I feel like the real divide between a good and bad monster starts with the name. Think of two iconic D&D monsters: the Beholder and the Mind Flayer. The Beholder, especially in a lot of early drawings, can be a supremely stupid-looking creature: "It has a big eye! And then other eyes! That shoot lasers!" But it's called a Beholder which is just so rad-sounding, and the whole concept stuck. Ditto with Mind Flayers, which are essentially just people with squids for faces and psychic powers. But they flay minds, man. How cool is that? Then you have the owlbear...
I guess my point is, most of the more imaginative creatures live or die on the value we've ascribed to them over the years based on how neat their names or features sounded, often when we were kids.
Like most ridiculously bad monsters.
Can be from any edition, but I'm pretty sure 3.5 has a shit ton of those.
hey kids do you like violence? wanna see me shove nine inch nails through each one of my eyelids?
Most of the worst are from first and second edition. There are a bunch of lists online of dumb monsters, but my personal pick would be the duckbunny.
OK, I'll offer a starting candidate.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I feel like the real divide between a good and bad monster starts with the name. Think of two iconic D&D monsters: the Beholder and the Mind Flayer. The Beholder, especially in a lot of early drawings, can be a supremely stupid-looking creature: "It has a big eye! And then other eyes! That shoot lasers!" But it's called a Beholder which is just so rad-sounding, and the whole concept stuck. Ditto with Mind Flayers, which are essentially just people with squids for faces and psychic powers. But they flay minds, man. How cool is that? Then you have the owlbear...
I guess my point is, most of the more imaginative creatures live or die on the value we've ascribed to them over the years based on how neat their names or features sounded, often when we were kids.
On the other hand, the Mauler exists.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile.
None of the creatures from that module are bad. Except the froghemoth. That one was stupid.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Eww wolfs-in-sheeps clothing. Froghemoths are very stupid as well. The DND team should've left it in earlier editions, but it popped up in 5th ed.
A lot of the humanoid races are stupid as well, as most of them are just random animals with bodies.
hey kids do you like violence? wanna see me shove nine inch nails through each one of my eyelids?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersAl-mi'raj
It's a rabbit, with a unicorn horn stuck to it.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
The Disenchanter!
Have you seen Sam Sykes' tweetstorms about frogs and other funny concepts in D&D? They get a seriously bad rap.
https://twitter.com/SamSykesSwears/status/973303167327682560
https://twitter.com/SamSykesSwears/status/895770770948841472
https://twitter.com/SamSykesSwears/status/925580337236733952