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

[Henadic Theologian]

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.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

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]

"We are continuing to do a stupid thing because it's traditional" is not a defense.

I like chimerics as monstrosities.

Now have owlbears been bred past that? Up to the camapign.

 

[SkidAce]

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]

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.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Not always, Tressyms aren't, they are beasts despite being cats with bird wings and true sight to boot and intelligent as well.

Tressyms were Beasts when they were originally published in 5e (Storm King's Thunder), but when they were updated in Descent into Avernus, they became Monstrosities.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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]

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.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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.

There are a handful of very loud pedants who do, and some of them are writing the articles. But I have a very hard time imagining a poll of actual players and DMs wouldn't end in a landslide for "get over it."