What monsters were cooler in the older editions?

[Psyren]

I was thinking more in terms of how it felt to be poisoned as a player. Ability damage wasn't character ending like it was in older editions but it was still enough to give you pause. you might not use anything besides con or unconsciousness poisons as a player, but fighting a giant spider was a threat to your day when it's "Guys, I don't feel so good" and a minute later you can barely lift your weapons. Again, reflective of poisons and venoms in the real world. Unlike earlier and later editions where it was "instantly liquify your organs" or "Ouch, okay put a bandaid on it, I'm good". It was tense and threatening at low levels but something still worth preparing against at high levels without being immediately life ending.

On the one hand, I agree that ability damage did a good job of feeling different/more dangerous than HP damage. I also agree that healing to full on a Long Rest doesn't feel sufficiently threatening.

On the other hand, I hated that healing ability damage in 3.5 essentially said "either you have a cleric in the group or Bob doesn't get to play this session, and possibly even several sessions depending on the party makeup and whether you can find an NPC or Magic-Mart outlet." Especially since the vast majority of ability damage poisons affected physical stats more than mental ones, so the martials were the ones getting punished by them the most. Oh, and let's not forget "hey Bob, while we look for a cleric, can you do a bunch of math on your sheet to figure out what your much weaker temporary character looks like in the meantime."

(And Ability Drain, i.e. the stuff undead would do, was even worse.)

[SimonMoon6]

One day, I was looking through the monsters in Pathfinder 1e and thought about a couple of monsters that I hadn't thought about in a while, two monsters that were scary for the possibility of turning people to stone instantly: the basilisk and the cockatrice. Quite scary in pre-Pathfinder editions.

Well, in Pathfinder 1e, if your party can kill the basilisk, then it's no problem. You just bathe the affected person in the blood of the basilisk and they immediately turn back to flesh.

And a cockatrice? They're even more pathetic. If they can hit, you get an incredibly easy Fort save... not to turn to stone, but to lose d4 Dex. And if somehow the cockatrice lives long enough to drop someone's Dex to 0, they are turned to stone permanently! Well... not permanently. Not really. They still get a Fort save each day to turn back to flesh. And if they fail three more of these daily Fort saves, *then* the effect is permanent. But who's going to fail that many DC 12 Fort saves?

[icefractal]

TBH, I'm ok with that for the Basilisk, because "kills you by looking" foes are more of a luck thing than a skill/tactics challenge, IMO.

Like, a Rust Monster approaching you? Ok, people in metal armor retreat for a moment, everyone switch to backup weapons (or ranged), there's a strategy to fighting it.

Basilisk? Yeah, you just walked around a corner and you're dead. There's no counter-play to that (other than going blindfolded everywhere, I guess). Sure, *if* you know they're coming, you can prepare, but if the GM is running things in a naturalistic/simulationist way (which I generally prefer) then information is limited and monsters aren't arranged for convenient challenge-providing.

Like, Medusa (the original) was a known individual in a known location. The myth isn't "One day Perseus was exploring a ruined building, opened a door, and suddenly Medusa was there!" But that's how killer monsters show up in D&D more often than not, IME.

[Metastachydium]

On the other hand, I hated that healing ability damage in 3.5 essentially said "either you have a cleric in the group or Bob doesn't get to play this session, and possibly even several sessions depending on the party makeup and whether you can find an NPC or Magic-Mart outlet."

Hey, it's 3.5! There always is a Magic-Mart, especially if iot doesn't make sense!

Especially since the vast majority of ability damage poisons affected physical stats more than mental ones, so the martials were the ones getting punished by them the most.

To be fair, losing DEX and CON is very bad for everyone. But yeah, the default assumption of "martials get shafted" shines through there once more.

[Witty Username]

Especially since the vast majority of ability damage poisons affected physical stats more than mental ones, so the martials were the ones getting punished by them the most.

Sorta. Martials would be penalized more from a couple points of damage, but that would heal fairly quickly. 5-6 points though would become a significant threat to casters.
Reducing a stat to 0 would cause paralysis or unconsciousness at the light end.

Ray of Stupidity was powerful not as a debuf for casters, but because it could one tap low Int enemies.

No one was really comfortable taking any kind of ability damage.

--
I have noticed that slow healing of any kind does have a positive effect on downtime. If you just need a few days to recover from spider venom. It gives reasons to stay in town for a bit: develop contacts, work on long term projects, etc.

[Bacon Elemental]

And a cockatrice? They're even more pathetic. If they can hit, you get an incredibly easy Fort save... not to turn to stone, but to lose d4 Dex. And if somehow the cockatrice lives long enough to drop someone's Dex to 0, they are turned to stone permanently! Well... not permanently. Not really. They still get a Fort save each day to turn back to flesh. And if they fail three more of these daily Fort saves, *then* the effect is permanent. But who's going to fail that many DC 12 Fort saves?

3.5e cockatrices look terrifying in the "Beware DMs who bring it" way. A low-CR swarm enemy who make you save vs instant petrification with every bite attack? Its not a high DC but you can only roll well so many times, and if anyone fails a save its off to the magic shop after the fight for a very expensive 6th level spell casting. And then a chance of instant death on top of that, followed by another expensive spellcast...

That said, if you want a scary petrifier in Pathfinder, consider the Medusa. Essentially the same as the 3.5 counterpart but the DC is actually higher

[Leon]

Basilisk? Yeah, you just walked around a corner and you're dead. There's no counter-play to that (other than going blindfolded everywhere, I guess). Sure, *if* you know they're coming, you can prepare, but if the GM is running things in a naturalistic/simulationist way (which I generally prefer) then information is limited and monsters aren't arranged for convenient challenge-providing.

If they are running it "naturalistic" there is likely to be signs of other things that have been stoned in and around where it is

[Tanarii]

Basilisk? Yeah, you just walked around a corner and you're dead. There's no counter-play to that (other than going blindfolded everywhere, I guess). Sure, *if* you know they're coming, you can prepare, but if the GM is running things in a naturalistic/simulationist way (which I generally prefer) then information is limited and monsters aren't arranged for convenient challenge-providing.

That's not at all how old school monsters worked. At least if you go by OSR or CAW, which are admittedly codified new school trying to replicate what folks envisioned as the experience.

If information is limited and monsters aren't necessarily level zoned then the players are supposed to be careful and scout to get that info. Not blindly stumble around a corner into monsters.

In addition the entire point of DM environment description is everything that said matters, and clues are telegraphed, although you may need to take your time and examine the environment to get it. As opposed to late-TSR new-school storytelling, where it was (usually very long and flowery) envision-the-scene descriptions. So information shouldn't BE limited, it just isn't delivered for free/bluntly. It depends on players attempting to gather it and paying attention, and then is delivered as part of the environment description.

If they are running it "naturalistic" there is likely to be signs of other things that have been stoned in and around where it is

Much shorter than the way I said it.

[Witty Username]

A thing I have been realizing is generally humanoid monsters were handled better in older editions:

5e tends to have two flavors, dumb brute monsters in humanoid shape like gnolls, or human with pointy teeth, like hobgoblins.

3.5 at least managed some nuance, with monsters having enough range of performance to be used in multiple ways, but also feel distinct from the standard humanoids and each other. I think the only one to mostly come to 5e in one piece was Kobolds, as they got more of a chance for their particulars to be baked into their abilities. Pack tactics being a pretty good way to show how much group oriented thinking is ingrained into them.

[NeptunianOM]

Pretty much all humanoids were more interesting to run in 4E, as they all had unique & fun attacks. In 5E, so many of them barely have any cool abilities or tricks. They as just sacks of hit points.

Spellcasters were more interesting in 3.x, usually because they had a much larger assortment of spells to draw from.

[sandmote]

As a general response, 2e lore is so much more in depth than newer editions, and 3.5e bakes in a decent number of subsystems that monsters can grab effects from. A lot of the alternate subsystems published late were made with monsters incorporating the new PC options, and there's a lot of templates for modifying creature types to make individual encounters more memorable.

4e was also really good at including flavorful and mechanically distinct abilities, as well as making variants. the 5e Kobolds get pack tactics and not much else. 4e has something similar on most kobold stat blocks that want to be in melee (+1 to attack rolls for each kobold adjacent to the target) but the two main benefits they share are a bonus to avoiding trap and a quick shift effect on their turn which makes them extra slippery. Because these benefits change how kobolds move and attack in combat, they end up feeling much more different than other low level humanoids.

Contrast some other common mooks:

• Gnolls deal extra damage when there's at least three around an NPC, encouraging them to clump up on top of you.
• Kua-Toa can can't shift quickly shift away from PCs like Kobolds can: instead their quick burst of movement moves them to a different side of a PC, making it easier for them to surround you and to get through choke points.
• Orcs below half health can heal while attacking, making it a slog to leave damaged orcs alive.
• Goblins can do a quick move like kobolds, but when missed by an attack rather than on their turn.
• Hobgoblins can make an extra saving throw when affected by a longer lasting effect, and a number of them get a boost AC while standing in a tight formation, encouraging you to have them fight in a close unit.

Some of these overlap, but I like that it tends to quickly make the optimal combat choices for PCs and DMs different. 5e tries this with Hobgoblins getting the 4e Gnoll's effect and Gnolls getting an effect while lets them kill large groups of commoners for their CR, but a lot of combat with all of them turns to "creatures with a melee attack," and some ribbon making their melee attack more effective in specific cases. It doesn't help that 4e monsters get specific abilities making them more effective either at range or in melee while 5e slaps a ranged weapon and a melee weapon on most humanoid stat blocks and calls it a day.

Older editions than that, I kind of hate how psionics and all things related got downgraded from "weird not-magic effects by alien creatures" To "spells with a different resource system" to "Literally just spells" as the editions went on. Nothing really makes it feel like its own thing.

I'd just like to give a +1 for noting how so may subsystems keep getting rolled farther and farther into spells. That or rolling an extra die, which I don't like as much as having an alternate system to work with. Yes, a separate subsystem is harder to balance against magic than adding more spells, but constantly making everything spells kind of makes magic much stronger compared to other options anyway.

Strangely, I like the draconic kobolds. This scratch a reptilian itch that lizard men never did for me.

I also like the yippy little dog-men.

I think having a very weak race tied to dragons is much more thematic than the old version, but I hate their long, almost rat-like tails which look like a serious hassle when trying to avoid traps. I'd much prefer straight dog-like tails which can be held flat against the back when avoiding a trap and also work for a rudimentary sign language that can be used to signal kobolds behind you without needing to turn around. I like the image that one kobold is halfway up a wall looking through a peephole to the next room over and signaling to drop the manually activated traps without needing to shout, look away, or let go of the wall.

If they are running it "naturalistic" there is likely to be signs of other things that have been stoned in and around where it is

I would however like to note that having a good idea there's something capable of petrification in the area is neither going to tell you which creature capable of petrification around nor its exact current location. The proper way to prepare for a cockatrice is to not be blindfolded, while the proper way to prepare to fight a basilisk is avoid looking at it.

Although another thing that older editions handled better was rewarding you for carrying around small mirrors of other marginally helpful items, partially by being clearer what those items were for. My personal experience is that the point you really want to use a mirror is well after the point you've left town, and then its to late too grab one. Once this stuff was used so regularly you'd likely be using one even before you ran into a creature capable of petrification, but the books seem to have stopped advocating that sort of dungeon design after 2e.

[Pugwampy]

Nymph . In 2nd Edition could kill you by stripping naked

Lost that super power in 3.5 edition .

[Witty Username]

Nymph . In 2nd Edition could kill you by stripping naked

Lost that super power in 3.5 edition .

Permanent blindness was no picnic either. D&D didn't mess around in the previous editions.

[Pex]

For a reason I don't know why I miss the hecueva. Their last appearance was 2E. I suppose I find their concept intriguing. They're clerics punished by their deity for betraying the faith and thus have an innate hatred for cleric characters.

[Beelzebub1111]

For a reason I don't know why I miss the hecueva. Their last appearance was 2E. I suppose I find their concept intriguing. They're clerics punished by their deity for betraying the faith and thus have an innate hatred for cleric characters.

They were in 3e as well. I want to say in the fiend folio but I'm not 100% on that.

[Leon]

They were in 3e as well. I want to say in the fiend folio but I'm not 100% on that.

They are, along with the template rules for making them

[Metastachydium]

Lost that super power in 3.5 edition .

And exactly in 3.5, I might add. In 3.0 they still had it; it's one of the few major changes in the MM that wasn't mandated by the rules changes.