Some people say "Edition X is an aberration?"

Quote from: trechriron;895037Because they want to create different rules that apply to different types without repeating those rules over and over. I can then create "undead" or "abberants" and not repeat the standard rules in each description.

It can also facilitate faster system mastery. I can learn about the types and the rules for each type and have a solid understanding of how a creature works, even when incorporating a new creature into an adventure. It's a way of compartmentalizing things, which generally aids in memorization.

That is much more unwieldy in complicated systems like 3.x, where types each have paragraphs of traits, require new rules for any monsters that want to change those traits, and a monster may only ever have one type. Furthermore, most of the 3.x types were devised solely on the basis of being pseudo-classes by a very inexperienced WotC (e.g. shapechanger was a type before 3.5 changed it to a subtype, not to mention all the many other needlessly complex rules) and wouldn't have any special rules in other systems. Indeed, many 3.x monster statblocks list "[insert type here] traits" as a special quality (in lieu of the traits) in addition to having the type tag, as though GMs will commonly forget that oozes have ooze traits. Other statblocks may list the type traits, both or neither conventions.

The Rules Cyclopedia had much simpler types that rarely had special rules and a given monster could have as many as applicable: animal, humanoid (including giant), dragon/-kin (including chimeras), construct, undead, enchanted, extraplanar, lowlife (blobs, plants, vermin) and monster (everything else). That's basically the only way the mechanic would be feasible, and 5e reverted to this for the most part: monsters usually only have one type (which have no inherent special rules anymore) but some spells let you summon monsters that count as two types. 4e tried to force the 3.x system into something more logical but, since among other things it introduced "blind" and "spider" as subtypes, I don't think it succeeded; although the tagging of "origins" was quite sensible if ill-executed.

Quote from: Omega;894917Why?

To organize the Monster Manual?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;894889Yet another shit rule added to later editions.  "Monster class" my fat hairy old ass.

Did you think earlier editions had a monopoly on shit rules or something?

Quote from: trechriron;895037Because they want to create different rules that apply to different types without repeating those rules over and over. I can then create "undead" or "aberrants" and not repeat the standard rules in each description.

Um. They dont repeat any standard rules in any description? Its a keyward in the monster type. One word.

Flumph: Small aberration, lawful good
Werewolf: Medium humanoid, (human, shapechanger) chaotic evil
Roc: Gargantuan monstrosity, unaligned

That is not the same thing. And. All it does is add more rules. The monster types entry takes up a whole page. And they dont even have a classification for Lycanthrope which at least has applications for weapons vs. and such. But monstrosity and aberration?
 
At best I can see it being allmost usefull for fringe cases like the aforementioned swords vs XYZ as well as arrows of slaying or scrolls of protection from XYZ. Maybee even spells that target only XYZ type.

Quote from: TristramEvans;895085To organize the Monster Manual?

Organize what? Its in alphabetical order.

Quote from: Omega;895115Organize what? Its in alphabetical order.

Fair enough, just a thought.

So that you can have "Longsword, +1, +3 versus Abberrations?"

Quote from: cranebump;895249So that you can have "Longsword, +1, +3 versus Abberrations?"

QuoteAt best I can see it being allmost usefull for fringe cases like the aforementioned swords vs XYZ as well as arrows of slaying or scrolls of protection from XYZ. Maybee even spells that target only XYZ type.

Um... thats what I said?

Quote from: Omega;894917Ahem. You mean like "undead" and "animal"?
When did "giant" come into play? The advent of the Ranger or before?

But yeah. Its too many classifications that aside from undead, beast, and giant, and to some degree celestial and fiend. Dont seem to do much. I mean theres 14 classifications. Why?

I blame the Sages. Crusty old farts got nothing better to do than sit around in their Ivory Towers and their Ancient Libraries full of arcane lore writing long-winded bestiaries all day and all night, classifying, organizing, and analyzing every creature in all the Infinite Planes like someone's life depends on it or something!

Oh, wait....

Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;895364I blame the Sages. Crusty old farts got nothing better to do than sit around in their Ivory Towers and their Ancient Libraries full of arcane lore writing long-winded bestiaries all day and all night, classifying, organizing, and analyzing every creature in all the Infinite Planes like someone's life depends on it or something!

Oh, wait....

Cleric casts "Hold Aberration" on the carrion crawler.
Wizard rolls eyes. "Dude! Thats like a monstrosity! Use the right spell!"
Warrior is confused. "But but? Its got tentacles like a mind flayer!"
Druid looks accusingly at Wizard "Well we werent the ones who classified the damn Stirge as beast..."
Confused carrion crawler swallows paralyzed Thief whole and then quietly leaves while they argue.

Quote from: Omega;895114Um. They dont repeat any standard rules in any description? Its a keyward in the monster type. One word.

The rules that they don't have to repeat are things like all constructs do not have to breathe, all undead are immune to mind-effecting effects, etc.

QuoteFlumph: Small aberration, lawful good
Werewolf: Medium humanoid, (human, shapechanger) chaotic evil
Roc: Gargantuan monstrosity, unaligned

That is not the same thing. And. All it does is add more rules. The monster types entry takes up a whole page. And they dont even have a classification for Lycanthrope which at least has applications for weapons vs. and such. But monstrosity and aberration?
 
At best I can see it being allmost usefull for fringe cases like the aforementioned swords vs XYZ as well as arrows of slaying or scrolls of protection from XYZ. Maybee even spells that target only XYZ type.

It was useful for the system that they set up for monster construction in 3.0, where aberrations had one hd size, attack progression, and saving throw progression, while monstrous humanoids and beasts had different progressions. It made sense within that context (and necessitated the catch-all category of aberration). For 5th edition, since I assume they dropped that idea, they probably could have exchanged it for a set of tags to show which XXYZ swords affects are effective and which non-repeated rules come into play. In that case, a werewolf would be Werewolf -- medium, chaotic evil (human, humanoid, shapechanger, possibly animal, living, and lycathrope as well).

Either way, it is one word per monster entry. If my Sibley Field Guide to Birds has them listed in alphabetical order, but then also lists the classification of temperate, woodland, and game bird to a description, it genuinely doesn't hurt me in any way.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;895385The rules that they don't have to repeat are things like all constructs do not have to breathe, all undead are immune to mind-effecting effects, etc.



It was useful for the system that they set up for monster construction in 3.0, where aberrations had one hd size, attack progression, and saving throw progression, while monstrous humanoids and beasts had different progressions. It made sense within that context (and necessitated the catch-all category of aberration). For 5th edition, since I assume they dropped that idea, they probably could have exchanged it for a set of tags to show which XXYZ swords affects are effective and which non-repeated rules come into play. In that case, a werewolf would be Werewolf -- medium, chaotic evil (human, humanoid, shapechanger, possibly animal, living, and lycathrope as well).

Either way, it is one word per monster entry. If my Sibley Field Guide to Birds has them listed in alphabetical order, but then also lists the classification of temperate, woodland, and game bird to a description, it genuinely doesn't hurt me in any way.

In 5e types no longer have inherent rules. Type only matters for effects that specify type. Otherwise, damage resistances/inmunities/vulnerabilities are specified in the statblock. There isn't even universal special abilities anymore: all special abilities are explained in the statblock regardless of how many monsters have the same ability.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;895387In 5e types no longer have inherent rules. Type only matters for effects that specify type. Otherwise, damage resistances/inmunities/vulnerabilities are specified in the statblock. There isn't even universal special abilities anymore: all special abilities are explained in the statblock regardless of how many monsters have the same ability.

Right. Like the above mentioned Constructs.
Golems for example repeat in every entry things like Immutable Form, Magic Resistance and Magic Weapons. The exact same block of text repeated 5 times, And the Helmed Horror repeats Magic Resistance. Animate objects repeats the Antimagic Susceptibility and False Appearance blocks 3 times. Every Black, Green Bronze and Gold dragon entry repeats Amphibious. Thats 20 times. 21 cause the Dragon Turtle has it too. All four Drow entries repeat Fey Ancestry, Innate Spellcasting and Sunlight Sensitivity.

And that was just up to the H section. So claiming monster Types being some sort of space saving move falls totally flat.

Look, 5e tried to consolidate some spells, like Cure Light, Heavy Wounds, Fireball, Magic Missile and others that scale, and still managed to add about 10+ pages to the overall spell list anyway.