Altering monster appearances

Basic descriptions are guidelines. Be creative.

Any player or DM that would have or create issue with this has much bigger problems going on.

>>46414575

Completely inappropriate. What's the point of using a monster if you're just gonna change it? It's just a cheap "Aha! Got ya! This monster is actually X, but you had no way of knowing because the description is different!"

>>46414575
Depends. Are they depicted differently in chinese cave paintings and are waifu-able?

File: Black-Dragonfish-4.jpg (44KB, 348x460px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 348x460px

>>46414642
I was thinking something more along the lines of giving black dragons deepsea fish-like faces.

Not only do I find it appropriate, I recommend it. It adds a unique flavour to your game and helps reduce metagaming.

Is it an encounter with an awakened tree and two zombies? Or a cursed tree with barren branches awakened by the bleeding sins of those hung to death from it's branches, two victims still swinging wildly.

Can't see why there'd be any issue with this unless you have legitimately have autism.

>>46414598
> autism causes people to think like this

If your monsters aren't out of the book, well, better kill yourself

>>46414746
That's fucking dope, dude. What a fantastic idea! I might end up stealing this sometime in the future.

If you're the muhfuckin DM it's your goddamn universe do what you want, why are you asking us this vapid fucking question you spoonfed shitwit?

>>46414936
I love you too, anon.

>>46414598
>something that discourages metagaming is "inappropriate"

>>46414575
Monsters are just stats vaguely related to it's appearance.
I would recommend changing whatever you like, even if you have to remove/add abilities to the creature.
Also don't just describe the creature as "a goblin but blue". Describe a Goblin as you would an unknown creature with the characteristics of a blue goblin.

>>46414575
As long as the new description isn't so radical the being becomes unrecognisable. Nagas should still be snake-esque, for example, but beyond that it's all on you.

>>46414837

>The Lynching tree

A young treant that grew insane over the years it's branches served as the gallows for an overly zealous inquisitor. mothers, children men all swung from it's branches and it had to listen to the insane inquisitor's ramblings of justice.

When it grew old enough to uproot itself it sought out the inquisitor and hung him from it's branches.

Now it roams the forest looking for "sinners" to hang having now become a serial killer of sorts

File: OC Do Not Steal.png (670KB, 652x732px) Image search: [Google]

670KB, 652x732px

>>46415005
>

File: the blood bond alex kornstad.jpg (307KB, 1440x1920px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 1440x1920px

>>46415035
This is now a monster ideas thread.

>>46415035
How about a gallows treant, that is actually an undead, the tree being possessed and animated by the collective spirits of the bodies hanging from it?

>>46415137
Sort of like a re-flavor of a dread wraith, multiple tormented spirits conglomerated into one miserable amalgamation.

>>46414598
Are you trolling?
Knowing what every monster is, how it fights, and what it's weakness is, is fucking boring. I want weird shit that keeps me on the back foot and confused.

>>46415137

That works, I just like the idea of a treant being unexpectedly damaged by the hedious acts it's body was used for

Another re-fluff I was thinking of was to depict behir as more worm or centipede-like than draconic. Giant floating sky-menace worms that make wrecks of airships, and possibly make deep, echoing bellowing sounds like whales.

File: P1Sy9OV.jpg (68KB, 448x700px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 448x700px

>>46416432
Or having succubi actually be hideous and terrifying, not even remotely human shaped.
A creature like this becomes much more disturbing when you know it's having nocturnal intercourse with you. Perhaps they only pretend to look like human-shaped demons in dreams.

>>46417082
>I usually use magic to put you to sleep.
>Today I forgot, somehow.
I am not going to even try locating that picture. I know well in advance that I'll never find it.

>>46417082
>having succubi actually be hideous and terrifying
Fuck you!

I believe giving descriptions of monsters that are altered from or even contrary to the book descriptions is a good idea especially with certain groups. It helps to prevent metagaming. If they want to know what a creature is in-game you ask the GM and make the appropriate Knowledge/Lore/etc check if your character isn't reasonably acquainted with the creature already.

For example, a ranger might know the local monsters, but might be unfamiliar with something from another region. He wouldn't need to make a check to identify a local kobold, but a goblin from the far east would be completely strange to him and unless his roll succeeds he wouldn't know what the fuck it was. Likewise the guardsman who spent his military career on a planet plagued by Eldar would have a good idea what they were and what their shit looks like, but wouldn't likely have any knowledge of Orks and their gear without the appropriate lores.

>>46417865
The image I posted is from an American comic inspired by Saya no Uta.
Also
>I usually use magic to put you to sleep.
>Today I forgot, somehow.
was exactly the kind of vibe I was going for with my idea. Truly horrifying.

>>46417865
It's from one of the first oglaf webcomic strips.

>>46414575
Out of curiosity, what arguments did you anticipate against it? Some people make custom settings and the players are fine with that, why would anyone get irked that you tweaked an imaginary moster for your imaginary world?

I can see how it would bother someone if it totally changed an established setting, but if it's mostly cosmetic stuff, who cares? It's not like D&D is some pinnacle of monster design.

>>46418535
And if that IG makes his Knowledge Check: Orks he gets executed for knowing things he should not know.

Not like you need to use official stat blocks. I prefer Dragon's Dogma style Chimeras over D&D style, but since I play a system that makes NPC creation very easy it's not a hard thing to change.

>>46419366
Of course! What did you think would happen? kek

>>46414575

It's meaningless.

Or, rather, do whatever you like if you think it's interesting.

But doing it to "prevent metagaming" just betrays lack of trust in the players - if you can't trust them to keep to in-character knowledge, then you shouldn't toy around with their out-of-character knowledge. It's just petty. Better to just ask them to not metagame.

>>46421201
>trust
>Better to just ask them to not metagame.
Well, I've played with a group that have such a difficulty not metagaming that we wound up playing "metagame-proof" games flavored after MMORPGs and the like where "in character" was essentially a dude playing the vidya. This wasn't due to a refusal to avoid using OOC knowledge IC, but more of a simple inability to do so. Some people just can't get into character properly. And many others can but sometimes unintentionally metagame, either figuring their character would know something or they start making rolls they might not have otherwise to "see if my character knows what I know".

I mean, if I say "it's a tengu" to someone, they'll know it's a tengu. If I describe a tengu from the book, they might know it's a tengu. In either of these cases, they might just assume the character has seen a tengu before and knows the basics or something, or they might make a roll to see if their character knows what they know OOC.
If I describe some strange avian creature they've never seen before that doesn't match the book description in the slightest they might not even attempt to ID it before attacking it or trying to interact with it. I know some players that will act first and make knowledge rolls only if their initial reaction fails somehow. But say with a troll, many would reach for fire without even bothering to think about whether they know what it is or not unless they don't know OOC.

>>46417082
Fuck, that comic was a shitty adaptation.