Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Amphytrion" data-source="post: 9618962" data-attributes="member: 7046181">Sure? Against my better judgment, I shall assume good faith from you in this response:Our categories aren't different. They're the same: all subtypes of a larger monster type. They all divide monster statblocks, rather than books or animals. Your example refers to two categories of entirely different broader things.What differentiates the monster statblocks in your mind?This is materially false, see but a few examples below: <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The Arch Hag is a CR variant of hag, but it's not grouped with other hags. This is especially confusing because Archmage and Archpriest are grouped with their respective categories.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The goblinoids are normally encountered together, yet they're also not grouped together. Why? </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Angels are CR variants, but they're not grouped together.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Demons/Devils are both CR variants and typically encountered together, yet they're not grouped together.</li> </ul>Then there are outliers which are clearly remnants of a set-in-place organization before the actual statblocks were done. I'm thinking here of the celestials that are inexplicably in the segregated animals section of the book.This is both obvious and a two-way street. Just because you're confident you have divined some clarity evident to you and only you, that does not make it real. It is uncharitable for either of us type this sort of statement, however.See above, or one of my prior responses in the earliest days of this thread. Why do you think it's useful at the table?</blockquote>

Verification