![]() You want to know why some creatures are thrown into one bin, and why some are thrown in another. The basic rules say "certain spells, magic items, class features, and other effects in the game interact in special ways with creatures of a particular type." But that's not what you asked. We can then have rules that say "druids can shapeshift into beasts", and the spell planar binding can "bind a celestial, an elemental, a fey, or a fiend". It's pretty clear the usefulness of creature type. You can certainly look at the categories and at examples and look for patterns, but in the end, the rules say what the rules say. Furthermore, the rules do not provide further detail of what "monster in the strictest sense" and "a natural part of the fantasy ecology" mean, beyond what those phrases mean in everyday English. There is no further explanation for what makes some things beasts and some things monstrosities. That's it, what the definitions say, that's the difference. But what's the difference between beasts and monstrosities? They defy categorization, and in some sense serve as a catch-all category for creatures that don't fit into any other type. Some are the results of magical experimentation gone awry (such as owlbears), and others are the product of terrible curses (including minotaurs). Monstrosities are monsters in the strictest sense-frightening creatures that are not ordinary, not truly natural, and almost never benign. Beasts include all varieties of ordinary animals, dinosaurs, and giant versions of animals. Some of them have magical powers, but most are unintelligent and lack any society or language. īeasts are nonhumanoid creatures that are a natural part of the fantasy ecology. ![]() The terms "Beast" and "Monstrosity" are individual examples of "creature type", which is explained in the Basic Rules. Creatures are the types they are because that's how they've been defined in the rules. Your question is looking for a definition beyond the definitions provided in the rules. What, then, makes a creature such as a roper or roc a “monster in the strictest sense”, and a giant fire beetle or a stirge a “natural part of the fantasy ecology”? Is it one of alignment? A roper is a monstrosity because it is neutral evil, and a giant fire beetle is a beast because it is unaligned? But a roc is a monstrosity, and is also unaligned. The roper is an evolved, mature form of piercer. Is the distinction, then, simply one of origin? A fire beetle is a beast because it evolved naturally, while a Roc is a monstrosity because it was created directly by a Giant? This argument does not hold if you look at the roper, whose flavour text states Monsters in the strictest sense- frightening creatures that are not ordinary, not natural, and almost never benign. Non-humanoid creatures that are a natural part of the fantasy ecology. However, I was thinking about it and I realized some things that are classified ‘Beasts’ would be monstrosities by that definition, such as giant fire beetles. ![]() I always assumed the difference between Beasts and Monstrosities was very simple: beasts are natural creatures that exist in our world, monstrosities are unnatural creatures that do not fit into any of the other categories.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |