D&D 5E Brainstorming: Getting Rid of the Monstrosity Creature Type

Levistus's_Leviathan

Autistic DM (he/him)
None of that says the classification of monstrosity shouldn't exist. They just should have done a better job with it. Hardly the only thing that falls into that category for me.
Like I said before, I'd actually be fine if the Monstrosity creature type continued to exist in the game. I just think its current version is really sloppy and somewhere around 90% of the monsters that are classified as monstrosities should be classified as something else.

If they very specifically limited the definition of a monstrosity to a creature made through artificial selection + magic, I'd be fine with that. But then you would still have to reclassify every monstrosity that doesn't fit that definition, which is what I'm doing in this thread.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

JEB

Legend
It could make sense in that group, but my core for the owlbear is the original magical experimentation angle, so they really have to be a miscellaneous for me.
Admittedly, this is an advantage of having a broad Monstrosity category, as it more easily allows for different creature origins in different settings.

On the other hand, if we agree that such flexibility is a plus, one could also argue that we should abolish creature types altogether, to maximize flexibility. Maybe a catch-all category like the current version of Monstrosity is a worthwhile compromise between the two extremes (lots of categories, or none)?

I don't have a firm opinion on this, just musing.
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

Autistic DM (he/him)
Your druid solve is controversial, as some folks really prefer to turn into an existing creature in the game, as opposed to a mechanical statblock invented for the purpose of turning into something like an existing creature but not really cause of game balance. At least, I feel that way.

Of course, they did the same with familiars (for some reason) and people seem ok with that, so what do I know?
The problems with having Wild Shape use MM stat blocks outweigh the benefits, in my mind. Because not only does it take a lot of page flipping and searching for the monsters you want to turn into when you Wild Shape, but the game designers are also forced to keep in mind the balance of Druids wild shaping for every beast that they publish for the future of the edition.

So no beasts can have legendary actions/resistances, or spell resistance, or special senses that let them see invisible creatures, or anything else WotC would consider "game breaking" for Druids to get when they Wild Shape. The creature type is forever bound by the mechanics of a single class feature.
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
The problems with having Wild Shape use MM stat blocks outweigh the benefits, in my mind. Because not only does it take a lot of page flipping and searching for the monsters you want to turn into when you Wild Shape, but the game designers are also forced to keep in mind the balance of Druids wild shaping for every beast that they publish for the future of the edition.

So no beasts can have legendary actions/resistances, or spell resistance, or special senses that let them see invisible creatures, or anything else WotC would consider "game breaking" for Druids to get when they Wild Shape. The creature type is forever bound by the mechanics of a single class feature.
Quite frankly, that is WotC's issue, not mine. 3pp does a great job of expanding beyond the IP holder, and balance is better adjudicated in games like Level Up, or at the table. Both preferably.
 


Once you have created your monstrosity like the Owlbear and you have enough that they can breed, after several generations of natural breeding are they still monstrosities or has nature superceded their creation and they are now beasts?
Right! Especially as in a typical D&D world everything was created by magic at some point anyway. Why would it matter whether the creator was a god or a wizard?
 


An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top