Quote from: Omega;895401Right. 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.

I think page flipping to find out what exactly what an undead means is worse than repeating the undead for the nth time. I want the relevant info right there in the stat block.

Quote from: Omega;895401And that was just up to the H section. So claiming monster Types being some sort of space saving move falls totally flat.

No, it only proves that it doesn't save space if they don't use the potential benefit it has the capacity to provide.

Quote from: estar;895430I think page flipping to find out what exactly what an undead means is worse than repeating the undead for the nth time. I want the relevant info right there in the stat block.

Depends. I can certainly live with each undead entry listing that the undead is immune to mind effecting effects, rather than having that listed in some description of undead at the front or back of the book or monster section. On the other hand, I do need to have it spelled out somewhere what mind effecting effects are*. Somewhere, at some point a line needs to be drawn as to what belongs in the monster description and what belongs in a general description entry.

*Otherwise I will have to explain to someone newly entering the game that undead are not immune to turn undead effects, because that looks an awful lot like a mind effecting compulsion.

Overall the monster types are just codifying what was mostly allready there.
Undead, Giant, Humanoid, Lucanthrope(Shapeshifter tag)

Others are just to clarify what is, or isnt in a category. Beast, Construct, Ooze, Plant, Dragon, Elemental, Faerie(Fey tag). And to a lesser degree Fiends and Celestials. Though occasionally a little arbitrarily. (Stirge is a Beast, Gibbering Mouther is an Aberration, Worg is a Monstrocity for example.) Usefull for clarifying what some spells and items can and cant target.

Quote from: Omega;895508Overall the monster types are just codifying what was mostly allready there.
Undead, Giant, Humanoid, Lucanthrope(Shapeshifter tag)

Others are just to clarify what is, or isnt in a category. Beast, Construct, Ooze, Plant, Dragon, Elemental, Faerie(Fey tag). And to a lesser degree Fiends and Celestials. Though occasionally a little arbitrarily. (Stirge is a Beast, Gibbering Mouther is an Aberration, Worg is a Monstrocity for example.) Usefull for clarifying what some spells and items can and cant target.

And there's the real reason as to why there's these categories, the D&D magic system.  People wanted to know, for certain, what spell can affect what.  Because frankly, a sword doesn't care if it's undead, a monstrosity, a beast or aberration.  But magic?  It has to, otherwise, you can get dick GMs and problems in Convention Games, which are a great way to promote and get new players into these games.

Rules may not be able to cure dick GMs, but clear communication can help you find the ones that are, and help you avoid them.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;895514And there's the real reason as to why there's these categories, the D&D magic system.  People wanted to know, for certain, what spell can affect what.
Rules may not be able to cure dick GMs, but clear communication can help you find the ones that are, and help you avoid them.

Thats my thought too. It just feels a fraction excessive. And at times arbitrary. But then the MM is the thing I like least about 5e.

Quote from: Omega;895508Overall the monster types are just codifying what was mostly allready there.
Undead, Giant, Humanoid, Lucanthrope(Shapeshifter tag)

Others are just to clarify what is, or isnt in a category. Beast, Construct, Ooze, Plant, Dragon, Elemental, Faerie(Fey tag). And to a lesser degree Fiends and Celestials. Though occasionally a little arbitrarily. (Stirge is a Beast, Gibbering Mouther is an Aberration, Worg is a Monstrocity for example.) Usefull for clarifying what some spells and items can and cant target.

Stirges make sense at beasts, since they're only weird from a terracentric perspective but a fantasy peasant would find them normal. The other two distinctions only make sense from a LotR perspective, since Worgs are bioweapons and Nameless Things are (according to some interpretations) aliens. They don't make sense in settings without those distinctions.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;895514And there's the real reason as to why there's these categories, the D&D magic system.  People wanted to know, for certain, what spell can affect what.  Because frankly, a sword doesn't care if it's undead, a monstrosity, a beast or aberration.  But magic?  It has to, otherwise, you can get dick GMs and problems in Convention Games, which are a great way to promote and get new players into these games.

Rules may not be able to cure dick GMs, but clear communication can help you find the ones that are, and help you avoid them.

Which is why some games discard them, render them implicit and/or severely reduce their importance.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;894889"Monster class" my fat hairy old ass.

Beast, most likely; but depending on the size and alignment, possibly Monstrosity. Outside chance of Aberration if the locals think it's unnatural or alien enough. How does it react to holy water, silver and cold iron?

("Monster class" was an imperative verb, right? Meaning "determine the monster class of"?)

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;895568Stirges make sense at beasts, since they're only weird from a terracentric perspective but a fantasy peasant would find them normal. The other two distinctions only make sense from a LotR perspective, since Worgs are bioweapons and Nameless Things are (according to some interpretations) aliens. They don't make sense in settings without those distinctions.

Thats got to be one of the most arbitrary and crackheaded justifications I've heard this week for some screwup with 5e.

A Stirge is even less natural than a Roc or Worg and a Worg was up till recently just another name for a dire wolf.

Quote from: Omega;895712Thats got to be one of the most arbitrary and crackheaded justifications I've heard this week for some screwup with 5e.

A Stirge is even less natural than a Roc or Worg and a Worg was up till recently just another name for a dire wolf.

How is a stirge "unnatural"? If it was creates by the god(s) of fantasyland (or evolved, for those nonsensical settings with both Young Earth Creationism and Evolution), then it is natural to fantasyland. You're thinking in an arbitrary Earth-centric perspective. 3.0 defined the beast type as "ahistorical animals;" that is, normal animals that have a different type just because they never existed on our Earth despite being natural to fantasyland.

Worgs were never synonymous with dire wolves. Dire wolves were a species of wolf with slight differences in skull and limb length compared to grey wolves. Fantasy fiction uses the term for horse-sized wolves that never existed on Earth. Worgs are intelligent wolf-like creatures from LotR, implied to be degenerate descendants of even bigger and smarter ancestors.

EDIT: so pre-3e D&D treated them synonymously. In any case, 16 years ago is hardly recent in this industry.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;895837Dire wolves were a species of wolf with slight differences in skull and limb length compared to grey wolves. Fantasy fiction uses the term for horse-sized wolves that never existed on Earth.

Sure they did

Quote from: TristramEvans;895887Sure they did

I said dire wolves were (as in, now extinct) a species of wolf roughly the size of a grey wolf (i.e. smaller than an adult human), but that Fantasy fiction uses the term for horse-sized wolves that never existed on our Earth. Those are two separate things. The word "dire" doesn't even relate to size, it just mean "fearsome" (hence the idiom "dire consequences"). I'm pretty sure D&D invented that usage and the legions of hack authors mindless copied it.

Dire Wolves were on average about 25% more massive according to notes. Yet arent much taller than a normal wolf. They make up for that if I recall correctly in a longer body or more muscle mass.

I only ever had goblins and other small races ride them. Had a band of halfling brigands once that raided atop dire wolves.

Interestingly in 5e a Dire Wolf isnt that much more than a normal wolf. 1 point more AC, one die step up in damage. The big difference is HP. Which the dire wolf has 3x more than the wolf. (Which I feel is a bit excessive. 2x would have suffice)