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.
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.
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dire_wolf)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Canis_dirus_La_Brea.jpg)
Quote from: TristramEvans;895887Sure they did (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dire_wolf)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Canis_dirus_La_Brea.jpg)
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)