So, despite my big love of the Fiend Folio, I have to say that there are more than a few dull humanoids that don't do much for me.
Jermalaine
Jermalaine strike me as mechanically seeming more or less like kobolds, only more rat bastards. Well-played, they could be an ongoing pain in the butt in a dungeon. Otherwise, they are mechanically pretty much kobolds, only half the hit points. And they like rats. Something more or less like that. They have a very detailed write-up, but it boils down to ways to annoy your players.
Mites
They are basically like Jermaline or Kobolds, with Goblin hit points. But act like Jermaline or Kobolds. But they have no language.
I appreciate the Russ Nicholson art. Sure, that's creepy and all. But this is just a generic pest monster, not very different from the other pest monsters. It's a goblin with jermaline/kobold behavior, and jermaline damage.
Norkers
Norkers, on the other hand, just confuse me. Norkers are just like hobgoblins, except they have one extra hit point. And big fangs for an extra bite attack. And they have an armored exoskeleton. And they have claws, but usually use a club. But other than generally being totally different from hobgoblins physically, technologically, and in appearance, they look and act just like hobgoblins. I really don't know how to react to that.
Ogrillons
Ogrillons are half orc, half ogre. Which somehow make them look like orcs (or 10% of the time, they look like ogres), but have horny fists that make them into brutal orcish boxers who never use weapons. Because orcs are boxers, or is it ogres? And they do 1d6+1 damage because of their 18 (01) strength... because that explains the damage.
Don't ask me to elaborate more. I don't get it.
Xvarts
Xvarts are mechanically somewhere between kobolds and goblins, because you really needed to split the difference between the two weakest types of humanoids in the game. What the do have going for them is that they appear to be evil Smurfs.
Gibberlings
So they are basically naked cavemen wielding swords — and wielding them so well that they gain a +1 bonus to hit. They have no leaders, no understandable language, hate light, fear fire, and attack in huge numbers. In short, they are naked caveman swordmasters with no language and no leaders.
I don't even know what to say.
Snyads
They're like mites, but instead of killing you they try to steal your stuff.
Jermalaine strike me as mechanically seeming more or less like kobolds, only more rat bastards. Well-played, they could be an ongoing pain in the butt in a dungeon. Otherwise, they are mechanically pretty much kobolds, only half the hit points. And they like rats. Something more or less like that. They have a very detailed write-up, but it boils down to ways to annoy your players.
They are basically like Jermaline or Kobolds, with Goblin hit points. But act like Jermaline or Kobolds. But they have no language.
I appreciate the Russ Nicholson art. Sure, that's creepy and all. But this is just a generic pest monster, not very different from the other pest monsters. It's a goblin with jermaline/kobold behavior, and jermaline damage.
NorkersNorkers, on the other hand, just confuse me. Norkers are just like hobgoblins, except they have one extra hit point. And big fangs for an extra bite attack. And they have an armored exoskeleton. And they have claws, but usually use a club. But other than generally being totally different from hobgoblins physically, technologically, and in appearance, they look and act just like hobgoblins. I really don't know how to react to that.
Ogrillons are half orc, half ogre. Which somehow make them look like orcs (or 10% of the time, they look like ogres), but have horny fists that make them into brutal orcish boxers who never use weapons. Because orcs are boxers, or is it ogres? And they do 1d6+1 damage because of their 18 (01) strength... because that explains the damage.
Don't ask me to elaborate more. I don't get it.
XvartsXvarts are mechanically somewhere between kobolds and goblins, because you really needed to split the difference between the two weakest types of humanoids in the game. What the do have going for them is that they appear to be evil Smurfs.
So they are basically naked cavemen wielding swords — and wielding them so well that they gain a +1 bonus to hit. They have no leaders, no understandable language, hate light, fear fire, and attack in huge numbers. In short, they are naked caveman swordmasters with no language and no leaders.
I don't even know what to say.
They're like mites, but instead of killing you they try to steal your stuff.
Gibberlings at least seem kinda like a subterranean degenerate Lovecraftian tyhn thing. More foul and loathesome than cavemen.
ReplyDeleteSome of these are great alternatives to the creatures they closely resemble.
ReplyDeleteI have used at least half of these in my games. When kobolds have been done to death but you need something like a kobold, you have stand-ins.
Changing the flavor text is about all these need. The original authors tried in too many ways to make a lot of these creatures cousins to or sub-species of existing humanoids instead of their own species.
-Eli
Flinds, man. They're the pits.
ReplyDeleteAlso not a fan of the Giant Troll. He's weaker than the the ordinary Troll. Very poor design there.
I do like Ogrillons. Mostly for the art, though.
@Kullervo: the sword-master element of Gibberlings destroy any sense of Lovecraftian in them to me.
ReplyDelete@Eli: the problem is, you could do the same thing with variations in existing monsters -- and there are just too many humanoids already. Goblins, Kobolds, Orcs, Gnolls, Hobgoblins... and most of those are so similar to each other already that splitting hairs in the difference between kobolds and goblins seems excessive, and less valuable than just having, say, different tribes of kobolds that have different tactics or traits.
@Faserip: I thought I already complained about flinds before. I may need to post about the giant and troll variants at some point, pro and con.
Russ Nicholson's art is great, especially the last picture.
ReplyDeleteBut really, I don't see any gaming or folklore reason why goblins, kobolds, orcs, ogres, trolls and so on need to be seperate species, as opposed to a single species that can have a range of particular stats.
Anarchist: Russ' art is more exciting than the creatures in both instances. But I wonder at the same thing. It wouldn't take much to fold goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears into a single race of goblins with different sizes normal in the species.
ReplyDeleteOut of all those, Gibberlings are the only ones I've actually used in 20+ years of owning a Fiend Folio. And only because they're in a module I've run twice: UK4 When A Star Falls.
ReplyDeleteHilarious post! And it's always great to see Nicholson's work.
ReplyDelete@myrystyr: UK4 is an amazing module. I'm envious that you've managed to run it *twice*.
Basically all these monsters are examples of rolls on the Random Goblin Table; they make cool one-off guys but don;'t deserve their own entries with detailed habits, etc. So what would really be useful is if someone who isn't me would make said Table. Essentially, it would generate appearance (Xvart Giant Smurf head! Gibberling Bird Toes! Ogrillon Cartelegde Fists!), behaviour (pests, mindless man-eaters, organized war-band), special adaptations (Grimlock super-hearing, giant spider pets, whatever), and (last but not least) suggestions for names.
ReplyDeleteSomebody do that now, please.
Thinking about it, a goblin species more like the ones in Labyrinth that ranged from little pests to hulking beasts with all kinds of variation/mutation would be much more fairy-tale like...
ReplyDelete