D&D and a number of retroclones use "aberration" as a monster classification. The problem is that nobody seems to be able to agree what it is supposed to mean other than arbitrary game jargon.

3.x, where it first appeared, barely defined the term at all and just used it for basic combat statistics. Other derivatives just treat it as a simple tag.

In 5e MM the term was slightly more defined and half the aberrations from 3.x became "monstrosities" (or undead for the will-o-wisp) while slaad became aberrations. The only thing these monsters have in common now is originating from either Limbo or the Far Realm (which is not Limbo?), which is still a huge improvement btw.

In Pathfinder (3.x clone) we got around twenty or so monsters across four bestiaries taken right out of Call of Cthulhu d20's monster chapter. Over half of these iconic "eldritch abominations" are somehow NOT aberrations. Several classical mythology monsters like Argus, Charybdis and Scylla (and nagas from Vedic myth) are classed as aberrations despite being literally siblings, cousins, aunts/uncles and/or nieces/nephews to Chimera (a "magical beast") depending on which classical philosopher you're reading.

Whose idea was it to make aberration a monster class/type? Why can nobody agree on how to apply it? What would be better alternatives?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;894754D&D and a number of retroclones use "aberration" as a monster classification. The problem is that nobody seems to be able to agree what it is supposed to mean other than arbitrary game jargon.

The more relevant definition

Quotea departure from what is normal, usual, or expected, typically one that is unwelcome.

Seem to me it is a catch-all category to group weird dangerous monsters that readily fit other category.

And looking at the d20 SRD it clearly states what it means.

QuoteAn aberration has a bizarre anatomy, strange abilities, an alien mindset, or any combination of the three.

The Pathfinder PRD has the same thing

QuoteAn aberration has a bizarre anatomy, strange abilities, an alien mindset, or any combination of the three.

This opposed to be a creature being a: Animal, Construct, Dragon, Fey, Humanoid, Magical Beast, Monstrous Humanoid, Ooze, Outsider, Plant, Undead, and Vermin

Here is a list of all the monsters for pathfinder categorized by type.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings

It is a bit arbitary that a Bee-Man is an aberration and not animal, a monstrous humanoid, or vermin?



The author of the Bee-Man thought it was better as a aberration because it not actually a human bee hybrid but a hive-mind that take form as a cloud of bees in humanoid form. So it definitely has the bizarre anatomy and strange ability down.

Mind flyers, beholders, the Aboleth. Some of the weirdest, evil-est, coolest monsters ever. I LOVE how Eberron beefs them up with several new types. Very alien, very strange and very deadly. Personally, one of my favorite classifications. :-D

Basically, aberrations are kind of the non-specific 'monsters.' They are the junk drawer that includes all the things that aren't angels/demons(plus the other random alignment type creatures), undead, dragons, werecreatures, things that are amalgams of real world animal parts (just combined in weird ways) (and no, cthulu-creatures aren't just octopus and people parts put together in weird combinations, because I said so), frankenstein monsters, etc.

So it includes the Where the Wild Things Are monsters, cousin It from the Adams Family, the monster in your closet (and as a corollary the cast of Monsters, Inc.), most Aliens (unless they are just an alternate world's humanity), and most monsters your 5 year old niece/nephew drew for you.

What is an aberration?

Short answer is... "Depends on the writer" of course.
Thats all.

One writer will look at a carrion crawler or darkmantle and call it an aberration. Another might classify a mind flayer as a humanoid.

D&D though tends to classify aberrations as "alien". Things that are the at times next step up in weird from monstrosities. And the line is a little blurry at times between whats one and whats the other.

An Aberration is a creature that defies all logic.  By all that 'we' (assuming here that this we means Characters in whatever D&D world they're inhabiting) know of basic biology, these things should not exist.  Typically associated with the Far Realm, a location that's so far removed from the Prime Material Plane that even the Heavens and Hells have no idea what to do with it.

Limbo is part of The Hells now, whereas the Far Realms are the personification of Chaos and Madness.  So of course, they won't make sense.

Yet another shit rule added to later editions.  "Monster class" my fat hairy old ass.

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

Right on time.

Basically it's a catchphrase for Lovecraftian stuff - tentacled horrors and such.

And no more silly or vague than the "Giant" class of OD&D

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

Ahem. 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?

Quote from: Omega;894917But 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?

For the same reasons as the heavy metal aficionados who insist on claiming distinctions between alternative metal/doom metal/black metal/grindcore/blackgaze/death'n'roll/sludge metal/goth metal/lavacore/goregrind/metalcore/power metal/folk metal/thrash/stoner metal § and about two dozen others, the differences between which are ephemeral and impenetrable.

First off, the hobby long since embraced a basic tenet of advertising: you don't sound Phat and Kewl by using the same old terms for things.

Secondly, the hobby also figured out that there's a big difference between four of something and fourteen of something: the fanboys will hand a lot more money over to you if there's more stuff to buy.

Thirdly (and possibly stemming from its wargaming roots), the hobby has a positive obsession with labeling things.  Since I refuse to play a game I haven't looked over with my own eyes (to a large part since I learned to mistrust reviews), the distinctions hold no meaning for me, but hundreds of thousands of hours have been spent anguishing about how many narrativists and/or simulationists can dance on the head of a pin.  Or something like that.


§ - One in that list isn't a real sub-subgenre.  (I think.  It's been all of thirty seconds since I typed that list.  You never know.)  

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

I can't speak for the very beginning, but swords +1, +3 vs lycanthropes are pretty old school. The only difference is that the categories are explicit instead of implicit.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;894954The only difference is that the categories are explicit instead of implicit.

And that's what turns a reasonable rule into a shit rule.

Quote from: Omega;894917I mean theres 14 classifications. Why?

Exactly.

Quote from: Omega;894917... I mean theres 14 classifications. Why?

Because 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.