Freshwater creatures

[Zombimode]

In AD&D 2e there was a fair share of underwater-only creatures printed in the monster manuals. So much in fact that the DMG had different tables for freshwater and saltwater random encounters and summon tables.

Many of them were some kind of fish, both up-scaled real-world analogues (including the famous electric boogaloo eel) and a variety of fantasy fish.

It seems that 3e has mostly ignored such creatures. Sure, there are sharks, barracudas and ... uh... do whales count?
For freshwater there is even less. The only freshwater fish-type monster that comes to my mind is the piranha swarm.

I don't want to put piranhas in an alpine lake.
Am I missing something? What kind of creatures could live in a large deep alpine lake (think Baikal)?

It would be strange if you can't walk for half a day through forests, mountains or plains without rolling for random encounter chance, but in the huge lake there are only (regular sized) carps and perches.

[Rangô]

Hey there!
Unfortunately there're not many options in the 'real-world' for an alpine lake predatory fishes, even in the biggest. So I would suggest you to include some classical monsters related to the water, for example Aboleth, maybe controlling a Sahuagin tribe or other fishyfolk like Kuo-Toa or Locatah. Perhaps the legendary Nessy, Stormwrack contains these dinosaurs and maybe you could fix some other monster to your lake. And what about ooze monsters kind, and Aballin could set the perfect ambush at the bank of the lake and then drown the victim in the lake... I guess you have a lot of options.

[Troacctid]

You can find random encounter tables for a wide variety of aquatic environments in Stormwrack (pp. 213–222). The rules for saltwater vs. freshwater are also found in Stormwrack, in the sidebar on page 8.

[Khedrac]

Underwater insects are all fresh water only so you could use some giant insects (or spiders to prey on them).

[Eladrinblade]

Do you really need different stats though? Why not just use shark stats?

[Zombimode]

@ Rangô
I would like to avoid putting some underwater civilization into this particular lake as this would significantly alter the political and economical landscape of the region.
Using dinosaurs is an interesting proposition but I think it would still feel out of place for an alpine lake. But I will think about it.
Aberrations are, well, aberrational, not a part of the natural ecosystem.

@ Troacctid
Those tables actually underline my point that 3.5 is really light on underwater-only threats especially for freshwater environments.

@ Khedrac
I had not thought of underwater insects, thanks for the idea :smallsmile:


I would still prefer to have some fish-like creatures. Maybe I have to update some of those AD&D creatures then.

[AlanBruce]

I don't want to put piranhas in an alpine lake.
Am I missing something? What kind of creatures could live in a large deep alpine lake (think Baikal)?


I decided to read up on Lake Baikal. I am going with the assumption that you want to recreate the lake and environs as much as possible, sticking to the real lake, but adding D&D into it, so let's check how old this lake is first:


Baikal is the world's deepest lake. It is considered among the world's clearest lakes and is considered the world's oldest lake — at 25 million years.

A multimillion year old lake... you know something has to be sleeping at the bottom of it. Something ancient. Something big.

I wouldn't dismiss aberrations yet.

Let's check out the weather in Baikal.


It is also home to Buryat tribes who reside on the eastern side of Lake Baikal, rearing goats, camels, cattle, and sheep, where the mean temperature varies from a winter minimum of −19 °C (−2 °F) to a summer maximum of 14 °C (57 °F).

Frostburn springs to mind here. The lake would have settlements around it. Choose your favorite race (humanoid or monstrous humanoid) and if possible, use the Frostburn variants of them to deal with the weather.

But you want creatures in the water. What manner of critters swim in Baikal?


In total, fewer than 60 native fish species are in the lake, but more than half of these are endemic.[20] The families Abyssocottidae (deep-water sculpins), Comephoridae (golomyankas or Baikal oilfish), and Cottocomephoridae (Baikal sculpins) are entirely restricted to the lake basin. All these are part of the Cottoidea.

Of particular note are the two species of golomyanka (Comephorus baicalensis and C. dybowskii). These long-finned, translucent fish typically live in open water in depths of 100–500 m (330–1,640 ft), but occur both shallower and much deeper.

They are the primary prey of the Baikal seal and represent the largest fish biomass in the lake. Beyond members of Cottoidea, there are few endemic fish species in the lake.

The most important local species for fisheries is the omul (Coregonus migratorius), an endemic whitefish. It is caught, smoked, and then sold widely in markets around the lake. Also, a second endemic whitefish inhabits the lake, C. baicalensis. The Baikal black grayling (Thymallus baicalensis), Baikal white grayling (T. brevipinnis), and Baikal sturgeon (Acipenser baerii baicalensis) are other important species with commercial value. They are also endemic to the Lake Baikal basin.

Seals are found, I believe, in either Stormwrack or Frostburn. I doubt you want to stat 60 different types of fish, but taking existent ones like the piranha and giving it a new name would not be terrible.

For the sturgeon, use barracuda stats.

There is a massive detail on invertebrate life in the lake, but at a quick glance, having the Damn Crab in deeper waters would not be out of place. They also mention snails. The only snail I can recall in D&D is the Flail Snail, but make it aquatic.

Now, for actual monsters that could be found in an alpine lake:

Rusalka

Vodyanoi

Annis Hag

Scrag Troll

Drowned

Rimefire Eidolons (if it's winter season)

Kuo Toa

Glaistig

Freshwater adapted Yurian (crabfolk)

Kelpie

Oozes

I am sure there are a lot more and better creatures that would fit the setting, but these should give you a nice starting point.

[ExLibrisMortis]

How about a Sentry Ooze Living Spell vortex of teeth?

(it's a spell that summons a vortex of [force] pirañas)

[PraxisVetli]

Does technically outside the lake count?
Think dire toads, and juvenielle Howling Dragons refluffed as herons. Refluff the Draconomicons various wyrms and drakes as giant salamanders.
Dragonflies and mosquitoes, leeches, turtles, even that weird axhoitl creature (however that's spelt), the weird otter with the blinding facegrabber tail.
While life inside the lake is important, it's also all the various other creatures that fill the ecosystem.

[Honest Tiefling]

Wait, I thought clear water typically meant lower oxygen levels in the water, and therefore, poor conditions for fishies? Maybe change that bit.

[Waker]

AlanBruce's post mentioned seals, so how about Selkies? Having a few hiding amongst a seal colony wouldn't be the craziest thing ever. You could also include Sirens or if feeling especially ambitious you could stat up a Dobharchu (I know it's Irish myth, not Russian, but still).

[hamishspence]

Hey there!
Unfortunately there're not many options in the 'real-world' for an alpine lake predatory fishes, even in the biggest.

Catfish maybe:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali_River_goonch_attacks

not much else though.

[Honest Tiefling]

AlanBruce's post mentioned seals, so how about Selkies? Having a few hiding amongst a seal colony wouldn't be the craziest thing ever. You could also include Sirens or if feeling especially ambitious you could stat up a Dobharchu (I know it's Irish myth, not Russian, but still).

If you want Russian myth, I feel as if I should mention the Rusalka. More nymph then monster, it could still lead to some interesting ideas. Some versions of them would be better off stated as undead however.

[hamishspence]

Bull sharks and freshwater stingrays might fit - more lowland rivers than alpine lakes though.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Zombimode
What kind of creatures could live in a large deep alpine lake (think Baikal)?

Baikal isn't really an alpine lake; its surface elevation is barely 1500 feet. Contrast this with Lake Titicaca in the Andes, which has a surface elevation of 12,500 feet. But if your lake is on the same grand scale as these two, extending for a hundred miles or more, then something like an icthyosaur could be reasonable, although I would personally make it warm-blooded and well-insulated.

For a slightly creepier approach that's based in real biology, Lake Baikal has a wide variety of worms (polychaetes, oligochaetes and others), some of which reach a foot long. A swarm of high-altitude lake worms would take anyone by surprise. Some of these worms apparently paralyze their prey and then cover it in mucus before slowly ingesting it, so a giant benthic lake-worm with a paralytic bite and digestive mucus might have possibilities.

Also consider that both Baikal and Titicaca have freshwater sponges, and while even a giant sponge might not be too inimical on its own, it might have symbiotic inhabitants which could cause trouble for a swimmer--especially if water currents trapped the swimmer inside the sponge's main cavity.

And for a freshwater-based fey, there's a kind of male water nymph which lives in waterfalls, whose name I can't bring to mind. With a large enough lake, you could have a whole series of these wherever even small waterfalls feed into the main body, each fey with its own territory. If they're hostile to each other, then PCs who successfully negotiate safe passage from one waterfall-dweller might end up being attacked by the next, for being allies of its enemy. The waterfall-fey would be especially appropriate for high alpine environments, since they like small rocky pools at the base of the waterfalls. (And I'm kicking myself trying to remember the name….)


Originally Posted by Honest Tiefling
Wait, I thought clear water typically meant lower oxygen levels in the water, and therefore, poor conditions for fishies?

Clear water usually means a low nutrient load, but that doesn't necessarily have any bearing on dissolved oxygen. I've gone snorkeling in majestically clear water in the Florida Keys, but by definition I was right at the surface, where there would have been plenty of DO from atmospheric exchange.


Originally Posted by hamishspence
Bull sharks and freshwater stingrays might fit - more lowland rivers than alpine lakes though.

Freshwater stingrays are tropical lowland species; they wouldn't have any way to reach an alpine lake. Same for freshwater sharks, which to my knowledge are also strictly tropical.


Originally Posted by Honest Tiefling
If you want Russian myth, I feel as if I should mention the Rusalka.

I'll second the rusalka, which can have either a plaintive or a malicious aspect. The novel Rusalka by C.J. Cherryh explores one intriguing take on the myth.


Originally Posted by Troacctid
The rules for saltwater vs. freshwater are also found in Stormwrack, in the sidebar on page 8.

And this is one of many reasons I dislike Stormwrack so much, because they completely discount the tremendous difference between marine and freshwater species. I've done fieldwork in both environments, and they're worlds apart.

[Waker]

And for a freshwater-based fey, there's a kind of male water nymph which lives in waterfalls, whose name I can't bring to mind. With a large enough lake, you could have a whole series of these wherever even small waterfalls feed into the main body, each fey with its own territory. If they're hostile to each other, then PCs who successfully negotiate safe passage from one waterfall-dweller might end up being attacked by the next, for being allies of its enemy. The waterfall-fey would be especially appropriate for high alpine environments, since they like small rocky pools at the base of the waterfalls. (And I'm kicking myself trying to remember the name….).
Fossergrim is the name of the fey you are thinking of, Fiend Folio age 79.

[Palanan]

Thank you. I knew someone would have it handy.

:smalltongue:

[AlanBruce]

Fossergrim is the name of the fey you are thinking of, Fiend Folio age 79.

That is one nasty fey. I used one in a tropical island adventure, which had one dwelling in a little waterfall oasis deep inland.

The party stumbled upon its home and of course, they wanted to attack him because... well, monster.

They had to leave his waterfall when the guy started hitting them every single time with his bow due to Fossergrim having a True Strike ability constant while in their river.

The party wasn't flying at the time and decided to engage him in melee... bad idea.

[hamishspence]

Same for freshwater sharks, which to my knowledge are also strictly tropical.



New Jersey's a bit out of the tropics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_Shore_shark_attacks_of_1916

[Palanan]

Interesting historical account, although these incidents are all in saltwater or brackish tidal creeks, on the coastline of the Atlantic Ocean.

I was referring to the sharks of Lake Nicaragua, and I'd thought they were landlocked, but it seems these are actually bull sharks (Carcharhinus leucas (http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/39372/0)) which can tolerate freshwater for extended periods. They're apparently anadromous, breeding in Lake Nicaragua rather than confined to it, and they do seem to penetrate other freshwater systems with a direct connection to the ocean.

That said, I think we agree they wouldn't really fit for an alpine lake.

[hamishspence]

Can there be "near-tropics Alpine" territory? High up enough that the ecosystem resembles an alpine one - but further south than the Alps themselves?
Interesting historical account, although these incidents are all in saltwater or brackish tidal creeks, on the coastline of the Atlantic Ocean.
True - but they can travel far inland - Illinois in North America.

Or, for an Asian example, the Ganges stretches a long way inland - to the Himalayas, and has bull sharks as well as its own species of river shark, the Ganges shark. They probably prefer the warm parts of the river though.

The subtropics covers places like the Ganges, Florida, New Jersey, etc - but it also extends as far north as the south of France.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subtropics

So it could be said that the Alps are "subtropical mountains"


That said, I think we agree they wouldn't really fit for an alpine lake.
It's probably the shark species that fits best, though.

[Waker]

On the topic of freshwater sharks, just because our world doesn't have examples of alpine sharks doesn't mean it couldn't happen. Same with rays, eels or other aquatic life. It's entirely possible that a D&D world followed a slightly different evolutionary path. Just make sure not to fill it with nothing but unsupportable 60-foot sharks and you're good.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by hamishspence
Can there be "near-tropics Alpine" territory? High up enough that the ecosystem resembles an alpine one - but further south than the Alps themselves?

Absolutely. The highest elevations in the Andes are considered alpine habitat, even though they're technically in the tropics where the Andes cross the equator. The altitude is key, because it creates colder conditions the higher you go.

As one example, the central Andean puna (http://www.worldwildlife.org/ecoregions/nt1003) is a high-mountain grassland environment, whose upper reaches are considered a cold desert, where most of the sparse precipitation comes down as snow and hail. The higher-elevation portions freeze every night of the year--essentially summer in the daytime and winter at night, all year round.

More broadly, the Andean páramo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%A1ramo) includes a variety of ecosystems above the timberline, which are often classified as alpine tundra. Sadly I haven't visited these regions myself (although I've worked at high elevations the Colorado Rockies) so I can't give a more personal perspective.


Originally Posted by hamishspence
It's probably the shark species that fits best, though.

Well, the bull shark is essentially a sea-level species, and alpine lakes by definition are thousands of feet in elevation. The bull shark is physiologically remarkable for being able to move between full seawater and freshwater--this is called euryhaline, meaning capable of adjusting to a wide range of salinities. A lot of fishes do this as part of their life cycles--anadromous species like shad and salmon, which travel up freshwater rivers to breed, and catadromous fishes like eels, which live in freshwater and travel to the open ocean to spawn.

An alpine lake, say at 12,000 feet like Lake Titicaca, would be pure freshwater, likely fed by snow and snowmelt, and miles above the ocean. Any fish living in that sort of lake would have no connection to a marine habitat, and no need to adjust for differing salinities.

So I would say it's more likely for a large freshwater fish to converge on certain aspects of shark morphology and behavior, but I wouldn't draw the parallel too closely. It really depends on the size of the lake and its history. If a lake similar to Baikal found itself in a region of relatively swift uplift like the Himalayas, I could see it being pushed up to a higher elevation--and if there were large predators in it originally, and if prey species such as seals remained abundant, you might get something interesting feeding on them.


Originally Posted by Waker
On the topic of freshwater sharks, just because our world doesn't have examples of alpine sharks doesn't mean it couldn't happen. Same with rays, eels or other aquatic life.

Certainly true, and rays might actually be more likely than sharks. Lake Baikal has over a hundred endemic species of mollusks, and some rays specialize on mollusks, so that would be a ready food source.

.

[Waker]

And if mollusks aren't your thing, there are a number of amphibians that can spend periods of time completely frozen with no ill effects. Rana sylvatica is an example of a frog that can go weeks at a time in such a state.