D&D (2024) I have a Monster Manual. AMA!

[Yaarel]

Yeah, Monstrosities seem to have an air of "a Wizard must have done it" while lacking a particular extra-Planar component. Aa a counterexample, Sphinxes were Monstrosities, but are now moved to Celestials (which fits their origins).

One of the points Crawford makes in the Monstrosity video is that Monstrosities actually are mainly what people usually mean by "Monster" in non-game parlance.

If a "Monstrosity" is specific to the Material Plane.
If a "Beast" is never intelligent.
If a Monstrosity is always intelligent (average or higher) but never humanlike (thus lacking cultures etcetera).

This could function as a discrete definition for Monstrosity.

 

[Yaarel]

I agree that I don't think that the "Monstrosity" - "Beast" separation is one worth having, but it's pretty clear: Beasts are real-life Animals, whether giant or prehistoric or whatever, and "Monstrosities" are mythical creations - hybrids and magical creatures. Owlbear is still a Monstrosity, for what it's worth.

Heh, reallife cryptozoologists are eager to find these "mythical" species − and occasionally do!

 

[Yaarel]

Heh, it occurs to me.

Many of the characteristic that we use to distinguish humans from other animals, artificial intelligence would be happy to usurp and do even better.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Heh, reallife cryptozoologists are eager to find these "mythical" species − and occasionally do!

Yeah, though sometimes they're elaborate historical hoaxes! And I imagine that many of them were from people finding skeletons of things they couldn't identify, such as the elephant-skull cyclops idea or, frankly, dinosaurs.

I still think that it's amazing that we didn't have a proper concept for dinosaurs until the 1800's, when we'd been living with their bones around for our entire existence!

 

[Yaarel]

I still think that it's amazing that we didn't have a proper concept for dinosaurs until the 1800's, when we'd been living with their bones around for our entire existence!

Notably, the reallife dinosaur bones helped form concepts of "giants" in Europe and "dragons" in Asia.

 

[Parmandur]

If a "Monstrosity" is specific to the Material Plane.
If a "Beast" is never intelligent.
If a Monstrosity is always intelligent (average or higher) but never humanlike (thus lacking cultures etcetera).

This could function as a discrete definition for Monstrosity.

Some Monstrosities do have culture, though, like Thri-kreen or Lycanthropes.

 

[Yaarel]

Some Monstrosities do have culture, though, like Thri-kreen or Lycanthropes.

"Lycanthrope" makes it sound like Werewolves are a bad thing.

But in Norse literature, shamanics interacting with nature in these and related ways, is how things are done.

A Nordic (Norse, Sámi, Finnish) would view a shapeshifter as either a troll (Giant) or an actual animal (Beast) or a normal Human mage.

The boundary between human and other animals is fluid. When nature beings shapeshift into a human form, it includes the possibility of the forms of other animals as well.

 

[Yaarel]

Some Monstrosities do have culture, though, like Thri-kreen or Lycanthropes.

Thri-kreen is surprising as a Monstrosity, since it is a playable species. It could easily be Humanoid.

Even so, a technical definition of "Material" and "intelligent" could apply, but then why not Humanoid?

 

[Reynard]

Yup, they're elemental (water). As are Aaracocra (air) and lizardfolk (earth) and azur (fire).

Emphasis mine.

That is the dumbest thing I have heard with regards to D&D 2024.

 

[Parmandur]

Thri-kreen is surprising as a Monstrosity, since it is a playable species. It could easily be Humanoid.

Even so, a technical definition of "Material" and "intelligent" could apply, but then why not Humanoid?

The playable Thri-kreen in Spelljammer is a Monstrosity already.