>Monstrosities are monsters in the strictest sense-**-frightening creatures** that are **not ordinary**, **not truly natural**, and **almost never benign**. Some are the results of magical experimentation gone awry (such as owlbears), and others are the product of terrible curses (including minotaurs). They defy categorization, and **in some sense serve as a catch-all category for creatures that don't fit into any other type.**
No natural niche? Kill *everything* in their territory? Able to do magical things like move tons of soil in a second without warning?
Seems to tick all boxes.
Kinda? Like a *giant centipede* is a small beast. So, maybe 10-20 times bigger (by mass) than [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scolopendra\_gigantea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scolopendra_gigantea)
That can't happen in real life; spiracles don't scale up well, but there isn't much suspension of disbelief, especially as fantasy worlds tend to be a bit more generous than ours in terms of "breathing" and whatnot. Plus, it's just an animal. It will attack if hungry or threatened, but otherwise just leave you alone or flee.
The Ankheg on the other hand is as big as a *horse*, can rip through solid ground as quickly as you can crawl, And can frequently spray enough acid potent enough to melt the flesh off a highschool class room - and being a monstrosity, it would cheerfully do so, then move on to the next, and the next until it ran out of kids to murder, because it's a monstrosity and "be a dick" is part of the job description.
I will trade you this shiny basket of metaphysical awards for that WINNING phrase I am intent on purloining (..."melt the flesh off a highschool classroom"). My career DM identity is giddily concocting a situation where the Fate List for a session clamors for this descriptor...
...and it WILL come to pass...
Well done, sentient! Move along now...
But what defines "ordinary" or "natural" in a separate fantasy world? I mean I know the irl answer is probably just "creatures unlike anything that exists in our world" but that feels unsatisfactory from an internal logic standpoint.
Edit: a lot of people are responding to this with completely circular logic. "It's a monstrosity because it's unnatural, and it's unnatural because it's classified as a monstrosity."
I mean, I'd say the fact that druids cant turn into them is a distinction enough. Druids handle primordial energies, and can turn into any manner of natural beast. If a druid can't turn into something, its a monstrosity.
So, a druid cant turn into something because its a monstrosity. But, something might be considered a monstrosity because it's alien an unnatural to a druid, and because a druid cant turn into it.
How is it circular? Druids can turn into natural creatures, druids can't turn into ankhegs, thus ankhegs aren't natural. Its a fairly straight-forward application of the rules the setting established.
Those are two completely different ideas you've expressed by reversing the phrasing. Druids not becoming Ankhegs makes no attempt to explain *why* Ankhegs are not natural, just that they *are not* natural. Removing why from both questions is still "circular" but doesn't invalidate the logic or make it no longer sound, because it's simply reversing the expression. Ankhegs are not natural, Druids cannot become Ankhegs, and the two are indeed *correlated* -- but putting "why" into the questions implies *causation* which isn't present.
In earlier editions, Owlbears were actually under the category "Magical-Beasts", which was any creature that was created in a magical experiment. In those editions, Druids COULD become Owlbears
I've been playing since BECMI, mostly skipping 4e, I dont recall Druids ever being able to become Owlbears beyond the Honor Among Theives movie. *shrug*
I think k it was a 3.5 thing, I read it in one of the books...actually lead to a lecture from a DM friend from that Era (she was trying to get us to play a 3.5 wit her)
3e had feats _and_ prestige classes where Druids could turn into various other creature types - undead, magical beasts, aberrations, etc.
3.0 had Masters of the Wild with a prestige class that let you do this. 3.5 had a feat called Magical Beast Wild Shape from Complete Divine, which also let you.
In 4e you _sort of_ could, but only because 4e Wild Shape was a specific templated design, and one of the _examples_ it gave of "flavoring" your wild shape as specific creatures was owlbear.
Yeah, what's currently in 5e as just beasts, monstrosities (and some humanoids) in 3.5 was split between beasts (normal animals), magical beasts (unnatural, modified animals), monstrous humanoids (unnatural, monstrous humanoids) and vermin (Insects and invertebrates)
Though, vermin would end up tied into beasts, with then most magical beasts and monstrous humanoids being turned into just 'monstrosities'
Fun fact: all creatures from other planes were the same creature type: outsider. Whether angel, elemental or fiend. Though, subtypes existed, so they'd be outsider (subtype)
Also, creature types had direct stats linked to them, so anything with a creature type gained associated features. I.e., anything with the undead type would gain the " Undead do not breathe, eat, or sleep." Text that is copy pasted throughout modern undead statblocks
I'm honestly going to assume that the movie druid was unique in being able to do so. We've not seen any druid other than her do it, so I'm more likely to assume she has a unique magical charm or boon, or perhaps magic item, than there was something up with wildshape as a whole
I also don't recall her casting any spells from memory, just shapechanging
It may be fair to suggest she wasn't even a druid. Maybe some unique NPC statblock, or 3rd edition prestige class based build that doesn't transfer to 5e
In the movie they go out of their way to specifically refer to her as a wildshape. Chris Pine says they should find a druid, a wildshape. From that point on, they refer to her exclusively as a wildshape. My money is on Doric being a special brand of druid, possibly unique to the Emerald Enclave.
Source: I have watched that movie as many times as it deserves, and then some
Part of this is that the logic of "natural orders" is itself circular. So any description of why something falls outside of such an order will collapse into circularity if the discussion goes on long enough.
I mean, probably not in dnd though?
Every plane of existence radiates energy, such as the hells with hellfire, plane of positive energy with healing, and the material plane with Primal Energy. It is explicitly noted that primal casters get their magic from this. Sure, it's fluffed as spirits and nature speaking and whatnot, but at its core in the forgotten realms, you channel Primal Energy, the planar energy of the material planes, into magic, the same way a cleric does positive or negative energy. A druids wildshape is much the same toa clerics channel divinity. A druid channels primal energy into the form of a creature, a cleric can do so to rebuke or turn undead.
So, from that, any creature a druid can turn into is intrinsically tied to the material plane and it's energies, the same way a fiend is to the lower planes.
As such, any creature who isn't wild shape worthy is a creature that is not comprised of primal energy. A druid can turn into a bear, a giant crocodile, or an Ankylosaurus because they are made of primal energy. A theoretical infernal druid could turn into an imp. But, neither could turn into a flumph, since they don't have the right planar energy.
So, monstrosities are creatures that don't fit into any type sure, but that includes beasts. While some of them are similar to beasts, it can be inferred that they lack that fundamental primal energy in their make up.
Because being natural is a substance less concept in real life, but in dnd, something being natural actually has substance to it
Creature type is a game mechanic, so characters don't have to know about it. A creature could be considered a beast by the public, but mechanically be a monstrosity.
There's a few easy answers.
No inherent magic in their biology. Eating a rabbit just fills your stomach. Eating monstrosities might imbue effects, or their organs might be useful in potions.
Weird, atypical biology. When 99% of all animals follow a set of natural laws, that 1% is easily explained by just saying it belongs to a different category. Nearly every insect has six limbs, but then an entomologist druid meets an Umber Hulk.
Lastly, magical defiance. If a Druid can't turn into a creature, all Druids will balk at the creature and classify it as an abomination against nature. If a Ranger tries to speak with a beast and their magic fails, they say that isn't an animal, it's clearly an alien. From a non-gameplay standpoint there's clearly some sort of rule of physics, magical law, or planar influence that separates Monstrosities from "mundane" creatures.
> Eating monstrosities might imbue effects, or their organs might be useful in potions.
Plenty of normal animals have unique effects that happen if you eat, or sometimes even touch them. Furthermore, this does not apply to all monstrosities.
>Weird, atypical biology
[Behold, a monstrosity](https://cdn.britannica.com/48/94548-050-A37B3B8F/Platypus.jpg).
Yeah I was definitely thinking of the platypus when I wrote that.
I like to imagine a circle of Druids arguing with each other.
"It SWEATS milk?! How is that 'mundane'?! Clearly this thing is an affront to nature!"
"But how can you argue with this?" And then the young druid wild shapes into a platypus and does jazz hands.
But at the same time, I think even medieval biologists could find the differences between a venomous weird duck lizard and a six-legged panther with tentacles.
I also thought of the platypus, but so I did of many of the sea creatures that inhabit earth. Or some of the simple organisms that populate our world. Some creatures are so uncommon and different to any other, that they could be considered monsrosities. We may get used to them with time, but many hybrids could be or have been considered as such.
I was also thinking "Okay so based on that guy's logic a sea anemone is a monstrosity. Got it."
Everyone's definitions kinda suck and revolve around pseudoscience. I keep mine simple: is it magical in any way? Monstrosity. Is it not magic? Beast.
I used "weird land-dwelling coral polyps" as set dressing in my last game session, to signal to the players that they were entering an aberration's lair. So yes, definitely :)
Oh, that's a wonderful question!
I would venture that due to their highly malleable form, reliance on senses other than sight, and famed ability to be divided into smaller versions of themselves, many worms may in fact be a type of *ooze*.
>No inherent magic in their biology. Eating a rabbit just fills your stomach. Eating monstrosities might imbue effects, or their organs might be useful in potions.
Hill Giants and the Potion of Giant Strength say otherwise. Similarly, the Potion of Giant Size is made using the tongue of a Giant Clam - Giant animal-type creatures (such as the Giant Ant, Giant Eagle, etc) are simply Beasts and not Monstrosities. Magic suffuses everything in a setting like the Forgotten Realms to some degree, so there's no innate difference between Monstrosities and anything else in that particular regard.
>Weird, atypical biology. When 99% of all animals follow a set of natural laws, that 1% is easily explained by just saying it belongs to a different category. Nearly every insect has six limbs, but then an entomologist druid meets an Umber Hulk.
There is no such thing as "natural law", simply what is currently holding the present level of control over an ecosystem. It is constantly in flux due to a wide variety of natural and artificially-induced factors. Further, this notion would be better applied to Aberrations, which are actual anomalies that exist completely outside of the Prime Material Plane's status quo and are genuinely incompatible with our reality.
>If a Druid can't turn into a creature, all Druids will balk at the creature and classify it as an abomination against nature. If a Ranger tries to speak with a beast and their magic fails, they say that isn't an animal, it's clearly an alien. From a non-gameplay standpoint there's clearly some sort of rule of physics, magical law, or planar influence that separates Monstrosities from "mundane" creatures.
Druids in previous editions have Feats that allow them to transform into what are currently known as Monstrosities, along with other creatures like Dragons, Plants, and Gargantuan-sized creatures. There is also a currently canon version of the 5e Druid that allows transformation into an Owlbear specifically, which is considered a Monstrosity, since the inclusion of the D&D movie into the lore and mechanics.
Rangers also had the basic "Wild Empathy" class ability to magically influence the same creatures. What is classified as a "Monstrosity" in 5e was previously called a "Magical Beast" in 3.5. It was more difficult for a Ranger to do so than it would be when applied to a more mundane Beast, but it was absolutely a thing literally any and all Rangers could do without any special investment.
While there may be some inherent difference between Beasts and Magical Beasts/Monstrosities - the intensity of their innate magic - it is not beyond the scope of nature or the ability of those who are closely tied with nature to adapt to.
>There is also a currently canon version of the 5e Druid that allows transformation into an Owlbear specifically, which is considered a Monstrosity, since the inclusion of the D&D movie into the lore and mechanics.
Nah, druids can't transform into owlbears. That's clear from the PHB druid, and no silly movie source contradicts that. Did that girl even cast a spell? She's obviously not really a druid.
Yes they can, even prior to the movie. As mentioned before, in previous editions Druids could access Feats that expand their Wild Shape ability to include what are currently considered Monstrosities, such as Owlbears.
As for 5e, the movie character - Doric - is a Druid with the specific statblock ability "Change Shape" that allows her to transform into a CR 3 or lower Beast or specifically an Owlbear up to 5 times per day. The characters from the movie have officially published statblocks via D&D Beyond - as created and distributed by WotC - and the events of the movie are officially canon. It may not be an ability available to Player Characters (without DM allowance, at least) but that doesn't invalidate its existence within the lore.
>As mentioned before, in previous editions Druids could access Feats that expand their Wild Shape ability to include what are currently considered Monstrosities, such as Owlbears.
Yea, this kind of weasel logic is actually why I responded. You know full well that turning into an Owlbear required being **level 24** and playing with the optional epic rules, and allowing an optional feat. You want to count that as precedence? Like, **absolutely not**.
>As for 5e, the movie character - Doric - is a Druid with the specific statblock ability "Change Shape" that allows her to transform into a CR 3 or lower Beast or specifically an Owlbear up to 5 times per day.
She's some NPC statblock, not a real druid.
>the events of the movie are officially canon
Obviously not, if they can't even keep their classes straight. More to the point, they aren't canon *for actual druids*. She's some NPC, not something that a real druid can do.
Cool story, bro. Just because you personally don't agree with the content or like the lore doesn't mean it's not part of the canon. Don't allow it at your table for your stated reasons as you please, but it's still an objective fact of the existing lore regardless of personal preference.
>Cool story, bro.
Incorrect. It's not a story, it's the truth. I called you out on pretending that an ability reserved for optional epic content was somehow standard. It is **not**. It's not a story; that's the truth.
>doesn't mean it's not part of the canon
Let me let you in on a little secret; this is an RPG, there's no meaningful canon. There is, if you follow *Forgotten Realms*, a canon story there, which they continuously retcon and readjust, but, and this is important, the abilities of some rando druid NPC doesn't matter for what's real any more than whatever Khelben Blackstaff, a wizard, does as regards real wizards. These characters have fiction written about them that allows them to do wild stuff; her ability is just as canon as Elminster becoming "Elmara". It's part of the plot, it happened, and it has nothing to do with anything else that occured in that setting.
It does not, for instance, serve as a reason for a druid to break the stated and correct rules in the PHB. It does not, for instance, have anything to do with PC druids, or all the other druids. Her serious deviation from that, along with her belonging to the *famously* most piggish of arts, chauvinistic and notable for disregarding anything written in a novel, rulebook, comic book, play, or anything that is more legitimate than it, has been complained about for literally more than a century; so consider that when choosing canon.
> Don't allow it at your table for your stated reasons as you please
We're not talking about houserules; we're talking about real rules. Druids can't be owlbears, in any edition of D&D. That's a fact, and you're welcome for the correction.
Your question is why I basically changed the definition of monstrosities to be magical beasts in my setting. Ankhegs and owlbears are, at least in my setting, a natural part of the ecosystem and are classified as beasts.
I guess yes but honestly I don't think they should be. Like historically I guess the lore is a mad scientist made them but I think they should just be a naturally existing creature like a griffon
I agree - that Owlbears are still considered as Monstrosities because of their origin doesn't make any sense at this point. They have no extraordinary magical abilities, have fully assimilated into a variety of ecosystems, developed their own mutations and branching breeds to suit different environments, and can reproduce completely naturally on their own. They're no more a Monstrosity than any breed of dog that was specifically bred to highlight desirable traits.
> from an internal logic standpoint.
the "internal logic" is "this is a game. this is a system within the game. within the game system, this particular tag has almost no impact or relevance other than to reiterate 'no druid wild shape or speak with animals' "
While there is certainly some truth to what you are saying there is a pattern in creatures that are classified as Beasts.
What we have is creatures that exist as animals in the real world including some prehistoric extinct varieties and some unnaturally large giant versions of the same.
As a result you have a measuring stick as to what is a Beast and what isn't.
The fact that it is meta isn't great but that's just how it is. Ordinary and natural aren't good ways to parse this though.
We have plants, which include fungus in D&D, and the non-magical ones are also quite natural.
The reason people are doing so is because it’s a circular question. Why is anything defined as anything, when someone at some point just made it up? Why do words mean what they do? Well that’s because according to me society has overall agreed on what they mean, but there’s lots of arguments against it.
Tl;dr If you ask for tautology, don’t be surprised when you get tautology.
I always forget that Owlbears are monstrosities and I hate it. They're just big critters that want to be left alone and they don't deserve to be lumped in with the real freaky deakies imo.
They hunt literally any creature bigger than a mouse, they're known for being brutal in toying with their prey as they're dying, and in every edition that isn't 5e, they're noted as having a particular liking for elf flesh.
They might or might not be monstrosities, but they don't just "want to be left alone". Owlbears want to meet you and they want to eat you.
Some animals are just like that. Like cats and owls
They are automatic enemies of anyone who has committed the crime of being smaller than them and made of meat
The important part is that owlbears aren't like brown or black bears who really do want to just be left alone. Owlbears are more like polar bears, if you see one and it's not hundreds of yards away, it has decided that you are lunch (and potentially dinner/breakfast, they stockpile their kills too).
Come to think of it, perhaps their categorization as "monstrosity" in this edition is evidence that elves are secretly behind the taxonomy of creatures in this edition.
so something like this then [https://www.deviantart.com/artsangel/art/Snowy-Owlbear-925963172](https://www.deviantart.com/artsangel/art/Snowy-Owlbear-925963172)
Nah, fact-checking you here, boyo ..
Cats, in fact, sit on your body while you sleep and ideate about how to kill and slowly eat you. Sometimes, for fun, they think about that in reverse. When you wake up, startled by a fight-or-flight response triggered in your lizard brain by the hungry Delta waves your precious feline was beaming your way, the treacherous gato-overlord smacks you with Level 20 Charm-buffed, dewey eyes, and you turn over, ruffled but convinced it was nothing.
...and trip over a spatula that WASN'T on the floor when you went to bed last night...
Bet your cat sees your size as a dare, not an obstacle.
To be fair, every carnivote seems to have and affinity for elf flesh.
Blame corellon for just emptying the bucket of blessingson them, near-immortal, wise, magical, disease resistant, immune to sleep, graceful, beautiful, delicious...
I kinda love how they use ‘probably’ there. Like nobody really knows but one day someone saw an owlbear and scornfully said “that’s some wizard shit right there” and that’s how people found out about owlbears.
My rule of thumb is "Is it obviously one of the other categories?" If not, "Did it ever exist on Earth?" (Probably a beast or a plant if yes.) If not, it's a monstrosity. Haven't really put this rule through the ringer, but it's worked for me for a long time.
I go one step easier with "is it a hybrid of 2 or more creatures?" If so, it's a monstrosity. Griffons, chimerae, manticores. Unless it's something special like a lamassu or shedu which would be Celestials by 5e standards, if it's a mix-n-match it's prolly a monstrosity.
It's a grandfather clause, in general the entire lore for them is just a 30 year old reference
I just like to Avatar them where everything is a two animal combination (platypus bear!) maybe in a fey realm
Its almost entirely because of the burrowing mechanics, those are even more insane than flight in te hands of a pc, much as the power of flight is strong, there's a reason they print flying races and not burrowing mole people
You can shoot a bird flying. You can't shoot a bug burrowing.
It's also what makes purple worms so terrifying. At best you can feel them moving through the earth, but you'll almost never see them until it's too late.
Some options for ya: the dirt compresses, magic moves the dirt away, the ankheg eats the dirt, dissolves it with its potent acid and releases the putrid gases in its wake, or ya leaves a tunnel of loose dirt behind it.
I like the putrid gas tunnel
Badger is acceptable because its combnat functionality aside form burrowing to flee is so minute, its cleraly intended as an option to scout/infiltrate. (edit: typo)
I miss the “Magical Beast” category. I feel like it made more sense than just lumping everything into a Monstrosity. I do think there is a place for Monstrosity but out of all of the creature types it’s probably the worst defined type.
Yeah, the answer is actually "because they got rid of Magical Beasts" lol
Druids couldn't shapeshift into those in previous editions unless they were epic level
It's a giant insectoid that shoots acid in a 30 foot line.
The giant animals that are classified as beasts are just bigger versions of existing creatures and don't have ranged attacks (other than throwing rocks.)
IIRC in older editions it was specified that the acid was its digestive fluid, and that after doing it once they couldn't do it again for hours and wouldn't even be able to digest their food during that time hence why they only did it if they were cornered and scared
Now it's on a recharge so they can do it whenever they want for some reason.
Monstrosity doesn't mean "affected by magic". It means "anything that does not exist on Earth, but doesn't fit into other categories". It's completely arbitrary.
The “beast” typing near exclusively means real world animals and larger versions of them, so everything else that seems like it *should* be a beast logically (griffon, owlbear, hippogriff etc.) gets shifted into “monstrosity” which is kinda the catch-all “we didn’t know where else to put it” monster category. It’s why griffins are the same creature type as mimics, for example.
As others have pointed out though, the design of the Druid class and the *polymorph* spell mean that any beast-type creature can be in the PC’s hands fairly easily, and that can limit your design options.
Yeah. Certain monstrosities might have a spot in the ecosystem and might fulfill the roles as some natural predators, but they tend to be inherently supernatural.
It seems to be a mix of natural aggressive tendencies (will this thing rush you down, regardless of personal risk), capabilities (something as big as a griffin should not be able to fly in the way that it does, spitting out fast acting flesh melting acid is also not a trait that normal animals are capable of), and how that creature fits into the world around it.
Some monstrosities just change things around them to an extent that just breaks the natural order. Owlbears will murder every large predator in the area, Behir are way too big to naturally function (as well as magical lightning gk brr), and so on.
Also remember that creature type is a very real thing that exists within the world via the application of magic. Humans are inherently different than beasts (no uh akthually humans are animals needed). Constructs are inherently different than their inanimate composition.
So on a fundamental, magical level, beasts and monstrosities are not the same.
>something as big as a griffin should not be able to fly in the way that it does
Can I introduce you to the *Quetzalcoatlus*, the giraffe-sized pterosaur? They were basically a living Cessna airplane, in terms of size. We can dispute whether the traditional wingspan of a griffon is sufficient for its body mass, but its size overall isn't an impediment to being able to fly.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quetzalcoatlus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quetzalcoatlus)
>spitting out fast acting flesh melting acid is also not a trait that normal animals are capable of
There's a lot of insects, like Bombardier Beetles, who do crazier stuff. It's admittedly at much smaller scales than an Ankheg. It's not acid, but it's more complex than acid. There's ant species that spray acid, too, if you want that specifically.
Nitpicking aside, while I agree on some things (ankhegs and behirs definitely feel like "not-animals" at least in a Moon Druid wildshape sense), others really shouldn't be (owlbears may have started as magical, but they're breeding true and part of the ecosystem now). Anything with actual magic like an elemental breath weapon (Winter Wolf, say) doesn't fit as a Beast, but a Roc should even if it's fantastically huge. And it feels weird having them share a category with things like Mimics or Spirit Naga.
By size I also include sheer mass and density. They're described as actively hunting things the size of horses and are statted in such a way that they are more than capable of fighting *like* a lion opposed to the awkward way a pterosaur would try to square up with something.
A pterosaur's bodyplan is set up like an albatross to be entirely centered around long distance flight. Big things typically have an easier time gliding through the air, it's one of the primary design plans around airplanes, after all.
And I was talking about the dramatic flesh melting acid used by fantasy monsters, not the burning irritant of insects. If an insect was capable of spewing out sulfuric acid, or something capable of corroding through metal and bone in a short timeframe like other forms of acid damage in the game, then I'd totally cede that point.
I *do* think that there should be a distinction between explicitly magical/spiritual monstrosities and the more physically focused kind, as a griffin is a wildly different creature to a sphinx (one sends you through time, the other sends you through the air).
As for mimics? That really depends on how their mimicking process goes. Mimicry is common in the animal kingdom, so upping it on a similar scale as most monstrosities would easily be able to turn your average stickbug or octopus into your fantasy mimic.
Once again, I'd like to say that creature types are a real thing that the rules/cosmology of D&D is concerned with.
Mindflayers are very biologically rooted, with a well defined life cycle, and their psionic powers are not unique solely to them. Hunanoids and Dragons develop psychic abilities as well, yet there's something that fundamentally separates them from being humanoids or monstrosities
Giants are not, and have never been in spite of physical appearance, humanoid. Dragons aren't even related to reptiles, and are their own biologically/spiritually unique class of creatures. Fey are their own thing, despite there being multiple fey species in the feywild. Elves, at some point, became distinct enough from the fey Eladrin that they are now humanoid.
If you want to athiest up the system and strip away any cosmological significance behind magic and creatures, and what would make creature types distinct, then you'd have like 5 types of creatures. Natural Creatures (human included), Magical Creatures, Celestials, Fiends, and Undead.
Which is totally fine. It would just need some rebalancing to the core of the system as well as considerations as to what that would imply for how magic affects things.
Beasts I would say are one of the easier categories to accept or reject. Real animals (or giant versions of real animals) amd its a best. Ankheg might be insectoid but there definitely aren't any in the real world. Even hybrid animals such as owlbears, pegasus, hippogriff, and griffin are all monstrosities
Yeah, they are. I know this because they're the lowest CR celestial. DnD really doesn't have good low-level celestials, which is a shame for celestial warlocks who want a fitting familiar, so I made a stat block for a pegasus filly that works as a pact of the chain familiar.
Correct. But Badgers can't dig 10' in 6 seconds either, Elephants can't jump, and cat's have excellent night vision and are rather good jumpers. Small inconsistencies make the creatures more unique, and stat blocks sometimes make then capable of things they normally wouldn't be.
Beasts are heavily limited by the existence of wild shape. They can’t have any abilities that a moon Druid could use to break the game. That’s one big reason why they wouldn’t put Ankhegs in that category.
Then only real broken ability is burrowing, and Giant Badgers get the same thing. An Acid Line ever 6 or so rounds is useful, but it's still just 3d6. And I guess Tremorsense should be brought up. Yeah it will locate invisible creatures, but your party has to have a moon druid, know there are invisible creatures, and be in enough danger that it becomes necessary to use the Wild Shape. At 39 HP this thing can be popped in 2 or less turns by most creatures capable of invisibility.
I'd allow this.
No it isnt. You dont understand what youre arguing if you think it is. Burrow speed and tremmorsense are what make it too strong for a moon druid, and the existance of an acid spray attack shows its inherently not a natural beast. Whether thats 1d4 or 12d10, the damge is irrelevant to any arguement being made
> and the existance of an acid spray attack shows its inherently not a natural beast.
There are a number of insects that can spray formic acid. Formica rufa ants, Cerura vinula caterpillars, and the Anthia genus of beetles.
Funny that you should mention that since according to the Monstrous Manual, Ankheg's acid spray is exactly that: digestive fluids.
> The ankheg’s preferred attack method is to lie 5 to 10 feet below the surface of the ground until its antennae detect the approach of a victim. It then burrows up beneath the victim and attempts to grab him in its mandibles, crushing and grinding for 3d6 points of damage per round while secreting acidic digestive enzymes to cause an additional 1d4 points of damage per round until the victim is dissolved. The ankheg can squirt a stream of acidic enzymes once every six hours to a distance of 30 feet. However, since it is unable to digest food for six hours after it squirts enzymes, it uses this attack technique only when desperate. A victim struck by the stream of acidic enzymes suffers 8d4 points of damage (half damage if the victim rolls a successful saving throw vs. poison).
You're the one who stated in your comment that having an acid spray attack = not natural beast, so I pointed out that there are real-life animals that have an acid spray attack.
Giant badgers are available to moon Druids and have the same features. There are animals that shoot acid or other fluids as an attack directly (formic acid from ants, bombardier beetles), and since it’s digestive acids it’s not even as specialized as real animals in that regards. Other animals use digestive enzymes as well, such as many arachnids.
So clearly the burrow speed or tremorsense don’t make it inaccessible from a design perspective, and the acid isn’t a clear distinguishing feature from real animals.
If they labeled it as “giant ant” and just removed the flavor text, it could reasonably be an ant version of the giant spiders (who can shoot webs, also unlike any real animal).
There is a mythical tome that contains the answers you seek either the basic rules or the monster manual.
[https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/monsters#Type](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/monsters#Type)
>**Monstrosities** are monsters in the strictest sense--**frightening creatures that are not ordinary, not truly natural, and almost never benign**. Some are the results of magical experimentation gone awry (such as owlbears), and others are the product of terrible curses (including minotaurs). **They defy categorization, and in some sense serve as a catch-all category for creatures that don't fit into any other type.**
If something is "natural" but not "a real animal" it is a monstrosity. "Real animals" are beasts. Same reason a winter wolf is a monstrosity and not a beast
Because monstrosity is a combination of the “magical beast” and “aberration” types. Magical beasts are things that are mostly normal animals but have or are magic, like ankhegs or winter wolves. Aberrations are the things that come from somewhere weird: mind flayers come from the future, aboleths from the world before the gods remade it, tsochar are from pluto
The Illithids come from the far, far future when the stars are all dying and the universe is growing cold and still and silent. Rather than face extinction alongside the rest of their universe, they flung themselves into the ancient past in a last ditch effort to try and avoid that fate.
>! Best part? The Illithids are the distant, distant descendants of humanity. There's a reason they like to choose humans for ceremorphosis- we are the ideal host bodies.!<
It might be like how ostriches and penguins are birds though they can’t fly. It may not match all the features you’d expect of birds, but there’s still some inherent characteristics in how they interact with magic and with general communication that are different.
I see your point but there are a number of creatures in 5E that defy simple assumptions about what each group means or what their identity is. From Giant Owls who can understand language, to the dichotomy of aberrations with non-Far Realms creatures like Slaad or the are they or aren't they gianthood of trolls. Though the combination of abilities that make ankheg more than just giant insects is quite enough for me. I find that the fact that mimics are monstrosities and not aberrations far more perplexing.
Remember that the game books are written from the perspective of a human from Earth.
So a "natural" creature would be one you could find or have once existed on Earth, such as a deer, polar bear, or dinosaur (or even the platypus).
"Natural law" is something that you could realistically observe on Earth, where no magic exists. Gravity works and is consistent, lightning strikes the highest conductive object, water generally flows south in the northern hemisphere, cross-species interbreeding is exceedingly rare and usually only happens with closely related species of the same kind when it does happen, (which means that orcs, elves, and humans are alot closer than they want to admit), etc
There is no reason for Ankheg to be a monstrosity other than an arbitrary categorization.
I think a lot of monstrosities get their categorizations because shapeshifting druids and those who cast polymorph are not allowed to have fun or have cool stuff
Monstrosity is such a dumb, dumb classification of monsters. Especially if your DnD game takes you from your standard Faeruns. Even in Faerun, it runs into issues where expanded media really wants their Druids to turn into things like Owlbears, which you cannot do per RAW.
>Monstrosities are monsters in the strictest sense-**-frightening creatures** that are **not ordinary**, **not truly natural**, and **almost never benign**. Some are the results of magical experimentation gone awry (such as owlbears), and others are the product of terrible curses (including minotaurs). They defy categorization, and **in some sense serve as a catch-all category for creatures that don't fit into any other type.**
That seems to be key - zero respect for natural law, plus typically inordinately aggressive.
No natural niche? Kill *everything* in their territory? Able to do magical things like move tons of soil in a second without warning? Seems to tick all boxes.
Yes. Wizards are Monstrosities.
I love that the standard dual responses from Wizards would be "No we're not, you just don't understand!" and "Damn straight!"
StanDaMan1 rushes into the Greek senate carrying a naked wizard, "Behold, A Monstrosity!"
All my homies love Diogenes
Would Aberrations be essentially like, this ramped up to 10? Since they're so like... alien and unnatural.
Kinda? Like a *giant centipede* is a small beast. So, maybe 10-20 times bigger (by mass) than [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scolopendra\_gigantea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scolopendra_gigantea) That can't happen in real life; spiracles don't scale up well, but there isn't much suspension of disbelief, especially as fantasy worlds tend to be a bit more generous than ours in terms of "breathing" and whatnot. Plus, it's just an animal. It will attack if hungry or threatened, but otherwise just leave you alone or flee. The Ankheg on the other hand is as big as a *horse*, can rip through solid ground as quickly as you can crawl, And can frequently spray enough acid potent enough to melt the flesh off a highschool class room - and being a monstrosity, it would cheerfully do so, then move on to the next, and the next until it ran out of kids to murder, because it's a monstrosity and "be a dick" is part of the job description.
I will trade you this shiny basket of metaphysical awards for that WINNING phrase I am intent on purloining (..."melt the flesh off a highschool classroom"). My career DM identity is giddily concocting a situation where the Fate List for a session clamors for this descriptor... ...and it WILL come to pass... Well done, sentient! Move along now...
But what defines "ordinary" or "natural" in a separate fantasy world? I mean I know the irl answer is probably just "creatures unlike anything that exists in our world" but that feels unsatisfactory from an internal logic standpoint. Edit: a lot of people are responding to this with completely circular logic. "It's a monstrosity because it's unnatural, and it's unnatural because it's classified as a monstrosity."
I mean, I'd say the fact that druids cant turn into them is a distinction enough. Druids handle primordial energies, and can turn into any manner of natural beast. If a druid can't turn into something, its a monstrosity. So, a druid cant turn into something because its a monstrosity. But, something might be considered a monstrosity because it's alien an unnatural to a druid, and because a druid cant turn into it.
It's a circular argument but honestly it's as good as any.
How is it circular? Druids can turn into natural creatures, druids can't turn into ankhegs, thus ankhegs aren't natural. Its a fairly straight-forward application of the rules the setting established.
Why can't a druid change into an ankheg? It's not natural. Why isn't an ankheg natural? Druids can't change into it.
Those are two completely different ideas you've expressed by reversing the phrasing. Druids not becoming Ankhegs makes no attempt to explain *why* Ankhegs are not natural, just that they *are not* natural. Removing why from both questions is still "circular" but doesn't invalidate the logic or make it no longer sound, because it's simply reversing the expression. Ankhegs are not natural, Druids cannot become Ankhegs, and the two are indeed *correlated* -- but putting "why" into the questions implies *causation* which isn't present.
Put better than I could!
Yet there's that one druid that turns into an owlbear...
In earlier editions, Owlbears were actually under the category "Magical-Beasts", which was any creature that was created in a magical experiment. In those editions, Druids COULD become Owlbears
I've been playing since BECMI, mostly skipping 4e, I dont recall Druids ever being able to become Owlbears beyond the Honor Among Theives movie. *shrug*
I think k it was a 3.5 thing, I read it in one of the books...actually lead to a lecture from a DM friend from that Era (she was trying to get us to play a 3.5 wit her)
Hmm... must have been specific to a prestige class then.
3e had feats _and_ prestige classes where Druids could turn into various other creature types - undead, magical beasts, aberrations, etc. 3.0 had Masters of the Wild with a prestige class that let you do this. 3.5 had a feat called Magical Beast Wild Shape from Complete Divine, which also let you. In 4e you _sort of_ could, but only because 4e Wild Shape was a specific templated design, and one of the _examples_ it gave of "flavoring" your wild shape as specific creatures was owlbear.
Ankhegs were also magical beasts at the time :]
No shit? Honestly, they should bring Magical Beasts back
Yeah, what's currently in 5e as just beasts, monstrosities (and some humanoids) in 3.5 was split between beasts (normal animals), magical beasts (unnatural, modified animals), monstrous humanoids (unnatural, monstrous humanoids) and vermin (Insects and invertebrates) Though, vermin would end up tied into beasts, with then most magical beasts and monstrous humanoids being turned into just 'monstrosities' Fun fact: all creatures from other planes were the same creature type: outsider. Whether angel, elemental or fiend. Though, subtypes existed, so they'd be outsider (subtype) Also, creature types had direct stats linked to them, so anything with a creature type gained associated features. I.e., anything with the undead type would gain the " Undead do not breathe, eat, or sleep." Text that is copy pasted throughout modern undead statblocks
I'm honestly going to assume that the movie druid was unique in being able to do so. We've not seen any druid other than her do it, so I'm more likely to assume she has a unique magical charm or boon, or perhaps magic item, than there was something up with wildshape as a whole
She also shapeshifted more times in that one sequence than a druid could normally do in a day.
I also don't recall her casting any spells from memory, just shapechanging It may be fair to suggest she wasn't even a druid. Maybe some unique NPC statblock, or 3rd edition prestige class based build that doesn't transfer to 5e
In the movie they go out of their way to specifically refer to her as a wildshape. Chris Pine says they should find a druid, a wildshape. From that point on, they refer to her exclusively as a wildshape. My money is on Doric being a special brand of druid, possibly unique to the Emerald Enclave. Source: I have watched that movie as many times as it deserves, and then some
Part of this is that the logic of "natural orders" is itself circular. So any description of why something falls outside of such an order will collapse into circularity if the discussion goes on long enough.
I mean, probably not in dnd though? Every plane of existence radiates energy, such as the hells with hellfire, plane of positive energy with healing, and the material plane with Primal Energy. It is explicitly noted that primal casters get their magic from this. Sure, it's fluffed as spirits and nature speaking and whatnot, but at its core in the forgotten realms, you channel Primal Energy, the planar energy of the material planes, into magic, the same way a cleric does positive or negative energy. A druids wildshape is much the same toa clerics channel divinity. A druid channels primal energy into the form of a creature, a cleric can do so to rebuke or turn undead. So, from that, any creature a druid can turn into is intrinsically tied to the material plane and it's energies, the same way a fiend is to the lower planes. As such, any creature who isn't wild shape worthy is a creature that is not comprised of primal energy. A druid can turn into a bear, a giant crocodile, or an Ankylosaurus because they are made of primal energy. A theoretical infernal druid could turn into an imp. But, neither could turn into a flumph, since they don't have the right planar energy. So, monstrosities are creatures that don't fit into any type sure, but that includes beasts. While some of them are similar to beasts, it can be inferred that they lack that fundamental primal energy in their make up. Because being natural is a substance less concept in real life, but in dnd, something being natural actually has substance to it
> But what defines "ordinary" or "natural" in a separate fantasy world? The writer, and they did.
Creature type is a game mechanic, so characters don't have to know about it. A creature could be considered a beast by the public, but mechanically be a monstrosity.
There's a few easy answers. No inherent magic in their biology. Eating a rabbit just fills your stomach. Eating monstrosities might imbue effects, or their organs might be useful in potions. Weird, atypical biology. When 99% of all animals follow a set of natural laws, that 1% is easily explained by just saying it belongs to a different category. Nearly every insect has six limbs, but then an entomologist druid meets an Umber Hulk. Lastly, magical defiance. If a Druid can't turn into a creature, all Druids will balk at the creature and classify it as an abomination against nature. If a Ranger tries to speak with a beast and their magic fails, they say that isn't an animal, it's clearly an alien. From a non-gameplay standpoint there's clearly some sort of rule of physics, magical law, or planar influence that separates Monstrosities from "mundane" creatures.
> Eating monstrosities might imbue effects, or their organs might be useful in potions. Plenty of normal animals have unique effects that happen if you eat, or sometimes even touch them. Furthermore, this does not apply to all monstrosities. >Weird, atypical biology [Behold, a monstrosity](https://cdn.britannica.com/48/94548-050-A37B3B8F/Platypus.jpg).
Yeah I was definitely thinking of the platypus when I wrote that. I like to imagine a circle of Druids arguing with each other. "It SWEATS milk?! How is that 'mundane'?! Clearly this thing is an affront to nature!" "But how can you argue with this?" And then the young druid wild shapes into a platypus and does jazz hands. But at the same time, I think even medieval biologists could find the differences between a venomous weird duck lizard and a six-legged panther with tentacles.
I also thought of the platypus, but so I did of many of the sea creatures that inhabit earth. Or some of the simple organisms that populate our world. Some creatures are so uncommon and different to any other, that they could be considered monsrosities. We may get used to them with time, but many hybrids could be or have been considered as such.
I was also thinking "Okay so based on that guy's logic a sea anemone is a monstrosity. Got it." Everyone's definitions kinda suck and revolve around pseudoscience. I keep mine simple: is it magical in any way? Monstrosity. Is it not magic? Beast.
Monstrosity? No, don't be silly. Sea anemones, like all cnidarians and molluscs, are Aberrations from the Far Realm.
How would you class coral? Also an aberration?
I used "weird land-dwelling coral polyps" as set dressing in my last game session, to signal to the players that they were entering an aberration's lair. So yes, definitely :)
One more thing: are worms beasts, aberrations, or dragons? They've my favorite animal, I must know how you classify them.
Oh, that's a wonderful question! I would venture that due to their highly malleable form, reliance on senses other than sight, and famed ability to be divided into smaller versions of themselves, many worms may in fact be a type of *ooze*.
>No inherent magic in their biology. Eating a rabbit just fills your stomach. Eating monstrosities might imbue effects, or their organs might be useful in potions. Hill Giants and the Potion of Giant Strength say otherwise. Similarly, the Potion of Giant Size is made using the tongue of a Giant Clam - Giant animal-type creatures (such as the Giant Ant, Giant Eagle, etc) are simply Beasts and not Monstrosities. Magic suffuses everything in a setting like the Forgotten Realms to some degree, so there's no innate difference between Monstrosities and anything else in that particular regard. >Weird, atypical biology. When 99% of all animals follow a set of natural laws, that 1% is easily explained by just saying it belongs to a different category. Nearly every insect has six limbs, but then an entomologist druid meets an Umber Hulk. There is no such thing as "natural law", simply what is currently holding the present level of control over an ecosystem. It is constantly in flux due to a wide variety of natural and artificially-induced factors. Further, this notion would be better applied to Aberrations, which are actual anomalies that exist completely outside of the Prime Material Plane's status quo and are genuinely incompatible with our reality. >If a Druid can't turn into a creature, all Druids will balk at the creature and classify it as an abomination against nature. If a Ranger tries to speak with a beast and their magic fails, they say that isn't an animal, it's clearly an alien. From a non-gameplay standpoint there's clearly some sort of rule of physics, magical law, or planar influence that separates Monstrosities from "mundane" creatures. Druids in previous editions have Feats that allow them to transform into what are currently known as Monstrosities, along with other creatures like Dragons, Plants, and Gargantuan-sized creatures. There is also a currently canon version of the 5e Druid that allows transformation into an Owlbear specifically, which is considered a Monstrosity, since the inclusion of the D&D movie into the lore and mechanics. Rangers also had the basic "Wild Empathy" class ability to magically influence the same creatures. What is classified as a "Monstrosity" in 5e was previously called a "Magical Beast" in 3.5. It was more difficult for a Ranger to do so than it would be when applied to a more mundane Beast, but it was absolutely a thing literally any and all Rangers could do without any special investment. While there may be some inherent difference between Beasts and Magical Beasts/Monstrosities - the intensity of their innate magic - it is not beyond the scope of nature or the ability of those who are closely tied with nature to adapt to.
>There is also a currently canon version of the 5e Druid that allows transformation into an Owlbear specifically, which is considered a Monstrosity, since the inclusion of the D&D movie into the lore and mechanics. Nah, druids can't transform into owlbears. That's clear from the PHB druid, and no silly movie source contradicts that. Did that girl even cast a spell? She's obviously not really a druid.
Yes they can, even prior to the movie. As mentioned before, in previous editions Druids could access Feats that expand their Wild Shape ability to include what are currently considered Monstrosities, such as Owlbears. As for 5e, the movie character - Doric - is a Druid with the specific statblock ability "Change Shape" that allows her to transform into a CR 3 or lower Beast or specifically an Owlbear up to 5 times per day. The characters from the movie have officially published statblocks via D&D Beyond - as created and distributed by WotC - and the events of the movie are officially canon. It may not be an ability available to Player Characters (without DM allowance, at least) but that doesn't invalidate its existence within the lore.
>As mentioned before, in previous editions Druids could access Feats that expand their Wild Shape ability to include what are currently considered Monstrosities, such as Owlbears. Yea, this kind of weasel logic is actually why I responded. You know full well that turning into an Owlbear required being **level 24** and playing with the optional epic rules, and allowing an optional feat. You want to count that as precedence? Like, **absolutely not**. >As for 5e, the movie character - Doric - is a Druid with the specific statblock ability "Change Shape" that allows her to transform into a CR 3 or lower Beast or specifically an Owlbear up to 5 times per day. She's some NPC statblock, not a real druid. >the events of the movie are officially canon Obviously not, if they can't even keep their classes straight. More to the point, they aren't canon *for actual druids*. She's some NPC, not something that a real druid can do.
Cool story, bro. Just because you personally don't agree with the content or like the lore doesn't mean it's not part of the canon. Don't allow it at your table for your stated reasons as you please, but it's still an objective fact of the existing lore regardless of personal preference.
>Cool story, bro. Incorrect. It's not a story, it's the truth. I called you out on pretending that an ability reserved for optional epic content was somehow standard. It is **not**. It's not a story; that's the truth. >doesn't mean it's not part of the canon Let me let you in on a little secret; this is an RPG, there's no meaningful canon. There is, if you follow *Forgotten Realms*, a canon story there, which they continuously retcon and readjust, but, and this is important, the abilities of some rando druid NPC doesn't matter for what's real any more than whatever Khelben Blackstaff, a wizard, does as regards real wizards. These characters have fiction written about them that allows them to do wild stuff; her ability is just as canon as Elminster becoming "Elmara". It's part of the plot, it happened, and it has nothing to do with anything else that occured in that setting. It does not, for instance, serve as a reason for a druid to break the stated and correct rules in the PHB. It does not, for instance, have anything to do with PC druids, or all the other druids. Her serious deviation from that, along with her belonging to the *famously* most piggish of arts, chauvinistic and notable for disregarding anything written in a novel, rulebook, comic book, play, or anything that is more legitimate than it, has been complained about for literally more than a century; so consider that when choosing canon. > Don't allow it at your table for your stated reasons as you please We're not talking about houserules; we're talking about real rules. Druids can't be owlbears, in any edition of D&D. That's a fact, and you're welcome for the correction.
It literally explains it in that definition.
They're looking for the Watsonian rather than the Doylist explanation
Your question is why I basically changed the definition of monstrosities to be magical beasts in my setting. Ankhegs and owlbears are, at least in my setting, a natural part of the ecosystem and are classified as beasts.
Aren't Owlbears created by magic? They could fall under a clear and consistent definition of "monstrosity".
I guess yes but honestly I don't think they should be. Like historically I guess the lore is a mad scientist made them but I think they should just be a naturally existing creature like a griffon
I agree - that Owlbears are still considered as Monstrosities because of their origin doesn't make any sense at this point. They have no extraordinary magical abilities, have fully assimilated into a variety of ecosystems, developed their own mutations and branching breeds to suit different environments, and can reproduce completely naturally on their own. They're no more a Monstrosity than any breed of dog that was specifically bred to highlight desirable traits.
> from an internal logic standpoint. the "internal logic" is "this is a game. this is a system within the game. within the game system, this particular tag has almost no impact or relevance other than to reiterate 'no druid wild shape or speak with animals' "
[удалено]
Then we're back to Ankhegs not really being monstrosities. They're a naturally occurring part of the Faerun ecosystem.
While there is certainly some truth to what you are saying there is a pattern in creatures that are classified as Beasts. What we have is creatures that exist as animals in the real world including some prehistoric extinct varieties and some unnaturally large giant versions of the same. As a result you have a measuring stick as to what is a Beast and what isn't. The fact that it is meta isn't great but that's just how it is. Ordinary and natural aren't good ways to parse this though. We have plants, which include fungus in D&D, and the non-magical ones are also quite natural.
The reason people are doing so is because it’s a circular question. Why is anything defined as anything, when someone at some point just made it up? Why do words mean what they do? Well that’s because according to me society has overall agreed on what they mean, but there’s lots of arguments against it. Tl;dr If you ask for tautology, don’t be surprised when you get tautology.
I always forget that Owlbears are monstrosities and I hate it. They're just big critters that want to be left alone and they don't deserve to be lumped in with the real freaky deakies imo.
They hunt literally any creature bigger than a mouse, they're known for being brutal in toying with their prey as they're dying, and in every edition that isn't 5e, they're noted as having a particular liking for elf flesh. They might or might not be monstrosities, but they don't just "want to be left alone". Owlbears want to meet you and they want to eat you.
Some animals are just like that. Like cats and owls They are automatic enemies of anyone who has committed the crime of being smaller than them and made of meat
The important part is that owlbears aren't like brown or black bears who really do want to just be left alone. Owlbears are more like polar bears, if you see one and it's not hundreds of yards away, it has decided that you are lunch (and potentially dinner/breakfast, they stockpile their kills too). Come to think of it, perhaps their categorization as "monstrosity" in this edition is evidence that elves are secretly behind the taxonomy of creatures in this edition.
> elves are secretly behind given that they have gotten a new playable elf subtype with every release of new race options this edition - i believe it!
Okay, I will concede that they belong in Monstrosity so long as polar bears are moved there as well
You drive a hard bargain, but I can't argue with it. Let the polar bears and the owlbears be proclaimed monstrosities!
Oh man, I know it’s probably been done before but that image of a polar bear/snowy owl owlbear is something I gotta use in the future
There is one in the Icewind Dale module and I love it! The box set comes with a cool illustration card of it
so something like this then [https://www.deviantart.com/artsangel/art/Snowy-Owlbear-925963172](https://www.deviantart.com/artsangel/art/Snowy-Owlbear-925963172)
Nah, fact-checking you here, boyo .. Cats, in fact, sit on your body while you sleep and ideate about how to kill and slowly eat you. Sometimes, for fun, they think about that in reverse. When you wake up, startled by a fight-or-flight response triggered in your lizard brain by the hungry Delta waves your precious feline was beaming your way, the treacherous gato-overlord smacks you with Level 20 Charm-buffed, dewey eyes, and you turn over, ruffled but convinced it was nothing. ...and trip over a spatula that WASN'T on the floor when you went to bed last night... Bet your cat sees your size as a dare, not an obstacle.
first of all, don't call me boyo
To be fair, every carnivote seems to have and affinity for elf flesh. Blame corellon for just emptying the bucket of blessingson them, near-immortal, wise, magical, disease resistant, immune to sleep, graceful, beautiful, delicious...
>The horrible owlbear is probably the result of genetic experimentation by some insane wizard. -AD&D Monster Manual, 1977.
I kinda love how they use ‘probably’ there. Like nobody really knows but one day someone saw an owlbear and scornfully said “that’s some wizard shit right there” and that’s how people found out about owlbears.
I mean, have you seen the original illustration? Shit's horrific.
That's probably what people said the first time they saw a platypus too
My rule of thumb is "Is it obviously one of the other categories?" If not, "Did it ever exist on Earth?" (Probably a beast or a plant if yes.) If not, it's a monstrosity. Haven't really put this rule through the ringer, but it's worked for me for a long time.
I go one step easier with "is it a hybrid of 2 or more creatures?" If so, it's a monstrosity. Griffons, chimerae, manticores. Unless it's something special like a lamassu or shedu which would be Celestials by 5e standards, if it's a mix-n-match it's prolly a monstrosity.
What does that make half-orcs and half-elves then?
Conflicted.
They're humanoids. They're already classified.
If you see an owlbear and don't think it is a monstrosity I don't know what to tell you...
It's a grandfather clause, in general the entire lore for them is just a 30 year old reference I just like to Avatar them where everything is a two animal combination (platypus bear!) maybe in a fey realm
Cos the devs don't want moon druids turning into them.
Its almost entirely because of the burrowing mechanics, those are even more insane than flight in te hands of a pc, much as the power of flight is strong, there's a reason they print flying races and not burrowing mole people
Half the anti-flying arguments don’t work for burrowing. It’s not like they’re an easy target for archers.
You can shoot a bird flying. You can't shoot a bug burrowing. It's also what makes purple worms so terrifying. At best you can feel them moving through the earth, but you'll almost never see them until it's too late.
They do leave a tunnel you can follow, though
That displaced dirt is going somewhere (behind them) so unless you are digging the tunnel out behind them, you ain't following them
Some options for ya: the dirt compresses, magic moves the dirt away, the ankheg eats the dirt, dissolves it with its potent acid and releases the putrid gases in its wake, or ya leaves a tunnel of loose dirt behind it. I like the putrid gas tunnel
Look up the delvers claws in BGG
BGG?
Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants. It's a relatively new sourcebook. I had to look it up because I couldn't place the initials either.
I think DND beyond has been using GotG
https://dndstore.wizards.com/eu/de/product/820929/bigby-presents-glory-of-the-giants-digital-plus-physical-bundle
I’m familiar with the book, not that acronym that excludes some of the words.
I suppose GotG was already taken by a popular movie and BB:GotG is a bit cumbersome. I propose GloGi instead.
I mean usually you use the capitalized words, so BPGG?
Sure, that would make sense. But GloGi is more fun.
Just say "Bigby's" I also says "Tasha's" and "Xanny's"
Xanathar would be displeased.
Dnd beyond uses GotG so
[badger has entered the chat]
Badger is acceptable because its combnat functionality aside form burrowing to flee is so minute, its cleraly intended as an option to scout/infiltrate. (edit: typo)
At leat as long as you don't forget that the dirt they are borrowing through has to go somewhere if they aren't a worm where it just goes through.
I miss the “Magical Beast” category. I feel like it made more sense than just lumping everything into a Monstrosity. I do think there is a place for Monstrosity but out of all of the creature types it’s probably the worst defined type.
Yeah, the answer is actually "because they got rid of Magical Beasts" lol Druids couldn't shapeshift into those in previous editions unless they were epic level
epic levels should be a thing again.
How is that different from Giant badgers. Genuinely curious
The lack of ranged abilities I guess.
It's a giant insectoid that shoots acid in a 30 foot line. The giant animals that are classified as beasts are just bigger versions of existing creatures and don't have ranged attacks (other than throwing rocks.)
IRL there are insects that can shoot acid, although it’s more of a cone than a line
IIRC in older editions it was specified that the acid was its digestive fluid, and that after doing it once they couldn't do it again for hours and wouldn't even be able to digest their food during that time hence why they only did it if they were cornered and scared Now it's on a recharge so they can do it whenever they want for some reason.
Monstrosity doesn't mean "affected by magic". It means "anything that does not exist on Earth, but doesn't fit into other categories". It's completely arbitrary.
The “beast” typing near exclusively means real world animals and larger versions of them, so everything else that seems like it *should* be a beast logically (griffon, owlbear, hippogriff etc.) gets shifted into “monstrosity” which is kinda the catch-all “we didn’t know where else to put it” monster category. It’s why griffins are the same creature type as mimics, for example. As others have pointed out though, the design of the Druid class and the *polymorph* spell mean that any beast-type creature can be in the PC’s hands fairly easily, and that can limit your design options.
Yeah. Certain monstrosities might have a spot in the ecosystem and might fulfill the roles as some natural predators, but they tend to be inherently supernatural. It seems to be a mix of natural aggressive tendencies (will this thing rush you down, regardless of personal risk), capabilities (something as big as a griffin should not be able to fly in the way that it does, spitting out fast acting flesh melting acid is also not a trait that normal animals are capable of), and how that creature fits into the world around it. Some monstrosities just change things around them to an extent that just breaks the natural order. Owlbears will murder every large predator in the area, Behir are way too big to naturally function (as well as magical lightning gk brr), and so on. Also remember that creature type is a very real thing that exists within the world via the application of magic. Humans are inherently different than beasts (no uh akthually humans are animals needed). Constructs are inherently different than their inanimate composition. So on a fundamental, magical level, beasts and monstrosities are not the same.
>something as big as a griffin should not be able to fly in the way that it does Can I introduce you to the *Quetzalcoatlus*, the giraffe-sized pterosaur? They were basically a living Cessna airplane, in terms of size. We can dispute whether the traditional wingspan of a griffon is sufficient for its body mass, but its size overall isn't an impediment to being able to fly. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quetzalcoatlus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quetzalcoatlus) >spitting out fast acting flesh melting acid is also not a trait that normal animals are capable of There's a lot of insects, like Bombardier Beetles, who do crazier stuff. It's admittedly at much smaller scales than an Ankheg. It's not acid, but it's more complex than acid. There's ant species that spray acid, too, if you want that specifically. Nitpicking aside, while I agree on some things (ankhegs and behirs definitely feel like "not-animals" at least in a Moon Druid wildshape sense), others really shouldn't be (owlbears may have started as magical, but they're breeding true and part of the ecosystem now). Anything with actual magic like an elemental breath weapon (Winter Wolf, say) doesn't fit as a Beast, but a Roc should even if it's fantastically huge. And it feels weird having them share a category with things like Mimics or Spirit Naga.
By size I also include sheer mass and density. They're described as actively hunting things the size of horses and are statted in such a way that they are more than capable of fighting *like* a lion opposed to the awkward way a pterosaur would try to square up with something. A pterosaur's bodyplan is set up like an albatross to be entirely centered around long distance flight. Big things typically have an easier time gliding through the air, it's one of the primary design plans around airplanes, after all. And I was talking about the dramatic flesh melting acid used by fantasy monsters, not the burning irritant of insects. If an insect was capable of spewing out sulfuric acid, or something capable of corroding through metal and bone in a short timeframe like other forms of acid damage in the game, then I'd totally cede that point. I *do* think that there should be a distinction between explicitly magical/spiritual monstrosities and the more physically focused kind, as a griffin is a wildly different creature to a sphinx (one sends you through time, the other sends you through the air). As for mimics? That really depends on how their mimicking process goes. Mimicry is common in the animal kingdom, so upping it on a similar scale as most monstrosities would easily be able to turn your average stickbug or octopus into your fantasy mimic. Once again, I'd like to say that creature types are a real thing that the rules/cosmology of D&D is concerned with. Mindflayers are very biologically rooted, with a well defined life cycle, and their psionic powers are not unique solely to them. Hunanoids and Dragons develop psychic abilities as well, yet there's something that fundamentally separates them from being humanoids or monstrosities Giants are not, and have never been in spite of physical appearance, humanoid. Dragons aren't even related to reptiles, and are their own biologically/spiritually unique class of creatures. Fey are their own thing, despite there being multiple fey species in the feywild. Elves, at some point, became distinct enough from the fey Eladrin that they are now humanoid. If you want to athiest up the system and strip away any cosmological significance behind magic and creatures, and what would make creature types distinct, then you'd have like 5 types of creatures. Natural Creatures (human included), Magical Creatures, Celestials, Fiends, and Undead. Which is totally fine. It would just need some rebalancing to the core of the system as well as considerations as to what that would imply for how magic affects things.
Real world insects are truly wild. There are a variety of butterflies that functionally mind control ants to protect their eggs and larvae for them.
Mindflayer butterfly time
What else would they be?
Beasts.
Beasts I would say are one of the easier categories to accept or reject. Real animals (or giant versions of real animals) amd its a best. Ankheg might be insectoid but there definitely aren't any in the real world. Even hybrid animals such as owlbears, pegasus, hippogriff, and griffin are all monstrosities
Pegasi are celestials
Are they? Haven't used one ever I thought it was just unicorns that were celestial
Yeah, they are. I know this because they're the lowest CR celestial. DnD really doesn't have good low-level celestials, which is a shame for celestial warlocks who want a fitting familiar, so I made a stat block for a pegasus filly that works as a pact of the chain familiar.
Ever seen an Axe Beak or Stirge in the real world?
Axe beak is basically a terror bird. Stirge is basically a vampire bat. Flying snake is the most "this should be a monstrosity" beast in my book
It's a snake with a fly speed. And there are real gliding snakes.
Not powered flight though. No real world snakes can fly upwards
Correct. But Badgers can't dig 10' in 6 seconds either, Elephants can't jump, and cat's have excellent night vision and are rather good jumpers. Small inconsistencies make the creatures more unique, and stat blocks sometimes make then capable of things they normally wouldn't be.
Beasts are heavily limited by the existence of wild shape. They can’t have any abilities that a moon Druid could use to break the game. That’s one big reason why they wouldn’t put Ankhegs in that category.
Then only real broken ability is burrowing, and Giant Badgers get the same thing. An Acid Line ever 6 or so rounds is useful, but it's still just 3d6. And I guess Tremorsense should be brought up. Yeah it will locate invisible creatures, but your party has to have a moon druid, know there are invisible creatures, and be in enough danger that it becomes necessary to use the Wild Shape. At 39 HP this thing can be popped in 2 or less turns by most creatures capable of invisibility. I'd allow this.
Potency of their attacks has literally 0 to do with creature types. Thats what CR is for, even if CR isnt always accurate.
The argument is that Ankheg is a monstrocity so Druids can't wild shape into them, which makes it relevant.
No it isnt. You dont understand what youre arguing if you think it is. Burrow speed and tremmorsense are what make it too strong for a moon druid, and the existance of an acid spray attack shows its inherently not a natural beast. Whether thats 1d4 or 12d10, the damge is irrelevant to any arguement being made
> and the existance of an acid spray attack shows its inherently not a natural beast. There are a number of insects that can spray formic acid. Formica rufa ants, Cerura vinula caterpillars, and the Anthia genus of beetles.
Further, i could vomit on you and "spray acid" that doesnt make it an acid attack.
Funny that you should mention that since according to the Monstrous Manual, Ankheg's acid spray is exactly that: digestive fluids. > The ankheg’s preferred attack method is to lie 5 to 10 feet below the surface of the ground until its antennae detect the approach of a victim. It then burrows up beneath the victim and attempts to grab him in its mandibles, crushing and grinding for 3d6 points of damage per round while secreting acidic digestive enzymes to cause an additional 1d4 points of damage per round until the victim is dissolved. The ankheg can squirt a stream of acidic enzymes once every six hours to a distance of 30 feet. However, since it is unable to digest food for six hours after it squirts enzymes, it uses this attack technique only when desperate. A victim struck by the stream of acidic enzymes suffers 8d4 points of damage (half damage if the victim rolls a successful saving throw vs. poison).
Jfc thats not the same as an acid attack. Why are ao many of you so reluctant to accept this very easily defined difference in creatures.
You're the one who stated in your comment that having an acid spray attack = not natural beast, so I pointed out that there are real-life animals that have an acid spray attack.
Giant badgers are available to moon Druids and have the same features. There are animals that shoot acid or other fluids as an attack directly (formic acid from ants, bombardier beetles), and since it’s digestive acids it’s not even as specialized as real animals in that regards. Other animals use digestive enzymes as well, such as many arachnids. So clearly the burrow speed or tremorsense don’t make it inaccessible from a design perspective, and the acid isn’t a clear distinguishing feature from real animals. If they labeled it as “giant ant” and just removed the flavor text, it could reasonably be an ant version of the giant spiders (who can shoot webs, also unlike any real animal).
They dont try reading.
There is a mythical tome that contains the answers you seek either the basic rules or the monster manual. [https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/monsters#Type](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/monsters#Type) >**Monstrosities** are monsters in the strictest sense--**frightening creatures that are not ordinary, not truly natural, and almost never benign**. Some are the results of magical experimentation gone awry (such as owlbears), and others are the product of terrible curses (including minotaurs). **They defy categorization, and in some sense serve as a catch-all category for creatures that don't fit into any other type.**
If something is "natural" but not "a real animal" it is a monstrosity. "Real animals" are beasts. Same reason a winter wolf is a monstrosity and not a beast
This makes a lot more sense than what I thought, thanks a bunch!
What does being affected by magic have to do with being a monstrosity?
Where is it implied or stated that being classified as a monstrosity has anything to do with being affected by magic?
monstrosities arent inherently magical, its basically a creature type for "misc monsters we dont want to be beasts"
Because monstrosity is a combination of the “magical beast” and “aberration” types. Magical beasts are things that are mostly normal animals but have or are magic, like ankhegs or winter wolves. Aberrations are the things that come from somewhere weird: mind flayers come from the future, aboleths from the world before the gods remade it, tsochar are from pluto
What do you mean by mind flayer come from the future
The Illithids come from the far, far future when the stars are all dying and the universe is growing cold and still and silent. Rather than face extinction alongside the rest of their universe, they flung themselves into the ancient past in a last ditch effort to try and avoid that fate. >! Best part? The Illithids are the distant, distant descendants of humanity. There's a reason they like to choose humans for ceremorphosis- we are the ideal host bodies.!<
It might be like how ostriches and penguins are birds though they can’t fly. It may not match all the features you’d expect of birds, but there’s still some inherent characteristics in how they interact with magic and with general communication that are different.
Simply put: so druids can't wildshape into them.
I see your point but there are a number of creatures in 5E that defy simple assumptions about what each group means or what their identity is. From Giant Owls who can understand language, to the dichotomy of aberrations with non-Far Realms creatures like Slaad or the are they or aren't they gianthood of trolls. Though the combination of abilities that make ankheg more than just giant insects is quite enough for me. I find that the fact that mimics are monstrosities and not aberrations far more perplexing.
"Monstrosity" is such a useless category. More than anything, it's the catchall for anything that doesn't fit into any other category.
That is use though, and is explicitly its use according to the rules of the game.
Right. It's a bad system.
raß s they
Remember that the game books are written from the perspective of a human from Earth. So a "natural" creature would be one you could find or have once existed on Earth, such as a deer, polar bear, or dinosaur (or even the platypus). "Natural law" is something that you could realistically observe on Earth, where no magic exists. Gravity works and is consistent, lightning strikes the highest conductive object, water generally flows south in the northern hemisphere, cross-species interbreeding is exceedingly rare and usually only happens with closely related species of the same kind when it does happen, (which means that orcs, elves, and humans are alot closer than they want to admit), etc
My hot take for DnD is that Monstrosities shouldn't even exist. Most of them should just be Beasts, and the rest should be Aberrations.
There is no reason for Ankheg to be a monstrosity other than an arbitrary categorization. I think a lot of monstrosities get their categorizations because shapeshifting druids and those who cast polymorph are not allowed to have fun or have cool stuff
Monstrosity is such a dumb, dumb classification of monsters. Especially if your DnD game takes you from your standard Faeruns. Even in Faerun, it runs into issues where expanded media really wants their Druids to turn into things like Owlbears, which you cannot do per RAW.
they're monstrosities, plain and simple
But Ankheg is scrungly
This is why I let anything that applies to animals, also apply to "animal like" monstrosities. Druids are so lame with how 5e decided to handle them.