PDA

View Full Version : What kinds of special abilities make for interesting and fun monsters?



Yora
2015-06-13, 03:44 PM
I am currently working on a monster book for my homebrew setting and noticed that a lot of the creatures I have really just attack once per round to deal hit point damage. They are all very different in looks and behavior out of battle, but when fighting starts, it's hacking with swords until one side runs out of hp. There is a lot of room for improvement.

Making nasty and cool abilities is easy. But many of these are not fun for the players.
I think anything that makes any player sit out the rest of the fight is generally a bad idea unless used very sparingly. That means paralysis, panic, mind control, and of course instant death. Yes, they are cool in theory, but they are not fun for the player who gets hit by them. They are just frustrating. These are the save or dies and save or sucks.
Mind control at the very least adds a new element to the fight, in form of another enemy which the players don't want to hurt, instead of just making someone sit and do nothing.

Poison can be fun, if it's of the type that gets worse over time. Then the players have an incentive to get the fight finished quickly and then treat the poison.

Something I also don't really care to bother with anymore is anything that adds very small modifiers to the target. -1 to attack is somewhat relevant as most players make attack rolls most round, by -1 to resist fear spells is just annoying bookkeeping. If something provides a bonus or penalty to rolls, it should be significant. At least 20% greater or lower chance to do something, otherwise it isn't worth bothering with.

Something that can be quite a game changer without being overwhelmingly dangerous are ranged attacks. If an enemy can deal small amounts of damage while staying out of reach from any counterattacks, then the players have to find a way to get out of the danger zone or get the enemy into range of their own weapons. That is fun, provided it doesn't deal so much damage that the players don't really have much time to grasp their situation and come up with a plan. (Looking at various dragon breaths here.)

Flying monster can be fun. They can also be extremely unfun. If an enemy deals lots of damage from an almost unreachable position, and can keep going forever, it's just unfair. And characters specialized in close combat can't really do much at all. I like flight the most for making surprise attacks and quick escapes. That is, using the flight to start and end a fight, but not for the fighting itself. Teleportation does the same job. Preventing the enemy from making surprise attacks and escaping when defeated makes the players think about alternative approaches than dealing hit point damage. Which usually is fun.

A good point made by The Angry GM (among others) was that "boss monsters", who are intended to fight a group of PCs all by themselves, need to be able to make more attacks per round than a PC. Otherwise they will simply be overwhelmed by plain numbers. If they have the regular number of attacks but deal more damage, you have high risk of PCs getting instant killed by an unlucky damage roll. And instant death is never fun.

Related to that, I think that relative damage reduction is better than absolute damage reduction. I think D&D 3.0 had creatures that suffered full damage when hit by a +3 weapon, but had all damage reduced by 30 points from +2 weapons and lower. Which is not fun. It's more fun to say "normal weapons deal half damage" and "magic weapons deal full damage". Having a magic weapon against that monster is still really cool, as it deals double damage, but not having it doesn't mean it's completely immune. If it's all or nothing, there should be a good reason. Like an incorporeal creature that just doesn't care if you swing a bar of nonmagical steel through empty air. In such situations is both easier for players to understand what is going on and it also feels not as arbitrary, making the fact that they can not hit it less frustrating.

Any thoughts on what monster abilities could be fun, be it general like these examples, or specific special abilities?

JNAProductions
2015-06-13, 04:11 PM
Battlefield changers. Monsters that can modify the terrain, making some parts impassable or dangerous, opening pits, stuff like that.

Though this can also be accomplished by using portcullises or similar.

Yora
2015-06-13, 04:25 PM
Using existing features of the environment can be done by anyone. Creating new ones is indeed a very interesting and potentially very useful and flexible ability.

Another fun one that ocured to me is shapechanging. Of course, it needs to be some kind of form that helps the creature and has some advantage over its regular form. But shapechanging means that the players suddenly have to fight something with quite different abilities and change tactics on the fly. Or if they know they are going to fight a shapechanger, they can think of something to respond to the change in advance. As long as the new form doesn't have any particularly annoying abilities, the shapechanging itself doesn't seem to have much risk of being frustrating or anoying.

And if the game has decent mechanics for it, I think grappling monsters are always a lot of fun. While being held by the monster, the character is effectively out of the fight. But instead of sitting the fight out and doing nothing, the player has to do stuff to fight the character free and get back into the battle. Even if it's just a saving throw every round to break free, you can still make it more fun that a paralysis spell by describing how the character is yanked through the air by a tentacle or struggling to lift the monsters foot that is crushing him into the dirt. Same effect, but more entertaining.
And I think the best grappling attacks are those where other players have the option to get the pinned character free by aiming for a tentacle or providing a bonus to the roll to break free. It has stuff going on instead of the character just being out of the picture.

Blake Hannon
2015-06-14, 04:14 AM
This is the main reason I'm not switching to fifth edition. 5E's monsters are all so samey, especially compared to the crazy fight mechanics you could find in fourth.

Anyway, in my experience the best monsters - like the best obstacles, the best traps, and the best social challenges - are the ones that give the players more decision points, or that have a special vulnerability that the players can exploit. Here's a great example: in 4E, there's a fiend called a Misfortune Devil. The Misfortune Devil has a mental attack that you can avoid by deferring the damage to one of your friends. Whenever he hits you, you have to decide; should I take the damage myself, or screw over a teammate? That's a fun and memorable encounter. Another example that I homebrewed, and that the players loved fighting: dragonborn sorcerers who shoot ranged fire attacks, and can also surround themselves in vortexes of flame. You can prevent them from making ranged attacks by getting up close to them, but then you put yourself at risk of being lit on fire by the vortex; again, an interesting tactical decision with pros and cons to both choices.


Here's possibly the best monster design I've ever encountered. Its not from DnD, but I think there's a lot to be learned from it: the sectoid, from the 2012 remake of X-Com: Enemy Unknown. Sectoids are little gray man aliens with plasma pistols and limited psychic abilities. Their special ability lets them psionically buff each other, granting an HP and accuracy boost...however, if you kill the sectoid who's buffing his friend, both of them will die from the psychic backlash. You usually encounter the sectoids in groups of 3. One of them (the "Buffer") will move away from you, hide, and buff another. The one who gets buffed (the "Attacker") will move toward you and take point, counting on his boosted HP to protect him from your reaction fire. The third sectoid (the "Guardian") will hide somewhere in between them so he can make reaction shots (X-Com's version of Opportunity Attacks) at any of your men who you send forward to hit the buffer.

So, you have a few options. You can use brute force and try to bring down the psychically buffed Attacker sectoid through concentrated fire. You can send an Assault Trooper with his run-and-gun ability to try and dodge the Guardian's reaction fire and put the Buffer down at point blank range, killing two of the three sectoids instantly. You can try and get your Sniper into position where he can headshot the Guardian or Buffer from a safe distance, either ending the threat posed by the Attacker/Buffer or eliminating the Guardian so that someone else can. Or, you can have your Heavy use his once-per-mission rocket launcher to reliably put a couple of them down, but then you won't be able to use it for the next group of enemies when you might need it more. Whatever option you try, the need to try and do it in one turn, because otherwise the sectoids will switch roles; any sectoid can buff any other sectoid within range, so they can trade jobs in reaction to your soldiers' new positions.

The sectoid is a brilliantly designed enemy. Its challenging to hit the sulking Buffer, but if you kill him it feels incredibly satisfying to watch the Attacker go down as well. If you try to sneak around the Guardian's line of sight, you need to look at all the terrain elements and plot a course that gives your guy the most cover. And you also need to think one or two steps ahead, to predict which sectoid will take on which role next round if you fail. Decision points, vulnerabilities to exploit, and a dynamic fight that can change every turn. That's good enemy design.

Yora
2015-06-14, 04:26 AM
That's a very good point. One that I hadn't thought about before. Enemies thate are supposed to be fought in groups should fight as groups. Negating their group tactics sounds indeed like a lot of fun added to a fight.

Blake Hannon
2015-06-14, 05:09 AM
That's a very good point. One that I hadn't thought about before. Enemies thate are supposed to be fought in groups should fight as groups. Negating their group tactics sounds indeed like a lot of fun added to a fight.

Yes. Some other examples, from DnD:

Wolves in most editions. They gain a bonus to attack if they gang up on a single PC. They usually have a trip attack as well. They try to surround someone, knock him down, and then gang up on him while he's prone and vulnerable. To fight them, you need to either cluster together back-to-back, or be mobile enough to outflank them and beat the wolves at their own game. I homebrewed them to get the trip attack ONLY when they're flanking, and to shift as a free action before or after attacking. This makes the boring "stand in a tight group back to back" less viable as they can still flank you on angles while avoiding opportunity attacks; instead, you need to constantly move around and keep the wolves separated from one another. "Don't let them flank you" is enough to make the fight interesting.

Archers with shortbows. Their range is short enough that the PC's close the distance with them in one or two rounds, so its a viable option. However, if you pair them with some armored dudes with longspears, the PC's need to find a way to dance around the spearmens' reach while still closing the distance with the archers. This also gives different PC classes their chance to shine. The fighter can get all up in the spearmen's business and prevent them from making opportunity attacks as the rogue slips past. The ranged attackers can lure the spearmen out of the way so that the melee party members can charge the archers, or just beat the archers at their own game. Or, a caster with control abilities can do something to restrict the spearmen's movement, or to block the arrows until the spearmen are dealt with. You should give the PC's opportunities to use their abilities to good effect, but also put a challenge in the way: you can paralyze all the spearmen with your Mass Hold Person...but first you need to trick them into clustering; you can kill an archer in one Power Attack if you get up to it...but there's a spearman in your way. Etc. Let the PC's be badass, but make them earn the opportunities to do so.

One of the best successes I had was a bunch of kobolds with a pet firedrake and a barrel of oil to dip their arrows in behind a barricade. PC's who stood against the barricade and attacked over it got breath weapon'd by the drake, who stood just out of reach behind the wall. Those who got over the barricade could wreak havoc on the fragile kobolds, but getting over it is a challenge, and even then you have to avoid the powerful firedrake's melee attacks. So, the party wizard used a blast spell to destroy a section of barricade, the paladin and warlord ran through it and flanked the drake to pin it down, and the rogue ran past them and went dicing kobolds. The next round, the kobolds retreated and set the barrel of flammable oil on fire as they ran; they left the fire-immune drake behind them. The PC's then had one round to get out of the blast radius of the barrels before the wood burned through. Running back the way they came was easy, but it lets the escaping kobolds get a long head start. Running forward after them means you'll have to run past the drake. In the end, the warlord and pally decided to tank the explosions to keep the drake pinned down, while the rest of the party chased the kobolds. They took some heavy damage, but it earned the party a victory.

Yora
2015-07-05, 04:41 AM
I've been going through some of my monster books and favorite movies and videogames to make a list of all the monsters I consider to have become hugely popular with fans of the games, to see if there are any kinds of patterns that might indicate what made them so successful while most other fantasy monsters are pretty forgetable.

And turns out, there are!
I found three main groups of monsters that tend to get very popular and have a lot of fans:
Cold, cruel, and calculated: Here you got many of the most well known success stories of monster design: Drow, mind flayers, githyanki, lichs, yuan-ti, rakshasa, ogre mages, aboleths, tieflings, quori, kraken, draugr, dremora, and geth. This archetype seems terribly overdone and cliched, but it still works! People love cool badasses.
Unstopable rampage: These creatures are things that are simply very strong in combat, often because of a special ability or because they are just very big and powerful. Trolls, beholders, umber hulks, carrion crawlers, remorhazes, revenants (Dragon Age), slaads, shoggoths, aliens, and predators all work by this principle. They either are very hard to kill or have attacks that are almost impossible to defend against. Often both.
Laughable weaklings: Kobolds, goblins, bullywugs, and murlocs. They are at the very bottom of the ladder and individually absolutely hopeless and no real threat to anyone. To lots of people, there's something highly endearing about them.

Except for the last group, almost all really cool monsters that become popular share the defining trait that they are highly competent at what they do and generally pretty strong in game terms. Those that aren't very strong individually tend to appear in well organized groups that are just as dangerous.
And in addition to that, they all have an in-universe reputation of being extremely deadly. Noneplayer characters are always freaked out by them, and in turn players also tend to get really excited about fighting them. I believe it's not so much the stats of a monster that make it cool and famous, but the anticipation players have for them. If you just drop any of these creatures in front of a group of players who have no idea what they are, I think they are probably not going to be nearly as cool as exciting.

With D&D monsters, it's very easy to trace their development back all the way to their first appearance, and many of the most famous ones were not written for monster books but for adventures, in which they played a significant role. As a result, they were all created with a good deal of lore already baked into them.
And I think that might be the key for successful monster design in RPGs. Don't make just a creature, construct stories around them and weave them into the larger world. Monsters from movies and books do that automatically because of the way each medium works. But most monsters in RPG books that I've seen are "Here is what it looks like, and here are it's abilities". That almost never leads to a really memorable monster, especially when it's not extremely powerful.

The_Tentacle
2015-07-05, 05:47 AM
Just one thing to add to this thread: I really like the way our DM plays out mind control, domination, and suggestion. With suggestion, obviously he just gives the player in question a (surprise) suggestion and trust them to roleplay it out. With domination and mind control, however, he will often do a similar thing. Sometimes its as simple as "You are now on the wizard's side, what do you want to do to your former teammates?" Sometimes he relates that our character feels a compulsion to do something a little general, but we get to decide how they accomplish that, and only rarely does he actively take over and issue a command, usually when whatever is dominating us needs to get something specific done, and this is just usually for no more than a round. I like this method because it adds fun RP aspects. It probably wouldn't work for all groups, but if your players can be trusted to play along, it could be very fun.

Eldan
2015-07-05, 05:56 AM
Mind control can be fun with the right players. Don't take Thema out with "I control you now." Give Thema something Newto do. Illusions work that way too.

-You love tthis Monster like your own mother and don't understand why your friends are fighting. Stop this senseless violence!

NichG
2015-07-05, 10:16 AM
This isn't organized, but here are various ideas on monster design:

- A combat must eventually end; damage is for the most part just a timer which pushes combat towards its end. Defenses extend a fight, stronger attacks shorten it.
-- Burst/focus damage has an extra aspect on top of that of risk, but only if it is capable of one-shotting a character if mis-handled (which could be conditional, e.g. 'this attack can one-shot a PC who is already wounded but who does not withdraw', etc). This applies only when directed at the PCs, because monsters are fundamentally expendable.

- Abilities which fail to take effect over the lifespan of the monster may as well have not existed. As such, its best to design save-negates abilities as add-ons to normal attacks (to make the attack scarier) or to auras or area effects which will likely hit many targets over the course of the fight. On the other hand, abilities which consume an action should usually not be negated on a save (especially single-target abilities), but should have some sort of reduced but still noticeable effect on a successful save. The exception might be if the creature is intended to be encountered in large numbers.

- An ability is only interesting if it factors into a PC's decision-making somehow.
-- Abilities which create secondary tactical objectives are good mix-ins for larger encounters. For example, a monster that provides a buff to its allies that make them difficult to deal with; a monster which interferes with certain PC abilities on the field as long as it remains alive; a monster which summons, or accumulates power over time, so that the timing of taking it out is important; etc.

- Framing things as aggregations of small effects tends to de-emphasize them to the players compared to the actual influence. Framing things as singular definitive effects tends to over-emphasize them to the players compared to the actual influence.
-- For example, an ability that outright and openly negates one hit of the user's choice over the course of the fight will be more punchy and noticeable compared to an ability that grants a small bonus to defenses which effectively negates several hits over the course of the fight.
-- This can be used to imply 'sneaky' or 'tricksy' monsters where they have weak aggregation-based effects that build up over the course of an adventure until they become very open and direct abilities in the later encounters. For example, a weak monster which gains +1 to hit for the remainder of the fight every time one of its kind is killed in that fight. When you fight three of them, its no big deal. When you fight 30 of them...
--- Corollary: Expect the PCs to end up allowing such things to get out of control before noticing that they are in trouble, and plan ahead for that.

- One branch of interesting abilities is ones which give their target an explicit choice. For example 'you can attack me this round, but if you do so then you will be stunned for a round afterwards'. Because a choice can always be made to avoid the negative in exchange for limited scope of action, these kinds of effects are a good way to implement mind-control effects without actually removing the player's agency.
-- Similarly, depending on the choice given, these kinds of abilities can be reasonable candidates for no-save type effects without being overwhelming.

- 'Consequence' type abilities are good in a darker/grittier game. That is, abilities which create some form of difficult-to-remove long-term debilitation. Ability drain, suppression or loss of spells, even permanent hitpoint, stat, or experience drain. Even if these are numerically quite weak, they tend to make a given creature very scary, especially in an extended sequence with little chance for recovery. Design-wise, these are best used in circumstances where avoiding exposure via smart choices is possible, otherwise they tend to be quite unfair.

- Terrain-based things are difficult to make interesting if your game system doesn't intrinsically encourage movement, because the lines of battle tend to get locked down (or ranged characters plink away without worrying about movement)
-- One way to make terrain more interesting is forced movement abilities or things which are very powerful but which telegraph their AoE a round in advance.
-- At a deeper level, if your system has a lot of movement-based buffs for the PCs, that can help keep terrain relevant.
-- If moving, 'shooting' (casting, whatever), and moving back into cover is possible for ranged combat in your system, that can also help keep terrain relevant.

- Making explicit, standardized environmental counters for certain broad swathes of abilities gives an interesting tactical feel
-- For example, if any kind of ground-level water or thin haze/smoke negates/reduces any kind of invisibility including things like Displacement/Mirror Image/etc
-- However, players will tend to forget about these or not plan ahead to be able to produce them, so don't expect them to see much use until you have enemies use them against the PCs a few times first

falloutimperial
2015-07-05, 10:41 AM
One advantage that NPC humanoids can have over a party of adventurers is their willingness to specialize and build to compliment other NPCs. For instance, the guards of one city are trained in pairs-- one with a polearm and another with a tower shield. They also often learn an obscure language to coordinate in battle without being overheard. NPCs also often have the home field advantage, and can prepare around that. In that case, the benefit is in selecting abilities that compliment their surroundings, even mundane ones.

An ability can be used to reinforce the idea of a dynamic world by having some relationship to another ability. A band of cut-throats use molotov cocktails and wear fire-resistant clothing. Often, the best abilities are not innate but merely the result of preparation and mundane methods. This might encourage players to be similarly ingenious.

dream
2015-07-05, 11:06 AM
Great thread as usual, Yora. You know your stuff!

You mentioned shapeshifting, which was my first choice when I saw the thread banner: IME, few things are as rewarding for a party than when they finally catch a shapeshifter that's been stalking/harassing/attacking them and putting it down. Shifters can fit any of the 3 groups you noted above, but I usually follow the "cold & calculating predator" trope. One well-played Doppleganger can carry several sessions of enjoyment for the group leading to a final climactic finish.

Also, invisibility. It's a simple yet powerful ability that can cause all sorts of problems for the party. A few others;

Mind-Reading
Regeneration
Huge or tiny size
Exceptional speed/Teleportation
Possession (specialized Mind Control)


There's some oustanding ideas here that I'm stealing. Thanks folks!

Kami2awa
2015-07-05, 11:36 AM
Unusual movement changes things a lot too:

- flight
- ability to jump long distances
- teleportation
- spider climbing
- incorporeality

A lot of this is terrain-specific (flying enemies are not at a huge advantage in a low-ceilinged room, for instance).

Red Fel
2015-07-05, 11:43 AM
Here's one that forces the players to be just a bit smarter. It's an awesome power that I call listening.

I can't tell you how many times I've been at a table where players start barking tactics at each other. Which is awesome, when it works, let me tell you. Sometimes they argue about it, sometimes they all jump into formation. Sometimes I have to point out, however, that they're talking an awful lot for people who are engaged in combat. And then I hear it.

"Talking is a free action."

Which makes sense. They didn't arrange these tactics in advance. They're not talking out of character. They're barking instructions and maneuvers in character.

And that means my monsters can overhear them. What's that? Tell the Rogue-who-turns-invisible to sneak around behind the Dragon? Time to thrash the tail a bit. Tell the two swordsmen to flank the Kobolds? The Kobolds pull back to a position that prevents flanking. I like my monsters smart enough to listen to what their enemies discuss, and plan around that.

Of course, the door swings both ways. Smart players may come up with tactic names. ("Blue! Seven! On the nozzle!") The monster can't defend against an attack it doesn't understand. (Bonus points for humorous after-encounter dialogue. "I thought Blue Seven meant attack the underbelly with a knife!" "No, that's Red Five. Blue Seven is the back of the head with a club. Do you even read the memos?") Or, they may come up with a signal that says "Don't do what I just told you to do, but make him think that you will." (I may need a Bluff check for that, but I'll totally allow it.) Monsters who are smart enough to listen can also be fooled, and may prepare for an attack which will never come, while leaving themselves open otherwise.

AinSoph
2015-07-05, 01:27 PM
If you want weird and interesting, take a peek at some of the Cypher System bestiaries, specifically Numenera's. It likes to add an extra layer of narrative and non-combat stuff to really make creature design pop. Examples include the "Chance Moth" that can prompt a roll on a table for range of random outcomes (not unlike Wild Magic in DnD), the "Pygmy Hapax" that kills its target by draining its colour, the "Nalurus" whose face, when you look at it, infects you with a terrible, transformative disease.

Not going to go into detail obviously. Monte Cook did great work on that game and I'd rather avoid cheating him.

Glimbur
2015-07-05, 07:30 PM
You can also throw in summoners. You have to balance the minions so that the PC's don't get buried; either a minion can be killed with just an action or two from the PC's or one only spawns every couple of rounds. But it's a way to put the fight on a timer, sort of, and make things interesting.

neonchameleon
2015-07-05, 07:53 PM
Ones you can interact with and ones that don't no-sell the PCs attacks.

For example a classic fire elemental is immune to fire. All this means is that you don't use fire based attacks against them. Boring. But if a fire elemental takes damage from magical fire (on the same principle that makes a flesh golem take damage from fists or an earth elemental take bludgeoning damage) but also burns hotter when it's hit by a fire attack so its aura increases and does more damage that's an interesting effect - and something the PCs mgiht eventually use. Possibly to chain react the fire elementals.

Don't use effects on PCs that make them sit out of the fight. (Stunned, paralysed, petrified). Instead use creeping poisons and threatened consequences. That make them work hard. "This gets worse next time".

Give the PCs a choice. Jumping straight to a critical fumble table on a natural 1 can get silly and annoying. But letting the PCs choose how much of a risk to take by offering them a reroll on a natural 1 with a miss on the reroll being a fumble works brilliantly.

The way to work charm spells is to tell the PC that they are charmed - how they respond is entirely up to them.

Yora
2015-07-06, 04:08 AM
I also think it's wortthwhile to give some thought to how the creature affects its environment beyond actual combat encounters. The lair of a big monster or a group of monstrs should be more than an empty castle or empty cave with just the monster in one room. A basilisk or medusa would have plenty of broken statues in its lair and outside the main entrance. In some monster books basilisks can digest petrified flesh, and I think there was at least one in which you could extract a substance from a dead one which can reverse the petrification. Or some undead creature that makes all the plants near its lair die or grow in highly warped and twisted ways. While that is completely irrelevant during a fight, it makes the creature a lot more interesting.

NRSASD
2015-07-06, 10:59 AM
I agree completely with that. Having more description than just the stats of the monster is almost critical from my point of view. One of the reasons I adore the 2nd edition AD&D monstrous manual is that it spends about 50% of the page discussing its organization, its effects on the environment surrounding, why adventurers would want to hunt or avoid it, etc. Not only are they good plot hooks built into the monster description, but they also serve as a great starting point for the DM when setting up the encounter. If a banshee warps and corrupts all the vegetation nearby, maybe the only way into the banshee lair is a dense bramble thicket.

One style of monster I'm playing around with at the moment is rather neat, because it charms lots of NPC guards to attack the party. Since the PCs don't like to kill innocents, this forces them to get creative to avoid unnecessary deaths. The other thing it can do is use magic in convention-defying ways, but only immediately after it injures someone. It's been a lot of fun so far because the PCs have designed different tactics to take the monster on.

MrStabby
2015-07-06, 11:43 AM
I think that there is a lot of opportunity for simple abilities to work well. I have been playing 5th edition a lot recently and i really like the Zombie Mechanic there. When it would die it can save against it, modified by amount of damage and with radiant damage avoiding it. The impact this has on target selection and prioritisation in complex encounters is, to my mind, just about right.

I also like spiders - a combination of web, mobility and poison coupled with ambush tactics can make an encounter much more interesting than raw stats alone.

Frozen_Feet
2015-07-06, 12:04 PM
This thread is mostly asking and answering the question "what can the monster do to the players' characters?" It should also ask questions like "what can the players' characters do with it if they catch it?" and "how can this creature be found and caught?"

Classic example: Griffon eggs can be hatched to rear loyal, flying steeds. So while an adult griffon might only claw/claw/bite or fly-by attack, many other aspects of it like where it nests become interesting if there's a worthwhile prize to be gained via such knowledge.

Fire over the Velvet Horizon has many good monsters, especially in this regard. Check out the pickchicken, parroguana and blathering bird for examples.

LibraryOgre
2015-07-06, 03:34 PM
A short range teleport for your opponents.

Get too close, and the monster teleports you a short distance away. Not "out of the fight" range, but "no longer flanking" or "to the next room"... someplace where they can get back into the fight, but are no longer immediately threatening.

Cluedrew
2015-07-06, 09:16 PM
An ability other monsters don't have.

If it is unusual it is more interesting, if everyone has it then it becomes a staple. Especially if there is just one or two that are really different from their fellows they will stand out. What makes them different can be secondary some times.

Vitruviansquid
2015-07-06, 09:56 PM
Wait wait wait... hold on...

What system is this in?

Excession
2015-07-07, 12:45 AM
One 4e monster that I thought had a nice trick was, the Skull Lord (MM1p236). It's a skeletal mage with three heads, with each head being able to attack as a minor action. That means three attacks per round if it doesn't need to move. When you reduce it to zero hit points, it doesn't die, it just loses a head and resets its hit points to full. You have to kill it three times to beat it, but it gets progressively weaker as it loses heads.

At the start of combat it wants to stand still and rain down destruction using all three attacks. Once it loses the first head it can only attack twice, but it has a spare action to move, so now it's going to move to cover and snipe. Two heads down? Probably just trying to run at this point, but it can double move and still attack once to stop the PCs following.

Coming back later with replacement heads isn't explicitly listed as a power, but would seem sensible. Using the heads of known NPCs would be the evil-DM option.

This is a monster that gets to break the rules, and one whose tactics change over the course of the fight. It also rewards the players for changing their own tactics, as the multiple minor action attacks make it especially weak to the Dazed condition. I think those are all good things. Also, two (or more) heads is always better than one.


Another thing I've done to make monsters interesting was to massively change their appearance. I used the stats of a small dragon as an animated table once. The breath weapon was the cutlery drawer; it counted as silvered. For the chairs I used a zombie minion with a grab attack, which was unpleasant for PCs who were already seated. The players don't know they're fighting dragon and some zombie minion stat blocks, they're just trying to survive dinner.


Wait wait wait... hold on...

What system is this in?

We're pretty much going for "whatever edition you think had interesting and fun monsters" I think.

Vitruviansquid
2015-07-07, 01:56 AM
What's interesting is a function of the mechanics present.

A monster's schtick that's going to be interesting to fight in 3.5 is going to be different from a schtick that's interesting to fight in 4e, or even a non-DnD game.

Anyways, here's some monsters that may or may not be interesting, depending on your system:

Golems built as enchanted chess pieces of rooks, knights, bishops, and queens (substitute the names of pieces if you want your players to have to figure out what does what). The golems have movement and attack rules inspired by chess. Knights hit very hard, but only by jumping into enemies (who are then shifted out of the square). Rooks go very fast, but only in 4 straight directions, and will push enemies that they hit. Bishops are ranged, but can only shoot in 4 diagonal directions. The queen is some kind of boss with all the other golems' powers and action points.

Reltzik
2015-07-07, 01:31 PM
The most engaging kind of abilities are the kinds that the players and characters think about (and worry about) even when the monster ISN'T there.

If you've ever played Half Life 2 and its episodic sequels, think of the black headcrabs. They're stealthy. They slink about. They're easy to overlook. They've got a distinctive hiss/rattle sound they make JUST before they attack, which is enough to let you know they're nearby and about to attack but often not enough to pinpoint them. And they're f***ing poisonous. Even if they do little in the way of permanent damage, that poison creates a momentary window of extreme vulnerability and panic as your health drops (temporarily) to almost nothing.

That poison makes players think about them ALL THE DAMN TIME. Every apparently empty room they go into, every shadowy nook they pass by, they're thinking, "are there more of those poisonous buggers in here waiting to ambush me?" Even if (and especially since) the answer to that question is "no" at least 90% of the time.

So what kind of abilities will make your players remember and think about monsters after they're "off-screen"?

Look at Roy with Xykon. The main ability he's preoccupied with is Xykon's ability to regenerate from the phylactery. It's what MOST cued-in players worry about with liches... how to control and/or destroy their phylactery. With dopplegangers, it's their ability to take other forms. With ghosts, it's the fact they can be frigging ANYWHERE and just be invisible. (Also, possession.) With sprites, it's their pranks. (Okay, that's not a special ability, but it's what people remember.) With skunks, it's their spray.

Shinizak
2015-07-07, 03:25 PM
Honestly it's not really about the abilities of the monsters so much as it is the mentality of the GM. A monster with the greatest most intriguing ability set can fall completely flat if a GM only knows how to "roll to hit, roll to damage" tactics. Instead you really should have a line describing individual tactics each monster works best with &/or is designed for. Then having a section in the book somewhere detailing battle tactics. The Zulu bull horn formation and the tactics used by Carthage during the Punic wars are an interesting way to spice up combat.

Edit: also look at how Nobunaga handled the daunting task of unifying warring japan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDsdkoln59A

FabulousFizban
2015-07-07, 05:38 PM
incorporeal swarms with DR!

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

(I did actually base an adventure off Lovecraft's "The Rats in the Walls" once. I used an incorporeal rat swarm. Books were thrown, tables tossed, the night ended poorly. Don't use incorporeal swarms unless you hate everything and especially your players.)

Yora
2015-07-09, 05:14 AM
This is an interesting read on the subject. (http://inplacesdeep.blogspot.de/2013/04/monsters-in-your-campaign-x-com-method.html)

noob
2015-07-09, 08:34 AM
Splitting when hurt and regenerating very fast is pretty funny.(only if you have enough firepower)

Frozen_Feet
2015-07-09, 10:21 AM
This is an interesting read on the subject. (http://inplacesdeep.blogspot.de/2013/04/monsters-in-your-campaign-x-com-method.html)

There's a similar principle in horror writing, a type of rule of three: in first encounter, the protagonists should only catch glimpses of the monster and it should appear terrifying and inscrutable. In the second encounter, the monster should appear in its full terror and drive the protagonists into fleeing. Third time, the protagonists should be able to overcome the monster via exploiting its weakness, or fail spectacularly while trying.

Or something like that.

As a big fan of Lamentations of the Flame Princess, I like to keep my monsters proper as unpredictable, unique and bizarre. But I understand the value of predictability and to that end advocate generous use of ordinary wildlife and human threats. Parasitic wasps, malaria mosquitos, venomous snakes, angry bears, they're part of the natural world and hence not "monsters", but they're terrifying in their own right and knowing what they are and that they are present arguably heightens the tension. Wolves are another classic animal which can appear properly terrifying to small bands of travellers in the wild. And, to paraphrase Gygax, "men are the worst monsters".

Yora
2015-07-09, 02:13 PM
I refamilliarized myself with the term Gygaxian Naturalism, that has been making the rounds for a while, and I think it's something worse considering. It doesn't mean that Gygax approached his dungeon design in a way that makes any semblance of sense (much of the most incomprehensbile locations in D&D are entirely his fault), but you really have to give it to him that he put some thought on what the monsters do and how they live when they are not fighting player characters. It's the most explicit in AD&D 2nd edition, in which Gygax was not actually involved, but he was one of the early proponents of this. I am doing quite a lot of monster creation and this is something I regularly forgett to give much thought.

Many great movie monsters have it too. The Predator does not simply jump from behind a tree and kills people. He's a passionate hunter who visits other worlds in search for the most dangerous prey he can find. The Thing is not just some weird thing that comes out of the ice and starts killing people. It's...
an alien stranded on Earth that is trying to collect material from a human antarctic base to build a spaceship and get off the frozen rock while avoiding getting killed.
The Alien is a monster that appears to be a counter example. It doesn't have it's own motivations or a natural environment. We only know that someone had a whole shipload of Alien eggs that was to be transported somewhere. It's a very strong indication that the creature has a very complex and complicated nature and relationship with other creatures. Information that could be literally vital to the protagonists of the movie and their inability to access that information is what creates the horror. The monster is not random. The opposite of that really. Some highly advanced alien species had some great plans for them. The movie is dangling this mystery in front of our noses, but we have no way to get to it.

I think in some post or article I read about the subject, someone said that a monster needs to have a reason to exist beyond being fought by players. Now natural creatures, real or fictional, don't really have a reason for their existance, but they still have some pattern of ordinary life. Take a goat? In game terms, what does a goat do? Nothing! But a goat can also be described as an animal that is highly adapted to life in the mountains and to get to food in places that are inaccessible to other animals that inhabit the environment and make escapes that are way too dangerous for almost all predators to follow. They can climb almost impossibly steep and smooth rock walls and have a very hardy digestion. Give that goat a breath of fire or a poisonous bite and you could have a very interesting monster. A monster that does not just stand in a room until a party of adventurers comes by to fight it. A monster that can survive in inhospitable places and ambush the party in places that should be completely safe. It simply runs up walls to shot fireballs from its mouth and when the players are just getting close to it, it just jumps away to a different peak and keeps shoting fireballs. Or it's buddies appear from nowhere behind the party to bite them and then disappear down a vertical wall just as quickly. Already more interesting to fight in their natural environment than most RPG monsters I've seen.

dream
2015-07-09, 02:28 PM
I refamilliarized myself with the term Gygaxian Naturalism, that has been making the rounds for a while, and I think it's something worse considering. It doesn't mean that Gygax approached his dungeon design in a way that makes any semblance of sense (much of the most incomprehensbile locations in D&D are entirely his fault), but you really have to give it to him that he put some thought on what the monsters do and how they live when they are not fighting player characters. It's the most explicit in AD&D 2nd edition, in which Gygax was not actually involved, but he was one of the early proponents of this. I am doing quite a lot of monster creation and this is something I regularly forgett to give much thought.

Many great movie monsters have it too. The Predator does not simply jump from behind a tree and kills people. He's a passionate hunter who visits other worlds in search for the most dangerous prey he can find. The Thing is not just some weird thing that comes out of the ice and starts killing people. It's...
an alien stranded on Earth that is trying to collect material from a human antarctic base to build a spaceship and get off the frozen rock while avoiding getting killed.
The Alien is a monster that appears to be a counter example. It doesn't have it's own motivations or a natural environment. We only know that someone had a whole shipload of Alien eggs that was to be transported somewhere. It's a very strong indication that the creature has a very complex and complicated nature and relationship with other creatures. Information that could be literally vital to the protagonists of the movie and their inability to access that information is what creates the horror. The monster is not random. The opposite of that really. Some highly advanced alien species had some great plans for them. The movie is dangling this mystery in front of our noses, but we have no way to get to it.

I think in some post or article I read about the subject, someone said that a monster needs to have a reason to exist beyond being fought by players. Now natural creatures, real or fictional, don't really have a reason for their existance, but they still have some pattern of ordinary life. Take a goat? In game terms, what does a goat do? Nothing! But a goat can also be described as an animal that is highly adapted to life in the mountains and to get to food in places that are inaccessible to other animals that inhabit the environment and make escapes that are way too dangerous for almost all predators to follow. They can climb almost impossibly steep and smooth rock walls and have a very hardy digestion. Give that goat a breath of fire or a poisonous bite and you could have a very interesting monster. A monster that does not just stand in a room until a party of adventurers comes by to fight it. A monster that can survive in inhospitable places and ambush the party in places that should be completely safe. It simply runs up walls to shot fireballs from its mouth and when the players are just getting close to it, it just jumps away to a different peak and keeps shoting fireballs. Or it's buddies appear from nowhere behind the party to bite them and then disappear down a vertical wall just as quickly. Already more interesting to fight in their natural environment than most RPG monsters I've seen.
+10! Outstanding post.

Yora
2015-07-09, 03:04 PM
I gave it some more thought and came up with this crude draft for a monster creation checklist.

In what environment does the creature live?
Does it have a lair, nest, or something like that?
Does it add any improvements to the lair? Traps, difficult entrances, warning signs, decorations to attract mates, and so on.
Does the creature live in groups? If yes, how many?
How does it reproduce? Does it lay eggs? And does it stay with the eggs? Once the young are born, does it feed and protect them?
What does the creature eat?
How does it reach/catch its food?
How does it avoid becoming food? Is it big? Does it have dangerous attacks? Does it hide? Does it escape?
Has the creature special requirements? Like unusual environment conditions or foods.

There's probably some more good items to add to this list.

JAL_1138
2015-07-09, 03:51 PM
Of course, it depends on one's definition of fun. (http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Losing)

Feddlefew
2015-07-09, 05:57 PM
A creature in my current 5e campaign is only perceivable when you aren't looking for it. It's left a lasting impression despite being incapable of harming the PCs, and they've only heard it. For now.

NRSASD
2015-07-09, 06:18 PM
Loving where this thread is going! Three things I would add to your list:

1. If the creature lives in groups, what kind of organization does it have? This is huge because it heavily affects how the monsters function. If it's a herd, they tend to react as a group to situations (everyone fight, everyone run the same way, etc.). If it's a pack there may be distinct roles each member plays, and there will be a definitive leader who decides what the group's actions are. There are dozens of variations on this.

2a. How does the creature interact with other non-player species? Does it cooperate? Is it prey? This influences how they are likely to treat an unknown group that it encounters (like adventurers).
b. How does it interact with civilized species? Do they hunt it for its hide? Does it eat their livestock? Can it be domesticated? This provides lots of plot hooks and unexpected sources of income as it can explain why adventurers seek out/avoid this creature, and if any of its byproducts or natural processes are valuable. My favorite example of this is the Anhkeg and the soil aeration it provides.

3. Does it have an activity cycle? Predators tend to follow their prey in terms of activity cycles, with fast predators preferring the day and stealthy predators preferring the night, as a horrifically vague and broad generalization. Depending on the creature, it might have different tactics or abilities depending on when the party encounters it. This one isn't necessary, but it's something to consider.

Algeh
2015-07-11, 03:13 AM
Monsters with goals beyond just standing there and attacking because the PCs wandered into their room can make encounters more interesting. This opens up a lot of of tactical and strategic options for the players. If the PCs are sent to deal with the local monstrosity that's preying on the village livestock, they can solve that problem by damaging it until it's dead. Or, they can try to figure out why it came around and started eating the local herds. Was it driven out of its old territory by another, bigger monster? Is there disease among the local wildlife, cutting into the available wild prey? Was it sent by someone who wanted to damage the town? Also, it opens the idea that they could also solve the problem by relocating the creature if they can understand where else it might belong, or poison it using a poisoned sheep rather than fight it straight on, or give them something new to worry about (what ELSE might show up now that there's less food in the nearby mountains?)

In terms of specific creature design, there's also the idea of creatures that there's an incentive to kill rather than capture, or kill in a certain way (such as in hunting: you'd want to kill an animal a certain way if you wanted to keep the pelt, for example). Maybe they have a valuable poison if you can harvest it, but only if you can keep them from spraying it at you in the course of the fight. In a system that has a lot of specificity about things like called shots, you could have a certain body part be valuable if undamaged, but located inconveniently near (or, in fact, be) the creature's most vulnerable part. ("If you shatter the gem on their navel, they'll die immediately. Of course, if you kill them WITHOUT shattering the gem, you can sell it for a lot of money.")

For more magical creatures/settings it can be interesting to have a situation where you know they'll be gone after x rounds, so it's really just a delaying action against something too strong to fight head-on. Perhaps they weaken each round they're on this plane, so the key is to run or distract them until they're weak enough to fight without letting them accomplish some other goal they have in mind.