|
Post by algardunraven on Nov 11, 2013 19:14:06 GMT
I bought the smallest plastic box Hobby Lobby had, and then went nuts with the trusty old glue gun. In it's first use at game night, it rolled a Crit and swallowed the Halfling thief whole! The bottom is open so I just plopped it right over him. The looks on the faces were priceless! Hope you like it!
|
|
|
Post by munkyjester on Feb 6, 2016 4:14:40 GMT
I love the melting look to the corners. I will have to make one of them next!
|
|
|
Post by voodoo on Feb 23, 2016 18:03:59 GMT
one of my fave monsters!
|
|
|
Post by adamantinedragon on Feb 24, 2016 0:02:53 GMT
I've got several gelatinous cubes, and I don't even like them as game monsters. They are quintessential Gygax beasts, designed for no other purpose than to thwart adventurers. But they look awesome.
|
|
|
Post by DnDPaladin on Feb 24, 2016 17:04:13 GMT
adamentine... just saying... the whole MM is designed to be against the players in one way or another. the monster i hate the most is the rust monster... now that monster is clearly designed to go against magic items, clearly that monster was designed to remove unwanted items from a party. and that shoudn't have been. but, just saying... all MM are made to break one part of the game or another, otherwise the game would be OP in one way or another.
|
|
|
Post by Meph on Feb 24, 2016 17:05:45 GMT
adamentine... just saying... the whole MM is designed to be against the players in one way or another. the monster i hate the most is the rust monster... now that monster is clearly designed to go against magic items, clearly that monster was designed to remove unwanted items from a party. and that shoudn't have been. but, just saying... all MM are made to break one part of the game or another, otherwise the game would be OP in one way or another. If you hate the Rust Monster then go read my weekly game thread. I just used one a couple weeks ago and loved it. Put some real fear in my players when they realized magic items can go bye bye.
|
|
|
Post by DnDPaladin on Feb 24, 2016 20:52:05 GMT
this is exactly why i hate it. it is a monster that is made purely to destroy things that you gave your players. which in turn leaves the players with nothing and tons of adventures out of the window because they now have to get back their stuff which was hard to get. unless you actually allow the players to find magical items with ease.
whats fun to a DM may not be fun for a player. exemple... if i was the DM, made a special room and then once you leave that room you lose every thing you had on you including clothes armors, backpacks. with no way of gaining everything back... oh that would be awesome for me, but i doubt any of my players would love it. also, destroying a magic item on the spot is something that shouldn'T be done. its a fucking magical item. this is why i preffer the 5E way. equipment loses +1 until they gain -5 until that point where they break. magical items who lose their properties becomes mundane first. i have too much trouble putting magical items to the same level as mundane items when it comes to dissolution into acid and or rust monsters.
but my point here was... all monsters in the monster manual are made to abuse a part of the system they are made into. so i dont understand the point of saying the geltinous cube is like that while the whole monster manual is. does that mean that person plays all mosters in a way that totally advantages the players in any way possible ?
|
|
|
Post by Meph on Feb 24, 2016 21:09:50 GMT
I am not going to get sucked into another debate with you about D&D. You and I don't agree and never will. Let's just leave it at that. Nice Gelatinous Cube algardunraven
|
|
|
Post by adamantinedragon on Feb 25, 2016 3:44:50 GMT
The monster manual is full of monsters. The basic purpose of monsters in the game of D&D is to provide adventurers with something to fight, or otherwise interact with, to make the game challenging and exciting.
That does not mean every monster in the MM is designed specifically to thwart adventurers. Most monsters are based on mythological or fairy tale "monsters" and aren't even really "designed" so much as they were "incorporated" into the game. Many others are designed to make the game richer by creating interesting cultures or deliberately providing story options to explore "monsters" that are really human analogues.
Gygax monsters are just ridiculous beasts with no rational cultural, ecological, or biological function. They exist solely to **** with players. That's what I hate about them. They are sophomoric "gotcha" devices that turn the game into a GM vs players exercise.
|
|
|
Post by Meph on Feb 25, 2016 4:10:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by adamantinedragon on Feb 25, 2016 6:41:34 GMT
It's not just the monsters. Gary Gygax, for all that he did in creating the games I know and love, wrote and promoted a style of play that has always come across to me as a GM vs Player approach. His legendary games, as beloved as they are in retrospect, were filled with arbitrary ways to thwart player goals for no other reason that I could discern other than that as GM, he could do it. But to answer your question, the most obvious ones are the gelatinous cube, the rust monster, the gasbag (or whatever it was that looked exactly like a beholder until you took the most logical anti-beholder action available to you, when it blew up in your face), and, to a lesser extent, monsters like the bullette, which was just a way to attack players without warning as they walked across seemingly safe terrain. I know it is pretty much heresy to say anything negative about Gary Gygax, and I am deeply grateful for the fact that he created a game genre that has given me thousands of hours of fun and fulfillment, but I'm glad I never played with the guy as a GM.
|
|
|
Post by DnDPaladin on Feb 25, 2016 8:39:29 GMT
i hate gary gygax a lot... yet im still not agreeing with you on this very point. all monsters are made to prey on certain aspect of the game. take vampires as an exemple. they may have come from folklore but in the game they are designed to prey on weak willed people and have that bad ass regeneration to keep them alive. heck in some editions they are truly the inverse of it.
in the end you critisice his imagination out of simple facts. its quite simple, to you it makes no sense and you make zero effort to find a way for them to work. all of what you mentionned could easily be filled in, heck even i did that very often. even creating a living ooze at some point.
then there is the monsters are made to be challenging... in a system designed to prey on players ? look at your saying... the bulette is made to prey on perfectly fine terrain ? then what about the worms. or those creatures who can eat you alive and make a duplicate of you. how about those other acidic creatures. or heck even a dragon who can just chew on players like there is no tomorrow. you probably are adverse to breath weapons, after al there is no thing the players can do about it. clearly against the player that is.
seriously... its a game system, all things in it including all monsters are develop into that system to prey on something more then another. its what best for that system otherwise players would find an easy way out of it all and there would be nothing you could do about it.
|
|
|
Post by birdskull on Feb 25, 2016 14:32:22 GMT
Nice cube!
Pally: You don't HAVE to make every thread into a 3 page long discussion.
|
|
|
Post by DnDPaladin on Feb 25, 2016 17:17:10 GMT
you preffer 3 pages long of nice work without any real things to be said ?
|
|
|
Post by birdskull on Feb 25, 2016 19:04:57 GMT
Not getting into a discussion in this guy's thread.
|
|
|
Post by sgtslag on Feb 25, 2016 19:30:38 GMT
adamantinedragon , did you read Dragon Magazine back in the early 1980's? There was a semi-regular column called, " Up on a Soapbox," by Gygax. It was his bully-pulpit. I loved 1st Ed. AD&D, and I played it as much as I could, and I enjoyed my Dragon Magazines, but those articles really were disappointing to read. Gygax really took readers, and players, to task. Reading his articles was often like a trip to the woodshed. I really did not like the guy much from what he wrote in those articles. He basically went against his introductions in the PHB, and DMG, where he wrote that the rules were guidelines, and we could alter them any way that we deemed fun for our group. It was sad, really. Gygax was not, nor is he now, a saint. He was human, just like the rest of us. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by adamantinedragon on Feb 26, 2016 0:38:02 GMT
sgtslag, I did read Dragon Magazine back then, and I had a similar reaction to Gygax from reading them. My biggest problem with Gygax is how many times I've been in a game with a jerk GM who obviously played the game specifically to **** with players, and gleefully used Gygax as their justification for doing so. There's this trend online to say "there's no wrong way to play D&D." I call bs on that. There is a wrong way, and Gygax promoted it.
|
|
|
Post by DnDPaladin on Feb 26, 2016 21:36:45 GMT
completely agree on that...
|
|