D&D 5E Wandering Monsters - I Don't Know What It Is, But I Like It!

[Klaus]

Yes, I dig that, is what I'm hoping for.

What would the Rilmani be in 5th Ed?

I'd go with Immortal Humanoid (exemplar).

 

[steeldragons]

What, pray tell, is a "rilmani"? That is would be included in the discussion on these celestial beasts?

On that note "celestial beasts" seems to be the obvious choice for their type...why they'd need a special category "immortal guardian?" is simply the latest prodding to see if anyone will mind/notice "unnecessary changes for change's sake" that seems, thoughtfully disguised under colorful language, to be at the core of all of these articles.

I'd take the phoeniz out of there, actually, making it like pegusi and unicorns, "magical beast." But the other's listed there I could certainly see listed as "celestial beast"...I could see the case for a guardian naga as a celestial beast, as well...

 

[Klaus]

What, pray tell, is a "rilmani"? That is would be included in the discussion on these celestial beasts?

On that note "celestial beasts" seems to be the obvious choice for their type...why they'd need a special category "immortal guardian?" is simply the latest prodding to see if anyone will mind/notice "unnecessary changes for change's sake" that seems, thoughtfully disguised under colorful language, to be at the core of all of these articles.

I'd take the phoeniz out of there, actually, making it like pegusi and unicorns, "magical beast." But the other's listed there I could certainly see listed as "celestial beast"...I could see the case for a guardian naga as a celestial beast, as well...

Rilmani are the True Neutral exemplars (like Devils are LE, Archons LG, Demons CE and 2e/3e Eladrin CG).

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I vastly prefer the taxonomy (origin + shape) types. The current "monstrosity" type is a pet peeve of mine. The name sounds clunky, and the distinction doesn't make much sense. Make "celestial" an origin and "beast" a type that covers non-humanoid, magical creatures ("animal" covers regular fauna, wether they're dogs or owlbears). Some will say "that makes assumptions about the game", but stuff like "monstrosity" also make assumptions about the game. Why would the farmers call adventurers for a worg (a monstrosity) and not for a troll (a giant)? Or a dire wolf (a beast)?

While I never minded the taxonomy types, it does come with an academic tone. Whereas the method they're using feels like it comes from a world with less understanding of itself, and part of me likes that.

Your question, in many ways, puts it into relief. The farmers would gang up on and kill the dire wolf themselves. They understand what it is. But the worg or the troll are too much. They're monsters. The difference between them is that people understand the concept of a giant.

It's not that its a big deal to me. I'm not even sure which method I prefer. Just that I want whatever method is used to be done well.

 

[Klaus]

While I never minded the taxonomy types, it does come with an academic tone. Whereas the method they're using feels like it comes from a world with less understanding of itself, and part of me likes that.

You're taking the assumption that those types and subtypes have any meaning to the in-game world. IMHO, they exist only as gamespeak, like Hit Dice or level.

Your question, in many ways, puts it into relief. The farmers would gang up on and kill the dire wolf themselves. They understand what it is. But the worg or the troll are too much. They're monsters. The difference between them is that people understand the concept of a giant.

Why? Why is the worg "too much", and a horse-sized wolf isn't? Calling something a "monstrosity" and saying that the general populace is afraid of monstrosities is arbitrary at best. What is their defining characteristic, that they should be lumped together?

 

[Savage Wombat]

Maybe I'm missing something - what's wrong with Rilmani just being outsiders?

 

[jadrax]

Why? Why is the worg "too much", and a horse-sized wolf isn't?

Worgs are smart.

 

[jadrax]

Maybe I'm missing something - what's wrong with Rilmani just being outsiders?

Outsiders is a really bad term because it doesn't actually mean anything. For example, a Gold Dragon born in Bytopia is an Outsider, but you would never classify it as such. Hence its one of the terms that has died in a big fire.

 

[Klaus]

Worgs are smart.

As smart as a giant lynx, a blink dog or griffon. Why aren't they monstrosities?

 

[Alzrius]

Outsiders is a really bad term because it doesn't actually mean anything. For example, a Gold Dragon born in Bytopia is an Outsider, but you would never classify it as such. Hence its one of the terms that has died in a big fire.

No, it's not; 3.5 fixed that particular issue - the dragon would be a dragon still, it would just have the extraplanar subtype (when off of its native plane).