I'm not sure I understand your meaning. Do you mean like their CR rating or some monsters are under the wrong type (humanoid, fiend, aberration, etc.)? The former I've seen plenty of people debate, but don't have any strong opinions myself other than I'm almost always amazed how quick a "hard" CR monster goes down if it's by itself. The latter I can't think of any.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
The monstrosity type is dumb and shouldn't exist. The only reason it exists, I think, is to limit the options for beast monsters, for the purposes of things like Wild Shape, Speak with Animals, and so on. One notable 3rd party supplement invented a tag for, like, improved beasts. You have to use higher level spells to affect them. That's better I think. Better than pretending they're a whole different category of monster.
Owlbear should be a Beast, for starters. That one's a given though. To be honest, I think a lot of what's in the Monstrosity table should be in stuff like Beast, Fiend, and even a separate Insect table. I mean, some stuff makes sense, like the Terrasque. However, when you hear the name "Winter Wolf," do you think "Monstrosity?" Or do you think "very large wolf, but with white fur this time?"
"Beasts" are supposed to be things that are either real-world animals or the equivalents of them. "Monstrosities" have obvious supernatural elements, like the winter wolf's minty-fresh breath weapon. Of course, there are still times when they get weird, like the Deep Rothe and its ability to cast Dancing Lights while still being a beast.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I'll agree that some monstrosities deserve different types than beast. Most of them are beasts, though.
Going through the list, I think there might be value in adding a type for, like, entities from distant prehistory. Immortals, maybe. Things wrought from the raw fundament of the universe or something. Recategorize some stuff like aboleths and perhaps inevitables into this type. Sphinxes might go here, if they don't get turned into celestials.
But you could also just... Not do that. Add no types, just remove monstrosity. I mean, the astral dreadnoughts are really beasts, right? They're insanely huge and mystical, but internally, they're just floating around looking for food. Yeah, behirs and winter wolves are smarter and have powers, sure. So are storm giants, but you don't hear anyone saying they shouldn't be put in the same category as the comparatively unintelligent and mundane ogres, cyclopes, or hill giants. Right?
The monstrosity type includes doppelgangers as well as cockatrices. Harpies as well as freaking cave fishers. Tell me what any of these things have in common, besides the designers not wanting to put them in other categories for various reasons. Nothing at all. You wouldn't be able to please everyone by recategorizing them all, but guess what, you're not pleasing everyone now either.
But you know who you would be making happier? Freaking Rangers and Druids. You know how deflating it is to play a so-called animal expert, only to be told that no, actually, this thing that is obviously an animal is unaffected by whatever animal powers and animal knowledge you have. It's absolute BS and it sucks, and everyone knows it sucks, and it's time to put an end to it.
While I'm here -- the next thing I'd propose, and I'm not as passionate about this one but I think it's worth consideration, is changing humanoid. Humanoid is a shape description. Giants are humanoid. Barbed devils are basically humanoid. I mean, if a tabaxi gets to be humanoid while having a tail, then a barbed devil is too, surely. Aarakocra are humanoid with wings, so why aren't pixies? Oh, but we're not talking about shape, we're talking about... What, origin? Humanoids come from the material plane? No they don't, we have dragonborn, eladrin, and gith to prove that. Humanoids are born from gods? Well, so are angels and modrons, as well as dragons, oozes (depending on your setting), giants... Humanoids are mundane, lacking magic? Then what are elves and gnomes? What the heck is a humanoid? Is it just a euphemism for "things that get to qualify as people"? Even then it's not accurate! How many adventure paths want you to sympathize with non-humanoid creatures? Unicorns, angels, metallic dragons, dryads, flumphs, the list goes on. It's not here to mean "things that you can play as a PC," either, because we have fey, constructs, oozes, and so on, now available as PCs. Humanoids have souls? So do ghosts! So do dragons, because dragons can become ghosts! Revenants have souls, and I'm sure there are other souled undead. Devils have their own souls in addition to the ones they carry as loot.
It's nonsense! Get rid of it!
I don't have a solution for the fallout of such a decision though. :)
It's important to remember that monster classification isn't about establishing taxonomy. It's based the creature's abilities. A barbed devil isn't a humanoid despite its shape because it's Law and Evil given a physical form, while a tabaxi or hobgoblin is not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
It's important to remember that monster classification isn't about establishing taxonomy. It's based the creature's abilities. A barbed devil isn't a humanoid despite its shape because it's Law and Evil given a physical form, while a tabaxi or hobgoblin is not.
You've established well enough what a devil is, but not what a humanoid is. Is a humanoid simply whatever's left that isn't an aberration, beast, elemental, etc? The leftovers? To be humanoid is to be an anomaly, a misfit, or otherwise fall outside the acceptable spectra of other types? That's an interesting angle, I guess, but I'm not convinced it's the intended reading.
It's important to remember that monster classification isn't about establishing taxonomy. It's based the creature's abilities. A barbed devil isn't a humanoid despite its shape because it's Law and Evil given a physical form, while a tabaxi or hobgoblin is not.
You've established well enough what a devil is, but not what a humanoid is. Is a humanoid simply whatever's left that isn't an aberration, beast, elemental, etc? The leftovers? To be humanoid is to be an anomaly, a misfit, or otherwise fall outside the acceptable spectra of other types? That's an interesting angle, I guess, but I'm not convinced it's the intended reading.
It's important to remember that monster classification isn't about establishing taxonomy. It's based the creature's abilities. A barbed devil isn't a humanoid despite its shape because it's Law and Evil given a physical form, while a tabaxi or hobgoblin is not.
You've established well enough what a devil is, but not what a humanoid is. Is a humanoid simply whatever's left that isn't an aberration, beast, elemental, etc? The leftovers? To be humanoid is to be an anomaly, a misfit, or otherwise fall outside the acceptable spectra of other types? That's an interesting angle, I guess, but I'm not convinced it's the intended reading.
"Humanoid" is "any creature that can be affected by spells and effects that target humanoids." Circular, but there isn't a more specific definition than that. Creature type in D&D is there only to tell you what powers and spells affect a critter: smack a troll with a Giant Slayer battle axe and inflict extra pain, but smack a minotaur and get no bonus. "Humanoid" means you've got two arms (usually), two legs (again, usually), and not enough special or weird powers to be shoved into some other category like Fae, Monstrosity, or Aberration.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I don't think monstrosities should be taken away. An astral dreadnought is not a beast, (it should be an aberration) you couldn't classify it with fish, reptiles, mammals, birds, amphibians and the like. They make better monstrosities. They are supernatural monsters, not understandable, non-magical wildlife. Sphinxes in Dnd should also be celestials. Winter wolves would be monstrosities (though I think they should be elementals) not beasts because they aren't just white wolves, they can blast arctic energy and withstand freezing forces. That sets them apart from normal creatures like frogs and dogs. They should be seprated because they are not the same thing. Some monstrosities should become beasts like owlbears, or some beasts should become monstrosities like stirges, but monstrosities should exist since they are very different then real world wildlife.
I find it weird that Tiamat is a Fiend but Aspect of Tiamat is a Dragon. I understand why, but it's kind of annoying that they're different. Just make them both Dragons. I also think that a Dracohydra should be a Dragon too. Tell me if you disagree. And I agree with The_Summoning_Dark that Astral Dreadnoughts should be Aberrations.
Are there any of you out there who think some monsters are in the wrong monster class?
Yes and no. There are several official monsters that have large backstories and rules that are no longer used in 5th edition which explain their monster types. But with the large amount of changes that 4th tried, and the reduction of lore and rules in 5th, many of the nuanced parts of creature types are missing. Take Owlbears. Technically they are beasts, but rules have them as Monstrosities.
The reason, is listed in the the 5th description in one sentence at the end of their write up. But it doesn't really go into detail,
"Owlbear Origins. Scholars have long debated the origins of the owlbear. The most common theory is that a demented wizard created the first specimen by crossing a giant owl with a bear. However, venerable elves claim to have known these creatures for thousands of years, and some fey insist that owlbears have always existed in the Feywild."
Older editions actually state a lot more, Owlbears are artificial creatures like most Monstrosities, but the 5th edition in cutting out a lot of the wordiness kind of fails to get the point across at times.
The monstrosity type is dumb and shouldn't exist. The only reason it exists, I think, is to limit the options for beast monsters, for the purposes of things like Wild Shape, Speak with Animals, and so on. One notable 3rd party supplement invented a tag for, like, improved beasts. You have to use higher level spells to affect them. That's better I think. Better than pretending they're a whole different category of monster.
Not at all. Monstrosities for the most part are created monsters. ie Not natural beasts. In our modern world, a GMO would count as a Monstrosity. ie The glow in the Dark Kittens made a few years ago by genetic researchers. Btw, not all motricities are "created by wizards" but the vast majority are. As for Druid abilities and beastly Monstrosities up to the DM, I personally would allow PC's to use speak with animals with more beastly ones ie Owlbears & Displacer beasts. (Also I refuse to allow my Displacer Beasts to become automictically evil, I usually end up making them CN. Because I hate forced alignments on anything, I have good chromatic dragons, and evil metallic ones, in my settings.)
"Beasts" are supposed to be things that are either real-world animals or the equivalents of them. "Monstrosities" have obvious supernatural elements, like the winter wolf's minty-fresh breath weapon. Of course, there are still times when they get weird, like the Deep Rothe and its ability to cast Dancing Lights while still being a beast.
Deep Rothe are naturally evolved underground bison which is why they are still beasts.
.... The monstrosity type includes doppelgangers as well as cockatrices. Harpies as well as freaking cave fishers. Tell me what any of these things have in common, ....
And I quote various source material:
Harpy - "The origin of the harpy (in D&D lore) goes back to a young elf who fell in love with a reclusive elf god as they both paused to listen to an astoundingly beautiful bird song. In attempt to reattract him, she pleaded with the gods until the elf goddess of the sky granted her the ability to sing the same enchanting melody as the bird. When her attempt to seduce the elven god failed, she cursed the gods, transforming her into a hideous winged creature with a craving for flesh and a song that could woo the weak-willed."
Doppelgangers - "They were believed to be an artificial race, created by the Creator Race known as the batrachi to serve as spies and assassins."
Cave fishers - Although not explicitly stated, highly implied to be an artificially created Spider-Lobster with the intent of farming useful materials. One of the few D&D creature where every bit of them is useful to crafters, alchemists, or food.
Almost every Monstrosity is an artificial creature. It's what the category was intended to be used for.
While I'm here -- the next thing I'd propose, and I'm not as passionate about this one but I think it's worth consideration, is changing humanoid. Humanoid is a shape description. ...
Actually (god I hate using that word.) It implies Player Character, and usually can interbreed with other Humanoids. There use to be a rule in 2nd and AD&D that if it had the Humanoid description, than you could use it for a player character. There was even a whole handbook of rules on how to convert NPC's from the monster manuals and fiend folios into player characters. It's why Many of the "Species" (player character options) are playable today, Orcs, Goblins, Githyanki, and many others, were all once Humanoid Monsters in a rules book. It was Eberron that broke the mold when they added Warforge as a player race.
You've established well enough what a devil is, but not what a humanoid is. Is a humanoid simply whatever's left that isn't an aberration, beast, elemental, etc? The leftovers? To be humanoid is to be an anomaly, a misfit, or otherwise fall outside the acceptable spectra of other types? That's an interesting angle, I guess, but I'm not convinced it's the intended reading.
Player characters, and able to interact socially and romantically in cities, and not a monster in disguise. (ie Hags)
xxx
Aberrations = Creatures that predate our current gods.
Beasts = Animals that evolved naturally
Celestial = Related to the planes of Good
Construct = Machines usually without freewill
Dragons = Dragons related to the Primordial Gods of Creation
Elementals = Related to the Elemental Planes (yes really... all of them)
Fey = Creatures changed by the Feywild (originally creatures based on Celtic Mythology)
Fiend = Related to the planes of Evil
Giant = massively oversized things probably made by a Titan (one of the groups of primordial deities, long history that)
Humanoid = Can be player characters, can intermix
Monstrosities = "Made by wizards"
ooze = Odds are also made by wizards, but made to fit in a jello mold useful for cleaning dungeons of pests.
Plant = Photosynthesis is usually how they thrive.
Undead = was once living, and now is not, but has not stopped moving.
---
Edit:
Tiamat (Goddess, Devil, Mother of Chromatic Dragons) = Fiend as she is in Avernus, and is now a Devil.
Avatar of Tiamat (Remote control toy for Tiamat, Dragon) = A dragon because Tiamat made it.
edit 3: Cave Fishers were based on a rubber toy sold in coin machines at grocery stores in the 70s. Not something people would know unless you were there. Seriously I wish I had one of those things still, they were cool, and bouncy. (found a version of it, not the exact one I had but basically this the one on top.
I don't think monstrosities should be taken away. An astral dreadnought is not a beast, (it should be an aberration) you couldn't classify it with fish, reptiles, mammals, birds, amphibians and the like. They make better monstrosities. They are supernatural monsters, not understandable, non-magical wildlife. Sphinxes in Dnd should also be celestials. Winter wolves would be monstrosities (though I think they should be elementals) not beasts because they aren't just white wolves, they can blast arctic energy and withstand freezing forces. That sets them apart from normal creatures like frogs and dogs. They should be seprated because they are not the same thing. Some monstrosities should become beasts like owlbears, or some beasts should become monstrosities like stirges, but monstrosities should exist since they are very different then real world wildlife.
It's funny you advocate to keep monstrosity, but then proceed to give several examples of creatures that would fit in another category just fine and thus would not need the monstrosity classification.
What's left is covered by "different than real world wildlife." Why does that need to be a distinction? How many campaigns occur in the real world? In a world that inherently possesses magic, how is a magical creature less "normal" than a beast? It's just really flimsy logic based on metagaming that a "real world" exists and this ain't it.
As mentioned above, the real reason this probably exists is to have a category of "beasts that we can enhance without worrying how it would work for a druid and other PC options." So it's lazy as well as dumb. A druid should be just as in tune with an owlbear in the forest as it is with a wolf, and in a world with magical creatures, they should be able to turn into frickin magical creatures. Alternately, if owlbears truly are supposed to be freakish unnatural creatures mutated into being by wizards, well that sounds like an aberration to me. Either way, monstrosities shouldn't exist.
I don't think monstrosities should be taken away. An astral dreadnought is not a beast, (it should be an aberration) you couldn't classify it with fish, reptiles, mammals, birds, amphibians and the like. They make better monstrosities. They are supernatural monsters, not understandable, non-magical wildlife. Sphinxes in Dnd should also be celestials. Winter wolves would be monstrosities (though I think they should be elementals) not beasts because they aren't just white wolves, they can blast arctic energy and withstand freezing forces. That sets them apart from normal creatures like frogs and dogs. They should be seprated because they are not the same thing. Some monstrosities should become beasts like owlbears, or some beasts should become monstrosities like stirges, but monstrosities should exist since they are very different then real world wildlife.
It's funny you advocate to keep monstrosity, but then proceed to give several examples of creatures that would fit in another category just fine and thus would not need the monstrosity classification.
What's left is covered by "different than real world wildlife." Why does that need to be a distinction? How many campaigns occur in the real world? In a world that inherently possesses magic, how is a magical creature less "normal" than a beast? It's just really flimsy logic based on metagaming that a "real world" exists and this ain't it.
As mentioned above, the real reason this probably exists is to have a category of "beasts that we can enhance without worrying how it would work for a druid and other PC options." So it's lazy as well as dumb. A druid should be just as in tune with an owlbear in the forest as it is with a wolf, and in a world with magical creatures, they should be able to turn into frickin magical creatures. Alternately, if owlbears truly are supposed to be freakish unnatural creatures mutated into being by wizards, well that sounds like an aberration to me. Either way, monstrosities shouldn't exist.
Just because not all monstrosities should be monstrosities does not mean that there should be no monstrosities.
I think monstrosities should exist because most monstrosities are things that couldn't be found in normal, natural environments while beasts can. Monstrosities aren't a part of normal life, or at least they shouldn't be, if you look through mythology, when dragons and fire breathing bulls and other monsters start terrorizing the neighborhood, they are considered different from a bear, wolf, or cow. Monstrosities are supernatural creatures that most commoners don't know to exist. They are dangerous because they are not naturally found in the environment, so of course a druid shouldn't be able to shapeshift into one. Druids should be protecting the world from these strange monstrosities that must destroy the natural course of the environment in order to live in it. Aberations are alien creatures that come from or are touched by another reality, an owlbear is a monster that is from this world but they have been magically altered so that they are no longer natural parts of the environment. (I would be fine with their lore being altered so that they are just another animal you can find normally in the natural world)
Would you consider a dog or a horse a monster? No. Would you consider a catoblepas or an owlbear a monster? Yes.
And yet, if you asked most people whether they'd consider those glowing kittens monsters, they'd say no. Those are animals! Origin be damned (especially if the lore is meant to be flexible, and doubly so if they're not even gonna bother to publish it at all), an owlbear is a beast, and a harpy is, apparently, an elf. If you really wanted you could add a type for "things that have been altered beyond categorization." But I would, uh, not. For numerous reasons. The simplest being, it's messy and not useful to say a harpy is the same kind of thing as an owlbear. You can gather absolutely nothing about its powers, behaviors, ecology, size, body type, level of intelligence, nothing from that. What's the point?
And yet, if you asked most people whether they'd consider those glowing kittens monsters, they'd say no. Those are animals! Origin be damned (especially if the lore is meant to be flexible, and doubly so if they're not even gonna bother to publish it at all), an owlbear is a beast, and a harpy is, apparently, an elf. If you really wanted you could add a type for "things that have been altered beyond categorization." But I would, uh, not. For numerous reasons. The simplest being, it's messy and not useful to say a harpy is the same kind of thing as an owlbear. You can gather absolutely nothing about its powers, behaviors, ecology, size, body type, level of intelligence, nothing from that. What's the point?
And yet, in the public mind, Being Non-GMO is an important label, and people will be up in arms if their rice has added nutritional value because they add bean DNA into them. Monstrosity works as indented, even if most miss the point. They are artificial monsters, and do not belong in nature. Hells go to most places and Cats because they are not indigenous to the region are considered Invasive Species. Same thing really. Aberrations and Monstrosities are just fancy ways of saying invasive species, with a nod to their origin.
Just asking
MY INFO
I'm not sure I understand your meaning. Do you mean like their CR rating or some monsters are under the wrong type (humanoid, fiend, aberration, etc.)? The former I've seen plenty of people debate, but don't have any strong opinions myself other than I'm almost always amazed how quick a "hard" CR monster goes down if it's by itself. The latter I can't think of any.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
The monstrosity type is dumb and shouldn't exist. The only reason it exists, I think, is to limit the options for beast monsters, for the purposes of things like Wild Shape, Speak with Animals, and so on. One notable 3rd party supplement invented a tag for, like, improved beasts. You have to use higher level spells to affect them. That's better I think. Better than pretending they're a whole different category of monster.
Owlbear should be a Beast, for starters. That one's a given though. To be honest, I think a lot of what's in the Monstrosity table should be in stuff like Beast, Fiend, and even a separate Insect table. I mean, some stuff makes sense, like the Terrasque. However, when you hear the name "Winter Wolf," do you think "Monstrosity?" Or do you think "very large wolf, but with white fur this time?"
"Beasts" are supposed to be things that are either real-world animals or the equivalents of them. "Monstrosities" have obvious supernatural elements, like the winter wolf's minty-fresh breath weapon. Of course, there are still times when they get weird, like the Deep Rothe and its ability to cast Dancing Lights while still being a beast.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
There needs to be a type for Shadowfell entities. “Monstrosity” shouldn’t be pulling triple/quadruple/whatever duty with them as well.
I'll agree that some monstrosities deserve different types than beast. Most of them are beasts, though.
Going through the list, I think there might be value in adding a type for, like, entities from distant prehistory. Immortals, maybe. Things wrought from the raw fundament of the universe or something. Recategorize some stuff like aboleths and perhaps inevitables into this type. Sphinxes might go here, if they don't get turned into celestials.
But you could also just... Not do that. Add no types, just remove monstrosity. I mean, the astral dreadnoughts are really beasts, right? They're insanely huge and mystical, but internally, they're just floating around looking for food. Yeah, behirs and winter wolves are smarter and have powers, sure. So are storm giants, but you don't hear anyone saying they shouldn't be put in the same category as the comparatively unintelligent and mundane ogres, cyclopes, or hill giants. Right?
The monstrosity type includes doppelgangers as well as cockatrices. Harpies as well as freaking cave fishers. Tell me what any of these things have in common, besides the designers not wanting to put them in other categories for various reasons. Nothing at all. You wouldn't be able to please everyone by recategorizing them all, but guess what, you're not pleasing everyone now either.
But you know who you would be making happier? Freaking Rangers and Druids. You know how deflating it is to play a so-called animal expert, only to be told that no, actually, this thing that is obviously an animal is unaffected by whatever animal powers and animal knowledge you have. It's absolute BS and it sucks, and everyone knows it sucks, and it's time to put an end to it.
While I'm here -- the next thing I'd propose, and I'm not as passionate about this one but I think it's worth consideration, is changing humanoid. Humanoid is a shape description. Giants are humanoid. Barbed devils are basically humanoid. I mean, if a tabaxi gets to be humanoid while having a tail, then a barbed devil is too, surely. Aarakocra are humanoid with wings, so why aren't pixies? Oh, but we're not talking about shape, we're talking about... What, origin? Humanoids come from the material plane? No they don't, we have dragonborn, eladrin, and gith to prove that. Humanoids are born from gods? Well, so are angels and modrons, as well as dragons, oozes (depending on your setting), giants... Humanoids are mundane, lacking magic? Then what are elves and gnomes? What the heck is a humanoid? Is it just a euphemism for "things that get to qualify as people"? Even then it's not accurate! How many adventure paths want you to sympathize with non-humanoid creatures? Unicorns, angels, metallic dragons, dryads, flumphs, the list goes on. It's not here to mean "things that you can play as a PC," either, because we have fey, constructs, oozes, and so on, now available as PCs. Humanoids have souls? So do ghosts! So do dragons, because dragons can become ghosts! Revenants have souls, and I'm sure there are other souled undead. Devils have their own souls in addition to the ones they carry as loot.
It's nonsense! Get rid of it!
I don't have a solution for the fallout of such a decision though. :)
It's important to remember that monster classification isn't about establishing taxonomy. It's based the creature's abilities. A barbed devil isn't a humanoid despite its shape because it's Law and Evil given a physical form, while a tabaxi or hobgoblin is not.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
You've established well enough what a devil is, but not what a humanoid is. Is a humanoid simply whatever's left that isn't an aberration, beast, elemental, etc? The leftovers? To be humanoid is to be an anomaly, a misfit, or otherwise fall outside the acceptable spectra of other types? That's an interesting angle, I guess, but I'm not convinced it's the intended reading.
That’s a bit depressing
MY INFO
"Humanoid" is "any creature that can be affected by spells and effects that target humanoids." Circular, but there isn't a more specific definition than that. Creature type in D&D is there only to tell you what powers and spells affect a critter: smack a troll with a Giant Slayer battle axe and inflict extra pain, but smack a minotaur and get no bonus. "Humanoid" means you've got two arms (usually), two legs (again, usually), and not enough special or weird powers to be shoved into some other category like Fae, Monstrosity, or Aberration.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Mercane are Celestials despite quite clearly being Giants. Also they speak Giant, but not Celestial, so…
I don't think monstrosities should be taken away. An astral dreadnought is not a beast, (it should be an aberration) you couldn't classify it with fish, reptiles, mammals, birds, amphibians and the like. They make better monstrosities. They are supernatural monsters, not understandable, non-magical wildlife. Sphinxes in Dnd should also be celestials. Winter wolves would be monstrosities (though I think they should be elementals) not beasts because they aren't just white wolves, they can blast arctic energy and withstand freezing forces. That sets them apart from normal creatures like frogs and dogs. They should be seprated because they are not the same thing. Some monstrosities should become beasts like owlbears, or some beasts should become monstrosities like stirges, but monstrosities should exist since they are very different then real world wildlife.
I find it weird that Tiamat is a Fiend but Aspect of Tiamat is a Dragon. I understand why, but it's kind of annoying that they're different. Just make them both Dragons. I also think that a Dracohydra should be a Dragon too. Tell me if you disagree. And I agree with The_Summoning_Dark that Astral Dreadnoughts should be Aberrations.
If anybody would like my GMing playlists
battles: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/2mRp57MBAz9ZsVpw895IzZ?si=243bee43442a4703
exploration: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/0qk0aKm5yI4K6VrlcaKrDj?si=81057bef509043f3
town/tavern: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/49JSv1kK0bUyQ9LVpKmZlr?si=a88b1dd9bab54111
character deaths: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/6k7WhylJEjSqWC0pBuAtFD?si=3e897fa2a2dd469e
Yes and no. There are several official monsters that have large backstories and rules that are no longer used in 5th edition which explain their monster types. But with the large amount of changes that 4th tried, and the reduction of lore and rules in 5th, many of the nuanced parts of creature types are missing. Take Owlbears. Technically they are beasts, but rules have them as Monstrosities.
The reason, is listed in the the 5th description in one sentence at the end of their write up. But it doesn't really go into detail,
"Owlbear Origins. Scholars have long debated the origins of the owlbear. The most common theory is that a demented wizard created the first specimen by crossing a giant owl with a bear. However, venerable elves claim to have known these creatures for thousands of years, and some fey insist that owlbears have always existed in the Feywild."
Older editions actually state a lot more, Owlbears are artificial creatures like most Monstrosities, but the 5th edition in cutting out a lot of the wordiness kind of fails to get the point across at times.
Not at all. Monstrosities for the most part are created monsters. ie Not natural beasts. In our modern world, a GMO would count as a Monstrosity. ie The glow in the Dark Kittens made a few years ago by genetic researchers. Btw, not all motricities are "created by wizards" but the vast majority are. As for Druid abilities and beastly Monstrosities up to the DM, I personally would allow PC's to use speak with animals with more beastly ones ie Owlbears & Displacer beasts. (Also I refuse to allow my Displacer Beasts to become automictically evil, I usually end up making them CN. Because I hate forced alignments on anything, I have good chromatic dragons, and evil metallic ones, in my settings.)
Deep Rothe are naturally evolved underground bison which is why they are still beasts.
And I quote various source material:
Harpy - "The origin of the harpy (in D&D lore) goes back to a young elf who fell in love with a reclusive elf god as they both paused to listen to an astoundingly beautiful bird song. In attempt to reattract him, she pleaded with the gods until the elf goddess of the sky granted her the ability to sing the same enchanting melody as the bird. When her attempt to seduce the elven god failed, she cursed the gods, transforming her into a hideous winged creature with a craving for flesh and a song that could woo the weak-willed."
Doppelgangers - "They were believed to be an artificial race, created by the Creator Race known as the batrachi to serve as spies and assassins."
Cave fishers - Although not explicitly stated, highly implied to be an artificially created Spider-Lobster with the intent of farming useful materials. One of the few D&D creature where every bit of them is useful to crafters, alchemists, or food.
Almost every Monstrosity is an artificial creature. It's what the category was intended to be used for.
Actually (god I hate using that word.) It implies Player Character, and usually can interbreed with other Humanoids. There use to be a rule in 2nd and AD&D that if it had the Humanoid description, than you could use it for a player character. There was even a whole handbook of rules on how to convert NPC's from the monster manuals and fiend folios into player characters. It's why Many of the "Species" (player character options) are playable today, Orcs, Goblins, Githyanki, and many others, were all once Humanoid Monsters in a rules book. It was Eberron that broke the mold when they added Warforge as a player race.
Player characters, and able to interact socially and romantically in cities, and not a monster in disguise. (ie Hags)
xxx
Aberrations = Creatures that predate our current gods.
Beasts = Animals that evolved naturally
Celestial = Related to the planes of Good
Construct = Machines usually without freewill
Dragons = Dragons related to the Primordial Gods of Creation
Elementals = Related to the Elemental Planes (yes really... all of them)
Fey = Creatures changed by the Feywild (originally creatures based on Celtic Mythology)
Fiend = Related to the planes of Evil
Giant = massively oversized things probably made by a Titan (one of the groups of primordial deities, long history that)
Humanoid = Can be player characters, can intermix
Monstrosities = "Made by wizards"
ooze = Odds are also made by wizards, but made to fit in a jello mold useful for cleaning dungeons of pests.
Plant = Photosynthesis is usually how they thrive.
Undead = was once living, and now is not, but has not stopped moving.
---
Edit:
Tiamat (Goddess, Devil, Mother of Chromatic Dragons) = Fiend as she is in Avernus, and is now a Devil.
Avatar of Tiamat (Remote control toy for Tiamat, Dragon) = A dragon because Tiamat made it.
edit 2: Article on Glow in the Dark Kittens: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-14882008 cutest motricities ever.
edit 3: Cave Fishers were based on a rubber toy sold in coin machines at grocery stores in the 70s. Not something people would know unless you were there. Seriously I wish I had one of those things still, they were cool, and bouncy. (found a version of it, not the exact one I had but basically this the one on top.
It's funny you advocate to keep monstrosity, but then proceed to give several examples of creatures that would fit in another category just fine and thus would not need the monstrosity classification.
What's left is covered by "different than real world wildlife." Why does that need to be a distinction? How many campaigns occur in the real world? In a world that inherently possesses magic, how is a magical creature less "normal" than a beast? It's just really flimsy logic based on metagaming that a "real world" exists and this ain't it.
As mentioned above, the real reason this probably exists is to have a category of "beasts that we can enhance without worrying how it would work for a druid and other PC options." So it's lazy as well as dumb. A druid should be just as in tune with an owlbear in the forest as it is with a wolf, and in a world with magical creatures, they should be able to turn into frickin magical creatures. Alternately, if owlbears truly are supposed to be freakish unnatural creatures mutated into being by wizards, well that sounds like an aberration to me. Either way, monstrosities shouldn't exist.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Just because not all monstrosities should be monstrosities does not mean that there should be no monstrosities.
I think monstrosities should exist because most monstrosities are things that couldn't be found in normal, natural environments while beasts can. Monstrosities aren't a part of normal life, or at least they shouldn't be, if you look through mythology, when dragons and fire breathing bulls and other monsters start terrorizing the neighborhood, they are considered different from a bear, wolf, or cow. Monstrosities are supernatural creatures that most commoners don't know to exist. They are dangerous because they are not naturally found in the environment, so of course a druid shouldn't be able to shapeshift into one. Druids should be protecting the world from these strange monstrosities that must destroy the natural course of the environment in order to live in it. Aberations are alien creatures that come from or are touched by another reality, an owlbear is a monster that is from this world but they have been magically altered so that they are no longer natural parts of the environment. (I would be fine with their lore being altered so that they are just another animal you can find normally in the natural world)
Would you consider a dog or a horse a monster? No. Would you consider a catoblepas or an owlbear a monster? Yes.
And yet, if you asked most people whether they'd consider those glowing kittens monsters, they'd say no. Those are animals! Origin be damned (especially if the lore is meant to be flexible, and doubly so if they're not even gonna bother to publish it at all), an owlbear is a beast, and a harpy is, apparently, an elf. If you really wanted you could add a type for "things that have been altered beyond categorization." But I would, uh, not. For numerous reasons. The simplest being, it's messy and not useful to say a harpy is the same kind of thing as an owlbear. You can gather absolutely nothing about its powers, behaviors, ecology, size, body type, level of intelligence, nothing from that. What's the point?
And yet, in the public mind, Being Non-GMO is an important label, and people will be up in arms if their rice has added nutritional value because they add bean DNA into them. Monstrosity works as indented, even if most miss the point. They are artificial monsters, and do not belong in nature. Hells go to most places and Cats because they are not indigenous to the region are considered Invasive Species. Same thing really. Aberrations and Monstrosities are just fancy ways of saying invasive species, with a nod to their origin.
My personal pet peeve is the fact hydras aren't dragons.
The official lore is they were birthed from the blood of a dragon god.
They're magic lizards.
Magic Lizards
Some of which are intelligent or possess elemental abilities.
Why aren't they dragons?
My homebrew content: Monsters, subclasses, Magic items, Feats, spells, races, backgrounds