PDA

View Full Version : The Flumph (and other "dumb" monster) Discussion Thread



LOTRfan
2010-10-28, 05:52 PM
Okay, so there have been a lot of monsters described as downright silly in earlier editions of Dungeons and Dragons. We have all seen the weird pictures, read the ridiculous descriptions, and heard about the lame monsters of early (and even a few in recent) editions of D&D.

Most of the comments about them are, as to be expected, negative. The "dumb monsters" article and its sequel, the descriptions told by forum members, and even some jokes in (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0526.html) the OOTS (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0055.html) web comics.

This thread, however, has been made to talk about the good aspects of creatures such as the Wolf-in-Sheep's-Clothing, the Flumph, the Duckbunny, and the Lurker-Above.

Have you ever used any of these creatures in your campaign? Have any interesting stories to tell? Just want to defend the monsters that PCs have loved to hate for the past (nearly) forty years? Please share.

Dubious Pie
2010-10-28, 05:58 PM
Awakened Duckbunny (3.5e conversion) BBEG for a... humorous campaign. It was awesome. My players still talk about that campaign 3 years later.

Tokuhara
2010-10-28, 06:04 PM
We once had a campaign where an Awakened Catobleepas was the BBEG. We died (as would be expected...)

My fave was a campaign where WE turned out to be the BBEGs. That didn't confuse me at all...

dsmiles
2010-10-28, 06:11 PM
Being the old and crusty guy that I am, I have used some of the "dumb monsters." I once made a dungeon where more than one room had a Lurker Above, and also more than one room had a Trapper (or whatever the floor version was called). I never saw so many uses of the spider-climb spell.

SurlySeraph
2010-10-28, 06:17 PM
Flumphs allow you to create terrifying/ confusing/ awesome societies of Lawful Good aberrations. Throw in a deity like Kysul (http://www.incursion-roguelike.org/man/Pantheon.html#KY), some relevant artwork (http://d.yimg.com/gg/u/6d6f25bfcf9e221bf3add5a2feb637136a609a32.jpeg), and you get the best Upper Plane ever.

The Tygre
2010-10-28, 06:31 PM
This (http://paizo.com/store/byCompany/p/paizoPublishingLLC/pathfinder/campaignSetting/pathfinderRPG/v5748btpy8gnj)may be of interest to you when it comes out.

LOTRfan
2010-10-28, 06:37 PM
Flumphs allow you to create terrifying/ confusing/ awesome societies of Lawful Good aberrations. Throw in a deity like Kysul (http://www.incursion-roguelike.org/man/Pantheon.html#KY), some relevant artwork (http://d.yimg.com/gg/u/6d6f25bfcf9e221bf3add5a2feb637136a609a32.jpeg), and you get the best Upper Plane ever.

There definitely aren't enough Good Aberrations out there. This is just another reason to love the Flumphs. :smallsmile:


Being the old and crusty guy that I am, I have used some of the "dumb monsters." I once made a dungeon where more than one room had a Lurker Above, and also more than one room had a Trapper (or whatever the floor version was called). I never saw so many uses of the spider-climb spell.

I always used the Lurker-aboves with the lurker-belows, along with the wall digester monsters. I admit, I got the room of death idea from the dumb monsters article.

dsmiles
2010-10-28, 06:39 PM
This (http://paizo.com/store/byCompany/p/paizoPublishingLLC/pathfinder/campaignSetting/pathfinderRPG/v5748btpy8gnj)may be of interest to you when it comes out.

DO WANT! obligatory white text

Lateral
2010-10-28, 07:06 PM
This (http://paizo.com/store/byCompany/p/paizoPublishingLLC/pathfinder/campaignSetting/pathfinderRPG/v5748btpy8gnj)may be of interest to you when it comes out.

HELL YES EPIC WIN!

LOTRfan
2010-10-28, 07:08 PM
This (http://paizo.com/store/byCompany/p/paizoPublishingLLC/pathfinder/campaignSetting/pathfinderRPG/v5748btpy8gnj)may be of interest to you when it comes out.

Lovable Losers FTW!

nedz
2010-10-28, 07:18 PM
Lurker Above was an old AD&D Staple which I used to use occasionaly. Its just a varient of the Mimic really. Very similar, in some ways, to the Darkmantle.

As to Flumphs: I once gave someone one of these as a familiar :smallbiggrin:
I seem to recall "Flipping the Flumph" was a popular prank at one point. :smallsmile:

dsmiles
2010-10-28, 07:29 PM
Lurker Above was an old AD&D Staple which I used to use occasionaly. Its just a varient of the Mimic really. Very similar, in some ways, to the Darkmantle.

As to Flumphs: I once gave someone one of these as a familiar :smallbiggrin:
I seem to recall "Flipping the Flumph" was a popular prank at one point. :smallsmile:

Actually, I believe that the Darkmantle was supposed to be the evolution of the Piercer.

LOTRfan
2010-10-28, 09:14 PM
Yeah, just looked it up. The Darkmantle is in fact a creature descended from piercers.

Lurker-Above is awesome. Nothing says "I want to kill you" like when the ceilings are starting to attack.

Also: What size are flumphs? I've seen variants of small and tiny.

Rappy
2010-10-28, 10:55 PM
This (http://paizo.com/store/byCompany/p/paizoPublishingLLC/pathfinder/campaignSetting/pathfinderRPG/v5748btpy8gnj)may be of interest to you when it comes out.
There's something about that cover that bothers me...otherwise, yes, this is a product I've been waiting for since back when its cover had a blindheim, not a wolf-in-sheep's-clothing, on it.

As for the title topic: seeing as I made a whole thread about a book cataloguing a lot of old-school monsters, including the "stupid" ones, yeah, I've used and played with them. It's fun to combat expectations or make more "eloquent ecologies" for 'dumb' monsters.

panaikhan
2010-10-29, 07:30 AM
I can't remember the name of the monster, but it was undead, and it made itself smaller as it floated towards it's target to fool them into thinking it was retreating.

But anyway - I liked them, and used them in a couple of places (on new players, obviously).
Another one I had fun with was the Gambadoo (?) the skull on a stretchy rubber 'foot'

jmbrown
2010-10-29, 07:53 AM
As "dumb" as these monsters were in description and mechanics, they had importance in making D&D feel like more than a generic fantasy that everyone complains about. Did Tolkien have monstrous floors? Did Moorcock have animated clothing? Did Vance have carnivorous treasure chests?

I miss the unique fantasy aspect of D&D. I miss when the "rule of cool" didn't mean "It must have spikes, piecemeal armor, and cleavage."

I miss the weirdness of D&D where a battle looked like this (http://img502.imageshack.us/i/manorcs.jpg/) vice this (http://img221.imageshack.us/i/4ednddmgchp1byralphhors.jpg/).

Beelzebub1111
2010-10-29, 07:57 AM
The Flumph is the BEST monster. Sometimes the stupid terrible monsters are the best ones to add to a campaign. Of course...wolf-spider demons are the absolute worst of every monster ever conceived ever.

Eldan
2010-10-29, 08:54 AM
Of course...wolf-spider demons are the absolute worst of every monster ever conceived ever.

Dude, don't insult Miska, he's awesome.

Anyway, D&D can use more weird monsters, and the wolf in sheep's clothign totally makes sense from an ecological standpoint.

Of course, to eat adventurers, it should display gold instead of a rabbit, but that's what Mimics are for.

Beelzebub1111
2010-10-29, 09:06 AM
Dude, don't insult Miska, he's awesome.

Anyway, D&D can use more weird monsters, and the wolf in sheep's clothign totally makes sense from an ecological standpoint.

Of course, to eat adventurers, it should display gold instead of a rabbit, but that's what Mimics are for.
There's no end to them, though. Even if when you get the BEST ending to the rod of seven parts the wolfspiders STILL bug you forever.

Eldan
2010-10-29, 09:29 AM
Ah. I must admit, I haven't read the adventure.

And Miska personally bugs you for all eternity? That should be a short eternity for most people.

Beelzebub1111
2010-10-29, 10:44 AM
Ah. I must admit, I haven't read the adventure.

And Miska personally bugs you for all eternity? That should be a short eternity for most people.
No, in the best ending you kill him forever, but the Queen of Chaos bugs you for eternity sending wolf spiders after you for revenge...for killing the guy that was clearly using her to his own advantage.

jmbrown
2010-10-29, 10:47 AM
No, in the best ending you kill him forever, but the Queen of Chaos bugs you for eternity sending wolf spiders after you for revenge...for killing the guy that was clearly using her to his own advantage.

Hence Queen of Chaos. Consider the wolf spiders a blessing. She could have just smote you.

LOTRfan
2010-10-29, 02:26 PM
As "dumb" as these monsters were in description and mechanics, they had importance in making D&D feel like more than a generic fantasy that everyone complains about. Did Tolkien have monstrous floors? Did Moorcock have animated clothing? Did Vance have carnivorous treasure chests?

I miss the unique fantasy aspect of D&D. I miss when the "rule of cool" didn't mean "It must have spikes, piecemeal armor, and cleavage."

I miss the weirdness of D&D where a battle looked like this (http://img502.imageshack.us/i/manorcs.jpg/) vice this (http://img221.imageshack.us/i/4ednddmgchp1byralphhors.jpg/).

I agree, and that is why I made the thread.

Wait, weren't Wolf-spiders magical beasts? Granted, I don't know much about Miska, but does he have a spider wolf-like form like Baphomet's minotaur-like body, or is he an actual wolf-spider who staked out his own corner of the Abyss?

I love Wolves-in-Sheeps-Clothing. I made them the alpha predators in a specific part of the campaign. One of my players' characters loved small, furry animals. Good times. :smallamused:

Darrin
2010-10-29, 04:45 PM
Also: What size are flumphs? I've seen variants of small and tiny.

According to Dungeon #118, they are tiny aberrations. 2 racial HD, LA +2, and I think their favored class is Paladin (begging the question, what does their mount look like?).

Squally!
2010-10-29, 05:06 PM
According to Dungeon #118, they are tiny aberrations. 2 racial HD, LA +2, and I think their favored class is Paladin (begging the question, what does their mount look like?).

A flumph rides a higher level flumph into battle!

LOTRfan
2010-10-29, 05:13 PM
Yeah, and Tome of Horrors says they are small. Which one overrules the other?

Flumphs were the only Lawful Good creatures to appear in the original Fiend Folio. It seems that Dungeon Magazine changed their alignment from "Awlays Lawful Good" to "Usually Lawful Good." Not that its such a big deal.

Flumphs riding Flumphs into battle... interesting. If mounts need to be one size category larger than the rider, maybe the tiny Flumphs use the small ones in that regard. :smalltongue:

Squally!
2010-10-29, 05:51 PM
clearly they just left out the note that says the small sized flumphs are mounts, and the tiny sized ones are the actual combatants!

Zhalath
2010-10-29, 10:28 PM
That Pathfinder link reminds me of Disenchanters. I always thought those things were awesome, and wish I could somehow acquire one as a mount and stick it to high level pure fighters relying on WBL to survive.

zyborg
2010-10-29, 11:03 PM
My fave was a campaign where WE turned out to be the BBEGs. That didn't confuse me at all...

Er, how'd that work?

Barlen
2010-10-29, 11:41 PM
My personal favorite that I could never bring myself to use is the clothes golem.

When the pile of laundry on the floor gets up and attacks you, you can be sure the DM wants you dead.

Tetsubo 57
2010-10-30, 05:41 AM
Those that do not appreciate the flumph simply have limited vision.

Gaiyamato
2010-10-30, 07:07 AM
Flumphs allow you to create terrifying/ confusing/ awesome societies of Lawful Good aberrations. Throw in a deity like Kysul (http://www.incursion-roguelike.org/man/Pantheon.html#KY), some relevant artwork (http://d.yimg.com/gg/u/6d6f25bfcf9e221bf3add5a2feb637136a609a32.jpeg), and you get the best Upper Plane ever.

That god is awesome and that would indeed be a great reason to use flumphs.

LOTRfan
2010-10-30, 07:43 AM
Flumphs are indeed awesome.

And, as Barlen mentioned, clothing based monsters. Wasn't there a ghost sheet in one of the early Monster Manuals? Has anyone ever had fun with the laundry monsters?

What about the killer pillow variants?

Gaiyamato
2010-10-30, 08:05 AM
Yes I rember the undead bed sheet. lol.
Tried to suffocate you to death. :P

dsmiles
2010-10-30, 08:12 AM
Flumphs are indeed awesome.

And, as Barlen mentioned, clothing based monsters. Wasn't there a ghost sheet in one of the early Monster Manuals? Has anyone ever had fun with the laundry monsters?

What about the killer pillow variants?

Whoah. New bad plot hook.

You must break into the necromancer lich's castle, and slay his laundry! :smallbiggrin:

Achernar
2010-10-30, 11:26 AM
The roving mauler, among others, merit participation in this thread.
http://www.cracked.com/article_17455_15-retarded-dungeons-dragons-monsters.html

Also, for dangerous laundry, the raiment in Libris mortis is anothe amusing option...

LOTRfan
2010-10-30, 01:17 PM
The Roving Mauler..... a binder did it?

Seriously, though, aren't they only supposed to appear when a specific vestige is summoned? Perhaps they are powerful spirits that guard the vestige, and their power and form are so ridiculously powerful, that they cannot be perceived correctly and most see them in the bizarre form in the picture?

I have no other theories.

Teln
2010-10-30, 03:11 PM
That god is awesome and that would indeed be a great reason to use flumphs.

Now I want to play a flumph cleric of Kysul. The fact that I'll have to buy off that second RHD doesn't deter me in the least.

Gaiyamato
2010-10-30, 03:40 PM
Now I want to play a flumph cleric of Kysul. The fact that I'll have to buy off that second RHD doesn't deter me in the least.

I was thinking maybe a Paladin.

LOTRfan
2010-10-30, 03:45 PM
Go with the tiny version. You get a +4 bonus to attack (only sucky thing is you need to move into the opponents squares).

SurlySeraph
2010-10-30, 03:51 PM
@^: A reach weapon would fix that, wouldn't it?

LOTRfan
2010-10-30, 04:17 PM
Why, yes it would. Plus, there aren't a lot of tiny or smaller enemies, so you wouldn't need to worry about enemies getting to close to make the reach weapon inefficient most of the time.

Now the grapple penalty, that's another story.... :smallfrown:

Gaiyamato
2010-10-30, 05:20 PM
Some fast movement shennanigans and underfoot combat etc and I'd be all good.

I could take leadership and have an army of tiny flumphs all with feats for little people. You know how many tiny sized flumphs I could fit into one square?

LOTRfan
2010-10-30, 05:28 PM
An army of Flumphs would be awesome.

Has anyone tried the psychic platypus, also known as the Thought Eater? I was thinking of adding one to an encounter. Any comments on those things?

dsmiles
2010-10-30, 05:30 PM
You know how many tiny sized flumphs I could fit into one square?

Um...two? obligatory white text

Gaiyamato
2010-10-30, 08:37 PM
Um...two? obligatory white text

Correct. But it sounds better without the actual number...

Urpriest
2010-10-30, 09:47 PM
Correct. But it sounds better without the actual number...

Actually isn't it four? I'm pretty sure they're effectively 2.5 by 2.5 feet.

Rappy
2010-10-30, 11:33 PM
The roving mauler, among others, merit participation in this thread.
http://www.cracked.com/article_17455_15-retarded-dungeons-dragons-monsters.html
I still say that list fails for having a real mythological creature (the hippocampus) and the pimp skull of awesome (the demilich) on it. Oh, and the anguillan. I love the anguillans, especially in their original context as the scavenging pirates of the deep, and relatives of the sahuagin.


Has anyone tried the psychic platypus, also known as the Thought Eater? I was thinking of adding one to an encounter. Any comments on those things?
I haven't, but I like d20 Modern's interpretation of them. In the Menace Manual, the thought eaters are described as a protoplasmic entity with "the body shape of a predatory feline and the skull and claws of a cruel bird of prey" that come to unlearned psychics in the night to feast on their brains.

realbombchu
2010-10-31, 01:21 AM
After seeing the duckbunny in a Dragon back issue a few years ago, I asked my GM if I could have a duckbunny familiar. She laughed, rolled her eyes, and explained to me that I must've been reading an April issue and the whole entry was just a joke.

I insisted that it wasn't an April fools joke, and she said something to the effect of, "They'd never make something that dumb." I still smile about that.

2-HeadedGiraffe
2010-10-31, 01:46 AM
I considered a room where the ceiling, floor, all the walls, and every object in the room were all alive and hostile. The plan was to use adapted forms of those older monsters, as well as animated objects and mimics. I think it would have been a pretty cool, if completely sadistic, encounter.

Thurbane
2010-10-31, 01:53 AM
The roving mauler, among others, merit participation in this thread.
http://www.cracked.com/article_17455_15-retarded-dungeons-dragons-monsters.html

Also, for dangerous laundry, the raiment in Libris mortis is anothe amusing option...
Some of those comments are semi-funny..but the Demi-lich? Clearly written by somone who has no idea how they actually attack, or faced one in a game. :smallamused:

ScionoftheVoid
2010-10-31, 03:39 AM
Some of those comments are semi-funny..but the Demi-lich? Clearly written by somone who has no idea how they actually attack, or faced one in a game. :smallamused:

The author mentions in the comments that the jokes not based purely on appearance got editted out, which is a shame.

Edit: The author also mentions that they do play D&D and know what the things do, but they feel that other players should be able to take a joke about the hobby without feeling the need to write irritated comments.

Until I read down to the comment where they mentioned the unfortunate editting I was thinking about signing up just to repeat the message that at least three of the creatures are based on real mythology (so its the fault of whoever let them base it on the existing illustrations, not whoever had the idea of including the monster. Apart from the Hippocampus, which is perfectly fine), anything resembling a body part or something dead or dying on the list has magical powers to make up for physical weakness and that leaves only the Anguillians (who are no less awesome for arming themselves), the Gelatinous Cube (which is nigh-invisible despite the illustration, try running away from something you can't see, which can paralyse you) and the Moon Rats (which are actually quite stupid), IIRC.

TL;DR: I'm glad I read the whole comments section.

FoE
2010-10-31, 03:43 AM
I actually liked the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing the first time I saw in Expedition to the Barrier Peaks. It just needs a better lure than "cute bunny rabbit."

Gaiyamato
2010-10-31, 04:59 AM
Some of those comments are semi-funny..but the Demi-lich? Clearly written by somone who has no idea how they actually attack, or faced one in a game. :smallamused:

Actually more than a few of those are missing quite a lot. The guy not only does not understand how a demi-lich works but he lack imagination when it comes to running a horror zombie survival campaign where the rats themselves are the ones doing the animation. For example.
Imaging playing an entire night, round by round with those things trying to take over the city while fighting of a zombie plague.

Same with the brain-in-a-jar and the Grell. He underestimates their ability to launch a variety of mind-affecting attacks. Which were almost impossible to stop/defend against in 2.x

ScionoftheVoid
2010-10-31, 10:05 AM
Actually more than a few of those are missing quite a lot. The guy not only does not understand how a demi-lich works but he lack imagination when it comes to running a horror zombie survival campaign where the rats themselves are the ones doing the animation. For example.
Imaging playing an entire night, round by round with those things trying to take over the city while fighting of a zombie plague.

Same with the brain-in-a-jar and the Grell. He underestimates their ability to launch a variety of mind-affecting attacks. Which were almost impossible to stop/defend against in 2.x

It was clarified in the comments that though the author understood all this, the editors didn't think anyone else would. There was additional information, but it was removed, leading to it being less enjoyable for those in the know.

Shademan
2010-10-31, 12:07 PM
have ANYONE here ever used the Flumph in a adventure?

Squally!
2010-10-31, 12:13 PM
have ANYONE here ever used the Flumph in a adventure?

No, but ive already started statting out a pack of Flumph riding Flumphs for my evil game im going to run soon :D

realbombchu
2010-10-31, 04:32 PM
I like the Almi Raj, or whatever that unicorn-horned rabbit is called. For as much as I like them, I can't remember how to spell their name. I was happy to see the Almi Raj and the Flumph get updated to 4th edition, even if it was just for laughs.

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-31, 04:35 PM
Miniature Giant Space Hamster.

That is all.

Urpriest
2010-10-31, 04:39 PM
Miniature Giant Space Hamster.

That is all.

Wait...I think there's a name for one of these...let me think...

Oh yeah: a hamster.

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-31, 04:40 PM
Wait...I think there's a name for one of these...let me think...

Oh yeah: a hamster.

Both Minsc and my Spelljammer books disagree with you, sir.

Rappy
2010-10-31, 08:30 PM
I like the Almi Raj, or whatever that unicorn-horned rabbit is called. For as much as I like them, I can't remember how to spell their name. I was happy to see the Almi Raj and the Flumph get updated to 4th edition, even if it was just for laughs.
The al-mi'raj, another interesting creature few know comes from actual mythology; in this case, Arabic poetry.

LOTRfan
2010-11-02, 05:43 PM
I actually liked the al-mi'raj. Were they ever adapted to 3.x?

Thurbane
2010-11-02, 06:43 PM
There's a user made 3.0 conversion here (http://vb4dev.enworld.org/cc/converted/magical_beast/al-mi_raj.htm). :smallwink:

LOTRfan
2010-11-18, 08:58 PM
Hey, I just found the rules for riding gelatinous cubes. :smallconfused:

Its in the Arms & Equipment Guide.

EDIT: Oh, I forgot about the soarwhale. Has anyone ever used those in a campaign?

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-11-18, 09:39 PM
That Pathfinder book is out, and I've managed to get a peek at it. It's really interesting what they've done with some of the monsters, especially our friend, the Flumph:

Flumphs now have a purpose in life besides being mocked. They are the only abberations who are on our side, come here to warn us of the horrors beyond the stars and help us stand against them.

The wolf-in-sheep's-clothing no longer has a bunny-like growth on its head to lure prey. Rather, they trick an unsuspecting critter to come too close, so they can kill it and use its corpse as a puppet to lure bigger prey.

Flail Snails now write communal epic poems and Zen musings with their slime trails.

Tojanidas are now water spirits who represent the ocean's unwillingness to be caged, have been trapped in a demeaning form and have amnesia. They can alternate between being polite hosts to arrogant attackers in the space of a minute. After which they may change their mind and apologize for their ghastly behavior.

true_shinken
2010-11-18, 09:42 PM
Flumphs now have a purpose in life besides being mocked. They are the only abberations who are on our side, come here to warn us of the horrors beyond the stars and help us stand against them.

Wasn't it always like that?

LOTRfan
2010-11-18, 09:44 PM
Flail Snails as epic poets... :smallbiggrin:

Pathfinder is fully compatible with 3.5, right?

The Wolf-in-Sheep's-Clothing sounds very interesting. :smallamused:

true_shinken
2010-11-18, 09:47 PM
Pathfinder is fully compatible with 3.5, right?

Not exactly, you need to convert a few things.
It's easier to convert 3.5 to Pathfinder than Pathfinder to 3.5. Also, monsters are the most difficult to convert.

LOTRfan
2010-11-18, 09:51 PM
Forgive my ignorance, but why is that? What exactly is the difference?

true_shinken
2010-11-18, 09:54 PM
Forgive my ignorance, but why is that? What exactly is the difference?

Creature types are different, for starters. Then there's the different skill system and combat maneuver bonuses and feats designed around that.

LOTRfan
2010-11-18, 09:57 PM
Creature types are different, for starters.

Oh, well, that's an issue.


Then there's the different skill system and combat maneuver bonuses and feats designed around that.

I'm sure skills and feats are easy to change, though.

EDIT: I'm looking through the Pathfinder SRD now, and all the types seem to be the same. Granted, I just glanced over them, and I still need to look through all the details, still.

Just looked at Undead, yeah, there are a few differences.

Luckily, Aberration hasn't changed at all, except for the skill points, and that's the important part.

true_shinken
2010-11-18, 09:58 PM
Oh, well, that's an issue.

It's not impossible or anything, it just takes a little while.

Thurbane
2010-11-18, 10:07 PM
Not exactly, you need to convert a few things.
It's easier to convert 3.5 to Pathfinder than Pathfinder to 3.5. Also, monsters are the most difficult to convert.
Yeah, this kind of annoys me. The original idea behind Pathfinder was to extend the life of 3.X, and in original discussions they kept banging on about "fully compatible". From what I understand, to convert from PF to 3.5 requires a bit of work - moreso than from 3.0 to 3.5 if what I've been told is accurate...

2-HeadedGiraffe
2010-11-18, 10:11 PM
I actually liked the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing the first time I saw in Expedition to the Barrier Peaks. It just needs a better lure than "cute bunny rabbit."

How about an attractive member of the opposite sex of the character? To quote the dryad from Warcraft III, "I'll attract the enemy with my human call. I'm so wasted! I'm so wasted!"

LOTRfan
2010-11-18, 10:11 PM
Well, to be fair, 3.X is extremely easy to convert. Slap a couple of feats on creatures with 1 or 2 intelligence, adjust skill points, minor fix in saves. The longest conversion is taking a shapechanger or beast (which is basically magical beast without the name) and convert them to a new type.

JET73L
2010-12-21, 10:14 AM
Wait...I think there's a name for one of these...let me think...

Oh yeah: a hamster.

A space hamster. One may also find Toy Giant Space Hamsters and Teacup Giant Space Hamsters, which are the size of a small Jack Russel terrier and a dwarf hamster, respectively. The Irish Wolf Giant Hamster, despite the name, is an unrelated breed. [/BLATANT LIES]

The Wolf in Sheep's Clothing is a fairly useless ruse for trapping adventurers unless you somehow have a ranger (or other food-gatherer) with no ranged attacks and no idea how to make snares. It's quite good for flavor text, though, and for teaching a lesson to Chaotic and Stupid Good players who insist on petting any cute wildlife that doesn't run away upon being approached.

DisgruntledDM
2010-12-21, 12:20 PM
To me, all werebeasts other than werewolves and wolfweres are downright stupid. The "Wereass" especially sticks out. It just seems unnecessary to have wererats, wereboars, weredragons, werepigs, weredogs, weremeerkats, wearmonkeys, wearturtles, wereflumphs, werehorse, weremongoose, werewombat, wereelf, werehuman, weredwarf, werelemur and whatever abominations of ridiculousness they thought would be interesting.

Tetsubo 57
2010-12-21, 12:24 PM
To me, all werebeasts other than werewolves and wolfweres are downright stupid. The "Wereass" especially sticks out. It just seems unnecessary to have wererats, wereboars, weredragons, werepigs, weredogs, weremeerkats, wearmonkeys, wearturtles, wereflumphs, werehorse, weremongoose, werewombat, wereelf, werehuman, weredwarf, werelemur and whatever abominations of ridiculousness they thought would be interesting.

But there is a *lot* of precedent for this sort of thing. Pretty much every culture on the planet has myths about shapechanging humans. Why shouldn't they be in the game?

Me, I love me some lycanthropes.

Obrysii
2010-12-21, 12:26 PM
EDIT: Oh, I forgot about the soarwhale. Has anyone ever used those in a campaign?

Yup! I have. I love the whole "flying whale of crazy size" thing, though.

At the moment, a soarwhale has appeared carrying a huge cargo from a far-away land, owned by a powerful but slightly crazy wizard.

FoE
2010-12-21, 01:13 PM
Wasn't it always like that?

No, they were originally just flying plates with tentacles who were inexplicably Lawful Good. No reason for their alignment was given in the original Fiend Folio. And notably, they were the only Good-aligned creatures in the entire book.

LOTRfan
2010-12-21, 05:32 PM
Ah, the Asswere. Good times, good times.

What book is that from, again?

some guy
2010-12-21, 05:40 PM
Tojanidas are now water spirits who represent the ocean's unwillingness to be caged, have been trapped in a demeaning form and have amnesia. They can alternate between being polite hosts to arrogant attackers in the space of a minute. After which they may change their mind and apologize for their ghastly behavior.

Didn't DnD feel the heavy burden of Monthy Pyhton references (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1leDAwjtto) already? It's like reading some DnD book and reading Death Knights mock their own wounds or the authors noting the carrying capacity of Dire Swallows.

Also, the guys of WTF, D&D!? (http://www.somethingawful.com/d/dungeons-and-dragons/) have a lot to say about dumb monsters. Check their monster manual and monstous compendium reviews.

The Tygre
2010-12-21, 05:44 PM
Yeah, this kind of annoys me. The original idea behind Pathfinder was to extend the life of 3.X, and in original discussions they kept banging on about "fully compatible". From what I understand, to convert from PF to 3.5 requires a bit of work - moreso than from 3.0 to 3.5 if what I've been told is accurate...

To be fair, that's just good business. Think about it; which would you want more as a product? If it's easier to come in then go out, people stay out of convenience. See what I'm saying?

LOTRfan
2010-12-21, 06:24 PM
Also, the guys of WTF, D&D!? (http://www.somethingawful.com/d/dungeons-and-dragons/) have a lot to say about dumb monsters. Check their monster manual and monstous compendium reviews.

Aww, man! Carbuncles! Now I have to stat them out.

Rappy
2010-12-21, 06:50 PM
Ah, the Asswere. Good times, good times.

What book is that from, again?
Tome of Horrors Revised Edition...


Aww, man! Carbuncles! Now I have to stat them out.
..which, coincidentally, also has 3.5 stats for the carbuncle.

Thurbane
2010-12-21, 08:02 PM
To be fair, that's just good business. Think about it; which would you want more as a product? If it's easier to come in then go out, people stay out of convenience. See what I'm saying?
Well for myself, if PF was more compatible with 3.5, I'd be much more likely to buy their material, especially adventures...

true_shinken
2010-12-22, 01:53 PM
Well for myself, if PF was more compatible with 3.5, I'd be much more likely to buy their material, especially adventures...

Me too. I really want to go for Pathfinder material, but then I think "it's like wasting all the money I spent on 3.5". So I just wonder and look at the PFSRD.

Akal Saris
2010-12-22, 05:49 PM
It's really not a waste, shinken. I still use my 2E monster manuals for my 3.5 games, for goodness sake! More sources for ideas are always a good thing, and the conversion really isn't that difficult at all.

I'm a fan of the dumb 1E and 2E monsters, so a lot of them have shown up in my 2E and 3.5 campaigns. Flumphs were in one, the gambadoo (skull trap crocodile dude) in another. The LG psionic monkey-camel-lion was a recurring character in another game (I can never remember what it's called, but my PCs can), as was the Squark. Froghemoths have shown up, as have those 3-jawed flying creatures from 2E's monstrous compendium 3. Giant slugs, giant house-sized mimics, calzone golems, giant space hamsters, and space hippo-people have all shown up at one point or another as well.

LOTRfan
2010-12-28, 02:57 PM
The dreaded squark! :smallbiggrin:

I loved that thing. A shark-squid hybrid. Get it? :smalltongue:

Chess435
2010-12-28, 04:20 PM
some relevant artwork (http://d.yimg.com/gg/u/6d6f25bfcf9e221bf3add5a2feb637136a609a32.jpeg)

*right click*
*set as desktop background*

You sir, have won an internet.

LOTRfan
2011-01-11, 04:59 PM
Does anyone remember the Denzalian? Rock eaters similar to the Horta from star trek? So, I was flipping through the FF, and they are a lot more evil than they were in the original FF. Do you guys prefer the dopey, wide life versions or the move sinister version of the Denzalians (and other monsters too. I've noticed that a lot of creatures that used to be harmless are now ferocious killers)?

panaikhan
2011-01-12, 08:57 AM
I've noticed that a lot of creatures that used to be harmless are now ferocious killers

I noticed exactly the opposite, in earlier editions.

Berbelangs, is all I'm saying

Keinnicht
2011-01-12, 04:29 PM
It's funny I found this thread, I was just thinking this earlier upon noticing the Braxat in the Monster Manual II. It's supposed to look intimidating, but it just looks like a poorly thought out stuffed animal.

Also in that book, the Ixitxachitl. The bloodsucking, evil manta ray. Why?

nedz
2011-01-12, 05:06 PM
Also in that book, the Ixitxachitl. The bloodsucking, evil manta ray. Why?

Aahh, they were excellent :smallcool:

But, back then, underwater adventures were much more of a challange. One of the things that disappointed my about 3.5 was that strange environments are often just scenery; once you have the appropriate spell to share.

LOTRfan
2011-02-22, 07:34 PM
Was the Kamadan ever updated?

Thurbane
2011-02-22, 08:20 PM
Was the Kamadan ever updated?
Officially? Not AFAIK...but there is a fan made 3.0 conversion over at the Enworld Creature Catalog.

Creature catalog: http://creaturecatalog.enworld.org/converted/pdf/magical_beast/kamadan.pdf

Pathfinder SRD: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/magical-beasts/kamadan

Drynwyn
2011-02-22, 09:33 PM
Oh gosh. My group once named Trappers Lurkers Below. We then invented the Lurker Diagonal, which doesn't hit you very often, but it's fun to watch it go by.

Qwertystop
2011-02-22, 10:25 PM
Oh gosh. My group once named Trappers Lurkers Below. We then invented the Lurker Diagonal, which doesn't hit you very often, but it's fun to watch it go by.

Where the heck does that hide? Trappers are floors, Lurker Aboves have the ceilings, Stunjellies have the walls (and anyway those would be Lurkers Off To The Side Somewhere), so what's left for the Lurker Diagonal? The mortar in the corners?

EDIT: Does "Lurkers Off To The Side Somewhere" sound inexplicably semi-hilarious to anyone else?

LOTRfan
2011-03-03, 06:53 PM
I was looking through a Dragon Magazine issue for information on the Church of Pelor, and found something really interesting by mistake; Ecology of the Rust Monster. It takes the (admittingly stupid) concept of the Rust Monster, and makes it something besides a "DM Hates You" sign.

According to the article, Rust Monsters are actually native to Acheron, where huge hordes of them slowly eat away at the colossal metallic cubes. A group of Bladelings believe that Rust Monsters are apocalyptic beasts who, if allowed to enter Mechanus, will eat away at the gears, causing the universe to spiral into chaos.

Are all the Ecology articles as good as this?