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

[DND_Reborn]

I'll just say "No, I wouldn't do it. Monstrosities are pretty clear to me. They aren't beasts or anything else."

Said my piece. Bowing out. Good luck in your discussions.

 

[Vaalingrade]

One important reason to get rid of Monstrosity is to get rid of this weird vibe D&D often ends up promoting is that the D&D world is Earth with just a thin fantasy candy shell; that the fantasy part isn't that deep and can easily be discarded and discounted.

It's not just intentional magic mis-mash creatures who are 'monstrosities', it's any non-Earth animal because anything actual fantastical can't be 'natural' even in a world where magic itself is naturally occurring.

 

[Vael]

I do think there is potential in still keeping the Monstrosity as a creature type, but it has to be better defined, rather than the place to put a creature that doesn't fit elsewhere.

Also, tempted to add a new creature type ... Kaiju. For the Tarrasque, Astral Dreadnought

 

[Yaarel]

I do think there is potential in still keeping the Monstrosity as a creature type, but it has to be better defined, rather than the place to put a creature that doesn't fit elsewhere.

Also, tempted to add a new creature type ... Kaiju. For the Tarrasque, Astral Dreadnought

I like that alot!

Kaiju is obviously a beast but is too big to be a natural Beast. Perhaps it can even have magical features.

Actually, I think kaiju represents well, most of the creatures that I found difficult to categorize.

Heh, one could easily argue that "Kaiju" is the same thing as "Monstrosity". But. The concept of kaiju makes it clearer which creatures actually are one and which arent.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Except IMO there needs to be a dividing line between real-world natural creatures (horses, elephants, robins, etc.) and fantastic natural creatures (gryphons, chimerae, direwolves, etc.)

Why? Why can't we have a fantasy world with hypothetical fantasy animals that nevertheless are 'plausible' in a sense that they roughly follow normal biological limitations? Why is an owlbear a monstrosity but a platypus is not? Also, dire wolves are literally real extinct animals.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

One important reason to get rid of Monstrosity is to get rid of this weird vibe D&D often ends up promoting is that the D&D world is Earth with just a thin fantasy candy shell; that the fantasy part isn't that deep and can easily be discarded and discounted.

It's not just intentional magic mis-mash creatures who are 'monstrosities', it's any non-Earth animal because anything actual fantastical can't be 'natural' even in a world where magic itself is naturally occurring.

Yep. There is no particular reason for a fictional world have the same fauna that our Earth, except ease of referencing. For my current world I intentionally altered the real animals a bit (many of which were prehistoric) and invented some new ones, to give it a feel of "this is not Earth." It is mostly just flavour, but flavour is important. The same reason than for hawing a world with multiple moons and suns etc.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why? There isn't one between real-world natural creatures and their fantastical giant versions. 5e Owls and a Giant Owl that has its own language both count as beasts. And real-world creatures that used to exist (dinosaurs, mammoths) but are now extinct are also beasts.

That's also easily solved by not letting the Druid turn into the Monster Manual's versions of the monsters. People at WotC have indicated before that the PHB version of a Druid's Wild Shape will probably get the same treatment that summoning spells got in Tasha's. That problem will probably be solved in the 2024 PHB, so you wouldn't have to change the classifications to make druids balanced anymore.

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?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yep. There is no particular reason for a fictional world have the same fauna that our Earth, except ease of referencing. For my current world I intentionally altered the real animals a bit (many of which were prehistoric) and invented some new ones, to give it a feel of "this is not Earth." It is mostly just flavour, but flavour is important. The same reason than for hawing a world with multiple moons and suns etc.

For one, ease of referencing is a real thing. So is categorizing creatures so you know what affects what. Of course, anyone can create or re-categorize to their heart's content in their own game. I just don't think the benefit outweighs the cost in this instance.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I do think there is potential in still keeping the Monstrosity as a creature type, but it has to be better defined, rather than the place to put a creature that doesn't fit elsewhere.

Also, tempted to add a new creature type ... Kaiju. For the Tarrasque, Astral Dreadnought

Now that is an idea I can get behind!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

It's kinda tricky. I don't think it is important for the druid animal form to have the exact same stats than the MM version, animals are varied individuals too after all, but I feel it should mostly have the same features, traits etc. If you turn into giant snake, you should be able to constrict, if you turn into a venomous scorpion, you should have a poison sting, you should have the same senses than the MM version and so forth. It should basically feel and play like the same type of an animal, even if the numbers might be slightly different.

Of course, they did the same with familiars (for some reason) and people seem ok with that, so what do I know?

They did? AFAIK familiars use MM versions, which is actually weird as according to the fluff it is not even a real animal, just some spirit that takes a form of an animal. Yet somehow its mental stats change according to the form it takes...