Anyone else wonder about this? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Anyone else wonder about this? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Hanuman47
08-06-04, 05:11 PM I was perusing my brand new 3.5 MM the other day and I noticed (since they're on consecutive pages) that the Roper is classified as a magical beast and the Rust Monster is an aberration. Does this seem right? An aberration is a creature with bizarre morphology, abilities, or mindset, which the Roper I think would qualify for on all three counts. The Rust Monster strikes me as a rather animal like, with some magical abilities., i.e. a magical beast.

Anyone else think this is just wrong?
Black Jack Davey
08-06-04, 06:17 PM You've got a point. I think the Roper should be an aberration and the rust monster could go either way.
Adrez Nesnsid
08-06-04, 09:38 PM Sounds like a pretty sound argument to me too.
dhaga
08-06-04, 11:22 PM Yeah, you've got a point there, certainly. It's the same way in MM 3.0.

Roper should definitely be an aberration... and the Rust Monster a magical beast, aye.
cwslyclgh
08-06-04, 11:33 PM basically aberrations are not melee combatants, instead they rely upon bizarre abilities and spell like effects.... there for IIRC they decided to make the roper a magical beast, because magical beasts are melee combatants and they wanted the roper to be a melee combatant. same thing in reverse for the rust monster.
dhaga
08-06-04, 11:40 PM Hrm. Most monsters seem to be typed according to physical makeup, but I see your point there, cwslyclgh. Nothing wrong with having a melee aberration, though... There are exceptions to every rule.
cwslyclgh
08-06-04, 11:46 PM Nothing wrong with having a melee aberration, though... There are exceptions to every rule. I couldn't agree more, infact more then 1 of my Monsters of the Week (vol 1) was a melee aberration... I was simply stateing the reasons that the game designers typed the monsters in question like they did as I had heard it.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Hanuman47 08-06-04, 05:11 PM	I was perusing my brand new 3.5 MM the other day and I noticed (since they're on consecutive pages) that the Roper is classified as a magical beast and the Rust Monster is an aberration. Does this seem right? An aberration is a creature with bizarre morphology, abilities, or mindset, which the Roper I think would qualify for on all three counts. The Rust Monster strikes me as a rather animal like, with some magical abilities., i.e. a magical beast. Anyone else think this is just wrong?
Black Jack Davey 08-06-04, 06:17 PM	You've got a point. I think the Roper should be an aberration and the rust monster could go either way.
Adrez Nesnsid 08-06-04, 09:38 PM	Sounds like a pretty sound argument to me too.
dhaga 08-06-04, 11:22 PM	Yeah, you've got a point there, certainly. It's the same way in MM 3.0. Roper should definitely be an aberration... and the Rust Monster a magical beast, aye.
cwslyclgh 08-06-04, 11:33 PM	basically aberrations are not melee combatants, instead they rely upon bizarre abilities and spell like effects.... there for IIRC they decided to make the roper a magical beast, because magical beasts are melee combatants and they wanted the roper to be a melee combatant. same thing in reverse for the rust monster.
dhaga 08-06-04, 11:40 PM	Hrm. Most monsters seem to be typed according to physical makeup, but I see your point there, cwslyclgh. Nothing wrong with having a melee aberration, though... There are exceptions to every rule.
cwslyclgh 08-06-04, 11:46 PM	Nothing wrong with having a melee aberration, though... There are exceptions to every rule. I couldn't agree more, infact more then 1 of my Monsters of the Week (vol 1) was a melee aberration... I was simply stateing the reasons that the game designers typed the monsters in question like they did as I had heard it.