D&D 5E (2014) Wandering Monsters: Defining Our Terms

[Dausuul]

I strongly disagree with that, there is a big difference between forest and woodland for example, while the later describe an area covered in trees the former describe an area that is covered in trees and undergrowth and is generally harder to move through.

Stronghold and urban are also two very different things, outsider is meh IMO and don't let me start on merging Fey and Giant into Humanoids.

Obviously there are lots of distinctions that could be made. I mean, the alpine forests of northern Canada are pretty darned different from the forests of southern California. The question is, is it a distinction big enough to justify putting it at the "top level?" To have separate categories for Woodland and Forest implies that they are as different from one another as Forest and Desert, which is silly.

[Edit: I misunderstood Stronghold originally--I thought it was "castles or mountains, inhabited by dwarves" where it's actually "castles, or mountains inhabited by dwarves." I still think it's silly, just for different reasons...]

As for Stronghold, are we really going to have a whole terrain type just for castles? What's next, a Tavern terrain type where you find adventurers, and a Church terrain type inhabited by clerics? What is the practical use of a Stronghold terrain? Other than dwarves, what monsters are you going to find there?

Keywords were invented to handle just this situation--they allow for fine-grained distinctions within larger categories. If Celestial, Elemental, and Fiend are three different categories, then any time you have a spell that does something with extraplanar entities, you have to spell out "celestials, elementals, and fiends." And then some designer pipes up and asks whether slaad are considered fiends or elementals or what, and you end up having to add a new category just to cover slaad, or shoehorn them in someplace they really don't belong, and it's just a mess.

 

[Blackwarder]

Obviously there are lots of distinctions that could be made. I mean, the alpine forests of northern Canada are pretty darned different from the forests of southern France. The question is, is it a distinction big enough to justify putting it at the "top level?" To have separate categories for Woodland and Forest implies that they are as different from one another as Forest and Desert, which is silly.

No it isn't forest and woodland are two distinct terrains that require different ways to move through, gather food, etc etc..
for example, you can't ride a horse in a forest, if you can than it's not a forest, it's woodland, generally you can't see for more than a few dozens of meters (in a realy good patch) in a forest, in a woodland you can probably spot a moving creature a couple of hundreds meters away, a forest canopy is usually so dense that a flying creature won't be able to see through it creatures on the ground, in a woodland he usually could.

Forests to woodlands is as mountains to hills, they are two very distinct places. Also in James description he talks about woodlands being under civilized environments while forests are a sub section of the wilderness environment.

dwarf settlements[/I]?! Humans and elves and hobgoblins and all the rest of the civilized species have to share Urban or Caverns, but dwarves get their very own terrain? I could see having a terrain type for "non-ruined underground settlement," but it should cover any subterranean city, whether dwarf, drow, mind flayer or what have you.)

Nope, you got an environment that talks about fortified points, in a fantasy medieval type of world it's usually get translated to keeps, castles and (in many settings) Dwarven mountain colonies. Think about it like this, stronghold to urban is as military base to a city.

Either than or just say Planar and be done with that. As for Slaad, I would describe them into planar aberrations.

Warder

 

[Dausuul]

No it isn't forest and woodland are two distinct terrains that require different ways to move through, gather food, etc etc..
for example, you can't ride a horse in a forest, if you can than it's not a forest, it's woodland, generally you can't see for more than a few dozens of meters (in a realy good patch) in a forest, in a woodland you can probably spot a moving creature a couple of hundreds meters away, a forest canopy is usually so dense that a flying creature won't be able to see through it creatures on the ground, in a woodland he usually could.

In the forests of Alaska you have to worry about freezing to death for most of the year. In the forests of Southern California, you don't. The fauna are completely different. I could go on. As I said, there are a million distinctions you could make. At some point you have to draw the line.

Nope, you got an environment that talks about fortified points, in a fantasy medieval type of world it's usually get translated to keeps, castles and (in many settings) Dwarven mountain colonies. Think about it like this, stronghold to urban is as military base to a city.

Yes, this was a mistake on my part, now corrected. But it's still silly. A castle is a building, not a terrain type. You might as well have a Tavern terrain full of adventurers.

 

[Blackwarder]

In the forests of Alaska you have to worry about freezing to death for most of the year. In the forests of Southern California, you don't. The fauna are completely different. I could go on. As I said, there are a million distinctions you could make. At some point you have to draw the line.

Sigh... Once again, a forest is a.... nvm just read this

The terms forest and woodland are commonly used almost interchangeably, and if there is any differentiation, then most people see a forest as a remote, large, dark forbidding place while a woodland is smaller, more open and part of an agricultural landscape. These views are very close to the normally accepted definitions of the two terms. A woodland is a small area of trees with an open canopy (often defined as having 40% canopy closure or less, i.e. 60% or more of the sky is visible) such that plenty of light reaches the ground, encouraging other vegetation beneath the trees. Since the trees are well spaced they tend to be short-trunked with spreading canopies. The term forest, by contrast, is usually reserved for a relatively large area of trees forming for the most part a closed, dense canopy (although canopy closure as low as 20% is accepted in some definitions). A forest does not have to be uniform over large areas, and indeed is often made up of a series of stands, groups of trees varying in such features as age, species or structure, interspersed with open places such as meadows and lakes and areas where grazing animals are limiting tree development.

Yes, this was a mistake on my part, now corrected. But it's still silly. A castle is a building, not a terrain type. You might as well have a Tavern terrain full of adventurers.

That's because we are not talking about terrain types, we are talking about environments, and if WotC will some day published an urban centered MM than I would imagine that some entries (thugs, thieves, adventurers, dockworkers guild man etc) will have entries such as Tavern (poor) Tavren (high class) etc.

Warder

 

[Kinak]

Well, I can certainly appreciate functional monster types, but I think the article goes directly to the narrative of the monster. I think that is the appropriate first step to classification. The narrative (fiction) drives the functional (mechanics), as it should IMO. Later on, as the stats are developed for those entries, those narrative entries could become functional tags (or not).

I absolutely agree that the narrative should drive mechanics, particularly when we're talking about monsters.

What I'm suggesting is basically:
Step 1) Design the monster's fluff
Step 2) Apply whatever functional tags fit that fluff

In practice, that sort of functional design provides a framework for fluff rather than getting in the way. An ogre zombie can be both a giant and an undead without it messing with anything (or not, based purely on the flavor). And slaad don't suddenly need to become fiends or celestials to fit into a category.

All I'm really arguing is that forcing each monster to fit into one and exactly one box restricts the fluff to match mechanics.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[the Jester]

Monster types are a mess. 4e made a huge improvement with the split between origin and body form. Unfortunately they didn't ask that.

Agreed.

But as to the environments: Why do we need a list of specific environments? What's wrong with having one monster that dwells in "any arctic" while another dwells in "glacial crevasses"? Is there a real problem with specifying that, for instance, dire squirrels favor "forests containing oaks" while humans appear "anywhere"? I think the more descriptive an environment tag is, the better.

The only way I can see an advantage to a limited list is if all these various environments have very specific functions in game- in other words, if a bunch of fiddly bits attach to it. I favor a much more free-form kind of descriptive text, and a monster's typical environment is just descriptive text, even in a stat block. After all, if a dm wants to use a giant crab in the middle of a dungeon in the desert, he'll just go ahead and invent a sensible way to explain it (imported and kept in a huge tank, guards an oasis, etc).

 

[the Jester]

Regarding his ideas for treasure types, I like them- I think they are off to a good start.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It's my guess that the reason for the distinction in environments is purely a matter of setting up the Exploration rules. Forest *is* different than Woodland probably because (like Blackwarder mentioned) of travel time, visibility, and the like. It doesn't matter WHAT kind of trees are in the Forest or Woodland... but just that Woodland has the clearings and paths available for faster travel, horse and cart travel, and the distances that can be seen while inside them... and the Forests are different and slower. I imagine this is also the reason for the distinction between Lake and River... as travelling down rivers will be much faster than across lakes (and travelling up rivers the reverse.)

You can't have so many environments that the charts needed to list travel times and the like are unwieldy... but you also can't have so few that it dumbs down the Exploration aspect of the game to be unconsequential. So the lists Wyatt made seems rather good on that score.

 

[Klaus]

I'm okay with the Environments and Treasure.

Regarding Types, though, I much rather prefer the 4e nomenclature: an elf is a medium fey humanoid, a ghost is a medium shadow humanoid [incorporeal], an ogre is a large natural humanoid, a horse is a large natural beast, etc.

I think we should think about what function do we want types (and origins) to fulfill. Are they to be shorthands to mechanical effects (this spell charms natural beasts, that sword is effective against fey creatures, etc)? Are they merely fluff? Will a creature's type inform its Hit Dice (like 3e)?

I believe much of that weight can be carried by keywords.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Liked in general, but Arctic? You know, there's also a South Pole in worlds... Antarctic.

"Polar" is a good term.