I have in my regular group different opinions about the actual Types. Some of them are not problematic, they are classics like beasts, dragons and so on. Or they are very simple to follow like elementals and humanoids. The problem is the cath-all actual category of monstruosity and the types from the outsider desintegration.
There are some monstrosities that can be inserted in other types, like Displacer Beast and Owlbear could be considered Fey, or Winter wolf and Worg as beasts. But so far, never had issues of this kind.
The monster types are, for me, pretty easy to keep straight and see what goes where based on their definitions - but that is because I view them as a set of checks, and then the leftovers that didn't check any boxes fall into the monstrosity category.
Of course, this puts me at a disagreement with the Monster Manual on the classification of some creatures. I don't have a complete list, but I do know that the one that has already be encountered while playing (and house-ruled so the definitions of monster types are actually consistent) is the griffon; it's listed as a Monstrosity, but there is nothing in the description of it that makes it not "a natural part of the fantasy ecology," so I consider it to be a Beast (which is defined by the preceding quote).
That is a classic Houserule thing of course. Over all, the actual types work very well. There are a pair of creatures on books, like in Volo, that could work like monstruosities, but they are beasts for example.
The Griffon to me is a good monstruosity because it's a mythical creature. My problem is with the Grick, that it's very aberrant if you ask me. But again, houserule can change that.
The griffon, like the owlbear, is a combination of more than one natural beast. Hence, its origin is considered to be unnatural.
Unlike the owlbear, the griffon doesn't actually include any text in its description that says anything about an outside force (i.e. a wizard) blending beasts together to make the griffon - it's just a strange animal that happens to exist in fantasy worlds much like how dragons are just a thing that exists in fantasy worlds. So by the definitions presented in the front of the Monster Manual, beast fits (a natural part of the fantasy ecology, but clearly not a dragon, plant, humanoid, giant, or ooze) and monstrosity (not ordinary, not truly natural, maybe result of experiment or curse, or defying categorization) doesn't (or at least does not fit as well).
Further, the griffon is no more evident as being a non-beast than creatures which are officially beasts, such as flying snake with it's bird wings and snake body, or giant eagle and other giant animals much larger and/or more intelligent than real specimens of those animals could be. Making the distinction stand out as odd, since all the other things which are basically just fantasy animals but get labelled as Monstrosities have things mentioned in their description like "a beast whose magical orgins are lost to history..." or a tale of originating from the drops of a slain dragon god's blood.
Human-like monstruosities are from curses (the harpy and the minotaur), and not humanoids about weird nature (Döppelganger) or bigger than humanoids (minotaurs).
If a dragon weren't of the dragon type, surely it would be a monstrosity, too. Giant eagles, while not realistic, are presented as natural beasts of a kind. I don't claim to know what is going on with the flying snake.
Even if other creatures are defined as beasts that seem to be some sort of unnatural union, griffons are not among them. While 5e doesn't spell out the distinction, griffons were clearly created by some kind of magical combination. If you want to say in your own campaign, well, griffons just sort of exist and are natural, go for it. Previous editions made them more intelligent, which was more of a distinction. What are the consequences of being a monstrosity? Well, griffons are hard to train, much moreso than an ordinary beast. You can't wildshape into a griffon shape. You can't summon griffons with spells that summon woodland beasts.
Well, about the ancient outsider type; elementals, fiends and celestials are clear; aberrations, constructs and monstrosities/fatas take all the others. How do you see that?
Well, about the ancient outsider type; elementals, fiends and celestials are clear; aberrations, constructs and monstrosities/fatas take all the others. How do you see that?
I think the "outsider" types, aberrations, and constructs are very easy to determine which type is appropriate, because those types are entirely about the origin point of the creature: the higher planes for celestials; the lower planes for fiends; the elemental planes for elementals; somewhere unknown or outside the typical reckoning of realms of existence for aberrations; the supernaturally charged natural world for fey, or the "faerie realms" depending on setting; and being literally built from unliving materials then magically animated by means other than manipulation of the forces of life and death for constructs.
Ah, and some Undead, more or less, like the wraiths and so on. I remember the Gloom Golem from 3.5 that was strangely enough to be a construct, but extraplanar at same time. And the half-outsiders... the native outsider were strange like a concepts. Now they are fatas, monstruosities, humanoids... and one Giant at least!
I think that natural Monstrosities should be Beasts (Owl-Bear, Displacer beast, Purple worm, phase spider) these are creatures that can cross breed and naturally encountered in the nature. I mean let the druid turn into more things !!!! beasts are the most underdeveloped monsters in dnd 5e.
While others not so natural (Naga, Doppel ganger) should be humanoids or shape shifters.
I think that natural Monstrosities should be Beasts (Owl-Bear, Displacer beast, Purple worm, phase spider) these are creatures that can cross breed and naturally encountered in the nature. I mean let the druid turn into more things !!!! beasts are the most underdeveloped monsters in dnd 5e.
While others not so natural (Naga, Doppel ganger) should be humanoids or shape shifters.
Mimics should be Constructs.
Owl Bears were artificially created, Displacer Beasts come from the Feywild and Phase Spiders phase in and out of the Ethereal Plane. Purple Worms are gargantuan (which makes them unrealistically big), and bore tunnels through solid rock with ease. Plus they only live in the Underdark, which isn't exactly a normal habitat.
None of those creatures can be considered normal animals.
Nagas were also created, and "shape shifter" or "shapechanger" isn't a type, so Monstrosity fits the bill.
Mimics aren't constructed. They're amorphous and clearly organic since they need to eat, drink, breathe and sleep.
That just leaves Doppelgangers. They could certainly be humanoid, but they're also really weird in the sense that a doppelganger + a humanoid always produces a doppelganger. It's probably some sort of curse.
Owl Bears were artificially created and how many years was that? I think alot so they did mangle and interbreed and settled. I mean.... technically All animals were made from one cellular origin into various species by the wierdest scientist out there nature XD. and oh Displacer Beasts come from the Feywild that makes them automatically monasterios that's racist AF :D so elfs are monasterios too ? Purple Worms are worms ..... so what ??? there is a mantes in our world that make temperatures higher than the surface of the sun by snapping its fingers.... look it up and tell me that's "Natural" . Nature is weird man and dont question it :D
shapechanger is a subtype there is spells that affect them differently. its say shapechanger right next to the type.
Mimis yeah that was a wrong assumption they seems more like an Aberration like the clocker.
I like to think of monstrosities are more like the home brewing category that is sooo unnatural and like resulted in twisted and mangled science and magic. things that are more one of a kind sterile and dont have that much life longevity.
Hi,
I have in my regular group different opinions about the actual Types. Some of them are not problematic, they are classics like beasts, dragons and so on. Or they are very simple to follow like elementals and humanoids. The problem is the cath-all actual category of monstruosity and the types from the outsider desintegration.
I like over all, but what do you think?
Hombrewing and roleplaying a lot.
There are some monstrosities that can be inserted in other types, like Displacer Beast and Owlbear could be considered Fey, or Winter wolf and Worg as beasts. But so far, never had issues of this kind.
The monster types are, for me, pretty easy to keep straight and see what goes where based on their definitions - but that is because I view them as a set of checks, and then the leftovers that didn't check any boxes fall into the monstrosity category.
Of course, this puts me at a disagreement with the Monster Manual on the classification of some creatures. I don't have a complete list, but I do know that the one that has already be encountered while playing (and house-ruled so the definitions of monster types are actually consistent) is the griffon; it's listed as a Monstrosity, but there is nothing in the description of it that makes it not "a natural part of the fantasy ecology," so I consider it to be a Beast (which is defined by the preceding quote).
That is a classic Houserule thing of course. Over all, the actual types work very well. There are a pair of creatures on books, like in Volo, that could work like monstruosities, but they are beasts for example.
The Griffon to me is a good monstruosity because it's a mythical creature. My problem is with the Grick, that it's very aberrant if you ask me. But again, houserule can change that.
Hombrewing and roleplaying a lot.
The griffon, like the owlbear, is a combination of more than one natural beast. Hence, its origin is considered to be unnatural.
Human-like monstruosities are from curses (the harpy and the minotaur), and not humanoids about weird nature (Döppelganger) or bigger than humanoids (minotaurs).
Hombrewing and roleplaying a lot.
If a dragon weren't of the dragon type, surely it would be a monstrosity, too. Giant eagles, while not realistic, are presented as natural beasts of a kind. I don't claim to know what is going on with the flying snake.
Even if other creatures are defined as beasts that seem to be some sort of unnatural union, griffons are not among them. While 5e doesn't spell out the distinction, griffons were clearly created by some kind of magical combination. If you want to say in your own campaign, well, griffons just sort of exist and are natural, go for it. Previous editions made them more intelligent, which was more of a distinction. What are the consequences of being a monstrosity? Well, griffons are hard to train, much moreso than an ordinary beast. You can't wildshape into a griffon shape. You can't summon griffons with spells that summon woodland beasts.
True.
Well, about the ancient outsider type; elementals, fiends and celestials are clear; aberrations, constructs and monstrosities/fatas take all the others. How do you see that?
Hombrewing and roleplaying a lot.
Ah, and some Undead, more or less, like the wraiths and so on. I remember the Gloom Golem from 3.5 that was strangely enough to be a construct, but extraplanar at same time. And the half-outsiders... the native outsider were strange like a concepts. Now they are fatas, monstruosities, humanoids... and one Giant at least!
Hombrewing and roleplaying a lot.
I think that natural Monstrosities should be Beasts (Owl-Bear, Displacer beast, Purple worm, phase spider) these are creatures that can cross breed and naturally encountered in the nature.
I mean let the druid turn into more things !!!! beasts are the most underdeveloped monsters in dnd 5e.
While others not so natural (Naga, Doppel ganger) should be humanoids or shape shifters.
Mimics should be Constructs.
Lead designer of: Druid Wild Shape Revised, Druid: Circle of Monstrosity (Homebrew class), Revised Classes : Focus on level 20.
Homebrewer of: Halwasa`s Mushrooms of fluid movement (Item), Giraffe (Beast), Displacer Panther (Beast) (heavily modified Displacer Beast that is owned by WoC), Lightning whip (2nd-level Spell), Lesser Shapechange (5th-level Spell), Investiture of Lightning (6th-level Spell), Touched by the magic (Feat).
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Owl Bears were artificially created and how many years was that? I think alot so they did mangle and interbreed and settled. I mean.... technically All animals were made from one cellular origin into various species by the wierdest scientist out there nature XD.
and oh Displacer Beasts come from the Feywild that makes them automatically monasterios that's racist AF :D so elfs are monasterios too ?
Purple Worms are worms ..... so what ??? there is a mantes in our world that make temperatures higher than the surface of the sun by snapping its fingers.... look it up and tell me that's "Natural" . Nature is weird man and dont question it :D
shapechanger is a subtype there is spells that affect them differently. its say shapechanger right next to the type.
Mimis yeah that was a wrong assumption they seems more like an Aberration like the clocker.
I like to think of monstrosities are more like the home brewing category that is sooo unnatural and like resulted in twisted and mangled science and magic. things that are more one of a kind sterile and dont have that much life longevity.
Lead designer of: Druid Wild Shape Revised, Druid: Circle of Monstrosity (Homebrew class), Revised Classes : Focus on level 20.
Homebrewer of: Halwasa`s Mushrooms of fluid movement (Item), Giraffe (Beast), Displacer Panther (Beast) (heavily modified Displacer Beast that is owned by WoC), Lightning whip (2nd-level Spell), Lesser Shapechange (5th-level Spell), Investiture of Lightning (6th-level Spell), Touched by the magic (Feat).