The Dumbest Dungeons & Dragons Monsters Ever (And How To Use Them)

Dirty Apple

New member
Apr 24, 2008
819
0
0
I'm gonna add something a touch unorthodox and say that the Tarrasque in all its monumental and catastrophic splendor is irredeemable. I mean has anyone ever successfully ran a campaign where this monstrosity appears and is actually killed? And if so did it take the intervention of a god or multiple gods? It just seems too unwieldy and unbalanced to be employed in a serious game.
 

Weaver

Overcaffeinated
Apr 28, 2008
8,977
0
0
The article on the flail snail is amazing. I shared it with my DM and he's probably going to work one into the dungeon somehow lol.
 

Kolyarut

New member
Nov 19, 2012
116
0
0
For me, the Ragamoffyn was a good excuse for an oldschool wizard's-tower-gone-wrong adventure. The players were a little wtf when they got to the top and found out what was causing it all, but I figure if you're going to find one of those things anywhere, a wizard's house would be it.
 

Xpwn3ntial

Avid Reader
Dec 22, 2008
8,023
0
0
Dirty Apple said:
I'm gonna add something a touch unorthodox and say that the Tarrasque in all its monumental and catastrophic splendor is irredeemable. I mean has anyone ever successfully ran a campaign where this monstrosity appears and is actually killed? And if so did it take the intervention of a god or multiple gods? It just seems too unwieldy and unbalanced to be employed in a serious game.
My brother played a game where the DM threw one at them just to get them out of the town they were in. Turns out, they had a wizard with a dagger that makes you pass out or something and the Tarrasque passed out. Then they buried its head in dirt and it suffocated.

Wish I could've seen the DM's face.

I kind of want to use a Ragamoffyn now. It'd be perfect for a haunted house adventure.
 

Lieju

New member
Jan 4, 2009
3,044
0
0
Paeliryons are described as schemers that work behind the scenes, running spy rings and playing puppet master. Why does it have to look the way it does?
Maybe it's just powerful and influental enough that he/she/it doesn't have to give a crap what people think of its makeup.
Or rather, anyone who is dumb enough to voice their opinion out loud gets quickly disappeared.
 

Skeleon

New member
Nov 2, 2007
5,410
0
0
I could never take beholders seriously. I know they're supposed to be powerful magical creatures, but they just look so stupid.



D'oih, I'm a silly ball and have so many eyes that I don't know where to put them.
 

hiei82

Dire DM (+2 HD and a rend attack
Aug 10, 2011
2,463
0
0
Skeleon said:
I could never take beholders seriously. I know they're supposed to be powerful magical creatures, but they just look so stupid.



D'oih, I'm a silly ball and have so many eyes that I don't know where to put them.
That reminds me of the Gas Spore



This is a fungus that looks like a beholder but explodes into spores when attacked. It's a plant creature (note, not a magical plant, just a plant)

That means that, through the process of evolution, this fungus created a reproductive strategy that revolves around adventurers attacking beholders. Adventurers are so common and have been around so long that nature has had a chance to evolve to take advantage of them. The world of D&D is insane.
 

vhailorx

New member
Mar 7, 2011
12
0
0
This is a very fun article, but I can't see leaving the piercer off of any 'dumbest d&d monsters' list.
 

Korskarn

New member
Sep 9, 2008
72
0
0
Xpwn3ntial said:
Dirty Apple said:
I'm gonna add something a touch unorthodox and say that the Tarrasque in all its monumental and catastrophic splendor is irredeemable. I mean has anyone ever successfully ran a campaign where this monstrosity appears and is actually killed? And if so did it take the intervention of a god or multiple gods? It just seems too unwieldy and unbalanced to be employed in a serious game.
My brother played a game where the DM threw one at them just to get them out of the town they were in. Turns out, they had a wizard with a dagger that makes you pass out or something and the Tarrasque passed out. Then they buried its head in dirt and it suffocated.

Wish I could've seen the DM's face.

I kind of want to use a Ragamoffyn now. It'd be perfect for a haunted house adventure.
I call BS on this.

First, the wizard would have to get within melee range. The Tarrasque has a +7 initiative modifier (equal to 24dex) so it's far more likely the wizard would have ended up a bloody smear on the ground before they could do anything. But they may have got lucky...

Second, the wizard would have had to hit the Tarrasque. Assuming the dagger was Epic to overcome the damage reduction to inflict damage to trigger special abilities, the Tarrasque still has 35ac which would require a natural 20 for a Wizard to hit. But they might've given the dagger to a higher BAB party member...

Third, the Tarrasque would have to fail its saving throw. Considering its worst saving throw is +20will (vs. mind affecting), it would still require an Epic Sleep spell (which starts at DC20, and takes an additional +2spellcraft or 2levels per additional +1DC) to have a shot at consistently overcoming the will save. But the Tarrasque might've rolled a 1...

Fourth, they'd have had to excavated enough dirt to bury the head. The Tarrasque is 70ft long, and standard body proportions indicate that this would give a head of around 9.3ft, meaning the party would have to excavate an volume of ~810cubic ft. Using the 6th level spell "Move Earth" takes 10minutes to remove the dirt, 10minutes to replace the dirt (bury the head), and another 9 minutes for the Tarrasque to suffocate (2 rounds per con at 35 con, and an extra 20 rounds to "Take 20" and fail the suffocation saving throw, then 3 rounds to "die"). This is well beyond the time limit of a standard sleep spell, and any "slapping or wounding" (i.e. stabbing with the dagger additional times) will break the Sleep. But they might've been able to quickly and quietly perform the task in less than 30minutes...

Fifth, the Tarrasque has a special form of regeneration which states states that ANY death effect due to failed saving throw instead inflicts 868hp of non-lethal damage. This overrides the normal "regeneration does not heal suffocation damage", and means the Tarrasque has another 93 rounds before "suffocating" again - plenty of time to regen at 40hp per round. No matter what, eventually it's going to wake up. But they might have a Wish ready for when it hits -10hp from the suffocation failure...

Sixth, you have a 1 round (6 second) window to cast that Wish spell so it stays dead (and even then you have to beat the Spell Resistance for an unwilling target). It's got a heavy carapace, which masks visible signs of breathing, and the head is buried so the airflow can't be checked. It's possible to use Sense Life, but that would assume the Wizard prepared it that day - which is pretty unlikely. But maybe the Wizard DID prepare sense life so they could detect the round the Tarrasque "died"...

Seventh, the use of a Wish when the Tarrasque hits -10 assumes that the characters know this information. Since the Tarrasque is unique the characters wouldn't know what's required to kill it - because no-one has ever done it before. As far as they know, just burying it should be enough to keep it dead (because that would overcome any non-Tarrasque regeneration). Even if someone in the world has attempted to bury it before, any observer of the previous failed attempt would assume (incorrectly) that the Tarrasque doesn't breathe so the characters wouldn't try that method.

The combination of suffocation plus Wish within the 6-second window is just too obscure for the characters to work out before they become a bloody smear on the ground.

Besides, the Tarrasque shouldn't be used by DM's as an opponent that players have to work out how to kill - it should be used as a force of nature that players have to work out how to divert. It's a living natural disaster that was invented because "Godzilla" is trademarked, not an intelligent archrival that drives a varied campaign story.
 

Xpwn3ntial

Avid Reader
Dec 22, 2008
8,023
0
0
Korskarn said:
Buddy, that's what he told me. I wasn't there.

All I know is he said their wizard had a dagger that knocked stuff out, they buried a tarrasque's head underground so it would suffocate, and that a tarrasque is a big deal. I don't know if the wizard used the dagger or if the fighter/thief did. I don't know the rolls necessary or the rolls they made. I don't know what levels they were. I don't know how the tarrasque specifically works, only that it's supposed to be nigh-unstoppable.

But the DM didn't intend them to fight the tarrasque, only for them to get the hell out of dodge because it showed up. I specifically remember my brother saying they weren't actually supposed to fight the thing and instead run away. I'm guessing all the stuff you said is why.
 

Korskarn

New member
Sep 9, 2008
72
0
0
Xpwn3ntial said:
Korskarn said:
Buddy, that's what he told me. I wasn't there.

All I know is he said their wizard had a dagger that knocked stuff out, they buried a tarrasque's head underground so it would suffocate, and that a tarrasque is a big deal. I don't know if the wizard used the dagger or if the fighter/thief did. I don't know the rolls necessary or the rolls they made. I don't know what levels they were. I don't know how the tarrasque specifically works, only that it's supposed to be nigh-unstoppable.

But the DM didn't intend them to fight the tarrasque, only for them to get the hell out of dodge because it showed up. I specifically remember my brother saying they weren't actually supposed to fight the thing and instead run away. I'm guessing all the stuff you said is why.
Eh... rules-wise it's relatively straightforward to kill - beat it into a bloody pulp with a weapon, Wish it to stay dead. There's plenty of cheesemongering ways to deal hundreds of HP damage per round to do the first, and just having enough money gives access to the second.

There's many more ways to incapacitate it or otherwise avert its threat (it's just a giant lizard after all, just one that comes back from the dead). In terms of a campaign it's pretty much the equivalent of a mobile volcano, earthquake or tsunami, and DMs should encourage "delay" tactics (and even if they do manage to "kill" it when it shows up, congratulations they just pissed off its Elder God creator who just opens the gates of the underworld so it can come back). Having it show up just to try and get the players out of a town... *Psyduck*
 

SweetShark

Shark Girls are my Waifus
Jan 9, 2012
5,147
0
0
I am the only one I think most of the creatures are perfect for a creative adventure?

Example, the DuckRabbit.

After you get inside the Wizard's Shop, immediately your eyes focus to one of the strangers things the wizard had: A rabbit? No, a duck? No,no,no,no,no.......a DuckRabbit.



Another Example: The Flail Snail.

You get ready for battle, after the short aggresive talk you had with Lord Helekton.
"Guards!!! Bring my weapon out from it cage!!! said with a joyful scream Lord Helekton
All of you get confused. You wondered why Helekton have his weapon inside a cage.....unless....
Suddendly before you complete your thought, the floor trembles and after that opens hearing merchanicals sounds. from the hole rise a cage and inside the cage is...ooooohhhhh yeah, this make sense.....a Flail Snail. Of course it is his weapon...."


How funny and cool this sound? :)
 

Rblade

New member
Mar 1, 2010
497
0
0
Skeleon said:
I could never take beholders seriously. I know they're supposed to be powerful magical creatures, but they just look so stupid.



D'oih, I'm a silly ball and have so many eyes that I don't know where to put them.
you did pick the derpiest possible beholder picture. pretty much every other picture in the google image search makes them look more fearsome
 

Imperioratorex Caprae

Henchgoat Emperor
May 15, 2010
5,499
0
0
Dirty Apple said:
I'm gonna add something a touch unorthodox and say that the Tarrasque in all its monumental and catastrophic splendor is irredeemable. I mean has anyone ever successfully ran a campaign where this monstrosity appears and is actually killed? And if so did it take the intervention of a god or multiple gods? It just seems too unwieldy and unbalanced to be employed in a serious game.
Mmmm, its more about the way folk use the Tarrasque than actually fighting it. I've used it to drive plots (e.g. complete x-quest to get y-macguffin so the Tarrasque will not awaken and destroy the world).
 

Skeleon

New member
Nov 2, 2007
5,410
0
0
@Rblade
you did pick the derpiest possible beholder picture. pretty much every other picture in the google image search makes them look more fearsome
It's the picture from Wikipedia.
I googled, too, but I could take none of them seriously. You can add more teeth or spikes or something, but the things still look dumb as hell.