Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Brainstorming: Getting Rid of the Monstrosity Creature Type
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Levistus's_Leviathan" data-source="post: 8704937" data-attributes="member: 7023887"><p>Monstrosities literally are just a "catch-all category" for creatures that WotC didn't think fit the other types. A lot of them are seemingly natural creatures (Basilisks) that are just Monstrosities because WotC doesn't want Moon Druids to be able to petrify enemies, some are creations of more powerful creatures, sometimes even gods (the Tarrasque, Behirs, Krackens, Astral Dreadnoughts), some should be humanoids but aren't sentient in the base lore (Harpies), and others are just thrown into the creature type because they don't fit into anything else, even though they have nothing in common with any other monstrosity (Sorrowsworn, I'm looking at you). </p><p></p><p>If monstrosities were just creatures created/warped through magic? Fine. Awesome. I don't accept the whole "made by the gods" thing, because then almost every race and monster in D&D would be a monstrosity. But if it were just "creatures warped through magic to the extent that they became an entirely different and magical species", that would be a fine monster type. Still pretty niche, but just as excusable as "Plant". But 90% of Monstrosities don't fit that definition, and in my opinion, would be better off reclassified in another creature type. </p><p></p><p>So, if we're keeping Monstrosity as a creature type, I would prefer if it was <strong>just</strong> stuff like Behir, Chimera, Hydra, and Yuan-Ti. No shadow-creatures (Sorrowsworn), weird metal bulls that should be constructs (Gorgons), natural monsters that should just be beasts (Griffons/Hippogriffs), and obviously divine creatures that should be celestials (Sphinxes and Naga). The 5e Monstrosity creature type is a mess, because it was designed to be one. And that bugs me. Thus this thread. </p><p></p><p>Absolutely. The Feywild gets its own creature type (which is the second worst defined creature type in the game, but still), so I think it would make sense if the Shadowfell got its own (Shades?). There are already some monsters in 5e that would fit well into it, like the Sorrowsworn, Balhannoth, and Shadow Mastiffs. Then the monsters that should be considered natural and normal in most D&D worlds (like Griffons, Rocs, probably Owlbears, and Remorhaz) should probably just be beasts. And if there's anything left over, mainly the creatures that are normal creatures (magically) mutated so much that they're functionally new creatures, those can be Monstrosities. </p><p></p><p>I'm fine with the monster type existing, but it would have to be significantly changed in order to be on par with the rest of the others.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Levistus's_Leviathan, post: 8704937, member: 7023887"] Monstrosities literally are just a "catch-all category" for creatures that WotC didn't think fit the other types. A lot of them are seemingly natural creatures (Basilisks) that are just Monstrosities because WotC doesn't want Moon Druids to be able to petrify enemies, some are creations of more powerful creatures, sometimes even gods (the Tarrasque, Behirs, Krackens, Astral Dreadnoughts), some should be humanoids but aren't sentient in the base lore (Harpies), and others are just thrown into the creature type because they don't fit into anything else, even though they have nothing in common with any other monstrosity (Sorrowsworn, I'm looking at you). If monstrosities were just creatures created/warped through magic? Fine. Awesome. I don't accept the whole "made by the gods" thing, because then almost every race and monster in D&D would be a monstrosity. But if it were just "creatures warped through magic to the extent that they became an entirely different and magical species", that would be a fine monster type. Still pretty niche, but just as excusable as "Plant". But 90% of Monstrosities don't fit that definition, and in my opinion, would be better off reclassified in another creature type. So, if we're keeping Monstrosity as a creature type, I would prefer if it was [B]just[/B] stuff like Behir, Chimera, Hydra, and Yuan-Ti. No shadow-creatures (Sorrowsworn), weird metal bulls that should be constructs (Gorgons), natural monsters that should just be beasts (Griffons/Hippogriffs), and obviously divine creatures that should be celestials (Sphinxes and Naga). The 5e Monstrosity creature type is a mess, because it was designed to be one. And that bugs me. Thus this thread. Absolutely. The Feywild gets its own creature type (which is the second worst defined creature type in the game, but still), so I think it would make sense if the Shadowfell got its own (Shades?). There are already some monsters in 5e that would fit well into it, like the Sorrowsworn, Balhannoth, and Shadow Mastiffs. Then the monsters that should be considered natural and normal in most D&D worlds (like Griffons, Rocs, probably Owlbears, and Remorhaz) should probably just be beasts. And if there's anything left over, mainly the creatures that are normal creatures (magically) mutated so much that they're functionally new creatures, those can be Monstrosities. I'm fine with the monster type existing, but it would have to be significantly changed in order to be on par with the rest of the others. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Brainstorming: Getting Rid of the Monstrosity Creature Type
Top