
Quote from: IggytheBorg;824423Gnomes are the most superfluous and least interesting demi-human race, IMO. Dwarves are my favorite, elves can be very cool in certain situations (even if I don't like them as much as dwarves), and even halflings can be useful sometimes. But I have never felt a desire to use gnomes.
Meh. I basically agree. I didn't like them even before Dragonlance made them the most irritating race in the setting (easily beating out kender and gully dwarves). My sword and sorcery settings always omit gnomes and halflings.
I use gnomes. They just happen to be earth elementals like the ones in Return to Oz rather than lawn ornament dwarves.
(http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/ozwikia/images/e/e2/Return-to-oz-gnome-king.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20131210053620)
Giant rats
Kobolds
I'd use just about anything, I'd just put my own spin on it.
Kobolds? Well, don't use them as monsters. Just a breed of dwarves who subsist mainly on mining enterprises.
Giant Rats? Their appearance in the cities always heralds a Skaven attack.
Murlocs/Bullywugs? Make better antagonists when you think of them as Deep Ones...
But Modrons...Modrons are my favourite.
The Great Modron March was the single greatest campaign experience I ever had with AD&D 2nd ed. Any edition of D&D for that matter. The Modrons themselves I thought were fascinating. Their PoV I took from the novel Flatland: creatures of a 2 dimensional brainspace incapable of percieving the existence of, let alone understanding, a 3d world. They are motes, living cogs sentient only of the great machine they are all a part of. Not so much monsters, as just a fact of nature, whose designs and intentions are as incomprehensible to others as theirs are to The Modrons.
I'm reskinning Kobolds as very very very bad children (I'm converting B2 into a poor complex of buildings in a slum).
I really like modrons (and inevitables) and have a similar take on them.
I like Skaven, but I dunno if I would use them? Rats, I'm just over them. For my B2 project I'm making them aggressive amphibious eels.
Bullywugs I really like, but I also use other froggy humanoids, Tsathar and Ranine, who have fluff that works perfectly with my personal paradigm, so with the wugs I took a cue from Zak and made them into Chameleon People.
I reallyreally love Skaven, just as my players (and anyone who frequents my blog) are very aware, so I tend to use them very sparingly. A few times they've even provided some good misdirection, with players thinking I'm about to unleash Skaven on them, but then I pull something else out of my hat (like first edition WH Lizardmen, before they joined the Space Frogs as Aztecs). Otherwise, I guess I keep the Skaven largely relegated to my wargamming.
If there's one preference I have in regards to monsters, its that I like to make them rare and largely unique. If my players encounter a vampire, its not going to be the same type of vampire they've run into before. I think the experience for the players should be one of mystery and wonder, and not just a Monster Manual checklist.
I don't like D&D Lycanthropes and except for Werewolves, I never use them even remotely as presented. I do use Werebears and Wererats, but they aren't called that and their abilities, origin and statblock are something entirely different. All the others (wereboar, weretiger, werebats, etc.) are right out.
I'm not fond of anthrpomorphic animal monsters, unless they have some well established history (in mythology or the game), so most MM examples are ok, but don't expect, say, catpeople to show up at my table, ever.
I also try to keep halfbreeds and simple hybrids out as well. I just prefer a world where most creatures, including humanoids, don't breed with each other, unless there's a heavy amount of magic and unintended consequences involved. I do make an exception for half-orcs (I do like the implication of orcs and humans beeing compatible, when everyone else isn't), though in my main homebrew this resulted in the near-extinction of "real" orcs.
Just for the record, I like gnomes, even though I used to ban them from my table. I find that behind the goofy and annoying stereotype, there's a lot of potential to the race.
I still toy occasionally with the idea of creating and adventure/module/whatever using only the monsters that NEVER get used. Might be interesting, as a thought experiment if nothing else.
i dont mind gnomes and i do indeed love modrons i think a lot of people cant get passed there apperence but i find the appearance makes them work
inevitibles are great to although i do wish they had received more attention admittedly theres not a whole lot of places you can go with them but that just gives you the opportunity to expand on the few types you can make
kobolds should pretty much always be run tucker style its a huge part of there fluff that they fight that way so why not run encounters that way and its important to remember there not really underdogs they just want you to think they are
as for the wereanimals i dont really mind them in fact i quite like the idea of some werecreatures being aligned with the forces of good. i always thought the fact that the anthropomorphic template created monsterus humanoids instead of normal humanoids was a bit odd i get they were trying to avoid being called furry but it still gets me (although it does not help that the rules themselves were shit)
Dickwolves.
Quote from: CRKrueger;826023Dickwolves.
Eegad, I was glad to forget about that whole sordid affair. Thanks for reminding me :-P