Open Jihia opened 4 years ago
Monstrosity fits better. Beasts are almost always purely nonmagical, while Monstosities inherently have a magic component.
I'd imagine people picture them as Beasts instead of Monstrosities on the same grounds as how Wind Serpents, and others, are considered beasts. As well as just their relation to kodos.
So either we'd need to try and actively work here with the situation that beasts in this setting can be a lot more fantastical than a D&D "beast" implies.
Or we'd need to hard-line more what separates a beast from a monstrosity, which the D&D books puts at what's already been pointed out. Beasts are creatures that either exist or have strong parallels in the real world, while monstrosities are outright supernatural (and if there is a beast counterpart, the monstrosity goes a bit above and beyond).
We should stick with the dnd definitions of beasts and monstrosities. We are bringing Azeroth to dnd, not rewriting dnd.
Suggest scaling this up to a creature type step-through, checking how many Beast creatures there are that'd count as Monstrosities by this. Because Wind Serpents would at least be one of them.
One of the (potential) issues here is the hunter pets, ofc. Wind serpents are iconic as available to hunters as pets. This however will be solved by the new pet stat blocks under development. Another advantage to that approach.
Same thing with druid forms. To dnd5e druids, the beast creature type is essential.
Decoupling the hunter and druid from the monster manual stat blocks is key here, and a great move imo.
Maybe to that end, we could hold off on doing a broad sweep on it until after the new hunter beast setup has been implemented? Because that particular scenario is definitely the reason why the Wind Serpent was put up as a Beast.
The Thunder Lizard is currently set as a Monstrosity, should its creature type be Beast?