D&D Movie/TV Why is the media overstating how controversial the Druid's Owlbear shape is?

BBC, NBC, Today, CNN, Yahoo and more ran it, too. And this sort of deception with regard to headlines is a fairly common occurrence.

All of which also garbage, the MSM sucks, I get most of my America news from The Rising and Breaking Points, although I haven't found a favoured source for Canadian news yet, so I try and get as broad a look at Canadian news as I can from different perspectives.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Traditionally, chimeric creatures have been the monstrosity creature type in D&D.

Not always, Tressyms aren't, they are beasts despite being cats with bird wings and true sight to boot and intelligent as well. I think Chimeric crestures that mostly function as beasts, and not weird should be beasts, monstrosity should be reserved not simply for strange animal hybrids, but true weird things with strange abilities and behaviors. Owlbear are basically just bears with a beak and fit into nature as well as regular animals, they aren't disruptive to nature,they fit in it now.
 


SkidAce

Legend
Supporter
Not always, Tressyms aren't, they are beasts despite being cats with bird wings and true sight to boot and intelligent as well. I think Chimeric crestures that mostly function as beasts, and not weird should be beasts, monstrosity should be reserved not simply for strange animal hybrids, but true weird things with strange abilities and behaviors. Owlbear are basically just bears with a beak and fit into nature as well as regular animals, they aren't disruptive to nature,they fit in it now.
Well I agree in most settings they likely are/have become natural beasts.

My campaign still has them under the purview of the Black Star Chimerists guild however, which i why I mentioned up thead that it should be a setting decision.

Like most monsters IMO.
 

Tonguez

A suffusion of yellow
Traditionally, chimeric creatures have been the monstrosity creature type in D&D.
Traditionally is a funny word isnt it? Considering that the Monstrosity type was introduced in 5e Owlbears being monstrosities is a 5e thing. In 4e they were Beasts and in 3e they were Magical Beasts. It makes much more sense for something like the Owlbear which has no special abilities to be a 'Beast' rather than a Monstrosity.
 

Controversy attracts clicks. If there isn't one the media has to invent one.

And "pedantic geeks argue over stupid rule" plays into people's prejudices.
 
Last edited:


Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
Mod Note:

Howzabout we stop discussing the quality of reporting on a politically charged story that has NOTHING to do with the thread’s main topic?
 

Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
Yeah, I saw one article that cited a "controversy" and it ended up talking about the owlbear thing... I was like, no—nobody cares about that.
 


Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top