Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6116064" data-attributes="member: 1465">I'm ok with the types suggested by the article. I think monsters types can be useful to the game mechanics and the presentation, but in general they should avoid putting too many assumptions under a type... we don't really need every monster of type X to share HD, vision capabilities, number of skills, immunities etc like in 3e. A very few common features is enough, just the minimum that really makes sense to the concept behind the type e.g. the fact that elementals, undead and outsiders aren't "alive" at least in the same way that mortals are, might have some consequence, or the fact that oozes are blobs without features could make them all immune to criticals.I think "beasts" covering also vermins and animals is a good choice. There isn't much difference.Definitely, I would really like this too for the first MM. It would make the book look much better, and it would be helpful for DMs who are looking for creating an "undead encounter" to have all undead close to each other, so that they can compare them and pick ones with appropriate level and XP, without going back and forth in the book.I see the MM can be used as a "book of cooking recipes" where if you are going to make a soup, you want to look into the soup chapter of the book, not have soup recipes mixed with meat, fish and vegetables.Then if you remember a monster's name but not type, you can look it up in the index.</blockquote>

Verification