Players that grip about home brew monsters

[scurv]

Players that grip about home brew monsters. I got one...the special one "W" who is upset that my monsters are not the same as whats in the book. Now on the off chance that my sister does not handle this for me. Can I get some advice on how to approach this.
Keep in mind that my own social skills are....as smooth as 40 grit sandpaper

[Water_Bear]

Is the issue that you're using homebrew monsters, or that you're using bad homebrew monsters?

My D&D players can't really tell the difference between any weird MM3 critter and something I made up; I've had cases where they thought real monsters were homebrewed and others where they thought something I threw together was real. And in games like nWoD, where the difference between a Ghost Mage an Unbound Giest a Demon and a Death Spirit are nearly impossible to make out, homebrew is going to fly under the radar unless you really make it obvious.

My guess is that "W" is not a fan of the monster on it's own merits, and is using the fact that it's homebrew to justify getting rid of it. Either that or they're an even bigger rules stickler than me, which would be surprising.

[scurv]

...based on tactics he takes i could say that he is not a fan of monsters he has not read about. At this point I am trying (and considering W's situation I am trying harder then i normally would) To not make a connection that he may be using out of char knowledge to advance his chars benefit.
( I know it happens, thus is why the occasional tweek or homebrew adds fun to it )

But as far as monsters go, I tend to research a mythical creature and fit it into the system. Sometimes it blows chunks, But most often it makes a fun encounter for all.

Although I do tend to play test it with a clone of the group in question to tune in the to hit, damage and ac.

[hymer]

If you question your ability to homebrew within reason, there's plenty of other ways to make him trip himself up with metagaming. Put illusions on the owlbear skeleton, so it looks like the real deal. Give the harpy class levels in warlock. Have the drow bard use disguise to look like a human. Surprise him by having the apparently unarmed guy be a fighter with invisible weapons and armour. Etc.
Don't do it too much, just enough to make him doubt his metagaming.

Edit: Or just refluff something. If you want to make a humanoid toad, say, use duergar stats.

[Slipperychicken]

Can you give an example of monsters you homebrewed, the encounters, and the player's reaction? Basically, an account of what happened will give us an idea of how to help you with it.

Personally, I have a lot of trouble with homebrew which is unbalanced or unfun. One of my DMs threw a "MissingNo" (eldritch horror named after a glitch in one of the early Pokemon games) at us. It appeared in a Magnificent Mansion, even though "only creatures you designate may enter". No one knew what it was, it had great spell resistance and immunity to just about every SR: No spell my Wizard had (Core only, plus the DMs terrible homebrew classes. Those are another story entirely). And every round it spammed a Dominate SLA, which my DM claimed bypassed Mind Blank because "it's weird".

So I wound up completely ineffective for half the fight, and Dominated for the other.

[Togath]

Can you give an example of monsters you homebrewed, the encounters, and the player's reaction? Basically, an account of what happened will give us an idea of how to help you with it.

Personally, I have a lot of trouble with homebrew which is unbalanced or unfun. One of my DMs threw a "MissingNo" (eldritch horror named after a glitch in one of the early Pokemon games) at us. It appeared in a Magnificent Mansion, even though "only creatures you designate may enter". No one knew what it was, it had great spell resistance and immunity to just about every SR: No spell my Wizard had (Core only, plus the DMs terrible homebrew classes. Those are another story entirely). And every round it spammed a Dominate SLA, which my DM claimed bypassed Mind Blank because "it's weird".

So I wound up completely ineffective for half the fight, and Dominated for the other.

That reminds me of an somewhat ironic near tpk I once had;
The party was fighting a Golem(it was crafted construct, so describing it as "some sort of golem" seemed appropriate) with manifesting in place of having any real melee ability and instead of any immunity to magic normally possessed by golems...it was also vulnerable to mind effecting effects, due to being fairly intelligent...
The problem came when the party--assuming because I called it a "golem" that it was immune to magic--started trying to melee it to death(the two casters anyway, the archer tried shooting it with a bow[which was somewhat effective, since it also lacked DR, though the casters kept missing]). It even used only debuff/crowd-control spells...and still nearly wiped out the party

[TuggyNE]

Personally, I have a lot of trouble with homebrew which is unbalanced or unfun. One of my DMs threw a "MissingNo" (eldritch horror named after a glitch in one of the early Pokemon games) at us. It appeared in a Magnificent Mansion, even though "only creatures you designate may enter". No one knew what it was, it had great spell resistance and immunity to just about every SR: No spell my Wizard had (Core only, plus the DMs terrible homebrew classes. Those are another story entirely). And every round it spammed a Dominate SLA, which my DM claimed bypassed Mind Blank because "it's weird".

In that example, I can buy it being mysteriously able to enter magnificent mansion, but the other two major abilities (bypasses mind blank, immune to random SR: No) are not so great, especially when all combined.

[Slipperychicken]

Here's something which may help: Give your PCs a Knowledge check against the monster, even if it's homebrew, to see if they know anything important about it, like it's strengths or weaknesses in combat.

"This fearsome beast is able to rip ordinary adults in half with its bare claws" is not useful information, half the Monster Manual can do that. "This creature terrorized villages and slowly tortures its victims" is not useful. "This creature is known to be especially vulnerable/immune to [type] damage" is useful. "This creature is highly resistant to magic" is useful. "This creature is not subject to dominations or charms" is useful. "This type of construct is apparently vulnerable to enchantment effects, unlike its mindless counterparts" is useful".

Also, you need to give an appropriate amount of useful detail. Rambling for three sentences about a Dwarves' hairstyle or the story told by the runes on his armor is not useful, and will probably bore your players to tears. The guy's race, weapon, general appearance, clothes/equipment, and notable identifying symbols/features, however, are useful.

I once had a DM who would give the bare minimum description, and often less. Even for major, plot-centric NPCs, it would be something along the lines "her clothes are skimpy and she has pleasing curves" or "He's wearing a breastplate and a holy symbol". Half our encounters were us blundering through a completely nondescript town of indeterminate size and composition, then suddenly "You encounter a man". DM didn't even mention what kind of weapon our "man" was holding, no mention of spell component pouches, or holy symbols, or armor type. Just a man, and ordinary man. Who then starts pounding us with 7th level spells, Touch AC in the high 20s, and skill checks in the 30s.

EDIT: So it seems like your objective is to apply the Law of Conservation of Detail to NPCs. Players will usually think "The more details it has, the more important it is. The DM went out of his way to describe it, after all", which can lead them to do very odd things, latching onto random items, set-pieces, and unimportant NPCS, convinced there's something they can do with it.

Just give enough description so your PCs know what the monster is, but not too much (or else they risk falling asleep halfway through). More description is appropriate when it's especially good description or the item described is especially important. Also grant Knowledge checks for more than what meets the eye.

[Doorhandle]

...based on tactics he takes i could say that he is not a fan of monsters he has not read about. At this point I am trying (and considering W's situation I am trying harder then i normally would) To not make a connection that he may be using out of char knowledge to advance his chars benefit.
( I know it happens, thus is why the occasional tweek or homebrew adds fun to it )

But as far as monsters go, I tend to research a mythical creature and fit it into the system. Sometimes it blows chunks, But most often it makes a fun encounter for all.

Although I do tend to play test it with a clone of the group in question to tune in the to hit, damage and ac.

I would suggest stealing some things from pathfinder's bestiary then. Bestiary 3 in particular has a whole boatload of stats on legendary creatures from our world.

[BRC]

A simple test could be a re-fluff.

Take a 100% MM-approved monster, maybe with a template. Let's say a Fiendish Owlbear.

Then, have the party fight "A hulking Fiend that looks like a red-skinned ogre, it's arms end in a pair of terrifying claws and two burning eyes sit above a mouth full of vicious teeth." This description is what their characters see, and theoretically tells them everything they need to know about the monster. It's Fiendish (and so is vulnerable to certain spells and abilities), it's strong, it has two claw attacks and a bite attack. It's a rules-legal monster, so you can't be accused of sending them against an unbalanced homebrew, and the description tells them all the salient tactical points.
If he complains about this monster then you know he's only complaining because he likes fighting monsters he recognizes, not because of any legitimate concern.

[Jay R]

A simple test could be a re-fluff.

Take a 100% MM-approved monster, maybe with a template. Let's say a Fiendish Owlbear.

Then, have the party fight "A hulking Fiend that looks like a red-skinned ogre, it's arms end in a pair of terrifying claws and two burning eyes sit above a mouth full of vicious teeth." This description is what their characters see, and theoretically tells them everything they need to know about the monster. It's Fiendish (and so is vulnerable to certain spells and abilities), it's strong, it has two claw attacks and a bite attack. It's a rules-legal monster, so you can't be accused of sending them against an unbalanced homebrew, and the description tells them all the salient tactical points.
If he complains about this monster then you know he's only complaining because he likes fighting monsters he recognizes, not because of any legitimate concern.

Perfect. It sounds like he's memorized most of the monsters and wants to use player knowledge rather than character knowledge. This will determine if that is true.

I also recommend sending home-brewed monsters that are clearly weaker than the equivalent monster from the books.

You need to determine if:

a. He wants to use his knowledge of the books, or
b. He wants to play only with things in the books, or
c. He thinks your home-brew NPCs are too powerful.

[awa]

I agree finding out why its a problem is important. although a reason i dont think was mentioned is particularly in premade settings (such as say dragon lance or world of darkness) home brew monsters can be seen as i suppose non-cannon for lack of a better word and for some people this kind of stuff is an instant deal breaker.

(personally ive only encountered this with people who often dm in this setting themselves so you mileage may vary)

[Man on Fire]

...based on tactics he takes i could say that he is not a fan of monsters he has not read about. At this point I am trying (and considering W's situation I am trying harder then i normally would) To not make a connection that he may be using out of char knowledge to advance his chars benefit.
( I know it happens, thus is why the occasional tweek or homebrew adds fun to it )

But as far as monsters go, I tend to research a mythical creature and fit it into the system. Sometimes it blows chunks, But most often it makes a fun encounter for all.

Although I do tend to play test it with a clone of the group in question to tune in the to hit, damage and ac.

Then you are doing good job, guy who tries to metagame like this deserves no comfort from you.

[Tavar]

There can be IC reasons to not enjoy that, though. If the character/party has high knowledges all around, then they could be legitimately miffed if they aren't getting any useful info. Nothing stings quite as much as rescources that end up being negated for no reason.

[hymer]

@ awa: I can definitely see that sort of thing happening. It could be like introducing an android in a carefully researched Cold War campaign, or a horse in an Aztec campaign pre-Columbus.

[Darius Kane]

Just use NPCs instead of monsters. Or monsters with class levels.

[lunar2]

homebrew monsters get knowledge checks just like regular monsters, remember that. the only exception is if it is a new or secret species. for example in my first campaign i had a homebrew dragon (not true), that a successful knowledge: arcana check told only that it was not any creature you had heard of before, but that it looked vaguely like a green dragon. it was, in fact, bred from green dragon stock, among other things, and was immune to acid, so even this was still somewhat useful information.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

There can be IC reasons to not enjoy that, though. If the character/party has high knowledges all around, then they could be legitimately miffed if they aren't getting any useful info. Nothing stings quite as much as rescources that end up being negated for no reason.

That's not a problem with homebrew so much as it is with how a DM uses homebrew. A successful knowledge check should get you information about a monster whether that monster is from the Monster Manual or the DM's notbook. Not giving them that information would be the problem, the source wouldn't be.

If there are storyline reasons they wouldn't get anything from knowledge checks, that still isn't a problem with homebrew as it can be applied to official creatures just as well. I'm running a campaign where dark elves (I don't like the word "drow" so it isn't used in my homebrew setting) were thought to be a story to scare children until the players encountered them. As such, knowledge checks get scattered or conflicting information that was as much superstition as anything. (A little time at a library and some search checks get the PCs an old journal from an explorer who encountered dark elves and some more useful information, but the PCs had to go looking for it.)

[Slipperychicken]

for example in my first campaign i had a homebrew dragon (not true), that a successful knowledge: arcana check told only that it was not any creature you had heard of before, but that it looked vaguely like a green dragon.

That's not a successful Knowledge check. That's a successful Spot check.


A successful Knowledge check would look more like "It strongly resembles a Green dragon's offspring, so it looks like it should share some of its properties. For example, it's green scaly skin ought to provide a strong resistance to Acid..."

[Dimers]

Griping about homebrew? Hell, I gripe about DMs who DON'T homebrew monsters. C'mon, friend, it's YOU I'm sitting down to play with, not a WotC representative! Make the gameworld your own!

[Deophaun]

That's not a successful Knowledge check. That's a successful Spot check.

I hate those. I had a DM that would only give us the color of the slaad we were facing on a successful Knowledge: The Planes check. Yeah, very useful, especially when it's the first time you've ever encountered a slaad. Frankly, I'm surprised the experience didn't scare me off knowledge skills all together.

[awa]

that's always bugged me like dms who act like your cheating when you ask what kind of armor the target is wearing.

[Mike_G]

I started using homebrew monsters when the players just kept using OOC knowledge of monsters the characters had never heard of.

Me:You see a huge humanoid--

Bob: Is it an Ogre or a troll or a bugbear?

M:It's a huge humanoid with a club.

B:Is it a troll? They have regeneration! We should use fire.

M: Bob, you are playing a 1st level barbarian with an 8 Int and Wis and no knowledge skills. You see a big freaking humanoid with a club. I know you've read every page of all versions of the MM, but Grondash the Orphan Maker does not know the special abilities of Trolls, or how to tell one from an Ogre. What do you do?

B: Guys, trolls usually use their claws, so this is probably an Ogre. But ready some fire attacks in case it starts to regenerate.


So I just started making stuff up. Once they'd faced a creature, they knew it's weaknesses for next time, but no level 1 hick from the sticks should have memorized the fine print in the MM.

[Slipperychicken]

So I just started making stuff up. Once they'd faced a creature, they knew it's weaknesses for next time, but no level 1 hick from the sticks should have memorized the fine print in the MM.

A Troll's Regeneration is the kind of thing which would definitely make it into legends or at least campfire stories (The brave hero hacked and slashed, but the big ugly Troll kept growing its limbs back!). I could see him knowing if Bob's character was from a region which experienced occasional Troll problems (someone would have told him). Because come on, if a Troll clan rampages in an area, that news is going to spread fast.

[Deophaun]

There are some things that are going to be iconic and no knowledge check should be needed: trolls regenerate, dragons have breath weapons, medusae turn you to stone with a glance. Requiring a knowledge check for this kind of stuff is along the lines of requiring a knowledge check to tell if the barmaid you're hitting on is a human, an elf, or a gelatinous cube (it was a crazy bar, and I had way too much mead).

[awa]

depends on the setting and the rarity of the monsters
I feel if you don't have the knowledge skill bare minimum 75% of everything you "know" about monsters should be wrong. okay you know trolls regenerate you also "know" they all live under bridges and are terrified of large goats and turn to stone by sunlight (now if your people fight off trolls on a regular basis that's different but that should be the exception to the rule)

[Slipperychicken]

depends on the setting and the rarity of the monsters
I feel if you don't have the knowledge skill bare minimum 75% of everything you "know" about monsters should be wrong. okay you know trolls regenerate you also "know" they all live under bridges and are terrified of large goats and turn to stone by sunlight (now if your people fight off trolls on a regular basis that's different but that should be the exception to the rule)

I wonder how awesome it would be for there to be a rule where for every 5 or 10 by which you fail a Knowledge check, you receive a piece of completely useless, misleading, or untrue information which your character is utterly convinced of.

EDIT: I also feel like a successful Knowledge check against something you've never seen/studied should still grant useful information, although through educated guess rather than previous study (and would likely be limited to broader observations). Like a monster's gait and hide indicating what environment it usually lives in, or movement patterns/tool use/vocalizations indicating general intelligence level, or dragon-type scales possibly implying spell resistance.

Or you just get general information for beings of its kind (It appears to be some kind of Devil. You know Devils usually have X, Y, and Z, and usually rely on their X and Y in combat, and their Z makes them highly potent against spellcasters. The creature's limb structure and light body type implies very quick movement and feline/pouncing attack patterns...)

[Admiral Squish]

I wonder how awesome it would be for there to be a rule where for every 5 or 10 by which you fail a Knowledge check, you receive a piece of completely useless, misleading, or untrue information which your character is utterly convinced of.

That's how my DM does natural ones on knowledge checks. You remember some totally untrue factoid you're convinced is the truth. One character almost cracked open an ancient nonmagical relic because he was convinced it held an ancient spellbook-gem.

[Jay R]

A Troll's Regeneration is the kind of thing which would definitely make it into legends or at least campfire stories (The brave hero hacked and slashed, but the big ugly Troll kept growing its limbs back!).

Oh, absolutely. In fact, it would make it into legends and campfire stories whether it is true or not. It makes too good a story.

You seem to believe that legends and campfire stories are sources of good hard information. They aren't.

I could see him knowing if Bob's character was from a region which experienced occasional Troll problems (someone would have told him). Because come on, if a Troll clan rampages in an area, that news is going to spread fast.

It's going to spread like wildfire, and grow with the telling. When Bob was a child, he heard stories about the village's hero who defended the village against the Trolls in days gone by. He knows all about the Troll's regeneration, about their use of fire spells, about the armor they wear, about their three heads and four arms, ....

This is why I routinely re-write monsters. I once wrote the following for the introduction of a fantasy game:

You have heard many mutually conflicting tales of all kinds of marvelous beasts. If you want any knowledge of which stories are real, you will need to buy a knowledge skill.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

Griping about homebrew? Hell, I gripe about DMs who DON'T homebrew monsters. C'mon, friend, it's YOU I'm sitting down to play with, not a WotC representative! Make the gameworld your own!

I don't homebrew monsters very often just because I don't have the time and my group is new enough (myself included) that I can still catch everyone off guard with things right out of the Monster Manual.

That said, most NPC monsters the players encounter end up with at least a few class levels if they're even remotely humanoid. You really expect a djinni to advance by just adding hit dice? This guy's been travelling the planes for thousands of years! He's picked up a few things in that time! (Like levels in factotum and chameleon.)