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

[Kobold Avenger]

Humans are quite evil, their second most dangerous animal on Earth are Humans. Only Mosquitos kill more Humans than Humans do.

 

[Yaarel]

Not natural is the best explanation. If scientists went to the lab and used science and DNA to create a lion, snake, goat hybrid with the head of each and the body of the lion, nobody is going to call that a natural beast. Monstrosities are the magical equivalent to that.

For definition of "Monstrosity", whether it is created by magic doesnt matter. What matters is if it itself does magic.

For example, if I cast the True Polymorph spell to create a Beast, its creature type is Beast, no matter how weird and wonderful this particular Beast happens to appear.

Compare also, what if today we found life on Mars comparable to nonsapient animals on Earth? In D&D terms they are Beasts. If this extraterrestrial Beast happens to look like a blend of lion and eagle, like a griffon, it is still a Beast.

What would make it unnatural is if it itself can do unnatural magical things.

Most Monstrosities do magical things. It would be easy enough to go thru the list and add a magical effect where necessary.

There is still the issue of what is the difference between a Material innately magical Monstrosity, versus a Material innately magical Humanoid?

 

[Maxperson]

For definition of "Monstrosity", whether it is created by magic doesnt matter. What matters is if it itself does magic.

For example, if I cast the True Polymorph spell to create a Beast, its creature type is Beast, no matter how weird and wonderful this particular Beast happens to appear.

Compare also, what if today we found life on Mars comparable to nonsapient animals on Earth? In D&D terms they are Beasts. If this extraterrestrial Beast happens to look like a blend of lion and eagle, like a griffon, it is still a Beast.

What would make it unnatural is if it itself can do unnatural magical things.

Most Monstrosities do magical things. It would be easy enough to go thru the list and add a magical effect where necessary.

There is still the issue of what is the difference between a Material innately magical Monstrosity, versus a Material innately magical Humanoid?

Not just does magic. Does magic or is magic. If it can't occur naturally and was created via magic, even if it does nothing else it will still be a monstrosity. Polymorph isn't creating an unnatural creature. Turning someone into a bear won't make it a monstrosity. Turning someone into manbearpig will.

 

[Reynard]

Yep, I've been doing that for years in my stat blocks and was frankly a bit surprised when WotC didn't do the same.

For monsters I think everything limited should be a recharge. Per rest/day doesn't make sense for creatures meant to last 3-5 rounds.

 

[Yaarel]

Not just does magic. Does magic or is magic. If it can't occur naturally and was created via magic, even if it does nothing else it will still be a monstrosity. Polymorph isn't creating an unnatural creature. Turning someone into a bear won't make it a monstrosity. Turning someone into manbearpig will.

For the sake of a workable definition to distinguish a Monstrosity from "natural" animals, it must itself do magic.

The ways of magic can vary. Lycantrope shapeshifts, the Yeti breathes cold, Thri-kreen telepathizes, etcetera. But it must be full-on magic, perhaps specifically Primal magic.

The requirement of magic isnt much of a stretch since "Monstrosity" inherits much of the "Magical Beast" of earlier editions.


(I still am unsure why Thri-kreen isnt Humanoid, tho.)

 

[dave2008]

If the Goblin is a Fey "force of recklessness", then it has no free will, not in a human sense anyway, isnt humanlike, and isnt typically relatable and playable. The goblin is a demon of destruction, or rather a daemon of convoluted destruction.

By contrast, Orc, Lizardfolk, and Human are "Humanoid", explicitly humanlike.

But if many players are playing the Fey Goblins (compare when many players played Drow), then this is the new Drow, the new Orc.

I disagree with that opinion, but it sounds like you have it figured out for you, so what is your issue?

 

[MonsterEnvy]

For the sake of a workable definition to distinguish a Monstrosity from "natural" animals, it must itself do magic.

The ways of magic can vary. Lycantrope shapeshifts, the Yeti breathes cold, Thri-kreen telepathizes, etcetera. But it must be full-on magic, perhaps specifically Primal magic.

The requirement of magic isnt much of a stretch since "Monstrosity" inherits much of the "Magical Beast" of earlier editions.


(I still am unsure why Thri-kreen isnt Humanoid, tho.)

No it does not need to. At least by the Game's definition.

 

[dave2008]

For monsters I think everything limited should be a recharge. Per rest/day doesn't make sense for creatures meant to last 3-5 rounds.

I disagree. If you are interested I can provide more detail.

 

[pukunui]

@Yaarel: The new MM defines Monstrosities as "unnatural creatures with strange origins, such as mimics and owlbears." That's it.

 

[Yaarel]

No it does not need to. At least by the Game's definition.

If the griffon evolved naturally somewhere in prehistoric Earth, and we discover its fossil tomorrow, it is a Beast. 100% natural. Likewise if it evolved on Mars.