Ahhh, @
Hussar , my friend. And thus, balance is restored to the multiverse. *satisfying exhale* Things just wouldn't be the same if we agreed
all of the time. lolol.
Anything that can't really move on its own, like molds and slimes, really should just be a trap. Why bother with a full monster write-up? If it can't attack, as you say, then it doesn't need those stats. Rot Grubs, Throat Leeches and the like? Traps. They're pretty binary. There's not a whole lot of difference between an acid trap on the chest and a bunch of rot grubs. Mechanically, they're pretty much exactly the same.
But...they
can attack. I'd say smothering you to death in fleshy folds is a pretty potent attack. I'm talking/thinking in their 1e terms, where trappers/lurkers were/could be the size of an entire room [or most of one]! They can kill you...they can kill several party members at a time. Hitting you with a cloud of spores and/or doing cold damage to you can kill you. Yes. They attack. You can attack them back. They are living things [not that big a point in favor since all undead are also considered monsters, but you get the point, I trust.]
As for the mechanics...getting hit with a cloud of spores is no different, mechanically than taking damage from any area effect spell. You have to be in range. You get a save. All attacks, from any monster, are binary. They hit you or they miss. This doesn't say, to me, "Since it's binary they should be a trap."
Same goes for shriekers. They can't actually hurt you, so, why do they need hit dice and AC? What's the difference between shriekers and an Alarm spell?
As GX already said, cuz you can hit them back. You can make them stop what they're doing. AND, to any cautious/intelligent adventurer who comes across one and has a bad time of it, one would think in future, the next time you might see one before it starts shrieking, you can come up with a plan (or area/ranged attacks) to keep it from doing its thing. So yes, they need HD and AC. By this reasoning, should we then make some sentry at a guard post with a bell or horn...just make that a trap too? No, you say? Why not?
Ropers don't move...or don't move quickly/very much, have camouflage to their surroundings, only attack in a limited range/area to their location. Why aren't they up for "trap-creature" status? Or, why aren't all carnivorous plants on this list?
And, if you make these things into traps/hazards, they get treated differently. Maybe the rogue or druid can do something about that trapper instead of just beating on it with lumpy metal things.
And why should this be the case [that if they are traps they are treating differently]? There's absolutely no reason a rogue or druid couldn't try to do something with them if they are listed, as monsters, in the monster manual. As I said, deciding to call them traps is simply changing for changes sake.
I'd actually go the other way and have a fairly lengthy section in the DMG for living hazards.
Are not all monsters a "living hazard"? Other than undead of course...or golems...does that mean the whole MM is just undead and "living" statues? Carnivorous plants, they're just "environmental concerns" now, I suppose? As i said earlier, why the shrieker but not the violet fungi? From Wyatt's article I can only surmise that it's because it has "branches" that can lash out to attack you...but it can't really move...but it's a still a monster? Why the molds but not the oozes...and for gods' sake, think of the puddings! *shakes fists in anguish to the sky*
I know the Environmental series (Sandstorm for example) had really cool environmental and living hazards for their specific environments. Makes space in the MM for actual monsters.
I completely agree. Monsters in the MM. That is what they are...that is my actual argument and point.
I'm on board that throat leeches and ear seekers are nothing more than deterrents for a particular type/style of play (or to dissuade, such). They were, and rot grubs to a degree, a simple "f-- u" critter for nasty DMs to assault their players with. Those kinds of things don't really require being monsters any longer. Or certainly not in the primary "core" MM. Hey, maybe they do show up in some Environmental hazards book as periphery critters for DMs that want that kind of thing.
As Whizbang [I think it was] said, I am inclined to leave rot grubs in the MM since they give the feeling of belonging/serving some actual ecosystem role and those sorts of minor contributions to internal consistency are almost always fine in my book. Shriekers, similarly fulfill this roll. A symbiotic creature [in this case a fungi] that has adapted to its environment. Sure. Why not.
My point is, if all the creature is is a nasty "gotcha dead" for mean DMs, then they don't really need to be in the MM. D&D isn't really that kinda game anymore. It can be, certainly. And I agree, in part, with Kamikaze Midget that the writer should not be discounting that style of play outright. But I have no indications that that antagonistic/DM v. player concept is what 5e is trying to be again, nor does removing the throaters or earwigs make it untenable. And those critters can always be added in some kinda supplementary release. No problem.
Actual critters with actual purposes [beyond "gotcha dead"], even if they're not swinging swords or breathing fire, are "monsters", even if only in the broad sense of the word (i.e. anything that's not a PC). They belong in the MM.
And, since when/where does it say that if you can't fight things on both sides of you that you're not really a monster? Anything with only 1 attack is now a trap?! Come. on.
These creatures are all
threats, yes. Are they the biggest or most mobile or most damage causing? No. [though I'd certainly say getting changed into green slime in 3 rounds might be the most horrible possible end for a PC, waaaay beyond getting hacked or clawed or spell-ed to death]. But they are all viable
creatures who are threats to the PCs. That makes them monsters, not "traps."
That means, yes, they get HD and AC and number of attacks and movement rates (even 'nil'), etc...They can be fought or interacted with in some fashion -Maybe the druid knows how to rub just the right place on the edge of a trapper to lull it to sleep while you walk across. Maybe the ranger spots the piercers so the mage can throw a sleep spell at the ceiling. Maybe the rogue ties an oil-soaked rag to his 10' pole to -very quickly- "mop" a swathe into the green slime and sets it alight.
I see nothing in this position that does not, simply, support my assertion that this article is just more suggesting of changes where they needn't be.
If you want to consider them "trap monster" or "living hazard" or whatever bs, though doing so in no way changes what the creature is or how one would interact with it (again, changes for changes sake), then put that under their entry in the MM.
Trap-style Monster.
HD: xx
AC: xx
# attacks: 1
etc...etc...
Or is the argument that "if we make it a trap then a rogue can detect and diffuse it. If it's environmental, the druid can do something" or whatever. That and "we can put them someplace else/reorganize them."
Is that all there is to this position? This oh so needed and relevant alteration that it required an article proposing and purporting it as a matter of design that required thought and examination?
Cuz I see no reason, for the interaction, your characters can't/couldn't do that already when they were "monsters." For the organization, they are creature threats, that makes them monsters. That puts them in the Monster Manual.