D&D (2024) What creatures should be relabeled as "beasts"?

[Clint_L]

Okay, the D&D movie demonstrated exactly why some of the creatures currently labeled as (usually) "monstrosities" should actually be labeled as beasts: because it would be awesome for druids to be able to wild shape into them (and would help address the paucity of possible wild shapes after CR1). But it also makes sense because a lot of these monstrosities have long been treated as fauna in D&D setting, so that an owl bear is not particularly more exotic than a giant snake.

So what monstrosities (or other creatures) should be relabelled as beasts?

I'll start with owl bears, bulettes, hippogryphs, gryphons, and shell sharks.

 

[John Lloyd1]

I think that including elements for the moon circle would make sense.

But I think that a better question is 'what wouldn't you allow to wild shape or polymorph?'

I have a player who is currently searching through the monster manual book and asking about all sorts of creatures. It all seems rather arbitrary.

 

[ichabod]

I house ruled the following creatures to be beasts: ankheg, carrion crawler, death dog, griffon, hippogriff, owlbear, roc, and sea lion. Basically, any monstrosity that can't speak and doesn't have any features that seem magical.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I house ruled the following creatures to be beasts: ankheg, carrion crawler, death dog, griffon, hippogriff, owlbear, roc, and sea lion. Basically, any monstrosity that can't speak and doesn't have any features that seem magical.

Carrion crawler isn't one I'd allow -- that paralyzation is so good, it's arguably magical.

I'd add the hippocampus to your list. Like the sea lion, it's not a truly natural creature, but in a magical world, it's just an animal.

 

[mellored]

Pegasus
Roc

 

[Sacrosanct]

I house ruled the following creatures to be beasts: ankheg, carrion crawler, death dog, griffon, hippogriff, owlbear, roc, and sea lion. Basically, any monstrosity that can't speak and doesn't have any features that seem magical.

Yep. Pretty much the same. Any non-intelligent creature that doesn’t have a supernatural power or ability.

 

[Clint_L]

What should the limit on intelligence be? A giant ape has an intelligence of 7, which is getting into player character territory. And, curiously, Traxigor is listed as a beast, even though he is an 18th level spell caster with an intelligence of 20, permanently polymorphed into an otter.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Pegasus
Roc

I think Pegasus are Celestials for a reason (intelligent, speaking creatures sent by the gods to help people), like Unicorns are Fey for a reason.

But I don't have a problem with beast-level-intelligence winged animals like winged horses and winged lions, like Tressym and Flying Snakes both just being land animals with wings and no magic or higher intelligence.

In fact, I have an entire stable of homebrew "gryphs" (like hippogriffs and griffons), merging land animals and birds. After I made that decision, I searched online and found people drawing variations of such "gryphs." Looks like I'm not the only one with that idea.

 

[mellored]

I think Pegasus are Celestials for a reason (intelligent, speaking creatures sent by the gods to help people), like Unicorns are Fey for a reason.

The origial Pegasus was not any more intelligent than a horse, nor could it speak. It was just a winged horse.

But I guess D&D made it smarter.


Also, why not have multi-types?

Beast / Celestial
Beast / Dragon
Celestial / Dragon

Very few things use that tag, so might as well double up on them.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I think Pegasus are Celestials for a reason (intelligent, speaking creatures sent by the gods to help people), like Unicorns are Fey for a reason.

Isn't that reason "TSR and now WotC have historically had a hard time fleshing out the ranks of celestials and fey with compelling creatures?"