The giant type is based not off size, it's based off connection to "True" Giants within forgotten realm lore.
The mercane are off mysterious origin and clearly not connected to any other giant. Given their connection to the stars and their alignment, celestial fits well.
Personally I am kind of disappointed in the amount of Oozes there are. There should be so much more because oozes are so cool and fun. If played right, they can be pretty scary monsters, if you shoot an orc with an arrow you can see the orcs pain and the damage done to it, but if you shoot an arrow at an ooze you might have no idea if it hurt it at all. You can throw everything you have at that slime and all it will do is jiggle, splash, and ripple, you have no idea if what you are doing has had any effect on it until it collapses into a bubbling puddle.
I also think that if there is a whole creature type (fey) for monsters from the feywild, then there should be another creature type for creatures from the shadowfell. There would also have to be much more shadowfell creatures made in order to justify that. Maybe they could just call them fey but give them another tag, and give the other fey another tag, like how Devils and Demons are creatures from the Abyss and the Nine Hells and yet they are both fiends.
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?
And this... right here... so very much this...
This is the thing about the inconsistent lore, that I was expecting, when I opened this thread. Not the complaints about Owlbears... Because Owlbears make sense, they follow the rules nice and clean, "Made-By-Wizard™" Monstrosity, it works, makes sense, 90% of monstrosities fit that as well.
Insert the 5th edition "Hyrda" (Technically a False Hydra) they are related to Dragons, they are unintelligent beasts descended from a common ancestor of Dragons. Dragons get their unique box, and sure 99% of Dragons (including the turtle) can hold a conversation. White Dragons are a bit daft, but the rest are fairly smart. Yes you can say they look and act like a magical beast, so monstrosity works. But since they went with Monstrosity and away from Magical beasts and shoved all the other artificial organic living beings (besides oozes) into the Monstrosity category Hydra should have earned a place in the Draconic box. Sure it's a Magical Beast, but it's magic is dragon magic, it's not "Made-By-Wizard™" It's a Drake with lots of heads. (and True Hydra's are almost demigod powerful)
Yeah, Drakes for the most part Dragon with int 4... Hydra Int 2. So yes Drakes are smarter, but only by a little bit. Dog smart vs gator smart.
Personally I am kind of disappointed in the amount of Oozes there are. There should be so much more because oozes are so cool and fun. If played right, they can be pretty scary monsters, if you shoot an orc with an arrow you can see the orcs pain and the damage done to it, but if you shoot an arrow at an ooze you might have no idea if it hurt it at all. You can throw everything you have at that slime and all it will do is jiggle, splash, and ripple, you have no idea if what you are doing has had any effect on it until it collapses into a bubbling puddle.
I also think that if there is a whole creature type (fey) for monsters from the feywild, then there should be another creature type for creatures from the shadowfell. There would also have to be much more shadowfell creatures made in order to justify that. Maybe they could just call them fey but give them another tag, and give the other fey another tag, like how Devils and Demons are creatures from the Abyss and the Nine Hells and yet they are both fiends.
not going to disagree, but it's the history of the game that caused this. The Feywild and Shadowfell are fairly new in D&D history, hells even the creature types as we know them now are new.
Back long ago the Fey (and Elves) were not from the Feywild, they were not even a creature type, it there was a bunch of things humanoids, magical creatures, Dragons, that were based loosely on Celtic Mythology through a Tolkien esque filter. The fey type was introduced with 3rd edition, with the Feywild. Towards the end of 3.0 when they introduced Eberron that was when they designed the Shadow plane eventually the Shadowfell. As they basically took all the realms of Dread and shoved them inside, and then deleted the Negative Plane (where undead use to get their power) the Shadowfell kind of didn't have the ecology for it's own unique type the way the Celtic Mythical lands gave birth to the Feywild. So the Fey Creature type happened, but the Shadowfell didn't. Ironically, there is a type of elf for the Shadowfell and if we did the classifications correctly they would get The Shadow, Fey, and Humanoid. (note Shadar-Kai started as poorly described Humans, and then got changed in to Elves with a ton of cool lore, and then got ignored hard in 5th.)
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.
Okay, so what is it? Are they artificial, or are they invasive? If they're artificial but not invasive, are they still monstrosities? I don't think you could say that astral dreadnoughts are invasive, nor are the reclusive behirs, but they're still monstrosities. What exactly does artificial even mean here? Why are harpies and driders monstrosities resulting from a god's influence on a humanoid, but regular drow are still humanoids despite Lolth mutating them too? If wizardly tampering can make a monstrosity out of a beast, why can't mind flayer tampering make a monstrosity out of duergar?
Oh, and there's already a creature type for things created by mortals using magic. It's called construct.
If it walks like a beast and eats fish like a beast, it's a beast. That's my take anyway. Let's agree to disagree.
The Feywild didn't debut until 4th Edition. Prior to that, they lived in a variety of demiplanes, some of the chaos-aligned Outer Planes, or hidden enclaves in the Prime Material Plane. Eberron was made for 3.5 Edition, not 3.0.
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.
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.
Okay, so what is it? Are they artificial, or are they invasive? If they're artificial but not invasive, are they still monstrosities? I don't think you could say that astral dreadnoughts are invasive, nor are the reclusive behirs, but they're still monstrosities. What exactly does artificial even mean here? Why are harpies and driders monstrosities resulting from a god's influence on a humanoid, but regular drow are still humanoids despite Lolth mutating them too? If wizardly tampering can make a monstrosity out of a beast, why can't mind flayer tampering make a monstrosity out of duergar?
Oh, and there's already a creature type for things created by mortals using magic. It's called construct.
If it walks like a beast and eats fish like a beast, it's a beast. That's my take anyway. Let's agree to disagree.
We have already said that astral dreadknoughts shouldn't be monstrosities, they should be aberations. Behirs are too monstrous to be considered to be part of the natural environment, they are supernatural like dragons. Maybe they should be dragons, I don't know enough about their lore to say for sure though. Harpies and driders have been altered enough to be considered monstrosities, drow have been changed in less drastic ways so they can still be called humanoids. Duergar are similar, they aren't changed enough to be called a monstrosity. Would you say a duergar is a monster? Not in the sense that you would say a owlbear is a monster.
Constructs are totally different. You can't say that an owlbear or harpy is considered a construct just because they are considered to have been created from something else.
Dragons walk like beasts and give it a fish and it will eat like a beast, but they are not beasts. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree, it is probably best to do so.
The definitions feel super arbitrary... and tbh sometimes it feels like something is a monstrosity and not a beast is just to keep it away from druids and rangers, more than because of any specific classification.
Even some of the arguments that are used feel flimsy. Like someone earlier saying certain creatures can't be beasts because they're magical, but in a world where magic is a fundamental part of the universe, is a wolf with icy breath really that out there?
Like schools of magic, it's kind of just someone at WOTC making decisions on a whim more than anything else. Creatures are a certain type because it makes them interact with the rest of the game in a way WOTC wants. Giant hamsters are monstrosities because they don't want them to be ranger companions. Certain humanoids creatures aren't Humanoid because they get to be immune to certain spells that way.
It makes more sense if you examine it a from a results oriented perspective, rather than trying to treat it as legitimate taxonomy.
For anyone claiming that beats can't be beasts if they are magical at all. The Monster Manual describes beasts as a natural part of the fantasy ecology, and then strictly states "some have magical powers". There is no existing reason things like Winter Wolves shouldn't' be beasts, and they make absolutely no sense as monstrosities.
The definitions feel super arbitrary... and tbh sometimes it feels like something is a monstrosity and not a beast is just to keep it away from druids and rangers, more than because of any specific classification.
Even some of the arguments that are used feel flimsy. Like someone earlier saying certain creatures can't be beasts because they're magical, but in a world where magic is a fundamental part of the universe, is a wolf with icy breath really that out there?
Like schools of magic, it's kind of just someone at WOTC making decisions on a whim more than anything else. Creatures are a certain type because it makes them interact with the rest of the game in a way WOTC wants. Giant hamsters are monstrosities because they don't want them to be ranger companions. Certain humanoids creatures aren't Humanoid because they get to be immune to certain spells that way.
It makes more sense if you examine it a from a results oriented perspective, rather than trying to treat it as legitimate taxonomy.
Basically just this, Squiggit, except quite a few them don't even really make sense from a results oriented perspective as there's no reason for them to be gated.
I've personally been meaning to go through at some point and resort creatures. I started to in the past but seem to have lost my work with it and need to start again. In my opinion, the classifications should exist for a reason, that can be a mechanical or result oriented one, but they should be consistent. Deciding to throw a ton of random creatures into a messy lump that have nothing in common with each other cause they were afraid of classifying them as anything else creates non logical results to logical expectations.
.... 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.
I contest this. I don't believe even the majority of Monstrosities are artificial creatures, let alone "almost every". Especially if you differentiate between wizards or mortals performing experiments to create new life forms in more "modern" times and gods/deities cursing or twisting a new creature out of a previous one in some bygone forgotten era shrouded in mystery. The latter of which is fundamentally no different than the origin of any species created by gods. To further this point, gnolls are humanoids that were ordinary hyenas transformed by Yeenaghu. The origin of drow involved their being cursed by Corellon. These are no different than the elf being transformed into a harpy. But going by your argument, all of them should be monstrosities. Hell, simic hybrids entire shtick is that they genetically modify themselves with parts of other creatures, yet they themselves are classified as humanoids.
Browsing monsters on DnDBeyond and sorting by monsters and then CR. Treating any creature like Hook Horror (infant) and Hook Horror (young) as just one creature representing hook horrors in total. On the first page there are 17 creatures, 4 of them (one of which is debatable as its not stated at all in 5e) are artifically created, 1 of them (the harpy) is cursed origin, and 12 are completely non artificially created creatures. On the last page there are 2 artificially created, 3 cursed origin, and 9 that are not artificially created creatures. In my experience going through this in the past, though I lost my work from sorting them that time and have intended to do it again, that doesn't change drastically through the rest of the pages. Monstrosities have more creatures that are NOT artificially created than they do that are.
Doppelgangers - "They were believed to be an artificial race, created by the Creator Race known as the batrachi to serve as spies and assassins."
There is nothing about it in 5e, though I know that belief (and I want to note it is ambiguously stated as a belief) is mentioned in the past. But, that it is not clearly stated in current lore makes it fairly spurious if it is meant to be the modern dnd intent for them. Now, that said, the batrachi also were supposed to have created Bullywogs, Kuo-Toa, Locathah, and possibly the Siv, all of which are humanoids; so the point, to me, is moot regardless. Personally, I see no need to have both Changelings and Doppelgangers, and both should just be combined into Changelings and classified as humanoids.
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.
I don't see anywhere where it is highly implied that they are artificially created.
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.
Except it doesn't. Can you play as a merfolk? They're humanoids. You shouldn't really expect to play as a Dire Corby regardless of them being labeled as a humanoid (which is also contentious considering they are much more accurately beasts due to behavior, there's just nothing humanoid about them other than shape). Centaurs are monstrosities (not artificially created mind you, and should be fey) but you can play as one. Firenewts, Gnolls, Sahaugin (all humanoids) aren't playable characters, but you can play as a fey fairy (playable eladrin should be fey too, considering the creature eladrin is, same with centaur and harengon), and with spelljammer you can play as a construct (which, should have always been the case with warforged, but...) an ooze, or a monstrosity.
Humanoid in 5e really implies nothing. It WAS originally meant to largely imply from (bipedal) according to the description in the Monster Manual, but the example of merfolk I already used demonstrates that WoTC doesn't stick reliably to that criterion either. Personally, I determine humanoid loosely in homebrew mostly by social behaviors and civilization types, but that's slightly abstract.
Aberrations = Creatures that predate our current gods.
Humanoid = Can be player characters, can intermix
Monstrosities = "Made by wizards"
In 5e at least, these are just wrong descriptions. Aberrations say nothing about predating gods, or even being old creatures at all. They're just "utterly alien beings". Humanoids I already covered. And monstrosities you're right on PART of what the classification was MEANT to be, but literally, by its own description in the Monster Manual, monstrosity was meant to be a catch-all for anything they didn't want to put in another category, and they state SOME are the result of magical experimentation.
Tiamat (Goddess, Devil, Mother of Chromatic Dragons) = Fiend as she is in Avernus, and is now a Devil.
Again, per the Monster Manual, fiends are creatures "native" to the lower planes.
Tiamat wouldn't be native to the lower planes and should remain a dragon. I definitely think there's an argument here for her being classified as a fiend, I just think her divinity as one of the dragon gods' would usurp the lower planes ability to be able to morph her into something of its own. Additionally, for precedent, a shadow dragon that was born and has lived in the shadowfell being warped and transformed by it all of its life is still classified as a dragon.
Avatar of Tiamat (Remote control toy for Tiamat, Dragon) = A dragon because Tiamat made it.
Being as her avatar is created by her shouldn't that make it either a construct or a monstrosity? ;) I'm being fairly facetious here, but it does create some paradoxical logic.
.... 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.
I contest this. I don't believe even the majority of Monstrosities are artificial creatures, let alone "almost every". Especially if you differentiate between wizards or mortals performing experiments to create new life forms in more "modern" times and gods/deities cursing or twisting a new creature out of a previous one in some bygone forgotten era shrouded in mystery. The latter of which is fundamentally no different than the origin of any species created by gods. To further this point, gnolls are humanoids that were ordinary hyenas transformed by Yeenaghu. The origin of drow involved their being cursed by Corellon. These are no different than the elf being transformed into a harpy. But going by your argument, all of them should be monstrosities. Hell, simic hybrids entire shtick is that they genetically modify themselves with parts of other creatures, yet they themselves are classified as humanoids.
Browsing monsters on DnDBeyond and sorting by monsters and then CR. Treating any creature like Hook Horror (infant) and Hook Horror (young) as just one creature representing hook horrors in total. On the first page there are 17 creatures, 4 of them (one of which is debatable as its not stated at all in 5e) are artifically created, 1 of them (the harpy) is cursed origin, and 12 are completely non artificially created creatures. On the last page there are 2 artificially created, 3 cursed origin, and 9 that are not artificially created creatures. In my experience going through this in the past, though I lost my work from sorting them that time and have intended to do it again, that doesn't change drastically through the rest of the pages. Monstrosities have more creatures that are NOT artificially created than they do that are.
Doppelgangers - "They were believed to be an artificial race, created by the Creator Race known as the batrachi to serve as spies and assassins."
There is nothing about it in 5e, though I know that belief (and I want to note it is ambiguously stated as a belief) is mentioned in the past. But, that it is not clearly stated in current lore makes it fairly spurious if it is meant to be the modern dnd intent for them. Now, that said, the batrachi also were supposed to have created Bullywogs, Kuo-Toa, Locathah, and possibly the Siv, all of which are humanoids; so the point, to me, is moot regardless. Personally, I see no need to have both Changelings and Doppelgangers, and both should just be combined into Changelings and classified as humanoids.
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.
I don't see anywhere where it is highly implied that they are artificially created.
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.
Except it doesn't. Can you play as a merfolk? They're humanoids. You shouldn't really expect to play as a Dire Corby regardless of them being labeled as a humanoid (which is also contentious considering they are much more accurately beasts due to behavior, there's just nothing humanoid about them other than shape). Centaurs are monstrosities (not artificially created mind you, and should be fey) but you can play as one. Firenewts, Gnolls, Sahaugin (all humanoids) aren't playable characters, but you can play as a fey fairy (playable eladrin should be fey too, considering the creature eladrin is, same with centaur and harengon), and with spelljammer you can play as a construct (which, should have always been the case with warforged, but...) an ooze, or a monstrosity.
Humanoid in 5e really implies nothing. It WAS originally meant to largely imply from (bipedal) according to the description in the Monster Manual, but the example of merfolk I already used demonstrates that WoTC doesn't stick reliably to that criterion either. Personally, I determine humanoid loosely in homebrew mostly by social behaviors and civilization types, but that's slightly abstract.
Aberrations = Creatures that predate our current gods.
Humanoid = Can be player characters, can intermix
Monstrosities = "Made by wizards"
In 5e at least, these are just wrong descriptions. Aberrations say nothing about predating gods, or even being old creatures at all. They're just "utterly alien beings". Humanoids I already covered. And monstrosities you're right on PART of what the classification was MEANT to be, but literally, by its own description in the Monster Manual, monstrosity was meant to be a catch-all for anything they didn't want to put in another category, and they state SOME are the result of magical experimentation.
Tiamat (Goddess, Devil, Mother of Chromatic Dragons) = Fiend as she is in Avernus, and is now a Devil.
Again, per the Monster Manual, fiends are creatures "native" to the lower planes.
Tiamat wouldn't be native to the lower planes and should remain a dragon. I definitely think there's an argument here for her being classified as a fiend, I just think her divinity as one of the dragon gods' would usurp the lower planes ability to be able to morph her into something of its own. Additionally, for precedent, a shadow dragon that was born and has lived in the shadowfell being warped and transformed by it all of its life is still classified as a dragon.
Avatar of Tiamat (Remote control toy for Tiamat, Dragon) = A dragon because Tiamat made it.
Being as her avatar is created by her shouldn't that make it either a construct or a monstrosity? ;) I'm being fairly facetious here, but it does create some paradoxical logic.
You quote me, and ignore the context of what I've said. Every bit you disagree with is based only on 5th edition rules, which were shortened and simplified. The lore of many creatures in D&D goes back 50 years now, and many concepts and rules are based on lore from the past, but are not explained in current editions.
For instance Humanoids were defined by a book published in 1993, which allowed you to play as any and all Humanoid creatures. All even Mermaids, if using later material (They weren't mentioned in Humanoids, because they're restricted by waterbreathing). The Humanoid handbook starts off giving long winded rules on how to do it, and then follows up with premade " Humanoid Races" It also contained class choices for your Player Character humanoid monsters to include the only non-human paladin prior to 3rd edition. "Saurial Paladin" (A dinosaur humanoid paladin, Note only the Finheads could be paladins... but that goes into a weird AD&D rabbit hole. )
You quote me, and ignore the context of what I've said. Every bit you disagree with is based only on 5th edition rules, which were shortened and simplified. The lore of many creatures in D&D goes back 50 years now, and many concepts and rules are based on lore from the past, but are not explained in current editions.
For instance Humanoids were defined by a book published in 1993, which allowed you to play as any and all Humanoid creatures. All even Mermaids. The Humanoid handbook starts off giving long winded rules on how to do it, and then follows up with premade " Humanoid Races" It also contained class choices for your Player Character humanoid monsters to include the only non-human paladin prior to 3rd edition. "Saurial Paladin" (A dinosaur humanoid paladin, Note only the Finheads could be paladins... but that goes into a weird AD&D rabbit hole. )
I didn't ignore the context. I considered it questionably relevant. For those creatures you or I mentioned past lore for that isn't provided in 5e I acknowledged and pointed out as such. I also pointed out that whether that lore should be accepted or not is questionable, as WotC has changed and abandoned plenty of its lore over time, and I believe, but cannot find, that they have stated only their current lore for any edition is "official" for that edition. Regardless, anything that is not stated officially in 5e is spurious (or at least should be made clear that it is not) if we are talking about their application in 5e rules; which, being as DnDBeyond only supports 5e and it was not stated otherwise in the thread, I assume that we are. The 5e rules were not just shortened and simplified, they were rewritten to create the framing of the game and context of the rules for said edition. Should we also argue that different races can only reach certain levels in different classes, because the edition of AD&D that the book you are referencing was written for says it is so? Or that elves can't be resurrected with Raise Dead because they don't have souls according to old lore?
"Every bit you disagree with is based only on 5th edition rules" Because we are discussing 5e. But, regardless, this is not true. Your definition of Monstrosity is that they are artificially created. You posited doppelgangers were monstrosities because in old, questionable lore they were artificially created by the batrachi. I provided examples of creatures that in old, questionable lore were created by the very same batrachi that created doppelgangers. I am unsure about the others, but the bullywug at least, has always been humanoid; it is even mentioned as humanoid in the book you brought up. There are other points I made regarding creatures as well that have no absolute strict bearing on 5e, but I digress.
And I accept that Humanoids for 2e were defined by a book published in 1993. I am saying they have been redefined for 5e by a book published in 2014.
Further, I will point out that the book, Complete Book of Humanoids, which was an optional supplement, also primarily defines humanoids by their form as well as the fact that that they were not typically player characters. Typical player characters were not called humanoids. Humans were just humans, and the other races were referred to as demi-humans. Humanoids were described in the Complete Book of Humanoids as "monsters that have two arms, two hands, at least two legs, and stand generally upright". That's the very first definition provided in it for what they mean a humanoid is in the book. Ergo, the definition of humanoid, even in 2e was not "can be player character", but rather that they were monsters, or creatures outside the player character races, that had forms resembling humans.
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.
Winter wolves shouldn't be monstrosoties; they should be Magical Beasts, a category slightly different than ordinary/natural Beasts. 3e had a category of magical Beasts. Monstrosity should be specific to things which defy normal classification rather than things with extra powers but still obviously recognizable on sight as an otherwise know and familiar creature type.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
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.
Winter wolves shouldn't be monstrosoties; they should be Magical Beasts, a category slightly different than ordinary/natural Beasts. 3e had a category of magical Beasts. Monstrosity should be specific to things which defy normal classification rather than things with extra powers but still obviously recognizable on sight as an otherwise know and familiar creature type.
Personally I don't even think there's a need to return to a magical beasts classification for anything. Beasts in 5e can be magical, WotC just has an aversion to classifying anything resembling magical as one and instead (mostly) treats the beasts category as a classification for our real world animals; and otherwise they just don't put anything they (reasonably or not) don't want druid's to have access to in there. We also end up with scenarios where the stench kow is in beasts when it should be in fiends.
Also, unless I'm wrong, technically the Winter Wolf's Cold Breath is not magical. It falls into one of those ambiguous scenarios created by 5e's "natural language", but my understanding was that if it is not stated to be a spell, involve a spell attack, or described as magical in the description then it is not in any way magical. This is the same reasoning for a dragon's breath that is officially said to not be magical. There's no difference between the winter wolf's breath and a dragon's either technically or thematically.
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.
Winter wolves shouldn't be monstrosoties; they should be Magical Beasts, a category slightly different than ordinary/natural Beasts. 3e had a category of magical Beasts. Monstrosity should be specific to things which defy normal classification rather than things with extra powers but still obviously recognizable on sight as an otherwise know and familiar creature type.
Personally I don't even think there's a need to return to a magical beasts classification for anything. Beasts in 5e can be magical, WotC just has an aversion to classifying anything resembling magical as one and instead (mostly) treats the beasts category as a classification for our real world animals; and otherwise they just don't put anything they (reasonably or not) don't want druid's to have access to in there. We also end up with scenarios where the stench kow is in beasts when it should be in fiends.
Also, unless I'm wrong, technically the Winter Wolf's Cold Breath is not magical. It falls into one of those ambiguous scenarios created by 5e's "natural language", but my understanding was that if it is not stated to be a spell, involve a spell attack, or described as magical in the description then it is not in any way magical. This is the same reasoning for a dragon's breath that is officially said to not be magical. There's no difference between the winter wolf's breath and a dragon's either technically or thematically.
A winter wolf's breath may not be a spell, but it is magical. It does not have, and neither do dragons, any natural way to breathe ice at its enemies. There is not a legitimate scientific way for the creature to do that, so it is magical. Just because something is magical doesn't mean it is a spell.
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.
Winter wolves shouldn't be monstrosoties; they should be Magical Beasts, a category slightly different than ordinary/natural Beasts. 3e had a category of magical Beasts. Monstrosity should be specific to things which defy normal classification rather than things with extra powers but still obviously recognizable on sight as an otherwise know and familiar creature type.
Personally I don't even think there's a need to return to a magical beasts classification for anything. Beasts in 5e can be magical, WotC just has an aversion to classifying anything resembling magical as one and instead (mostly) treats the beasts category as a classification for our real world animals; and otherwise they just don't put anything they (reasonably or not) don't want druid's to have access to in there. We also end up with scenarios where the stench kow is in beasts when it should be in fiends.
Also, unless I'm wrong, technically the Winter Wolf's Cold Breath is not magical. It falls into one of those ambiguous scenarios created by 5e's "natural language", but my understanding was that if it is not stated to be a spell, involve a spell attack, or described as magical in the description then it is not in any way magical. This is the same reasoning for a dragon's breath that is officially said to not be magical. There's no difference between the winter wolf's breath and a dragon's either technically or thematically.
A winter wolf's breath may not be a spell, but it is magical. It does not have, and neither do dragons, any natural way to breathe ice at its enemies. There is not a legitimate scientific way for the creature to do that, so it is magical. Just because something is magical doesn't mean it is a spell.
There was more criteria to that than just not being a spell; that there's not a legitimate scientific way for it to work doesn't have bearing inside the game world. Officially, a dragon's breath is not considered magical. The winter wolf's breath is as far as I can tell, the same.
What do you mean by not magical? A gnome's magic resistance ability wouldn't affect it, but in game they are still magical creatures with a magical breath weapon. I think I am confused as to why it even matters and why you care and want it to be known that it isn't magical. Dragons are magical creatures and the ability of a dragon to blast cold energy out of its mouth is nothing but magic.
The Tressym is what first alerted me to the problems with wotc's approach to types.
The lore states they were originally magical creations but then became part of the natural ecosystem. Having two types made sense and it was a fun unique option for beastmasters. But then wotc changed it. Craig cat also had type changed. And wotc seemed really bad when they released the two space hamsters.
My guess is perceived control of of druid shapes and summon spells more than phb rangers. Some control mechanisms are needed but they clearly went overly restricted on other parts.
There are a couple of other threads on this topic in the ranger forum. I might add links when I have more time and not on a phone.
What do you mean by not magical? A gnome's magic resistance ability wouldn't affect it, but in game they are still magical creatures with a magical breath weapon. I think I am confused as to why it even matters and why you care and want it to be known that it isn't magical. Dragons are magical creatures and the ability of a dragon to blast cold energy out of its mouth is nothing but magic.
I just mean that officially a dragon's breath is stated specifically to not be magical. As to why it matters to me, it doesn't particularly; but being as many claim that a winter wolf should absolutely not be considered a beast because its breath weapon is magical, I felt it a noteworthy point to bring to the discussion. Honestly it's irrelevant to me, as beasts can be magical (also officially).
I also think that if there is a whole creature type (fey) for monsters from the feywild, then there should be another creature type for creatures from the shadowfell. There would also have to be much more shadowfell creatures made in order to justify that. Maybe they could just call them fey but give them another tag, and give the other fey another tag, like how Devils and Demons are creatures from the Abyss and the Nine Hells and yet they are both fiends.
I agree with this. Either make every Shadowfell monster a new creature type (maybe call them a "Horror" or something) or you could make all Shadowfell monsters Fey. Because really, Shadowfell and The Feywild are "sister" realms.
And monstrosities should exist. They just need to specify what exactly monstrosities are, or make the requirements to be a monstrosity more specific.
The giant type is based not off size, it's based off connection to "True" Giants within forgotten realm lore.
The mercane are off mysterious origin and clearly not connected to any other giant. Given their connection to the stars and their alignment, celestial fits well.
My homebrew content: Monsters, subclasses, Magic items, Feats, spells, races, backgrounds
Yeah, hydras should be dragons.
Personally I am kind of disappointed in the amount of Oozes there are. There should be so much more because oozes are so cool and fun. If played right, they can be pretty scary monsters, if you shoot an orc with an arrow you can see the orcs pain and the damage done to it, but if you shoot an arrow at an ooze you might have no idea if it hurt it at all. You can throw everything you have at that slime and all it will do is jiggle, splash, and ripple, you have no idea if what you are doing has had any effect on it until it collapses into a bubbling puddle.
I also think that if there is a whole creature type (fey) for monsters from the feywild, then there should be another creature type for creatures from the shadowfell. There would also have to be much more shadowfell creatures made in order to justify that. Maybe they could just call them fey but give them another tag, and give the other fey another tag, like how Devils and Demons are creatures from the Abyss and the Nine Hells and yet they are both fiends.
And this... right here... so very much this...
This is the thing about the inconsistent lore, that I was expecting, when I opened this thread. Not the complaints about Owlbears... Because Owlbears make sense, they follow the rules nice and clean, "Made-By-Wizard™" Monstrosity, it works, makes sense, 90% of monstrosities fit that as well.
Insert the 5th edition "Hyrda" (Technically a False Hydra) they are related to Dragons, they are unintelligent beasts descended from a common ancestor of Dragons. Dragons get their unique box, and sure 99% of Dragons (including the turtle) can hold a conversation. White Dragons are a bit daft, but the rest are fairly smart. Yes you can say they look and act like a magical beast, so monstrosity works. But since they went with Monstrosity and away from Magical beasts and shoved all the other artificial organic living beings (besides oozes) into the Monstrosity category Hydra should have earned a place in the Draconic box. Sure it's a Magical Beast, but it's magic is dragon magic, it's not "Made-By-Wizard™" It's a Drake with lots of heads. (and True Hydra's are almost demigod powerful)
Yeah, Drakes for the most part Dragon with int 4... Hydra Int 2. So yes Drakes are smarter, but only by a little bit. Dog smart vs gator smart.
not going to disagree, but it's the history of the game that caused this. The Feywild and Shadowfell are fairly new in D&D history, hells even the creature types as we know them now are new.
Back long ago the Fey (and Elves) were not from the Feywild, they were not even a creature type, it there was a bunch of things humanoids, magical creatures, Dragons, that were based loosely on Celtic Mythology through a Tolkien esque filter. The fey type was introduced with 3rd edition, with the Feywild. Towards the end of 3.0 when they introduced Eberron that was when they designed the Shadow plane eventually the Shadowfell. As they basically took all the realms of Dread and shoved them inside, and then deleted the Negative Plane (where undead use to get their power) the Shadowfell kind of didn't have the ecology for it's own unique type the way the Celtic Mythical lands gave birth to the Feywild. So the Fey Creature type happened, but the Shadowfell didn't. Ironically, there is a type of elf for the Shadowfell and if we did the classifications correctly they would get The Shadow, Fey, and Humanoid. (note Shadar-Kai started as poorly described Humans, and then got changed in to Elves with a ton of cool lore, and then got ignored hard in 5th.)
Okay, so what is it? Are they artificial, or are they invasive? If they're artificial but not invasive, are they still monstrosities? I don't think you could say that astral dreadnoughts are invasive, nor are the reclusive behirs, but they're still monstrosities. What exactly does artificial even mean here? Why are harpies and driders monstrosities resulting from a god's influence on a humanoid, but regular drow are still humanoids despite Lolth mutating them too? If wizardly tampering can make a monstrosity out of a beast, why can't mind flayer tampering make a monstrosity out of duergar?
Oh, and there's already a creature type for things created by mortals using magic. It's called construct.
If it walks like a beast and eats fish like a beast, it's a beast. That's my take anyway. Let's agree to disagree.
The Feywild didn't debut until 4th Edition. Prior to that, they lived in a variety of demiplanes, some of the chaos-aligned Outer Planes, or hidden enclaves in the Prime Material Plane. Eberron was made for 3.5 Edition, not 3.0.
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.
We have already said that astral dreadknoughts shouldn't be monstrosities, they should be aberations. Behirs are too monstrous to be considered to be part of the natural environment, they are supernatural like dragons. Maybe they should be dragons, I don't know enough about their lore to say for sure though. Harpies and driders have been altered enough to be considered monstrosities, drow have been changed in less drastic ways so they can still be called humanoids. Duergar are similar, they aren't changed enough to be called a monstrosity. Would you say a duergar is a monster? Not in the sense that you would say a owlbear is a monster.
Constructs are totally different. You can't say that an owlbear or harpy is considered a construct just because they are considered to have been created from something else.
Dragons walk like beasts and give it a fish and it will eat like a beast, but they are not beasts. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree, it is probably best to do so.
The definitions feel super arbitrary... and tbh sometimes it feels like something is a monstrosity and not a beast is just to keep it away from druids and rangers, more than because of any specific classification.
Even some of the arguments that are used feel flimsy. Like someone earlier saying certain creatures can't be beasts because they're magical, but in a world where magic is a fundamental part of the universe, is a wolf with icy breath really that out there?
Like schools of magic, it's kind of just someone at WOTC making decisions on a whim more than anything else. Creatures are a certain type because it makes them interact with the rest of the game in a way WOTC wants. Giant hamsters are monstrosities because they don't want them to be ranger companions. Certain humanoids creatures aren't Humanoid because they get to be immune to certain spells that way.
It makes more sense if you examine it a from a results oriented perspective, rather than trying to treat it as legitimate taxonomy.
For anyone claiming that beats can't be beasts if they are magical at all. The Monster Manual describes beasts as a natural part of the fantasy ecology, and then strictly states "some have magical powers". There is no existing reason things like Winter Wolves shouldn't' be beasts, and they make absolutely no sense as monstrosities.
Basically just this, Squiggit, except quite a few them don't even really make sense from a results oriented perspective as there's no reason for them to be gated.
I've personally been meaning to go through at some point and resort creatures. I started to in the past but seem to have lost my work with it and need to start again. In my opinion, the classifications should exist for a reason, that can be a mechanical or result oriented one, but they should be consistent. Deciding to throw a ton of random creatures into a messy lump that have nothing in common with each other cause they were afraid of classifying them as anything else creates non logical results to logical expectations.
I contest this. I don't believe even the majority of Monstrosities are artificial creatures, let alone "almost every". Especially if you differentiate between wizards or mortals performing experiments to create new life forms in more "modern" times and gods/deities cursing or twisting a new creature out of a previous one in some bygone forgotten era shrouded in mystery. The latter of which is fundamentally no different than the origin of any species created by gods. To further this point, gnolls are humanoids that were ordinary hyenas transformed by Yeenaghu. The origin of drow involved their being cursed by Corellon. These are no different than the elf being transformed into a harpy. But going by your argument, all of them should be monstrosities. Hell, simic hybrids entire shtick is that they genetically modify themselves with parts of other creatures, yet they themselves are classified as humanoids.
Browsing monsters on DnDBeyond and sorting by monsters and then CR. Treating any creature like Hook Horror (infant) and Hook Horror (young) as just one creature representing hook horrors in total. On the first page there are 17 creatures, 4 of them (one of which is debatable as its not stated at all in 5e) are artifically created, 1 of them (the harpy) is cursed origin, and 12 are completely non artificially created creatures. On the last page there are 2 artificially created, 3 cursed origin, and 9 that are not artificially created creatures. In my experience going through this in the past, though I lost my work from sorting them that time and have intended to do it again, that doesn't change drastically through the rest of the pages. Monstrosities have more creatures that are NOT artificially created than they do that are.
There is nothing about it in 5e, though I know that belief (and I want to note it is ambiguously stated as a belief) is mentioned in the past. But, that it is not clearly stated in current lore makes it fairly spurious if it is meant to be the modern dnd intent for them. Now, that said, the batrachi also were supposed to have created Bullywogs, Kuo-Toa, Locathah, and possibly the Siv, all of which are humanoids; so the point, to me, is moot regardless. Personally, I see no need to have both Changelings and Doppelgangers, and both should just be combined into Changelings and classified as humanoids.
I don't see anywhere where it is highly implied that they are artificially created.
Except it doesn't. Can you play as a merfolk? They're humanoids. You shouldn't really expect to play as a Dire Corby regardless of them being labeled as a humanoid (which is also contentious considering they are much more accurately beasts due to behavior, there's just nothing humanoid about them other than shape). Centaurs are monstrosities (not artificially created mind you, and should be fey) but you can play as one. Firenewts, Gnolls, Sahaugin (all humanoids) aren't playable characters, but you can play as a fey fairy (playable eladrin should be fey too, considering the creature eladrin is, same with centaur and harengon), and with spelljammer you can play as a construct (which, should have always been the case with warforged, but...) an ooze, or a monstrosity.
Humanoid in 5e really implies nothing. It WAS originally meant to largely imply from (bipedal) according to the description in the Monster Manual, but the example of merfolk I already used demonstrates that WoTC doesn't stick reliably to that criterion either. Personally, I determine humanoid loosely in homebrew mostly by social behaviors and civilization types, but that's slightly abstract.
In 5e at least, these are just wrong descriptions. Aberrations say nothing about predating gods, or even being old creatures at all. They're just "utterly alien beings". Humanoids I already covered. And monstrosities you're right on PART of what the classification was MEANT to be, but literally, by its own description in the Monster Manual, monstrosity was meant to be a catch-all for anything they didn't want to put in another category, and they state SOME are the result of magical experimentation.
Again, per the Monster Manual, fiends are creatures "native" to the lower planes.
Tiamat wouldn't be native to the lower planes and should remain a dragon. I definitely think there's an argument here for her being classified as a fiend, I just think her divinity as one of the dragon gods' would usurp the lower planes ability to be able to morph her into something of its own. Additionally, for precedent, a shadow dragon that was born and has lived in the shadowfell being warped and transformed by it all of its life is still classified as a dragon.
Being as her avatar is created by her shouldn't that make it either a construct or a monstrosity? ;) I'm being fairly facetious here, but it does create some paradoxical logic.
You quote me, and ignore the context of what I've said. Every bit you disagree with is based only on 5th edition rules, which were shortened and simplified. The lore of many creatures in D&D goes back 50 years now, and many concepts and rules are based on lore from the past, but are not explained in current editions.
For instance Humanoids were defined by a book published in 1993, which allowed you to play as any and all Humanoid creatures. All even Mermaids, if using later material (They weren't mentioned in Humanoids, because they're restricted by waterbreathing). The Humanoid handbook starts off giving long winded rules on how to do it, and then follows up with premade " Humanoid Races" It also contained class choices for your Player Character humanoid monsters to include the only non-human paladin prior to 3rd edition. "Saurial Paladin" (A dinosaur humanoid paladin, Note only the Finheads could be paladins... but that goes into a weird AD&D rabbit hole. )
I didn't ignore the context. I considered it questionably relevant. For those creatures you or I mentioned past lore for that isn't provided in 5e I acknowledged and pointed out as such. I also pointed out that whether that lore should be accepted or not is questionable, as WotC has changed and abandoned plenty of its lore over time, and I believe, but cannot find, that they have stated only their current lore for any edition is "official" for that edition. Regardless, anything that is not stated officially in 5e is spurious (or at least should be made clear that it is not) if we are talking about their application in 5e rules; which, being as DnDBeyond only supports 5e and it was not stated otherwise in the thread, I assume that we are. The 5e rules were not just shortened and simplified, they were rewritten to create the framing of the game and context of the rules for said edition. Should we also argue that different races can only reach certain levels in different classes, because the edition of AD&D that the book you are referencing was written for says it is so? Or that elves can't be resurrected with Raise Dead because they don't have souls according to old lore?
"Every bit you disagree with is based only on 5th edition rules"
Because we are discussing 5e.
But, regardless, this is not true. Your definition of Monstrosity is that they are artificially created. You posited doppelgangers were monstrosities because in old, questionable lore they were artificially created by the batrachi. I provided examples of creatures that in old, questionable lore were created by the very same batrachi that created doppelgangers. I am unsure about the others, but the bullywug at least, has always been humanoid; it is even mentioned as humanoid in the book you brought up. There are other points I made regarding creatures as well that have no absolute strict bearing on 5e, but I digress.
And I accept that Humanoids for 2e were defined by a book published in 1993. I am saying they have been redefined for 5e by a book published in 2014.
Further, I will point out that the book, Complete Book of Humanoids, which was an optional supplement, also primarily defines humanoids by their form as well as the fact that that they were not typically player characters. Typical player characters were not called humanoids. Humans were just humans, and the other races were referred to as demi-humans. Humanoids were described in the Complete Book of Humanoids as "monsters that have two arms, two hands, at least two legs, and stand generally upright". That's the very first definition provided in it for what they mean a humanoid is in the book. Ergo, the definition of humanoid, even in 2e was not "can be player character", but rather that they were monsters, or creatures outside the player character races, that had forms resembling humans.
Winter wolves shouldn't be monstrosoties; they should be Magical Beasts, a category slightly different than ordinary/natural Beasts. 3e had a category of magical Beasts. Monstrosity should be specific to things which defy normal classification rather than things with extra powers but still obviously recognizable on sight as an otherwise know and familiar creature type.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Personally I don't even think there's a need to return to a magical beasts classification for anything. Beasts in 5e can be magical, WotC just has an aversion to classifying anything resembling magical as one and instead (mostly) treats the beasts category as a classification for our real world animals; and otherwise they just don't put anything they (reasonably or not) don't want druid's to have access to in there. We also end up with scenarios where the stench kow is in beasts when it should be in fiends.
Also, unless I'm wrong, technically the Winter Wolf's Cold Breath is not magical. It falls into one of those ambiguous scenarios created by 5e's "natural language", but my understanding was that if it is not stated to be a spell, involve a spell attack, or described as magical in the description then it is not in any way magical. This is the same reasoning for a dragon's breath that is officially said to not be magical. There's no difference between the winter wolf's breath and a dragon's either technically or thematically.
A winter wolf's breath may not be a spell, but it is magical. It does not have, and neither do dragons, any natural way to breathe ice at its enemies. There is not a legitimate scientific way for the creature to do that, so it is magical. Just because something is magical doesn't mean it is a spell.
There was more criteria to that than just not being a spell; that there's not a legitimate scientific way for it to work doesn't have bearing inside the game world. Officially, a dragon's breath is not considered magical. The winter wolf's breath is as far as I can tell, the same.
What do you mean by not magical? A gnome's magic resistance ability wouldn't affect it, but in game they are still magical creatures with a magical breath weapon. I think I am confused as to why it even matters and why you care and want it to be known that it isn't magical. Dragons are magical creatures and the ability of a dragon to blast cold energy out of its mouth is nothing but magic.
The Tressym is what first alerted me to the problems with wotc's approach to types.
The lore states they were originally magical creations but then became part of the natural ecosystem. Having two types made sense and it was a fun unique option for beastmasters. But then wotc changed it. Craig cat also had type changed. And wotc seemed really bad when they released the two space hamsters.
My guess is perceived control of of druid shapes and summon spells more than phb rangers. Some control mechanisms are needed but they clearly went overly restricted on other parts.
There are a couple of other threads on this topic in the ranger forum. I might add links when I have more time and not on a phone.
I just mean that officially a dragon's breath is stated specifically to not be magical. As to why it matters to me, it doesn't particularly; but being as many claim that a winter wolf should absolutely not be considered a beast because its breath weapon is magical, I felt it a noteworthy point to bring to the discussion. Honestly it's irrelevant to me, as beasts can be magical (also officially).
I agree with this. Either make every Shadowfell monster a new creature type (maybe call them a "Horror" or something) or you could make all Shadowfell monsters Fey. Because really, Shadowfell and The Feywild are "sister" realms.
And monstrosities should exist. They just need to specify what exactly monstrosities are, or make the requirements to be a monstrosity more specific.
Also #hydrasshouldbedragons
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