Creatures you will not use

[Jeff the Green]

So, a framing discursion. Skip down if you just want to answer the question.

I'm working on fleshing out my campaign setting a bit more and have been giving some thought to what roles the various creatures play in it. Some, like fey, have a massively increased import, while others... not so much. Humans play a very small geopolitical role, being a majority nowhere and a plurality only in one region. The really powerful outsiders, like the Court of Stars, the archdevils, the Celestial Hebdomad, and many of the angels, pit fiends, balors, and elder elementals were imprisoned long ago by the fey. And I've completely excised true dragons and they exist only in kobold prophesy.

Then there are those races I just don't use as DM. Trolls are interesting only for their regeneration, and yet because of that regeneration every party carries some source of fire or acid. Mindflayers seem overdone, and I can't get into the minds of aboleth a enough to make them a villain. And I always have the same problem setting up goblins, orcs, and drow as always-Evil antagonists that J.R.R. Tolkien had with making his orcs always evil.

Finally, there are the ones I don't use as a player. I pretty much outright refuse to play races with an Intelligence penalty because I like playing the smart guy and I never seem to have enough skill points even when I play a beguiler or factotum. For some reason I've never played a dwarf before (though that may change soon depending on whether I decide a desert dwarf or a fire elf fits better for my archivist). And I honestly don't like kobolds as PCs all that much; I'm afraid Deekin ruined them for me.

TL;DR:
What creatures do you just not use, either as a DM or a player, and why?

[hymer]

From campaign world to campaign world, there are of course some creatures that specifically don't belong, or which just don't come up in prep or play. I think the ones I very seldom use are marine creatures. I can recall a skeleton shark and an oversized pike using shark (I think) stats, and that's about it. My players don't seem to like their PCs swimming any more than I do.

Edit: I also shy away from frustration-machines until such a time as the players can deal with them out of hand. Creatures that keep escaping and coming back to fight more can be interesting every now and again, but I actually prefer that the PCs have a very real chance of beating these things outright.

As a player, I stick to humans, elves and dwarves. I played a halfling once, but that's about it outside those three. Of course, they do give some options.
I certainly don't play monster characters. It's like your whole PC becomes about that, and it's a bother to keep playing with the standard reactions of the NPCs (which are to be expected).
And if it's in an area where everyone is a monster, then species seems to lose most of its meaning outside game mechanics.

[Sith_Happens]

If I ever DM a campaign, my first houserule will be to excise all gear-destroying abilities from any monsters that so happen to have them. Or at least modify them so they affect nonmagical items only.

[BrokenChord]

If I ever DM a campaign, my first houserule will be to excise all gear-destroying abilities from any monsters that so happen to have them. Or at least modify them so they affect nonmagical items only.

You only say that now. They're really quite a useful tool in the arsenal. In fact, they're the only tool I consistently use, since I'm a fairly spontaneous DM in every other regard.

Um, as a DM... I just can't see ever using a carrion crawler. They're immensely underpowered, don't make any ecological sense, and their entire shtick is something several monsters of the same CR get as secondary features.

[PraxisVetli]

Ethereal Filcher.
Just always seemed like a jerk move.

[~xFellWardenx~]

As both player and DM, I personally refuse to use elves or any of their subraces as written. Elves only really make sense to me when depicted as fey. Trolls fall in the same boat.

[Crake]

You only say that now. They're really quite a useful tool in the arsenal. In fact, they're the only tool I consistently use, since I'm a fairly spontaneous DM in every other regard.

Um, as a DM... I just can't see ever using a carrion crawler. They're immensely underpowered, don't make any ecological sense, and their entire shtick is something several monsters of the same CR get as secondary features.

Forcing 8 or so save vs paralysis on a full attack is underpowered to you?

[TiaC]

Then there are those races I just don't use as DM. Trolls are interesting only for their regeneration, and yet because of that regeneration every party carries some source of fire or acid. Mindflayers seem overdone, and I can't get into the minds of aboleth a enough to make them a villain. And I always have the same problem setting up goblins, orcs, and drow as always-Evil antagonists that J.R.R. Tolkien had with making his orcs always evil.

I always try to make the villain races interesting. They aren't always evil, but they form societies that tend to clash with the societies humans can live in. For interest, Drow have avery strong dominance hierarchy and few alliances of equals. If you meet a drow, they will just start pushing at you until you either convincingly slap them down or yield. Neither route produces a normal relationship. On the other hand, Orcs have strong tribalist behaviors, an insult to one is an insult to all and they view all others with suspicion. These races all form societies that work for them, but they generally don't work for the races that fit in with humans.

[Sith_Happens]

You only say that now. They're really quite a useful tool in the arsenal. In fact, they're the only tool I consistently use, since I'm a fairly spontaneous DM in every other regard.

To each their own. The way I see it, every magic item destroyed by a monster is extra treasure I have to put somewhere sooner rather than later, and I trust my op-fu enough to not fear over-adjusting encounters should I accidentally Monty Haul the party and have to account for that. Not to mention how unfun it is a player to suddenly have to finish a dungeon with half your statblock gone.

[Banaticus]

Rust monster. The only reason to use it is if you want to literally screw your players over.

[BrokenChord]

Forcing 8 or so save vs paralysis on a full attack is underpowered to you?

The idea that it's getting off a successful full attack tells me that the party in question has underpowered tactics. And if you haven't spot it or heard it before it comes out, the party is also missing important skills.

It's not underpowered on account of its tentacles not being enough. The bigger problem is that either the carrion crawler is coming to the party melee, in which case it gets one tentacle attack and probably a 30-ish percent chance to paralyze, or the fighter has a group attack planned and the crawler's 17 AC and especially 19 HP are absolutely pitiful. And even if the Fighter gets paralyzed for a while as the other party members murder the thing, it has failed terribly at taking out any fraction of the party's staying power, which is the point of CR-appropriate challenges.

Now, part of this issue is just your usual "1 guys fails against action economy" business, but a CR 4 monster has no excuse sporting 19 HP and only mediocre AC without some sort of extra layer of defense to back it up.

[Zombimode]

Now, part of this issue is just your usual "1 guys fails against action economy" business, but a CR 4 monster has no excuse sporting 19 HP and only mediocre AC without some sort of extra layer of defense to back it up.

Carrion Crawlers make for an excellent boss-type encounter for level 1-2 parties, and also make good support creatures for higher level encounters. Using it as a stand alone creature against a party of APL 3+ just means your not using the creature to its potential.

[Jeff the Green]

I always try to make the villain races interesting. They aren't always evil, but they form societies that tend to clash with the societies humans can live in. For interest, Drow have avery strong dominance hierarchy and few alliances of equals. If you meet a drow, they will just start pushing at you until you either convincingly slap them down or yield. Neither route produces a normal relationship. On the other hand, Orcs have strong tribalist behaviors, an insult to one is an insult to all and they view all others with suspicion. These races all form societies that work for them, but they generally don't work for the races that fit in with humans.

Yeah, I've got all three of them refluffed to begin with. I think I've mentioned this before, but I've reskinned those three. Goblinoids are strongly associated with the fey, either as mercenaries (hobgoblins and bugbears) or inventors/smiths (goblins proper). Orcs are extinct, but half-orcs fill that proud warrior race niche as expert camel- or horsemen. And drow are just normal elves that have very dark skin because they live near the equator. (They also adhere to some of the older rites that have been stamped out elsewhere, like mummifying—mundane with salt, not magic with negative energy—their dead and worshipping them, fairy/outsider/elemental cults, and animism.)

But none of those lend well to being major antagonists without some serious manipulation going on. Hordes of them invasing just doesn't work.

[Graypairofsocks]

Ethereal Filcher.
Just always seemed like a jerk move.

There is also the Temporal Filcher which grapples you then jumps forward 7 minutes in time with you, presumably so it can eat you.

[Telonius]

I've seen Rust Monsters used to good effect exactly once. One of my players was a Warforged who was Rust Monster-phobic, and it became a running gag throughout the campaign.

[Zanos]

I would never run an Adamantine Horror or a Drowned against an equivalent CR party.

The Drowneds drowning aura ability is frankly ridiculous. It forces a constitution check, not a fortitude save, every round against everyone in the aura(30ft). Every round the DC increases by one, and if you fail you start drowning immediately, making you fall unconscious. It's also a 20 HD undead with 150 hp. And is CR 8.

Of course, the Adamantine Horror is notorious for having at-will disjunction and implosion at CR 9.

[Slipperychicken]

As a player, I don't play Drow because of the clearly racist/sexist undertones which their fluff carries. It's like the writers aren't even trying to be subtle about it: The Drow are the black evil counterparts to a good-aligned white race. Not to mention that they're ruled by stereotypes of man-hating sadist dominatrices. Even the drizzt clones who are opposed to that society have the whole "you overcame the evil of your race" vibe.

Just reading the fluff makes me cringe. :smalleek:

[Kazyan]

My campaign setting is a "monsterverse" where lots of monsters are all over the place, some of which are being used by the civilized races for their own benefit. However, I've collectively swept the "massive evil intrigue plot" monsters under the rug--Mind Flayers, most Vampires, Liches--because I really do not want to deal with those ramifications on my setting; they're all tangled up in outmaneuvering each other to the point where nothing actually gets done. And I've flat-out decided that Yuan-Ti do not exist. My massive evil plots aren't subtle; it's not why I play D&D 3.5.

[PraxisVetli]

There is also the Temporal Filcher which grapples you then jumps forward 7 minutes in time with you, presumably so it can eat you.

eah, I've seen that. Wouldn't use it either, if only because I'm not sure how combat would work. I always thought a Temporal Filcher Swordsage would be nuts, but I've no idea how.

[ericgrau]

I don't play orcs or goblins or other monsters without a good reason. I don't think they're all evil but I'd need an explanation for how they ended up in a party with humans, elves and so on. So far I've only played them among other monsters.

[NichG]

My answer's a bit prosaic, but dinosaurs in medieval fantasy tend to be really jarring for me for some reason. Also there's plenty of just sort of random stuff WotC came up with that has just never grown on me - I wouldn't exclude it per se, but I would never think to use it. For example, things like the Yrthak - I don't really know what to make of it, it doesn't 'fit' anywhere in the world to me or have the benefit of being iconic/recognizable to the players, etc; I think I used one once and it was basically 'that random flying sound-using creature with a funny name'.

[nyjastul69]

As a DM there isn't a single creature that I wouldn't use. As a player I don't play elves. I don't like elves.

[Afgncaap5]

As both player and DM, I personally refuse to use elves or any of their subraces as written. Elves only really make sense to me when depicted as fey. Trolls fall in the same boat.

I agree with you, but every time I pull something like that on my players they roll their eyes and accuse me of being a writer again. (I maintain that giants are one of the links between fey and humanoids.)

[pwykersotz]

I agree with you, but every time I pull something like that on my players they smile in appreciation and compliment me on being a writer again. (I maintain that giants are one of the links between fey and humanoids.)

Fixed that for you. In an ideal world. :smallsigh:

[hymer]

Fixed that for you. In an ideal world. :smallsigh:

The players in the case presented there seem unable to properly articulate their concern, which may be entirely real and valid nevertheless.[/supercilious tone]
If the DM is the only one thinking about something in a certain way, it is not unlikely that s/he should be the one to bend to the will of the others. If the DM is the only one who finds amusement in something, and everyone else just feel like groaning, I'm with the players.

[otakumick]

Honestly, I can't think of a creature I couldn't find a use for(not saying there aren't any, just that I can't think of any). However, the elves and goblinoids as being fey idea makes me think it would be interesting to make a campaign setting where they were still humanoids but in the distant past their races were born of humans being with certain types of fey. Thus you have the fey they come from and then you have the mortal goblin races and the elves and whatnot. Fey type warlocks would be common in their societies. (hmm, I think I might start working on a campaign setting)

As a player, I like to play all sorts of things so again I don't know of anything I wouldn't use.

[~xFellWardenx~]

I agree with you, but every time I pull something like that on my players they roll their eyes and accuse me of being a writer again. (I maintain that giants are one of the links between fey and humanoids.)

"Every time you introduce the slightest bit of homebrew/house rule you must be a railroady novelist/[insert other complaint here]"? I feel so bad for you :smallfrown: Your players are mean.

[Flickerdart]

I avoid things like the Sea Hag and Spider Eater - their abilities have low DCs, but if you fail it, the outcome is disproportionate - a Save or Lose that lasts for days. So it uses the ability and either nothing happens or you massively screwed over a PC. Neither is a satisfying outcome.

[Graypairofsocks]

eah, I've seen that. Wouldn't use it either, if only because I'm not sure how combat would work. I always thought a Temporal Filcher Swordsage would be nuts, but I've no idea how.

In combat I am guessing it would grapple the weakest character, then jump forward in time, then try to kill(so it can eat?) the person that it brought with it.

The Time hop thing is more useful if people think it is really just a Dimension Door like effect(which the Temporal Filcher also has).

It does seem strong for a CR 3 creature as it has 5 Psi-like abilities at will(and 1 other 3 times a day), 6 natural attacks(4 claw attacks, 1 horn attack, and 1 bite), and also improved grab.

Bizarrely despite having eyes on both front and back of its head/body it doesn't have All-around vision.

I have no idea what classes would be good with it(I think I have heard that Warblade & swordsage go well with a lot of things).

[atemu1234]

As a player, I don't play Drow because of the clearly racist/sexist undertones which their fluff carries. It's like the writers aren't even trying to be subtle about it: The Drow are the black evil counterparts to a good-aligned white race. Not to mention that they're ruled by stereotypes of man-hating sadist dominatrices. Even the drizzt clones who are opposed to that society have the whole "you overcame the evil of your race" vibe.

Just reading the fluff makes me cringe. :smalleek:

Well, this I just plain old don't agree with. They give you reasons why the race is evil and acts evil, it's not like they're telling you "kill them because they have [insert color here] skin and you don't." This is just ridiculous. The drow act evil. They kill things, sacrifice them to an evil deity, want to kill everything else. Their skin tone is irrelevant. You probably think Duergar are racist too.

[Shining Wrath]

I think the Allip is not really suitable for level 3 parties, so I rarely use those. By the time a party can reasonably handle an Allip there's more interesting undead available.

As a player, I don't like halflings. There's just something uncomfortable there; I think it's a sort of uncanny valley effect, where they are close enough to Tolkien to recognize but not close enough to be Hobbits. Elves OTOH are not very Tolkien-like at all, while Dwarves are very Tolkien-like. Even the Eberron setting, which turned Elves into either ancestor-worshipers or barbaric hordes, Drow into surface dwellers, and halflings into wandering dinosaur herders, left Dwarves alone.

As a broader class, I dislike the "here's a huge pile of HP, beat on it" monsters, epitomized by Hill Giants. A high CR monster should have something interesting going on.


I've seen Rust Monsters used to good effect exactly once. One of my players was a Warforged who was Rust Monster-phobic, and it became a running gag throughout the campaign.

When last I played a Warforged, I played him with the same phobia. He'd go toe to toe with Mind Flayers but the idea of a Rust Monster would keep him awake at night - metaphorically speaking. DM never threw one at me, but the other players made several Rust Monster jokes, and I did spend the money for an Everbright enhancement to my body armor AND my primary weapon, tying it in-character to Rust Monsters.

[Afgncaap5]

"Every time you introduce the slightest bit of homebrew/house rule you must be a railroady novelist/[insert other complaint here]"? I feel so bad for you :smallfrown: Your players are mean.

Nah, they're not mean. They humor me sometimes. Case in point: I like that orcs and goblins are kinda the same thing in Tolkien (depending on which book you read), and I've mixed them together sometimes; going with the monster manual's notes on subraces, if a creature of this type is prone to bashing, smashing and bullying its way through something, I call it an orc. If it's more prone to sneakiness, stealthiness and raiding towns, then I'll call it a goblin. My players are usually fine with that. If I get too weird, though (like having two "brothers", one using orc statistics and one using goblin statistics) then they're more likely to roll their eyes. And they were okay with the time that I prevented some players from entering a building without a will-save because they were gnomes and half-elves and the house was warded to prevent fey from entering interested them... but mainly because I only made it come up once or twice. They like to give me a hard time about implementing the occasional thematic rule, though. Just like I give the player who always wants to play a cleric of Nerull a hard time (being an undead slaying ranger in his first campaign made it humorously easy to get around.)


Fixed that for you. In an ideal world. :smallsigh:

That ideal world exists... as long as I don't make it happen every single time. :smallwink:

[Shining Wrath]

Well, this I just plain old don't agree with. They give you reasons why the race is evil and acts evil, it's not like they're telling you "kill them because they have [insert color here] skin and you don't." This is just ridiculous. The drow act evil. They kill things, sacrifice them to an evil deity, want to kill everything else. Their skin tone is irrelevant. You probably think Duergar are racist too.

I think Slipperychicken's point is that the writers created an evil antithesis to the Elves, which is fine and should be evil. But the fluff of why they're evil? Dark black skin, ruled by domineering sociopathic women? If you took a gestalt of the id of every KKK member and devised a creature out of nightmare, you'd get Drow.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Beholders. I know they're iconic as heck, but man are they a pain to run. They take so much time, and throw out so many save-or-lose abilities, that it's just a mess.

[VoxRationis]

I generally don't play half-orcs and often don't have room for them in my settings. In one of my settings, there are no orcs at all, which kind of puts a damper on the possibility of half-orcs, and in others, orcs are considered too genetically distinct from humans to interbreed, Player's Handbook be damned. If I have half-orcs in the setting, however, I at least consider the possibility of orc-elf crossbreeds.
I also tend to avoid centaurs, as they don't make a ton of sense biologically and are difficult to work into a lot of my settings, as well as a lot of the more obscure creatures that seem like they were just put in to spice up dungeon encounters.
Furthermore, my issues with underground environments (where do they get the energy to sustain an ecosystem filled with large predators?) tend to make it so that I have very, very few underground races. Dwarves, being a player race and a classic, get priority, so things like drow, sverfneblin, grimlocks, etc. get edged out.
I don't usually use yrthaks because they fill the same niche ecologically as dragons: large, flying predators with a ranged weapon. Dragons, however, could probably outcompete yrthaks through systematic eradication if nothing else, and since both animals are flyers with long ranges, geographic isolation is unlikely to remain for long.
In general, I cut out a lot of monsters from the MM, because of the difficulties fitting them all in to a setting coherently. I put a thread, "Crowded Worlds," on the World-Building forums describing this.

[Telok]

In the games I run:
1) No half-anything and no subraces or variant races, this includes drow. The only exception to this is that halflings have gone back to being called hobbits.
2) No incorporeals, swarms, level drainers, or gaze attackers untill I give the party magic items to deal with them or the party is given explicit warning and the opportunity to aquire counter-measures. Then it stops being my fault when they sell the items they need or ignore the warnings.
3) No draconic/sorcerer kobolds. For twenty years they were vile little chihuahua-men and then WotC turned them into half-dragon spell casters. It's like watching a Lord of the Rings movie where all the goblins have been replaced by little Buffy the Vampire Slayer clones, the dissonance just never quite goes away.

In the game I'm currently playing in:
1) No swarms.
2) No incorporeals.
3) No oozes.
4) No level drainers.
5) No gaze attacks.
6) No swallow whole.
7) No plant monsters.
8) No elementals.
9) No traps.
10) No poison except drow knockout poison for drow npcs.
This is an easy-mode game, but we have players who can't handle anything else.

[nyjastul69]

I generally don't play half-orcs and often don't have room for them in my settings. In one of my settings, there are no orcs at all, which kind of puts a damper on the possibility of half-orcs, and in others, orcs are considered too genetically distinct from humans to interbreed, Player's Handbook be damned. If I have half-orcs in the setting, however, I at least consider the possibility of orc-elf crossbreeds.
I also tend to avoid centaurs, as they don't make a ton of sense biologically and are difficult to work into a lot of my settings, as well as a lot of the more obscure creatures that seem like they were just put in to spice up dungeon encounters.
Furthermore, my issues with underground environments (where do they get the energy to sustain an ecosystem filled with large predators?) tend to make it so that I have very, very few underground races. Dwarves, being a player race and a classic, get priority, so things like drow, sverfneblin, grimlocks, etc. get edged out.
I don't usually use yrthaks because they fill the same niche ecologically as dragons: large, flying predators with a ranged weapon. Dragons, however, could probably outcompete yrthaks through systematic eradication if nothing else, and since both animals are flyers with long ranges, geographic isolation is unlikely to remain for long.
In general, I cut out a lot of monsters from the MM, because of the difficulties fitting them all in to a setting coherently. I put a thread, "Crowded Worlds," on the World-Building forums describing this.

Yrthaks are kinda weird. I don't think they are supposed to fill an ecological niche as much as they are system niche. Big flying Beastie with a sonic damage attack. I don't think any core dragons have a sonic attack.

[VoxRationis]

I don't get why that's an advantage. I mean, the players aren't going to have any means of negating acid, fire, cold, and electricity without being able to use those same methods to defeat sonic.
Also, the yrthak has a fly speed of 60 feet and a maximum blindsight range of 120 feet. If it "runs," it has 3 seconds to respond to an obstacle before it hits. That seems like a problem. Does anyone know the practical effective range of bat echolocation?

[Shining Wrath]

I don't get why that's an advantage. I mean, the players aren't going to have any means of negating acid, fire, cold, and electricity without being able to use those same methods to defeat sonic.
Also, the yrthak has a fly speed of 60 feet and a maximum blindsight range of 120 feet. If it "runs," it has 3 seconds to respond to an obstacle before it hits. That seems like a problem. Does anyone know the practical effective range of bat echolocation?

Per Wikipedia it depends upon pulse interval, but 17 meters is cited as typical.

[atemu1234]

I think Slipperychicken's point is that the writers created an evil antithesis to the Elves, which is fine and should be evil. But the fluff of why they're evil? Dark black skin, ruled by domineering sociopathic women? If you took a gestalt of the id of every KKK member and devised a creature out of nightmare, you'd get Drow.

The point being, they aren't like that out of the blue. He makes it out that they act like that because of their skin color, at least in the writer's opinion.

[nyjastul69]

I don't get why that's an advantage. I mean, the players aren't going to have any means of negating acid, fire, cold, and electricity without being able to use those same methods to defeat sonic.
Also, the yrthak has a fly speed of 60 feet and a maximum blindsight range of 120 feet. If it "runs," it has 3 seconds to respond to an obstacle before it hits. That seems like a problem. Does anyone know the practical effective range of bat echolocation?

I didn't mean to imply any advantage. It just fills a system need/want, big flying Beastie with a sonic attack. It seems much like a Krenshar. Krenshars were created because there aren't many CR1 beasties with a fear effect. Monsters don't need to fill an ecological role as much as a system one.

[VoxRationis]

I didn't mean to imply any advantage. It just fills a system need/want, big flying Beastie with a sonic attack. It seems much like a Krenshar. Krenshars were created because there aren't many CR1 beasties with a fear effect. Monsters don't need to fill an ecological role as much as a system one.

See, this is one of the few problems I have with the classic D&D milieu. Too many monsters only make sense in the context of fighting groups of adventurers in a dungeon.

[Azoth]

Depending on the campaign or world area i don't have any monster's springing to mind that I won't use. Some I hold off on using or will only use sparingly because of the headache they cause me or my players.

I more have to worry about how much I modify mosters than the types I use. My players tend to cry foul when I optimize monsters to make use their racial abilities or use tactics they feel are "beyond" the enemy's ability.

[Vrock_Summoner]

I love Yrthaks... But that's just because things with the dragon subtype don't usually exist in my worlds, so they fill an otherwise empty niche. Also, giant sonic bat-monster. I'm cool with this.

[RavynsLand]

I always avoid creatures that will make my players hate me. This includes but is not limited to:

Negative levels
Equipment destruction/theft
Permanent ability drain
and excessive use of poison

[nyjastul69]

See, this is one of the few problems I have with the classic D&D milieu. Too many monsters only make sense in the context of fighting groups of adventurers in a dungeon.

I understand what you are saying, but it is D&D after all. The monsters should be geared that way. If every monster had to have a realistic ecological niche I think the game would be boring. Also, just because a Beastie is in a book doesn't mean it needs to be used. It's just another option for those who want more, rather than less, options.

[Kol Korran]

First of all, I made a little project quite some time ago, about giving a new place to some misbegotten and forgotten monsters. The idea was to give them a place mostly through flavor (A few changes to Crunch, but this is usually not the main deal) which would make them playable. I don't have that many entries (About 12 in total) but they might be in lineof what you're looking for. I don't have enough innovation to do more at the moment, but what's there, and the frame work is good I think. Check my sig, the last link.

What don't I use?
Hmmmm... a toughie, I don't have an outright objection to anything, since I can find ways to fit stuff, or altet stuff if something intrigues me, but of the top of my head:
- Anything with TONS of special powers and abilities and such... like many of the outsiders. I find these like a big headache usually.
- Vampires... Dunno, I find them quite boring and expected.
- Creatures who's main shtick is significant shapeshifting, such as were creatures: Again, a pain in the ass to handle.
- Most of the high CR creatures (15 and above). I just rarely got to those levels...
I think that's it. Hope you enjoy my little project, if you decide to check it out. Contributions are welcomed! :smallsmile:

[Element Zero]

As a player, I refuse to play a Halfling. There isn't any real reason that I can think of, at least not a logical one. I just hate the little furry toed freaks. (Except for Belkar) In Pathfinder I won't play a Goblin, unless I'm allowed to re-fluff them to be more like D&D goblins or, ideally, like uglier, greedier tinker Gnomes.

As a DM, I try to keep my options open for the most part. However, I tend do avoid using any type of "True" Dragon other than Metallic or Chromatic. I don't like the Planar or Gem dragons.

[almightycoma]

As a player I don't play anything that isn't at least half human. Idk why really but I always do.
As a DM I don't use any flying creature that's maneuverability is less then (good). The rules for turning below that are annoying, that's also the reason I don't do under water fights.
Type wise I don't use dinosaurs,giants,or oozes. I just cant seem to fit them in to my worlds in a real-ish/interesting way.
I hate using any vampires or were creatures they are super played out and boring to me.

[Anlashok]

See, this is one of the few problems I have with the classic D&D milieu. Too many monsters only make sense in the context of fighting groups of adventurers in a dungeon.

Part of that is probably because older editions really played that idea to the hilt. The dungeon wasn't just a shorthand for any complex you navigated through on your quest, but some sort of actual, completely definable and literal concept with its own ecology in a very sort of surreal way, with dungeon just being an environment. Sort of abandoned that idea later on when they started actually building settings, though the Dungeonscape book brings back some of that feel.

So a lot of the stuff that gets ported over as sacred cows from the older editions no longer makes sense because of that shift in fluff development.

[Graypairofsocks]

See, this is one of the few problems I have with the classic D&D milieu. Too many monsters only make sense in the context of fighting groups of adventurers in a dungeon.

There is another reasonable explanation: Bored Wizards.

[ellindsey]

I don't use Drow in my campaign either, since the fluff associated with them is incredibly problematic, and I think it's a lot more interesting to have the occasional Evil elf look just like the non-Evil ones. Elves have free will, and they're just as capable of any other race of being horribly evil, and I try not to have designated-target Evil races where you know you're justified in killing them just from how they look anyway.

I also don't use Satyrs, since in the Pathfinder setting they are basically parasitic monsters that reproduce by rape, and my campaign has a strict no rape (not even for monsters) rule.

[KnotKnormal]

I'm sure if i flipped trough the monster manuals i would find stuff that i would never use but off the top of my head, Mind Flairs. It's not that i don't want to use them, I just can never find a the right time to use them to do them justice, so they typically fall to the way side.

[BWR]

Rust monster. The only reason to use it is if you want to literally screw your players over.

I love them. I used one to great effect in my current Mystara campaign.
Party's fighter (dwarf, heavy armor, tower shield) opens a door and sees rust monsters, correctly identifies them and panics. What does he do? Does he retreat while screaming "Caster to the front?" Does he take a chance and charge in and hit the thing with his axe? Does he close the door?

No.

He spends an action loosening and dropping his shield and another pulling his crossbow. The rust monster moves up to him and eats his armor.

Really, the only monsters I will refuse to use are the ones that are too stupid to live. Pegatuars come to mind, and I have a feeling I'll use them soon because they are featured in an adventure I'm going to run.
Another one on the list is the drooling penis monster. Never, no way no how.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Generally-speaking, in D&D I wouldn't use creatures that bypass HP, such as the Vargouille. A group of us faced them in an encounter, and I passed the save--and got uneasy when I found out what would've happened if I had failed.

Losing your low-level character based on a failed save? Eck. (Seriously; why are they CR 2 in Pathfinder?)

[Graypairofsocks]

Another one on the list is the drooling penis monster. Never, no way no how.


Which one?

The Century Worm (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ff_gallery/50103.jpg)?

[Toliudar]

I vote for the Krenshar. A creature whose signature ability is to peel back its own skin. A special ability should not be something that people want to do to you anyway.

[atemu1234]

I personally never use tarrasques unless I'm trying to make a point. The one legitimate time I included one was extenuating circumstances.

[atemu1234]

I think Slipperychicken's point is that the writers created an evil antithesis to the Elves, which is fine and should be evil. But the fluff of why they're evil? Dark black skin, ruled by domineering sociopathic women? If you took a gestalt of the id of every KKK member and devised a creature out of nightmare, you'd get Drow.

Making them like that was purely based upon the goddess they worshiped. Also, they're well enough written to explain all of the things about them, not to mention the fact that if you take everything in fiction that had black = evil in it and took it away, you'd run out of source material. Are allips racist because they move quickly and are black, while lantern archons are white and pure and stuff? Are dragons racist because they come in different colors? If you're going to claim that one thing's racist, you may as well apply his logic to everything.

[Talar]

The thing with drow is that they scientifically should not be black. They live underground so realistically shouldn't they be leaning more towards albinism? Now the counter argument is that well they are elves so normal science schtuff does not apply to them. But still I feel like they should be mostly albino, and in my world they are. That is my feeling on the matter. Whether or not the canon is racist is sort of a moot point in my opinion though.

As for creatures I will never use? Yrthak is just stupid, rust monsters are mean, same with allips, athach is also too silly for me, and I just do not like locathah we already have kua toa and sahaugin as evil aquatic humanoids. Other than that I try to stay open about what monsters to use though I do have a tendency to keep using my favorites.

[jjcrpntr]

If I ever DM a campaign, my first houserule will be to excise all gear-destroying abilities from any monsters that so happen to have them. Or at least modify them so they affect nonmagical items only.

I'm dming a pathfinder game now and I've basically banned save or die things. I hate it (i know it's part of the game) and my players know I will kill them if they do something stupid. But as a player I hated the "invisible assassin strikes roll a fort save.. and you're dead".

[Graypairofsocks]

The thing with drow is that they scientifically should not be black. They live underground so realistically shouldn't they be leaning more towards albinism? Now the counter argument is that well they are elves so normal science schtuff does not apply to them. But still I feel like they should be mostly albino, and in my world they are. That is my feeling on the matter. Whether or not the canon is racist is sort of a moot point in my opinion though.

Interestingly enough there are Albino Drow.

[lunar2]

as a player, i only ever used grey elves. i certainly never used half elves.

in the setting i'm working on, all the basic races i'm using got rebuilt and refluffed, except humans and to a slightly lesser extent, dwarves (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OurDwarvesAreAllTheSame).

elves all have natural spellcasting ability, are -2 str +2 int (even though all casting is cha based, i didn't give any humanoid race a cha bonus). they are know it all casters, with no connection to nature. they were created by the fey from human stock in an experiment to understand draconic magic, which failed in it's purpose, but did create elves and orcs. those rare elves who don't primarily rely on magic tend to be archers, since their strength penalty makes them subpar for melee combat.

orcs have no natural spellcasting ability (no pure orc can take levels in any spellcasting class, although hybrids can). they are the antithesis of elves, relying on their superior senses (low light vision, scent, and bonuses to spot, listen and survival) and brute force instead of acquired knowledge or arcane power (+4 str, -2 int, -2 cha).

humans, elves and orcs are collectively, the big people, and can interbreed. hybrids are LA +1 and get all the traits of both races (which makes an orc/elf hybrid kind of weak, since it loses half its strength bonus, but maintains its cha penalty, so its not as great as its orc parent at melee, and it sucks as a caster).

dwarves are dwarves, fluff wise. they get a 20 foot move speed, a 0 foot burrow speed (can burrow 5 feet as a full round action, with an extra full round action to leave a stable tunnel), no reduction in speed due to encumbrance, stability, and the ability to craft items, including magic items, twice as fast as normal. and i traded their cha penalty for a dex penalty, so they make decent casters.

quicklings are the setting's stand in for halflings. they get a 40 foot move speed, bonuses to balance, climb, jump, swim, and tumble, +2 dex -2 con (only race with a con penalty), and a flurry of blows ability (as an immediate action, take a -2 penalty to an attack you would normally make, and gain an extra attack with the same weapon at the same bonus).

and finally, goblins are merchants and animal trainers. +2 dex, -2 str, 20 ft. speed, +4 to ride and handle animal, and empathy (like wild empathy, but applies to all creatures with an int score).

dwarves, quicklings, and goblins are collectively called the little people (although dwarves are actually medium creatures). they can't interbreed, though, since they are more distant relatives of each other than the big people are. plus they are the result of regular evolution, not selective breeding like the orcs and elves, so they have more genetic differences for the same physical differences.

[VoxRationis]

The thing with drow is that they scientifically should not be black. They live underground so realistically shouldn't they be leaning more towards albinism? Now the counter argument is that well they are elves so normal science schtuff does not apply to them. But still I feel like they should be mostly albino, and in my world they are. That is my feeling on the matter. Whether or not the canon is racist is sort of a moot point in my opinion though.

As for creatures I will never use? Yrthak is just stupid, rust monsters are mean, same with allips, athach is also too silly for me, and I just do not like locathah we already have kua toa and sahaugin as evil aquatic humanoids. Other than that I try to stay open about what monsters to use though I do have a tendency to keep using my favorites.

Arguably, there is a strong selective pressure in D&D for dark-skinned subterranean creatures. In real life, there's no advantage to such pigmentation because nothing can see down there anyway, and the mild resource cost of the melanin becomes important enough to worry about. But drow are sight-based creatures, and most drow, to my understanding, die at the hands of other drow. Having color that blends in with the rock, stone, or EVIL black curtains (depending on how you interpret darkvision's view of things) makes sense when your culture focuses primarily on killing all your rivals when they aren't expecting it. This isn't to mention all of the other things that have darkvision and primarily hunt by sight.

Locathah are interesting in that they're neutral, rather than evil; using them as pure antagonists sort of seems like a waste to me. They make good candidates for "local village conflicts with monsters" plots that have more morally complex solutions than "Ergo, kill monsters."

[3WhiteFox3]

My problem with the Drow is that they are full of unfortunate implications. That, and the fact that they lack nuamce. They're so over the top that I just can't take them seriously as a credible creature. They are also overused.

[VoxRationis]

Well, yes, there are some unfortunate implications, though they are somewhat lessened by the other wholly evil groups with light skin (Derro, Grimlocks (sort of), frost folk, etc.). I don't use drow in any case. I was just arguing that there are possible explanations for having black skin in an underground environment.

[Warlocknthewind]

Moonbeasts.

"DON'T YOU TOUCH MY SHINY!! IT'S MINE TO LEAVE WHEREVER, NOT YOURS TO VALUE" This particular abberation just seems too abberant to put into any campaign of mine.

It just drops the damn thing after rending whosoever picked it up in twain. It's just a big pearl, with an incredibly protective owner who doesn't value it whatsoever.

Oh, and it's a giant water weinie with tentacles who gives the biggest $#!? About people touching his pearl, but bot the pearl itself.

:smallconfused:

[BWR]

Which one?

The Century Worm (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ff_gallery/50103.jpg)?

That's the one. I could probably go through all the various monsters and compile a list, but in general I avoid any monster that is obviously thrown together just because they needed a new monster to pad the pages. There is a lot of uninspired, bottom of the barrel stuff out there, so I tend to stick to somewhat common creatures or any that showed up in old BECMI sources - because everything was better 30 years ago no matter how stupid it is.

[Anlashok]

I personally cut out most varieties of elf. Drow and "regular" are all I go for. If I need to I'll steal an idea from 4e and use Eladrin as the elemental/super mystical variants. Since they're basically elves anyways.

As for true monsters. Cloakers are too silly for me to take seriously.

Not my choice, but after an apparently unsettling campaign my players won't let me use The Worm that Walks anymore.

[Jeff the Green]

Well, yes, there are some unfortunate implications, though they are somewhat lessened by the other wholly evil groups with light skin (Derro, Grimlocks (sort of), frost folk, etc.). I don't use drow in any case. I was just arguing that there are possible explanations for having black skin in an underground environment.

There's more to it than that. Drow's color is typically attributed to a curse by Corellon Lareithian, which is too close to certain modern religioracist beliefs for my comfort. There's also the matriarchy and dominatrix thing, which would be okay if they weren't the only (or nearly only; I can't remember any but there might be) matriarchal societies in D&D. (I'm fine with an evil matriarchy, by the way; it could actually be interesting if handled well. I'm just not okay with the only matriarchy across a wide swath of fiction being evil.)

[VoxRationis]

Most of the creatures in the PHB don't have a set gender bias according to the books. Dwarves and elves are explicitly stated in their respective Monster Manual entries to be egalitarian. Orcs are one of the few examples of explicitly patriarchal cultures, and they're evil as well.
What about locathah? I can't remember what their society is.
The thing is, there aren't too many good or neutral races running around out there: most of the creatures in the MM are evil so a default heroic party can fight them without having to examine the life stories of everyone in the dungeon. Since, as mentioned above, the player races tend not to have stances on the matter (any that do will be in campaign-specific notes), that means that most of the examples of patriarchy or matriarchy are going to have origins in creatures marked as evil.

Correct me if I'm wrong about any of this; I don't have the books with me and the SRD is a little light on the fluff, so I'm stating these things from what I remember.

[Anlashok]

VoxRations is right, gender roles basically don't exist except for a few races where it's part of their defined personality quirk. Furthermore, most of the "standard" user races are sort of a blank-slate in that regard to give players more flexibility. Evil races get to have quirks like that because they weren't intended to be used by players.


The color issue is not as easy to explain, but I feel like it's a bit moot because the races in question don't really conform to the alleged concept in any other way, which makes the accusation seem a bit weak. The (relatively universal) association of darkness with mystery, fear or evil probably seems like the more likely connection here. But it's easy to see these themes anywhere if you look hard enough.

[Lord Vukodlak]

I seconded the Drowned its ability just isn't practical to send at a party. I remember the last time I fought one, the only reason it wasn't a TPK... when my psion leveled up the previous secession I thought. "Hey Adapt Body might come in handy."

I thought up a modified aura where instead opponents must make a fortitude save DC 10+1/2 the Drown's HD+his charisma mod or be limited to only a single move or standard action a round and unable to cast spells with verbal components. Casting a spell would also invoke a concentration check of the same DC plus the spells level.

[Kennisiou]

Cockatrice and Basilisk.

At the CR where they're appropriate to fight they're massively unfair as they have effectively a save or die effect against a party that is highly unlikely to be able to reverse it in any regards.

[squiggit]

Cockatrice and Basilisk.

At the CR where they're appropriate to fight they're massively unfair as they have effectively a save or die effect against a party that is highly unlikely to be able to reverse it in any regards.

Monsters with tough save or die annoy me in general.

I don't mind killing players, I've killed some pretty badly. Hell I've even had some players die on a single roll... but the idea of "Roll your will... ok make a new character please" stuff just annoys the hell out of me. It's not very dramatic or tense or particularly exciting narratively IMO.

[Jeff the Green]

Most of the creatures in the PHB don't have a set gender bias according to the books. Dwarves and elves are explicitly stated in their respective Monster Manual entries to be egalitarian. Orcs are one of the few examples of explicitly patriarchal cultures, and they're evil as well.
What about locathah? I can't remember what their society is.
The thing is, there aren't too many good or neutral races running around out there: most of the creatures in the MM are evil so a default heroic party can fight them without having to examine the life stories of everyone in the dungeon. Since, as mentioned above, the player races tend not to have stances on the matter (any that do will be in campaign-specific notes), that means that most of the examples of patriarchy or matriarchy are going to have origins in creatures marked as evil.

Correct me if I'm wrong about any of this; I don't have the books with me and the SRD is a little light on the fluff, so I'm stating these things from what I remember.

Given the real world, particularly in the time periods primarily drawn on by D&D, and the fact that there are two races explicitly stated to be egalitarian, I tend to assume that means everything else is mostly patriarchal. To varying degrees and levels of benignity, but still patriarchal. And I'm pretty sure that there are a few neutral societies in Faerun that are patriarchal and none that are matriarchal save the drow. Though I'll agree it's arguable either way.

And it's not that I think that the designers were more racist or sexist than the background of their society (and in fact would bet they're significantly less so). It's just that I can't see those things without cringing because they make me think about things in the real world I'd rather not when I'm playing an escapist game and don't do so in the service of exploring themes I want to explore, so I find them easy to completely refluff (in my campaign world) or ignore (in others), and I can see why others would do the same.

[HighWater]

There is also the Temporal Filcher which grapples you then jumps forward 7 minutes in time with you, presumably so it can eat you.
Well, the description calls the target "prey", so it does do it's thing to eat you.

And:
This.Is.Awesome!

A nasty way to upset a PC without actually killing him/her, as long as the party stays in the neighborhood lol. Doesn't do too much damage and it's a trick-monster, if you know about the temporal shift ability, the party will just hit it hard the second it comes back into existence, which I guess is the only reason it's a CR3. After the first timeport, it seems it will timeport you again if it hits you with its claws again, which buys the party time to figure stuff out.
Alternatively, if you can manage to make one your pet and up its to-hit, you get 7 minutes preptime for any encounter. :smallbiggrin:

I totally agree it's evil and has some very-big-jerk options for "killer DMs".

The Ethereal Filcher is obviously meant to be hunted down for stealing party possessions (or to undo that game-breaking item you dropped last time). Can make for a nice chase...

[Graypairofsocks]

Doesn't do too much damage and it's a trick-monster, if you know about the temporal shift ability, the party will just hit it hard the second it comes back into existence, which I guess is the only reason it's a CR3.

I think The Temporal Filcher is kind of strong for CR 3(compare it to the Ethereal Filcher which has the same CR).

It also has Dimension Door at will and 5 natural attacks.

[Dr. Cliché]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Kender yet...

[weckar]

Whales. Never again.

[Gemini476]

I will never use a Drakainia. Partly because it's a high-level Mythic monster, but mostly because sorry, Paizo, but I'm not into that.

At least it has some theoretical use in enabling rapid population growth within a hypothetical civilization (possibly fed by a chained-up Tarrasque eternally regenerating infinite meat), but man. Those abilities sure are something.

It's also yet another case of D&D designers nicking something from mythology and completely changing everything except the name, which I'm not much of a fan of.

[Sith_Happens]

There's also the matriarchy and dominatrix thing, which would be okay if they weren't the only (or nearly only; I can't remember any but there might be) matriarchal societies in D&D.

Faerun has a bunch.

[Jeff the Green]

Faerun has a bunch.

Properly matriarchal or just ruled by a queen? There's a difference; Elizabethan and Victorian Britain were still deeply patriarchal despite having Queens Regnant.

[Sith_Happens]

Properly matriarchal or just ruled by a queen? There's a difference; Elizabethan and Victorian Britain were still deeply patriarchal despite having Queens Regnant.

I don't know that any of them have the same society-wide permeance of female-superiority that the Drow do, but at the very least their ruling classes are exclusively female.

[3WhiteFox3]

Given the real world, particularly in the time periods primarily drawn on by D&D, and the fact that there are two races explicitly stated to be egalitarian, I tend to assume that means everything else is mostly patriarchal. To varying degrees and levels of benignity, but still patriarchal. And I'm pretty sure that there are a few neutral societies in Faerun that are patriarchal and none that are matriarchal save the drow. Though I'll agree it's arguable either way.

And it's not that I think that the designers were more racist or sexist than the background of their society (and in fact would bet they're significantly less so). It's just that I can't see those things without cringing because they make me think about things in the real world I'd rather not when I'm playing an escapist game and don't do so in the service of exploring themes I want to explore, so I find them easy to completely refluff (in my campaign world) or ignore (in others), and I can see why others would do the same.

This is my main issue. I'd like to see more races that are matriarchal and good, or are black and good (and have them be just as prevalent and good as the drow are one of the most prevalent evil races). Just to make clear that neither are indicators of evil, they are neutral characteristics that happen to be associated with one of the most over the top evil race in the game.

Besides that, I still don't like the drow, they are just too over the top, over used, don't really make much sense to me (Why hasn't one of the deities noticed that drow society only works because of Lloth and gives her them an unfair advantage that no other race gets?) and they just really bug me on several levels.

[VoxRationis]

What unfair advantage do they get?

[Kuulvheysoon]

Properly matriarchal or just ruled by a queen? There's a difference; Elizabethan and Victorian Britain were still deeply patriarchal despite having Queens Regnant.

Well, for 'properly' matriarchal, there's also Rashemen (while ostensibly ruled by the Lord of the Iron throne, everyone knows it's the Witches that call the shots), Evermeet (being ruled by Queen Amlaruil for centuries), the Quaggoths (before their civilization was broken, I mean, but females are still dominant in tribes) and Aglarond (The Sumbul), off the top of my head.

[HighWater]

I think The Temporal Filcher is kind of strong for CR 3(compare it to the Ethereal Filcher which has the same CR).

It also has Dimension Door at will and 5 natural attacks.

Lol yeah, I noticed that. It actually has 6 natural attacks even. The only reason I could think of for it being CR3 is that it's rather predictable once you know it's "trick", effectively handing out a surprise round to the rest of the party when it fades back into time with its victim (I'm pretty sure reading an action is okay when you know the precise return-time, place and even orientation of your enemy). If you don't know it's trick though, it'll kill, and kill again if played to the hilt.

[weckar]

I'm also avoiding using non-human illithid. They just hurt my brain.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I'm also avoiding using non-human illithid. They just hurt my brain.

Oh? I'll admit, I'm curious. Why do you not like the Neolithid (I also choose to ignore the existence of the Mind FlayerBrainstealer Dragon)?

[weckar]

Well, once things got complicated, players started playing around with the concept, and before we knew it we had a zombie-like horde of illithid-doppelgangers after us. Maybe with another group, but the concept is just too much for this group to ever handle again.

[Talar]

Arguably, there is a strong selective pressure in D&D for dark-skinned subterranean creatures. In real life, there's no advantage to such pigmentation because nothing can see down there anyway, and the mild resource cost of the melanin becomes important enough to worry about. But drow are sight-based creatures, and most drow, to my understanding, die at the hands of other drow. Having color that blends in with the rock, stone, or EVIL black curtains (depending on how you interpret darkvision's view of things) makes sense when your culture focuses primarily on killing all your rivals when they aren't expecting it. This isn't to mention all of the other things that have darkvision and primarily hunt by sight.

Locathah are interesting in that they're neutral, rather than evil; using them as pure antagonists sort of seems like a waste to me. They make good candidates for "local village conflicts with monsters" plots that have more morally complex solutions than "Ergo, kill monsters."

That is an interesting point about the drow. My only counter point is that back in AD&D and such dark vision was called infrared vision, certain creatures could see heat signatures, so pigmentation does not really matter there. But in how 3.5 works that is an interesting evolutionary possibility. And locathah just never sat well with me, and they had always been portrayed as evil in my experience, also it does not help that I dislike aquatic adventures in general. Each to their own though.

[Brookshw]

I'm sure there are many creatures I don't use, but for creatures I won't use, gnomes. F'n gnomes. Complete irrational hatred of those durned danged miserable love child's of dwarves/halflings/badgers. The great gnomeocalypse except it wasn't great because they're beneath caring about.

[atemu1234]

I'm sure there are many creatures I don't use, but for creatures I won't use, gnomes. F'n gnomes. Complete irrational hatred of those durned danged miserable love child's of dwarves/halflings/badgers. The great gnomeocalypse except it wasn't great because they're beneath caring about.

I believe the dwarf-badger lovechild position belongs to Wildren.

[Coidzor]

Problem with Drow's black skin as evolutionary advantage: All dat glaringly white hair.
I would never run an Adamantine Horror or a Drowned against an equivalent CR party.

The Drowneds drowning aura ability is frankly ridiculous. It forces a constitution check, not a fortitude save, every round against everyone in the aura(30ft). Every round the DC increases by one, and if you fail you start drowning immediately, making you fall unconscious. It's also a 20 HD undead with 150 hp. And is CR 8.

Of course, the Adamantine Horror is notorious for having at-will disjunction and implosion at CR 9.

I'd forgotten about the Adamantine Horror, that's how much my mind had erased it.

I also wouldn't use Meenlocks without re-writing their mechanics.

[atemu1234]

The hair isn't a problem: They have been removed from natural selection for several thousand years. It makes sense therefore to see a variety of hair colors outside what would be the evolutionary norm.

[TuggyNE]

The hair isn't a problem: They have been removed from natural selection for several thousand years. It makes sense therefore to see a variety of hair colors outside what would be the evolutionary norm.

So, genetic diversity/mutation rate of skin melanin is nil, but genetic diversity/mutation rate of hair melanin after the same period was, briefly, more than enough to switch from "dark" to "light" before locking on "light" permanently … riiiiiight.

[lunar2]

are any of the creators of D&D australian? because if so, having the black guys with white hair be the most evil things in the campaign setting this side of demons has extreme unfortunate implications.

[N0RKS]

I will never again subject my players to the horror that is Kobolds. Now this might sound ridiculous at first, but Kobolds are the only monster encounter I've ever run that ended in a TPK, and that was with a party who were slapping each other on the back for having just killed a young black dragon. I've been traumatised by the 3 hour slog that was this Kobold battle, and I've sworn them off for good.

As a Player I've got a thing against Humans, they just seem so boring to me. I like to play a little off the beaten track, but not so far out in the woods that you're on the wrong side of LA2, Goliaths, Warforged, Dragonborn of Bahamut, these are my favourites.

[Talar]

I'm sure there are many creatures I don't use, but for creatures I won't use, gnomes. F'n gnomes. Complete irrational hatred of those durned danged miserable love child's of dwarves/halflings/badgers. The great gnomeocalypse except it wasn't great because they're beneath caring about.

Poor gnomes...the given fluff for them is stupid I'll grant. Other than that though there are some interesting things one can do with them if they are trying.


are any of the creators of D&D australian? because if so, having the black guys with white hair be the most evil things in the campaign setting this side of demons has extreme unfortunate implications.

I do not believe so, IIRC both Gygax and Arneson are from Wisconsin.

[Coidzor]

are any of the creators of D&D australian? because if so, having the black guys with white hair be the most evil things in the campaign setting this side of demons has extreme unfortunate implications.

Well, I just learned something about Australia and Oceania today. Though I'm a tad confused because it only seems to occur in children there. :smallconfused:

I'm not really sure if they're the most evil beings in the setting, since after a certain point of being for the evulz, things just get campy instead.

[BWR]

I'm sure there are many creatures I don't use, but for creatures I won't use, gnomes. F'n gnomes. Complete irrational hatred of those durned danged miserable love child's of dwarves/halflings/badgers. The great gnomeocalypse except it wasn't great because they're beneath caring about.

You aren't using the right gnomes. Go with Tinker gnomes or the skygnomes presented in "Top Ballista"
How an you beat a biplane mounted with double fireball wands?
Or using catapults in place of elevators?

[Lord Vukodlak]

That is an interesting point about the drow. My only counter point is that back in AD&D and such dark vision was called infrared vision, certain creatures could see heat signatures, so pigmentation does not really matter there. But in how 3.5 works that is an interesting evolutionary possibility. And locathah just never sat well with me, and they had always been portrayed as evil in my experience, also it does not help that I dislike aquatic adventures in general. Each to their own though.

The darkness of there skin represents the darkness in their soul. The curse laid down by Corellon for for their betrayal. In the Forgotten Realms those Drow not tainted by the blood of Wendonai were eventually redeemed and became The Dark Elves again their skin instantly shifting from ebony to brown and their hair turned black.

So it never had anything to do with evolution... ever.

[Regissoma]

I don't know if this is possible, but the thought of an Ocean giant with the half clay golem template scares me. A creature immune to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage with magic immunities :smalleek:.

[Jeff the Green]

So, genetic diversity/mutation rate of skin melanin is nil, but genetic diversity/mutation rate of hair melanin after the same period was, briefly, more than enough to switch from "dark" to "light" before locking on "light" permanently … riiiiiight.

Plus, you know, even if the above were the case (idunno, something key to skin health being strangely linked to eumelanin production; there are weirder kludges that evolution's come up with, like prostates), the drow should be exceptionally subject to selective pressures. In a society like the drow, where interscapular perforation is a leading cause of death before reaching reproductive age, you'd expect every trait that might give you a benefit to sneaking and political chicanery to be under high selective pressure.

Actually, the bigger issue for evolutionary explanations is the fact that, given elven generation times, there's no way there's been enough time for such radical decoupling of hair and skin pigmentation to occur.

[Averis Vol]

As both player and DM, I personally refuse to use elves or any of their subraces as written. Elves only really make sense to me when depicted as fey. Trolls fall in the same boat.

Yea, can't blame you. I rewrote elves to be aliens from the moon who grow from spores, sucking in nutrients that alter their DNA, thats why the different subspecies exist.

As for trolls, they became a race of alcoholics who live with dwarves and help in their mines. They drink upwards on 20 gallons of mushroom ale a day, and due to their regeneration, their livers and other internals always just grow back. In the mines the just eat the excess stone that the dwarves leave behind in their mines. Again, thanks to regeneration, they just repair any damage inside, and they have something like a gizzard that they use to sift out and regurgitate any gems that were held inside.

I'm really happy with them now. They used to basically fit the same role as ogres, but ogres were more player friendly, so they got cut the cut into a sort of L/N giantkin/fey race.

As for monsters I refuse to use against my players: My group doesn't play very high OP games, so I don't play things with a huge amount of potential like aboleths (and their aboleth mage cousins) or other creatures that theoretically can make amazing encounters, but are just not fun for me as a DM when I have to play them as glorified beat sticks.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Actually, the bigger issue for evolutionary explanations is the fact that, given elven generation times, there's no way there's been enough time for such radical decoupling of hair and skin pigmentation to occur.

Good thing the drow's ebony black skin and stark white hair has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with divine transformation.

[Yogibear41]

Carrion Crawlers can be scary when its only you a 1st level monk, with your back up 1st level bard to save you. Where it becomes an if you get hit and fail your fort save you die situation.

Not to mention there is another monsters in the next room, who is wounded and hiding but not dead. (luckily he is to big to fit through the door)

[HighWater]

Good thing the drow's ebony black skin and stark white hair has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with divine transformation.

The coupling of the colour black with evil and white with good is an... unfortunate one in a real world where a large variety of dark and light skins exists. It is not, however, necessarely linked to ethnocentrism, or racism. Darkness is a lack of light, and light is the lifebringer. The daylight period is also the part of the day where humans shine, as opposed to the night, where our night-vision just really isn't that awesome. Basically, Darkness Bad, Light Good.

In a fantasy-world where truely evil races can exist, the metaphore of darkness being directly linked to evilness is so obvious, that it can hardly be called a surprise that an evil race of formerly goody-two-shoe elves will physically come to represent Darkness... through pitchblack skin.
Unfortunate connotations? Hells yeah! Does it have to be racism? No, not necessarely.

It is however not their skincolour that makes the Drow evil, it's their behavior: any individual Drow that turns good retains his/her skin colour (and al the prejudice) while abandoning the evil actions. The before mentioned return to Dark Elves is not consistent with this. Although any mythology rarely is, let alone an invented one.

Personally, I avoid interpreting any race as "always evil", because I don't like the concept. This includes Drow, who have a brutal, cutthroat society, but are not evil from birth. Stories of converting from evil to good (or the other way around) are more interesting, and if I want my players to always assume attack-positions against a particular race (because having to determine intentions and alignment EVERY time gets exhausting and has serious combat repercussions), it's because they only encounter invading parties. Not because that particular race is "evil from birth".

So what I'm saying is: I can see the racism-objection to Drow. I don't think racism was the intent though.
I find the sexism-objection to be weaker, the matriarchal society of the Drow seems to be more a reaction against the spurious claim that a society ruled by women would be an inherently more peaceful society than one ruled by men. It's basically a reaction against a sexism, that can now be mistaken for another sexism. The game calls out some races as patriarchal, others as matriarchal, yet others as emancipated and leaves the status of the rest unmentioned (I'd assume emancipated, when it's not mentioned), it doesn't seem to favor one particular type as "good" or "evil" over others.

[nedz]

Bodak — Save or Die is just boring. If it fails then it does nothing, if it works then it takes a player out of the game. Also the flavour is bland.
Doppelganger — overused trick. Now it is a good trick, but I've seen it.
Vampire — overused cliché.

[Vortenger]

I'd like to submit That Damn Crab (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fw/20040221a) and the Bluespawn Dragonslayer (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060704a&page=4) as two options I wish never to see in CR appropriate circumstances ever again.

[ArqArturo]

No one suspects that Ropers can be devious schemers (they hold a grudge like none other).

Also, from PF, Here's an interesting thing from the Flail Snail (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/bestiary3/flailSnail.html#_flail-snail):

Flail snails are intelligent gastropods that subsist on fungus, mold, and vermin, though they may attack larger creatures in self-defense. Known for their magic-warping shells and club-like tentacles, flail snails roam slowly through subterranean caverns writing great epics in their slime trails.

Sooo... Flail Snail Bard, anyone?.

[Yawgmoth]

I would never run a ... Drowned against an equivalent CR party.

The Drowneds drowning aura ability is frankly ridiculous. It forces a constitution check, not a fortitude save, every round against everyone in the aura(30ft). Every round the DC increases by one, and if you fail you start drowning immediately, making you fall unconscious. It's also a 20 HD undead with 150 hp. And is CR 8. I remember doing this one time. Two Drowned versus a party of three lv9 PCs. That was a near-TPK simply because there wasn't anything to nuke undead and the roll to avoid drowning gets really brutal really fast.

[Slipperychicken]

Flail snails are intelligent gastropods that subsist on fungus, mold, and vermin, though they may attack larger creatures in self-defense. Known for their magic-warping shells and club-like tentacles, flail snails roam slowly through subterranean caverns writing great epics in their slime trails.

Sooo... Flail Snail Bard, anyone?.

How does a creature with Int 5 and no ranks in Craft(writing) manage to write a "great epic"?

[Sith_Happens]

How does a creature with Int 5 and no ranks in Craft(writing) manage to write a "great epic"?

Very slowly.

[Jeff the Green]

How does a creature with Int 5 and no ranks in Craft(writing) manage to write a "great epic"?

Maybe they're mollusk Henry Dargers and "great" in this case means "large".

[nedz]

So, what would a Flail Snail Barbarian's Slime Trail say ?

[Jeff the Green]

Well, clearly, lone among the flail snails, the barbarian's says nothing since they're illiterate. They're probably more like Nazca Lines and Hill Figures.

[Slipperychicken]

Well, clearly, lone among the flail snails, the barbarian's says nothing since they're illiterate. They're probably more like Nazca Lines and Hill Figures.

They would get to write it twice as quickly, though, because of the +10 land speed.

[atemu1234]

So, genetic diversity/mutation rate of skin melanin is nil, but genetic diversity/mutation rate of hair melanin after the same period was, briefly, more than enough to switch from "dark" to "light" before locking on "light" permanently … riiiiiight.

That all depends. If the light skin was eliminated from the gene pool while the lighter colored hairs were not completely removed, it's possible. It's like asking why blondes exist. It was a recessive gene that either mutated to be dominant or it quite simply became so widespread in the population due to its popularity that it became nigh universal. Also, they don't all have white or platinum hair.

[Icewraith]

Well, if you're looking for an "opposite" curse that still makes the Drow frightening for story purposes, you can't do a whole lot better than black when your races are traditionally on the fair-skinned and fragile side. Plaid would be more effective, but nobody would ever take them seriously, and they need to present a credible threat. If Corellon had really put some thought into it he would have cursed all the drow with alternating red and white bands that form bullseyes over all their vital organs, foot-long pinnochio-style noses, skin that blisters at the slightest touch, and impaired hearing and vision.

For me, creatures I will not use?

I'm in the anti save-or-suck-toting-low-CR-monsters camp. There's no point throwing them at a party, it's either a cakewalk or someone gets screwed by their dice, neither of which is a good outcome.

[ArqArturo]

They would get to write it twice as quickly, though, because of the +10 land speed.

But, just like a doctor's handwritting, their stories are ill-understood, and they translate to 'Grogg kill drow today, Grogg happy. Grogg sleepy, Grogg eat too much glowing fungus'.

[nedz]

Surely:
To crush your mushrooms, see them shriven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their spores.

[Necroticplague]

Or the translation of their slime trails is actually epic autobiographies listing every single detail of their life. So a barbarian's trail will simply have "Grogg waz here on tuesday, may 15 at 3:10" a whole lot.


Now I want to make a character with the proper language to read these messages.

[Slipperychicken]

Surely:
To crush your mushrooms, see them shriven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their spores.

Conan the Gastropod?

[Jeff the Green]

Surely:
To crush your mushrooms, see them shriven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their spores.

Who takes mushrooms to confessional? Do I really want to know?

[Sir Chuckles]

Anything from "Bastards and Bloodlines".
I admit, some of the races there are pretty alright.

But Elf/Giant Eagle is the first thing on the list in that book. And Gnome/Umber Hulk should not be a thing.

[TuggyNE]

That all depends. If the light skin was eliminated from the gene pool while the lighter colored hairs were not completely removed, it's possible.

But … how, and why would it then reverse? That's just not genetically very plausible; it pretty much requires either a) lots of selective breeding or b) absurdly-low-order random chance. Explaining observed character traits with "well, if random chance had gone with the 99.9% option, clearly it wouldn't look this way" is not falsifiable, but is also not a very good explanation.


It's like asking why blondes exist.

Does blondness have some extreme negative fitness effect that I'm unaware of?

[nedz]

Who takes mushrooms to confessional? Do I really want to know?

Hey, He's Illiterate.

[Jeff the Green]

Does blondness have some extreme negative fitness effect that I'm unaware of?

Well, yeah, it's associated with a 10 point drop in IQ.

Actually, I'm pretty sure he's talking about that really stupid myth that blondes are going extinct because blondeness is recessive.

[Invader]

I stay away from any creatures that use level drain abilities. I never liked the level drain mechanic and when I DM there's a gentleman's agreement that neither I or the players use abilities or spells that cause level drain for the sake of keeping things slightly simpler.

[atemu1234]

Does blondness have some extreme negative fitness effect that I'm unaware of?

Apart from completely lacking camouflage?

[TuggyNE]

Apart from completely lacking camouflage?

I said extreme. Blond lack of camouflage is nowhere near as bad as the hypothetical drow case, partly because it's not so blatantly out-of-place anywhere as white hair is underground, and partly because blond hair in e.g. dry grass is actually pretty decent camouflage.

[VoxRationis]

I said extreme. Blond lack of camouflage is nowhere near as bad as the hypothetical drow case, partly because it's not so blatantly out-of-place anywhere as white hair is underground, and partly because blond hair in e.g. dry grass is actually pretty decent camouflage.

Too bad blonde hair is rarely associated with places featuring head-high dry grass.
This argument has grown a bit tangential to the point of the thread, though. I vote that we cease it. In that light, I would like to include the ettercap. Lacking the elegant menace of a giant spider and the full intelligence, social capability, and tool-using capabilities of a human, it is outclassed in every way (including place in the alphabetically-ordered Monster Manual) by the aranea.

[atemu1234]

And also, you didn't answer the point that NOT ALL OF THE DROW HAVE WHITE HAIR.

[Sir Chuckles]

And also, you didn't answer the point that NOT ALL OF THE DROW HAVE WHITE HAIR.

Tell that to Drizzit and most of his fans.

[lunar2]

Tell that to Drizzit and most of his fans.

well, to be fair, that's because all the major drow characters Salvatore wrote did have white hair. except for Jarlaxle, who was bald.

but i'll say one thing. as much as others hate Drizzt, that's how much i hate Jarlaxle. i had one DM with such a Jarlaxle fetish that he ended up traveling with the party in every campaign, even those set in Eberron. it was ridiculous.

[Sir Chuckles]

well, to be fair, that's because all the major drow characters Salvatore wrote did have white hair. except for Jarlaxle, who was bald.

but i'll say one thing. as much as others hate Drizzt, that's how much i hate Jarlaxle. i had one DM with such a Jarlaxle fetish that he ended up traveling with the party in every campaign, even those set in Eberron. it was ridiculous.

I'm split on the whole Drow thing.
My first major group had two Drow players in it, but neither one had ever head of Drizzit. One was Lawful Evil, but had not affiliation with actually Drow anything, and the other was played by the guy who just copied most of what the first did.

I like Drizzit and Jarlaxle, but I've never found Drow themselves to be appealing. If I want Lawful Evil, I can do it in a way that doesn't involve spiders and incest. If I want Chaotic Good, I'll stick with something closer to William Wallace.

[TuggyNE]

This argument has grown a bit tangential to the point of the thread, though.

Fair enough.

Hmm, how's about arrowhawks. They just seem bizarre. They shoot jolts of electricity? And they're immune to acid and poison? And they have four wings? What is even up with that? Oh yeah and they're just as intelligent as an average human. Because why not.

Cloakers are also kind of a stupid legacy monster. "Its claws look exactly like a clasp!" No. Just no.

[Brookshw]

Fair enough.

Hmm, how's about arrowhawks. They just seem bizarre. They shoot jolts of electricity? And they're immune to acid and poison? And they have four wings? What is even up with that? Oh yeah and they're just as intelligent as an average human. Because why not.

Cloakers are also kind of a stupid legacy monster. "Its claws look exactly like a clasp!" No. Just no.

We're on the silly brain hurty types? Did we link this (http://www.headinjurytheater.com/article73.htm) yet?

[Graypairofsocks]

Hmm, how's about arrowhawks. They just seem bizarre. They shoot jolts of electricity? And they're immune to acid and poison? And they have four wings? What is even up with that? Oh yeah and they're just as intelligent as an average human. Because why not.

They are non-humanoid outsiders, most creatures that fit that bill tend to be weird.

Also for each of the 4 elemental planes there is an outsider native to them which have some parallels with each other.

They are the Arrowhawk (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/arrowhawk.htm), Salamander (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/salamander.htm), Tojanida (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/tojanida.htm), and Xorn (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/xorn.htm).

[VariSami]

If I want Lawful Evil, I can do it in a way that doesn't involve spiders and incest.

This is nit-picking but as written, the Drow society is supposedly highly Chaotic Evil. In this sense, they are actually quite unique: while Chaotic Evil races are legion, they rarely manage to function as societies other than small tribes and the occasional hordes. The role Lolth has in this is of course quintessential because the potential of her wrath keeps the swarming little schemers from dissolving into a bloodbath.

As for the actual topic at hand... I too really dislike creatures which destroy equipment. The rust monster is, of course, the best known example. However, I have used it and probably will in the future since it is so iconic and actually quite squishy. The destrachan, on the other hand, does not have this advantage. Once another DM threw a swarm of these at our melee-oriented party (the DM had disallowed basically all magic; the strongest caster one could play was either a Warlock, a Bard or a Warmage, depending on one's perspective). Being able to destroy equipment en-masse and from a distance is simply taking it too far.