Already a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to access this content.
20 thoughts on “Frontiers of Eberron Preview: Gargoyle Characters”
This is so much fun! Thank you, Keith!
Would you still have Cairngorm be a nabassu?
Would you still have Cairngorm be a nabassu?
I’ll address this in the article in the morning. There’s a missing section.
Fascinating concepts.
So unlike the Medusa, who deny Orlassks hand in their creation, is it generally accepted he was responsible for the gargoyles? Or do they also disavow that version of history?
Looking like Dhakaani heroes and being crafted by them, but having inherent revulsion for them must’ve been… Stressful fr all parties involved. Is this sort of like the ‘Treacherous Word’ or how lycanthropes used to have more overlord influence, where their revulsion grew less potent over time? Or is it just that the gargoyles themselves mellowed from years of meditation?
So unlike the Medusa, who deny Orlassks hand in their creation, is it generally accepted he was responsible for the gargoyles? Or do they also disavow that version of history?
The Grimstone gargoyles don’t CARE who created them. SCHOLARS assert that it was Orlassk who animated the Grimstone gargoyles, and it makes sense given the timing. But the gargoyles never knew their creator and never had any loyalty to the daelkyr. They were simply unleashed into the world as a force of chaos.
Is this sort of like the ‘Treacherous Word’ or how lycanthropes used to have more overlord influence, where their revulsion grew less potent over time? Or is it just that the gargoyles themselves mellowed from years of meditation?
More the latter. The revulsion was more of just an initial reaction rather than a supernaturally enforced behavior. COming to life was a shock to begin with, and then discovering they were surrounded by horrifying squishy monsters, the reaction was to lash out. But in the present day gargoyles are used to the squishy creatures. They still may think they’re kind of gross, but they aren’t COMPELLED to fight them.
Awesome, thanks for the context and clarification, these are really great concepts to work with. Thank you so much!
This looks super interesting to play around with.
Just to clarify, the Hewn for Battle Feat. You either choose a flat 18 AC without any bonuses, or you choose 14 AC + Dex Modifier?
Correct, though you can change that after a long rest, if you have a reason to.
always love to see that work that goes into the eberron races. especially the non-traditional monster races we’re getting with frontiers.
one curiosity on the feats, are the claws supposed to be a separate feat to the armor buff?
One curiosity on the feats, are the claws supposed to be a separate feat to the armor buff?
No. A 1d6 unarmed strike isn’t a particular powerful benefit. Armor is always useful, but most characters who care about melee combat can do better by using weapons; it’s more about flavor.
Hey Keith, cultural and fashion question.
In the art shared the Gargoyles are wearing loincloths.
My question is this: do gargoyles, in general, have *bits*, and would they, in general, feel the need to be modest about them. Or do they instead wear those loincloths to conform to the sensibilities of the *bits*-having peoples around them?
(Bits in this circumstance refers to sexual reproductive organs or that which might look similar)
I know you described that gargoyles don’t reproduce sexually, which is why I ask what the point of the loincloths is.
As you’ve noted, gargoyles don’t use bits for reproduction. With that said, the shape of a gargoyle is determined by the original sculptor (or parents in the case of reproduction), and then the gargoyle can evolve their shape over time to fit their self image—in the same way a gargoyle can add wings, it could ADD bits if it was taken with them.
So in this image, there’s a few possibilities. One option is that the gargoyle has bits, either due to the work of a sculptor or because the gargoyle wanted them. Another option is that the gargoyle has found that wearing some form of clothing makes organic creatures more comfortable — that it helps them think of the gargoyle as a person, not a statue. A final possibility is that the gargoyle just LIKES the loincloth; it’s just a personal affectation.
This actually relates to something I’ve wondered myself. Forgive me if it’s answered in the article already since I can’t read it yet but as it stands in 5e gargoyles are elementals but in 3.5 they were monstrous humanoids which implies a somewhat more mundane and natural life. Of course they still didn’t need to eat, breathe, or sleep but they weren’t immune to poisons or anything else of the sort which further suggests that they’re more living creature than animated statue. Does that change anything at all with how their biology and physiology may work?
Does that change anything at all with how their biology and physiology may work?
I’m working off the current edition here. In previous editions, I did NOT consider gargoyles to be creatures that were actually made of stone. However, the current edition implies that they are: they are elementals, they don’t eat or breathe, and when they stand still they are indistinguishable from stone statues — from my reading of the ability, it’s not that you need to make a good Investigation or something like that, it’s that there is no way to tell if a statue is a gargoyle or not. Which is a very different interpretation than how I saw them in third and previous editions. But it’s the CURRENT edition, so it’s what I’m following with this idea.
In previous editions, I mainly saw them as a form of winged humanoid. In the current model, they appear to be supernaturally animated stone. It’s a very different direction.
Thanks for the answer!
Love this so much. Rules clarification on Hewned for Battle feat, is it possible (with said feat) for a Gargoyle of these stats to be an Armorer Artificer and to make their own body function as their Arcane Armor?
I’d allow it.
Very well done balance with the whole Flying Player Race debate, while still making it as much a part of lore as mechanics.
Question: Let’s say I want to incorporate Gargoyles into Atur (because of the whole Gothic aesthetic the Blood of Vol has going), how would seekers react to Gargoyles? They’re “alive” but they don’t have blood.
I think a Seeker would question why you consider a gargoyle to be “alive.” Compare a gargoyle to a mummy. They’re both sentient, neither needs to eat or sleep, they are no longer subject to age or disease. And neither one has blood, and thus, neither one has the potential to achieve divinity. Which is why Seekers wouldn’t all want to be gargoyles. Gargoyles are basically exactly like undead: they have escaped some of the curse of mortality, but the price of that is that they can never truly achieve divinity.
So sure, I think it’s quite reasonable for there to be a population of gargoyles in Atur, and I think the Seekers would treat them exactly like Oathbound or Karrnathi undead. Respect their service, and pity them for the fact that they can never truly unlock the Divinity Within.
Unlock with Patreon
This is so much fun! Thank you, Keith!
Would you still have Cairngorm be a nabassu?
Would you still have Cairngorm be a nabassu?
I’ll address this in the article in the morning. There’s a missing section.
Fascinating concepts.
So unlike the Medusa, who deny Orlassks hand in their creation, is it generally accepted he was responsible for the gargoyles? Or do they also disavow that version of history?
Looking like Dhakaani heroes and being crafted by them, but having inherent revulsion for them must’ve been… Stressful fr all parties involved. Is this sort of like the ‘Treacherous Word’ or how lycanthropes used to have more overlord influence, where their revulsion grew less potent over time? Or is it just that the gargoyles themselves mellowed from years of meditation?
So unlike the Medusa, who deny Orlassks hand in their creation, is it generally accepted he was responsible for the gargoyles? Or do they also disavow that version of history?
The Grimstone gargoyles don’t CARE who created them. SCHOLARS assert that it was Orlassk who animated the Grimstone gargoyles, and it makes sense given the timing. But the gargoyles never knew their creator and never had any loyalty to the daelkyr. They were simply unleashed into the world as a force of chaos.
Is this sort of like the ‘Treacherous Word’ or how lycanthropes used to have more overlord influence, where their revulsion grew less potent over time? Or is it just that the gargoyles themselves mellowed from years of meditation?
More the latter. The revulsion was more of just an initial reaction rather than a supernaturally enforced behavior. COming to life was a shock to begin with, and then discovering they were surrounded by horrifying squishy monsters, the reaction was to lash out. But in the present day gargoyles are used to the squishy creatures. They still may think they’re kind of gross, but they aren’t COMPELLED to fight them.
Awesome, thanks for the context and clarification, these are really great concepts to work with. Thank you so much!
This looks super interesting to play around with.
Just to clarify, the Hewn for Battle Feat. You either choose a flat 18 AC without any bonuses, or you choose 14 AC + Dex Modifier?
Correct, though you can change that after a long rest, if you have a reason to.
always love to see that work that goes into the eberron races. especially the non-traditional monster races we’re getting with frontiers.
one curiosity on the feats, are the claws supposed to be a separate feat to the armor buff?
One curiosity on the feats, are the claws supposed to be a separate feat to the armor buff?
No. A 1d6 unarmed strike isn’t a particular powerful benefit. Armor is always useful, but most characters who care about melee combat can do better by using weapons; it’s more about flavor.
Hey Keith, cultural and fashion question.
In the art shared the Gargoyles are wearing loincloths.
My question is this: do gargoyles, in general, have *bits*, and would they, in general, feel the need to be modest about them. Or do they instead wear those loincloths to conform to the sensibilities of the *bits*-having peoples around them?
(Bits in this circumstance refers to sexual reproductive organs or that which might look similar)
I know you described that gargoyles don’t reproduce sexually, which is why I ask what the point of the loincloths is.
As you’ve noted, gargoyles don’t use bits for reproduction. With that said, the shape of a gargoyle is determined by the original sculptor (or parents in the case of reproduction), and then the gargoyle can evolve their shape over time to fit their self image—in the same way a gargoyle can add wings, it could ADD bits if it was taken with them.
So in this image, there’s a few possibilities. One option is that the gargoyle has bits, either due to the work of a sculptor or because the gargoyle wanted them. Another option is that the gargoyle has found that wearing some form of clothing makes organic creatures more comfortable — that it helps them think of the gargoyle as a person, not a statue. A final possibility is that the gargoyle just LIKES the loincloth; it’s just a personal affectation.
This actually relates to something I’ve wondered myself. Forgive me if it’s answered in the article already since I can’t read it yet but as it stands in 5e gargoyles are elementals but in 3.5 they were monstrous humanoids which implies a somewhat more mundane and natural life. Of course they still didn’t need to eat, breathe, or sleep but they weren’t immune to poisons or anything else of the sort which further suggests that they’re more living creature than animated statue. Does that change anything at all with how their biology and physiology may work?
Does that change anything at all with how their biology and physiology may work?
I’m working off the current edition here. In previous editions, I did NOT consider gargoyles to be creatures that were actually made of stone. However, the current edition implies that they are: they are elementals, they don’t eat or breathe, and when they stand still they are indistinguishable from stone statues — from my reading of the ability, it’s not that you need to make a good Investigation or something like that, it’s that there is no way to tell if a statue is a gargoyle or not. Which is a very different interpretation than how I saw them in third and previous editions. But it’s the CURRENT edition, so it’s what I’m following with this idea.
In previous editions, I mainly saw them as a form of winged humanoid. In the current model, they appear to be supernaturally animated stone. It’s a very different direction.
Thanks for the answer!
Love this so much. Rules clarification on Hewned for Battle feat, is it possible (with said feat) for a Gargoyle of these stats to be an Armorer Artificer and to make their own body function as their Arcane Armor?
I’d allow it.
Very well done balance with the whole Flying Player Race debate, while still making it as much a part of lore as mechanics.
Question: Let’s say I want to incorporate Gargoyles into Atur (because of the whole Gothic aesthetic the Blood of Vol has going), how would seekers react to Gargoyles? They’re “alive” but they don’t have blood.
I think a Seeker would question why you consider a gargoyle to be “alive.” Compare a gargoyle to a mummy. They’re both sentient, neither needs to eat or sleep, they are no longer subject to age or disease. And neither one has blood, and thus, neither one has the potential to achieve divinity. Which is why Seekers wouldn’t all want to be gargoyles. Gargoyles are basically exactly like undead: they have escaped some of the curse of mortality, but the price of that is that they can never truly achieve divinity.
So sure, I think it’s quite reasonable for there to be a population of gargoyles in Atur, and I think the Seekers would treat them exactly like Oathbound or Karrnathi undead. Respect their service, and pity them for the fact that they can never truly unlock the Divinity Within.