D&D 5E Wandering Monsters - I Don't Know What It Is, But I Like It!

[GX.Sigma]

Maybe I'm missing something - what's wrong with Rilmani just being outsiders?

Nothing. Which is why they should be. Unfortunately, James Wyatt does not agree.

Okay, the word "outsider" isn't great, but there needs to be a term for a creature composed of the essence of a plane. Otherwise, you have a bunch of creatures that don't fit in the creature type scheme, and you have to do all kinds of crazy to make it work (like slaadi as aberrations, or whatever they're going to do for rilmani).

Change "monstrosity" to Magical Beast and introduce an Outsider type (with celestial and fiend subtypes), and you can categorize all creatures.

 

[jadrax]

As smart as a giant lynx, a blink dog or griffon. Why aren't they monstrosities?

AFAIK, Worgs are smarter than giant lynxes and griffons. Worgs speak common, they can plan, they are not just animals.

Blink Dogs are weird, to me, they pretty much fit in the 'we need a new category for stuff' outlined by yesterday's article.



[As an aside, I am not that keen on monstrosity as a category, but I think I do understand the rational].

 

[jadrax]

No, it's not; 3.5 fixed that particular issue - the dragon would be a dragon still, it would just have the extraplanar subtype (when off of its native plane).

That is not a fix though, Is an angel born on earth an Outsider (Extraplaner) when not on Earth?

Outsider is only a description of origin; the Extraplaner subtype makes much, much more sense than it. But you still need to then replace the basic type with something useful/meaningful.

 

[Zaukrie]

Taxonomy and type is for the DM, monstrosity is for the characters and fiction. Not sure why you cannot have both.

 

[Alzrius]

That is not a fix though, Is an angel born on earth an Outsider (Extraplaner) when not on Earth?

You're extraplanar when you're not on your plane of origin. Given that, I'm not sure what you're asking here.

Outsider is only a description of origin; the Extraplaner subtype makes much, much more sense than it. But you still need to then replace the basic type with something useful/meaningful.

Outsider isn't a description of origin though. Admittedly the word sounds like it (e.g. the idea that "Outsiders" are "from outside"), but the type description makes it clear that they're beings with distinct characteristics that define them.

 

[jadrax]

You're extraplanar when you're not on your plane of origin. Given that, I'm not sure what you're asking here.

Outsider isn't a description of origin though. Admittedly the word sounds like it (e.g. the idea that "Outsiders" are "from outside"), but the type description makes it clear that they're beings with distinct characteristics that define them.

I am basically asking what you think the distinct characteristics are that define the Outsider type; because aside from mechanics there do not seem to really be any.

 

[Alzrius]

I am basically asking what you think the distinct characteristics are that define the Outsider type; because aside from mechanics there do not seem to really be any.

I suppose the big one is the lack of duality in their body and soul; that the two are "one unit."

 

[jadrax]

I suppose the big one is the lack of duality in their body and soul; that the two are "one unit."

So why do you think say an Abyssal Greater Basilisk doesn't have duality of body and soul; while a normal Basilisk does?


[Note; I am not trying to say you are wrong here; I just honestly do not see how everything put in the Outsider category as ever really fitted.]

 

[Alzrius]

So why do you think say an Abyssal Greater Basilisk doesn't have duality of body and soul; while a normal Basilisk does?

Without getting into the tautology of "because it's an Outsider," that's because its parentage is such that it was created that way.

That said, this is different from what I was saying before about Outsider being more than about origin - I was saying that it's about more than your place of origin, rather than your parentage. Going into the issue of parentage determining type is much more universal than just for Outsiders (in fact, it goes for most creatures that aren't undead or constructs).

[Note; I am not trying to say you are wrong here; I just honestly do not see how everything put in the Outsider category as ever really fitted.]

I see the category as trying to cover things that aren't related to shape or body type, but rather focusing on the less obvious but just as intrinsic aspects of their being, such as the body-soul thing. That said, I do admit that the books have done a very poor job explaining that (probably in an effort to avoid dumping "lore" on people).

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

You're taking the assumption that those types and subtypes have any meaning to the in-game world. IMHO, they exist only as gamespeak, like Hit Dice or level

Not necessarily. As I said, it's about tone. It's much like how a parchment background on every page doesn't mean that the Player's Handbook actually exists in the setting. The new classifications are intended to reflect how normal people see the monsters. Again, this is purely tonal.

Why? Why is the worg "too much", and a horse-sized wolf isn't? Calling something a "monstrosity" and saying that the general populace is afraid of monstrosities is arbitrary at best. What is their defining characteristic, that they should be lumped together?

Their defining characteristic under this system is entirely about how the populace reacts to them. Dire wolves are beasts because dire wolves were real creatures. They're just large wolves. People in the setting understand that.

I'm not arguing that the new classifications are better. Just that I like them. I like the old ones too. Given the choice, I'd probably use the old ones.