D&D 5E Which common monsters/creature types do you exclude from your campaigns?

[Voadam]

Sea elves are magical fish people, merfolk are fully-committed fish-people, locathah are aquatic lizardfolk, sahuagin are fish-orcs and merrow are fish-gnolls. Tritons are simply water-people.

A bunch of these do not match up to what I have seen in various D&D sources.

Sea elves are aquatic elves.

Koalinths are aquatic hobgoblins.

Locathah are straight out fish people.

Merfolk are fish centaurs.

Merrow are aquatic ogres, not gnolls.

Sahuagin have varied widely in their depictions, but traditionally have more HD and more intelligence than orcs.

Blackmoor page 21: "With a huge leech-like mouth, large reptilian eyes, and huge ear-like growths on the side of their heads they have an almost alien appearance. On the upper body are two arm-like extensions that act as forward fins and end in two pincer-like protrusions (opposed to each other) which are used to grasp tools and weapons. The main body is reptilian in nature, covered with thick hide and has a rudimentary tail which is used much like an alligator's tail for steering and propulsion. The two rear legs are located about 2/3 of the way down the body and are long and frog like, ending in a six-toed webbed foot which provides great stability when standing on soft sea bottoms and great propulsion when swimming."

Scrags are aquatic trolls.

Tritons are water elemental people, in 1e they have fish tails for legs, in 2e these turn into fin/flipper feet.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The various aquatic species is good example of a thing in D&D I dislike, which always leads to me omitting something. I don't need about seven thousand different iterations of the same concept. It is weird and thematically confused. So I usually just do some heavy editing and merging. Like two different sort of intelligent aquatic species already sounds like plenty.

 

[Voadam]

The various aquatic species is good example of a thing in D&D I dislike, which always leads to me omitting something. I don't need about seven thousand different iterations of the same concept. It is weird and thematically confused. So I usually just do some heavy editing and merging. Like two different sort of intelligent aquatic species already sounds like plenty.

To each their own.

For me, given D&D's cantina species setup continuing that in the seas seems normal. Also given that IRL there are 34,000 species of fish (not counting mollusks and other aquatic life forms) compared to 6,400 species of mammals (including all whales) and that on earth mirroring type of worlds there is more room underwater than on the terrestrial surface a diversity of aquatic fantasy races fits in fine for me conceptually as well for D&D worlds. I don't need and use the majority of terrestrial or aquatic species directly in actual games, but as background world elements with potential to be used directly I am fine with them being there and I have bought things like Into the Blue and Cerulean Seas for possible expanded new undersea stuff and things like Monstrous Arcana: The Sea Devils for deeper dives on existing D&D aquatic stuff.

 

[haakon1]

For me, given D&D's cantina species setup continuing that in the seas seems normal.

I think it would be less weird if different creatures were in different seas. If Tritons are in one sea, Merfolk in another, it’s less repetitive.

 

[Tonguez]

The various aquatic species is good example of a thing in D&D I dislike, which always leads to me omitting something. I don't need about seven thousand different iterations of the same concept. It is weird and thematically confused. So I usually just do some heavy editing and merging. Like two different sort of intelligent aquatic species already sounds like plenty.

I agree and ironically I think that the Tritons make for a better version of standard fish people than do Genasi or Merfolk. So if it was me I’d just have Sahuagin (Orcs) and Triton, with Merrows and Scrags as the ’monster races’

 

[Faolyn]

I find that I don't like "true" giants (hill, fire, etc.) so I tend to not include them. They've just never appealed to me, no matter the edition. On the other hand, I really like the "lesser" giants (ettins, cyclops, etc.).

 

[Voadam]

I think it would be less weird if different creatures were in different seas. If Tritons are in one sea, Merfolk in another, it’s less repetitive.

Elves in Faerun, Spirit Folk and Hengeyokai in Kara Tur?

 

[Vaalingrade]

The various aquatic species is good example of a thing in D&D I dislike, which always leads to me omitting something. I don't need about seven thousand different iterations of the same concept. It is weird and thematically confused. So I usually just do some heavy editing and merging. Like two different sort of intelligent aquatic species already sounds like plenty.

Bonus points for this one being the theme most people don't want to do.

Aquatic encounters are pure torture unless you're a merfolk spearfighter, with tons of penalties and fiddly things to keep track of.

 

[haakon1]

Aquatic encounters are pure torture unless you're a merfolk spearfighter, with tons of penalties and fiddly things to keep track of.

Oh, imagine Grappling rules * underwater rules.