I'm sure there is some discussion of this since we saw the druid turn into an owlbear in the movie trailer. When looking through the monstrosities I feel like the category is very large so I feel it doesn't represent the creatures as a fair category
Some examples that I could find Bullette Aurumvorax Crag Cat Displacer Beast Hippocamp Fleece Lion Owlbear Worg Winter Wolf
Random realization, a Centuar (Monster) is considered a monstrosity.... Same with a Minotaur too.
Unlike some of the other categories I don't see a lot of common ground for some of these creatures. Do you feel WotC should take a new look at some creature classifications?
I believe that Monstrosity is supposed to apply to animals with magical or fantastical quirks, IE unnatural but also living at large in the wild.
It's probably more apt to say that it was meant to be the "Monster" class, EG "you're in the wild, and you find this hting - it's not an animal, it's a monster" but the word "Monster" was already taken.
What is it that Monstrosity doesn't do for you? which Monstrosities might you argue are not, or how would you split them?
There's nothing wrong with a broad class of "not just a wild animal, but not specific enough to have it's own category". I like the idea of a world with this sort of thing in it - I intend to homebrew so many random little creatures for the world which fall into this category, and are purely for random encounters of "what the heck was that thing?"
I blame druids. The beast list is carefully curated so the Wild Shape only allows a pretty narrow range of features and abilities. Anything that falls out of those limits is tossed into the Monstrosity bucket. This is more about creature types serving as keywords for features and spells than it is about having a logical creature classification system.
I blame druids. The beast list is carefully curated so the Wild Shape only allows a pretty narrow range of features and abilities. Anything that falls out of those limits is tossed into the Monstrosity bucket. This is more about creature types serving as keywords for features and spells than it is about having a logical creature classification system.
That makes sense. Its a shame though, but I suppose I can just use appearance as fluff, like say I wildshape into an Owlbear but use a normal bear statblock
I blame druids. The beast list is carefully curated so the Wild Shape only allows a pretty narrow range of features and abilities. Anything that falls out of those limits is tossed into the Monstrosity bucket. This is more about creature types serving as keywords for features and spells than it is about having a logical creature classification system.
That makes sense. Its a shame though, but I suppose I can just use appearance as fluff, like say I wildshape into an Owlbear but use a normal bear statblock
This is precisely why a druid should have a common set of stats that they can use for wildshape while leaving the flavor free.
I blame druids. The beast list is carefully curated so the Wild Shape only allows a pretty narrow range of features and abilities. Anything that falls out of those limits is tossed into the Monstrosity bucket. This is more about creature types serving as keywords for features and spells than it is about having a logical creature classification system.
That makes sense. Its a shame though, but I suppose I can just use appearance as fluff, like say I wildshape into an Owlbear but use a normal bear statblock
This is precisely why a druid should have a common set of stats that they can use for wildshape while leaving the flavor free.
You mean like the newer “summon” spells? I disagree. Part of what makes it cool is that they have such a variety of animals they can become.
You mean like the newer “summon” spells? I disagree. Part of what makes it cool is that they have such a variety of animals they can become.
Meh. When it comes to stats there isn't really that much variety in the beasts category. Choose movement type, size (tiny-large), and add claw/bite with a rider, add keen senses and you pretty much have all beasts that a druid can become. This argument is more appropriate for a ranger companion though.
I'm sure there is some discussion of this since we saw the druid turn into an owlbear in the movie trailer. When looking through the monstrosities I feel like the category is very large so I feel it doesn't represent the creatures as a fair category
Some examples that I could find
Bullette
Aurumvorax
Crag Cat
Displacer Beast
Hippocamp
Fleece Lion
Owlbear
Worg
Winter Wolf
Random realization, a Centuar (Monster) is considered a monstrosity.... Same with a Minotaur too.
Unlike some of the other categories I don't see a lot of common ground for some of these creatures. Do you feel WotC should take a new look at some creature classifications?
I believe that Monstrosity is supposed to apply to animals with magical or fantastical quirks, IE unnatural but also living at large in the wild.
It's probably more apt to say that it was meant to be the "Monster" class, EG "you're in the wild, and you find this hting - it's not an animal, it's a monster" but the word "Monster" was already taken.
What is it that Monstrosity doesn't do for you? which Monstrosities might you argue are not, or how would you split them?
There's nothing wrong with a broad class of "not just a wild animal, but not specific enough to have it's own category". I like the idea of a world with this sort of thing in it - I intend to homebrew so many random little creatures for the world which fall into this category, and are purely for random encounters of "what the heck was that thing?"
The answer: a Monstrosity.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
I blame druids. The beast list is carefully curated so the Wild Shape only allows a pretty narrow range of features and abilities. Anything that falls out of those limits is tossed into the Monstrosity bucket. This is more about creature types serving as keywords for features and spells than it is about having a logical creature classification system.
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
That makes sense. Its a shame though, but I suppose I can just use appearance as fluff, like say I wildshape into an Owlbear but use a normal bear statblock
This is precisely why a druid should have a common set of stats that they can use for wildshape while leaving the flavor free.
You mean like the newer “summon” spells? I disagree. Part of what makes it cool is that they have such a variety of animals they can become.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Meh. When it comes to stats there isn't really that much variety in the beasts category. Choose movement type, size (tiny-large), and add claw/bite with a rider, add keen senses and you pretty much have all beasts that a druid can become. This argument is more appropriate for a ranger companion though.
Maybe you’re right. 🤷♂️
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting