Beast, Magical Beast, Aberration [Archive] - Wizards Community

Beast, Magical Beast, Aberration [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
gbnogkfs
09-10-03, 01:38 PM While I rarely had any problem distinguishing a Beast from a Magical Beast, the Beast type was pretty early eliminated from the game (Savage Species, for exemple, already got rid of it)

What I cannot understand is the difference between a Magical Beast and an Aberration. What I wonder is: what are the reasons a monster is assigned the Magical Beast or the Aberration type, a part from simple game mechanics? I was looking through the various Monster Manuals, and I see no actual reasoning in putting monsters in one or the other category. It would be nice if you could give every creature a type by reading its description and assign the type accordingly, but that would lead to quite different categories than the actual ones...

Also, why many "animals" in the Psionic Handbook have indeed spell-like abilities (psionics)? I understand they may have applied the "psionic template" tho the standard animals, but that way they could get rid of the types altogether and simply apply templates to a worm and make it a dragon of the vermin type...
cwslyclgh
09-10-03, 01:55 PM What I cannot understand is the difference between a Magical Beast and an Aberration. What I wonder is: what are the reasons a monster is assigned the Magical Beast or the Aberration type most magical beasts have a fairly normal physiology and or mind set with some magical powers, while most aberrations have a weird physiology, mind set or or both.
RhoxandRoll
09-10-03, 03:28 PM I was looking through the various Monster Manuals, and I see no actual reasoning in putting monsters in one or the other category. It would be nice if you could give every creature a type by reading its description and assign the type accordingly, but that would lead to quite different categories than the actual ones...

Because hit dice, alot of spells/ spell-like abilities, skill points, and the such are based on type. It is quite usefull. Alot of subtypes have traits like that, too. such as the baatezu. It just makes more sense to organize them. And some will be hard to ell from the text. Rangers also need this to sort out favored enemies. Once
you think about it, that game mechanic is quite vital.
gbnogkfs
09-10-03, 05:12 PM Originally posted by RhoxandRoll
Because hit dice, alot of spells/ spell-like abilities, skill points, and the such are based on type. It is quite usefull. Alot of subtypes have traits like that, too. such as the baatezu. It just makes more sense to organize them. And some will be hard to ell from the text. Rangers also need this to sort out favored enemies. Once
you think about it, that game mechanic is quite vital.

I was not complaining about mechanics. I was complaining based on the fact that there is no apparent (to me) real reason why WotC puts a said monster into one or the other category.

Originally posted by cwslyclgh
most magical beasts have a fairly normal physiology and or mind set with some magical powers, while most aberrations have a weird physiology, mind set or or both

Let's take, for exemple, an Ethereal Marauder. It appears to me having a quite "weird" appearence. Would you consider it an Aberration? I would, but...

What about a Rust Monster? No weird physiology, no alien mind set, that would make it a Magical Beast to me, but heck...
R.M.G.C.L.F.
09-10-03, 06:55 PM I think the rust monster is that way partly because way back in 1e it had a propeller on its tail.

The main idea is that aberrations are things that are weird and generally icky (like the gibbering mouther), or that just seem not to fit anywhere else (like the will'o'wisp). Most of the weird invertibrates are aberrations. Things that are essential a magic-ized or slightly templated version of an animal, like swamp-light lynx or blink dog or fiendish dire rat tend to be magical beasts. In general aberration is also often used as a "Miscellanious" category for creatures that don't seem to fit well in any other creature type. But it is true that the lines between them are blurred at some points, and creatures are often misplaced. The catobplepas for example would do much better as a magical beast than the eye-beam using swamp giraffe they mutated it into, likewise roper would be best suited as an aberration.

I guess part of the main problem is that "weird" is a subjective term, and many natural creatures such as a porteguise man O' war jellyfish or the lamprey would be considered bizzare or alien enough to merit the aberration title.
Xychotic
09-11-03, 11:33 PM Magical Beasts v. Aberrations

Define wierd. For me, its anything that has no chance to exist in the regular world. Pegasus, hard to believe, but not imagination stretching by too much. Otyugh, three legged, two tentacled garbage monster... wierd enough?

If it seems close enough to something that wouldn't freak you out on sight, nothing Call of Cthulu style, would fit into magical beast. Anything whose existence boggles the very mind (gibbering mouther, and someone justify the darkmantle), then its an aberration.
Incenjucar
09-11-03, 11:54 PM It gets really messy with things like mind flayers. Yes, their mindset is -very- alien... but their physiology is not only similar to, but composed of humanoid forms of other creatures.

I, personally, think they need to find a way to seperate 'alien mindset' and 'alien form'.
Galahad_Knight
09-12-03, 12:20 AM Tentacles = Aberation...except animals and krakens <chuckleS>

Seriously, that seems to be about the only sure-fire way of spotting an ab. If it has tentacles (or eyestalks) it's an aberation.

Generally Beasts(3.0) were just fantasy animals.
Magical beasts were fantasy anumals with special powers.
Abberations were highly weird or alien fantasy animals, with or without magic pwers.

Now, in 3.5, Magical beast is pretty much any fantasy animal. And abberations are still just weird things.
They could be insextile or squidgy or just weird.

There are some things I think were poorly categorized.
Giant with 2 heads...giant
Giant with 3 arms...abberation? Athatch should be a giant.

Humanoid with dog head, humanoid
Humanoid with bull head, monsterous humanoid?
Humanoid with squid head, abberation?

I go for monsterous humanoid for all of them.
Incenjucar
09-12-03, 04:54 AM Same here.

These things should rely on body plans and internal consistancy, not weirdness level.

Now, if an illithid's insides were of the consistancy of nougat, rather than hearts and lungs and such... MAYBE... but... they still have skeletons..
Galahad_Knight
09-12-03, 06:08 AM Considering the process of creating an illithid involves putting a slug in a dude's ear and watchign it eat and replace the brain, then metamorphisize the body, I have a hard time seeing them as anything but humanoid or monsterous humanoid.
Especially since the template for tht process can only be applied to non-human humanoids (illithids are the result of a human host)

It;s in the FF.
Humanoid...plus skull-modifying brain-slug = Aberation
Huh...
Gez
09-12-03, 01:26 PM Mindflayers are aberrations because they are not natural. Illithids are produced by a parasitic infestation of a human body that eventually led to a mutation of that body beyond recognition.

If a creature is merely chimerical (mix'n'match of vertebrates, like say, a sphinx, a pegasus, or a hypogriff) it's a magical beast. If you include invertebrate (mollusc, insects, spiders, arthropods...) parts in it, it's likely to be aberration.

Also, an unnatural monster (that don't live and reproduce normally) is going to be an aberration. Driders are aberrations because they are transformed drow. You don't have families of driders, they aren't really part of an ecosystem. Same can be said for illithids.
Chobemaster
09-12-03, 02:15 PM Aberration seems to mainly be creatures that don't follow the "standard" vertebrate physiology IRL. Things like extra limbs or tentacles, extra eyes on stalks, etc.

Versions of RL invertebrates are exceptions, of course. Like giant insects, giant squid (i think) etc.

Galahad...if I watched a weird tadpole crawl into someone's ear and transform it fairly significantly, I'd conclude that such a happening was an aberration of nature...it's not a typical way for things to be done. It's funny to me that we come up with exact opposite conclusions from the same scenario.
Galahad_Knight
09-12-03, 08:05 PM the nature of the act may be abberant...but my point was that the base creature's *physiology* is humanoid.

A lizardfolk who has been transformed looks like a lizardfolk with a squid head. His body is still lizardfolk.

If you have roughly the same biology as a humanoid then you shouldn't be too far removed from one. Mindflayers still have human hearts and lungs and skeletons and such. They just got a squid for a face.

how does that make them so radically different in hiology that they're a different creature type?
gbnogkfs
09-13-03, 01:13 AM All the doubts you are speaking about are what has caused me grow very annoyed about the aberration type monsters...

Yeah, Mind Flayers and the Ettin-Atach combo just drive me crazy!:whatsthis :looloo:

For the last two, WotC, just make both giants or both aberration, but please decide yourself.
Incenjucar
09-13-03, 02:48 AM They really need to smooth the details of the abberation monster type out.

*sings*

"Smooth ab-ber-ration.... smooooth, abberatioooon"

:D
Gez
09-13-03, 04:51 AM Well, the categories are not biological (as in vertebrate, mammal, reptile, fish, amphibious, bird, invertebrate, insect, arthropod, mollusc, arachnid, etc.) but symbolical.

Otherwise, one can say, since eladrins look like elves, they should be humanoid too. And the undead category would not exist.

Besides,

Originally posted by Galahad_Knight
If you have roughly the same biology as a humanoid then you shouldn't be too far removed from one. Mindflayers still have human hearts and lungs and skeletons and such. They just got a squid for a face.

Don't be too sure of it. They still have a roughly human shape, but the whole body is mutated. They have no genitalia, the skin is wholly modified, they become amphibian (IIRC, it's a long while since I read the Illithiad)...

There may be a human frame, but it has become twisted into a monstrous shape, and is now possessed by a creature with an alien mindset.

Likewise, a zombie may be a human or whatever, but it has been turned into a mindless animated corpse.
Galahad_Knight
09-13-03, 05:36 AM Actually, I thought it was largely (but not completely) biological.

An undead human may have human biology...but his biology is superfluous. You can cut out a zombie's heart and it doesn't make him blink. So, effectively, he does have a different physiology.

Outsiders are different because they're from another plane of existance. They may not have a biology as we would think of it at all. (Obiously, there is one or they wouldn't be subject to crits and favored enemy bonuses. But it could be radically different than a humanoid's)

If being an abberation had nothing to do with abberant physiology then what is it based on? Mindset and methods?
Wouldn;t a crazy person be an abberation too?

That's the problem with the "Catch-All" types.

Dragons are dragon-type creatures because they are or are related to dragons. Elementals are elementals because they;re elementals. Constructs are constructs because they were constructed.

But what makes a creature an abberation and not a magical beast? Or an alien animal? It's too loosely defined and inconsistant.

Why is an athatch an abberation but an Ettin is not? Why isn't a weird multilegged lizard like a behr or basalisk an abberation, but a Charion Crawler is?

Why is a dog head fine but a squid head isn't? Even a human torso attached to a horse isn;t abberant but having a guy with a cerebral cephelopod is

It's too arbitrary.
It's probably down to some guy at WOTC saying "This isn't powerful enough. Is there any excuse in the world for making it a more powerful creature type?"
Gez
09-13-03, 07:07 PM I said it was related to symbolics. And it is.

Centaurs, basiliscs, cockatrices, are all creatures from myth.

And, although I don't think the behir comes from mythology, there are several other instances of multilegged beasts (like Sleipnir, Odin's eight-legged horse).

That's why they aren't abberant. They correspond to accepted figures.

Multiheaded creatures also. Hydra, Cerberus, for example.

I don't think something like the Athach it may be found in myths. Outside of the fachan (who were 1-legged, 1-armed, 1-eyed giants), I don't see any rough humanoid with an arm in the middle of the torso. On the other hands, multiple pair of arms are OK.

However, I do think too Athach should have been giants. They were listed under the Giant entry in the Mystara monstrous compendium, and the only real reason I can see for not making them giant is to have a big hulking brute against whom dwarves and gnomes would not enjoy a +4 dodge bonus to AC.

If you want a rough biological guideline, you may use that:
Aberration is for creature with weird anatomy or alien mindset, or both. Weird anatomy may be defined by unnatural existence or reproductive methods (illithid, drider, some yuan-ti, choldrith), invertebrate parts (illithids, beholders, carrion crawler, choker, chuul, aboleths, ettercap etc.), and/or odd number of arms or legs (athach, ethereal filcher).

The icky factor is also a quickier method.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
gbnogkfs 09-10-03, 01:38 PM	While I rarely had any problem distinguishing a Beast from a Magical Beast, the Beast type was pretty early eliminated from the game (Savage Species, for exemple, already got rid of it) What I cannot understand is the difference between a Magical Beast and an Aberration. What I wonder is: what are the reasons a monster is assigned the Magical Beast or the Aberration type, a part from simple game mechanics? I was looking through the various Monster Manuals, and I see no actual reasoning in putting monsters in one or the other category. It would be nice if you could give every creature a type by reading its description and assign the type accordingly, but that would lead to quite different categories than the actual ones... Also, why many "animals" in the Psionic Handbook have indeed spell-like abilities (psionics)? I understand they may have applied the "psionic template" tho the standard animals, but that way they could get rid of the types altogether and simply apply templates to a worm and make it a dragon of the vermin type...
cwslyclgh 09-10-03, 01:55 PM	What I cannot understand is the difference between a Magical Beast and an Aberration. What I wonder is: what are the reasons a monster is assigned the Magical Beast or the Aberration type most magical beasts have a fairly normal physiology and or mind set with some magical powers, while most aberrations have a weird physiology, mind set or or both.
RhoxandRoll 09-10-03, 03:28 PM	I was looking through the various Monster Manuals, and I see no actual reasoning in putting monsters in one or the other category. It would be nice if you could give every creature a type by reading its description and assign the type accordingly, but that would lead to quite different categories than the actual ones... Because hit dice, alot of spells/ spell-like abilities, skill points, and the such are based on type. It is quite usefull. Alot of subtypes have traits like that, too. such as the baatezu. It just makes more sense to organize them. And some will be hard to ell from the text. Rangers also need this to sort out favored enemies. Once you think about it, that game mechanic is quite vital.
gbnogkfs 09-10-03, 05:12 PM	Originally posted by RhoxandRoll Because hit dice, alot of spells/ spell-like abilities, skill points, and the such are based on type. It is quite usefull. Alot of subtypes have traits like that, too. such as the baatezu. It just makes more sense to organize them. And some will be hard to ell from the text. Rangers also need this to sort out favored enemies. Once you think about it, that game mechanic is quite vital. I was not complaining about mechanics. I was complaining based on the fact that there is no apparent (to me) real reason why WotC puts a said monster into one or the other category. Originally posted by cwslyclgh most magical beasts have a fairly normal physiology and or mind set with some magical powers, while most aberrations have a weird physiology, mind set or or both Let's take, for exemple, an Ethereal Marauder. It appears to me having a quite "weird" appearence. Would you consider it an Aberration? I would, but... What about a Rust Monster? No weird physiology, no alien mind set, that would make it a Magical Beast to me, but heck...
R.M.G.C.L.F. 09-10-03, 06:55 PM	I think the rust monster is that way partly because way back in 1e it had a propeller on its tail. The main idea is that aberrations are things that are weird and generally icky (like the gibbering mouther), or that just seem not to fit anywhere else (like the will'o'wisp). Most of the weird invertibrates are aberrations. Things that are essential a magic-ized or slightly templated version of an animal, like swamp-light lynx or blink dog or fiendish dire rat tend to be magical beasts. In general aberration is also often used as a "Miscellanious" category for creatures that don't seem to fit well in any other creature type. But it is true that the lines between them are blurred at some points, and creatures are often misplaced. The catobplepas for example would do much better as a magical beast than the eye-beam using swamp giraffe they mutated it into, likewise roper would be best suited as an aberration. I guess part of the main problem is that "weird" is a subjective term, and many natural creatures such as a porteguise man O' war jellyfish or the lamprey would be considered bizzare or alien enough to merit the aberration title.
Xychotic 09-11-03, 11:33 PM	Magical Beasts v. Aberrations Define wierd. For me, its anything that has no chance to exist in the regular world. Pegasus, hard to believe, but not imagination stretching by too much. Otyugh, three legged, two tentacled garbage monster... wierd enough? If it seems close enough to something that wouldn't freak you out on sight, nothing Call of Cthulu style, would fit into magical beast. Anything whose existence boggles the very mind (gibbering mouther, and someone justify the darkmantle), then its an aberration.
Incenjucar 09-11-03, 11:54 PM	It gets really messy with things like mind flayers. Yes, their mindset is -very- alien... but their physiology is not only similar to, but composed of humanoid forms of other creatures. I, personally, think they need to find a way to seperate 'alien mindset' and 'alien form'.
Galahad_Knight 09-12-03, 12:20 AM	Tentacles = Aberation...except animals and krakens <chuckleS> Seriously, that seems to be about the only sure-fire way of spotting an ab. If it has tentacles (or eyestalks) it's an aberation. Generally Beasts(3.0) were just fantasy animals. Magical beasts were fantasy anumals with special powers. Abberations were highly weird or alien fantasy animals, with or without magic pwers. Now, in 3.5, Magical beast is pretty much any fantasy animal. And abberations are still just weird things. They could be insextile or squidgy or just weird. There are some things I think were poorly categorized. Giant with 2 heads...giant Giant with 3 arms...abberation? Athatch should be a giant. Humanoid with dog head, humanoid Humanoid with bull head, monsterous humanoid? Humanoid with squid head, abberation? I go for monsterous humanoid for all of them.
Incenjucar 09-12-03, 04:54 AM	Same here. These things should rely on body plans and internal consistancy, not weirdness level. Now, if an illithid's insides were of the consistancy of nougat, rather than hearts and lungs and such... MAYBE... but... they still have skeletons..
Galahad_Knight 09-12-03, 06:08 AM	Considering the process of creating an illithid involves putting a slug in a dude's ear and watchign it eat and replace the brain, then metamorphisize the body, I have a hard time seeing them as anything but humanoid or monsterous humanoid. Especially since the template for tht process can only be applied to non-human humanoids (illithids are the result of a human host) It;s in the FF. Humanoid...plus skull-modifying brain-slug = Aberation Huh...
Gez 09-12-03, 01:26 PM	Mindflayers are aberrations because they are not natural. Illithids are produced by a parasitic infestation of a human body that eventually led to a mutation of that body beyond recognition. If a creature is merely chimerical (mix'n'match of vertebrates, like say, a sphinx, a pegasus, or a hypogriff) it's a magical beast. If you include invertebrate (mollusc, insects, spiders, arthropods...) parts in it, it's likely to be aberration. Also, an unnatural monster (that don't live and reproduce normally) is going to be an aberration. Driders are aberrations because they are transformed drow. You don't have families of driders, they aren't really part of an ecosystem. Same can be said for illithids.
Chobemaster 09-12-03, 02:15 PM	Aberration seems to mainly be creatures that don't follow the "standard" vertebrate physiology IRL. Things like extra limbs or tentacles, extra eyes on stalks, etc. Versions of RL invertebrates are exceptions, of course. Like giant insects, giant squid (i think) etc. Galahad...if I watched a weird tadpole crawl into someone's ear and transform it fairly significantly, I'd conclude that such a happening was an aberration of nature...it's not a typical way for things to be done. It's funny to me that we come up with exact opposite conclusions from the same scenario.
Galahad_Knight 09-12-03, 08:05 PM	the nature of the act may be abberant...but my point was that the base creature's physiology is humanoid. A lizardfolk who has been transformed looks like a lizardfolk with a squid head. His body is still lizardfolk. If you have roughly the same biology as a humanoid then you shouldn't be too far removed from one. Mindflayers still have human hearts and lungs and skeletons and such. They just got a squid for a face. how does that make them so radically different in hiology that they're a different creature type?
gbnogkfs 09-13-03, 01:13 AM	All the doubts you are speaking about are what has caused me grow very annoyed about the aberration type monsters... Yeah, Mind Flayers and the Ettin-Atach combo just drive me crazy!:whatsthis :looloo: For the last two, WotC, just make both giants or both aberration, but please decide yourself.
Incenjucar 09-13-03, 02:48 AM	They really need to smooth the details of the abberation monster type out. sings "Smooth ab-ber-ration.... smooooth, abberatioooon" :D
Gez 09-13-03, 04:51 AM	Well, the categories are not biological (as in vertebrate, mammal, reptile, fish, amphibious, bird, invertebrate, insect, arthropod, mollusc, arachnid, etc.) but symbolical. Otherwise, one can say, since eladrins look like elves, they should be humanoid too. And the undead category would not exist. Besides, Originally posted by Galahad_Knight If you have roughly the same biology as a humanoid then you shouldn't be too far removed from one. Mindflayers still have human hearts and lungs and skeletons and such. They just got a squid for a face. Don't be too sure of it. They still have a roughly human shape, but the whole body is mutated. They have no genitalia, the skin is wholly modified, they become amphibian (IIRC, it's a long while since I read the Illithiad)... There may be a human frame, but it has become twisted into a monstrous shape, and is now possessed by a creature with an alien mindset. Likewise, a zombie may be a human or whatever, but it has been turned into a mindless animated corpse.
Galahad_Knight 09-13-03, 05:36 AM	Actually, I thought it was largely (but not completely) biological. An undead human may have human biology...but his biology is superfluous. You can cut out a zombie's heart and it doesn't make him blink. So, effectively, he does have a different physiology. Outsiders are different because they're from another plane of existance. They may not have a biology as we would think of it at all. (Obiously, there is one or they wouldn't be subject to crits and favored enemy bonuses. But it could be radically different than a humanoid's) If being an abberation had nothing to do with abberant physiology then what is it based on? Mindset and methods? Wouldn;t a crazy person be an abberation too? That's the problem with the "Catch-All" types. Dragons are dragon-type creatures because they are or are related to dragons. Elementals are elementals because they;re elementals. Constructs are constructs because they were constructed. But what makes a creature an abberation and not a magical beast? Or an alien animal? It's too loosely defined and inconsistant. Why is an athatch an abberation but an Ettin is not? Why isn't a weird multilegged lizard like a behr or basalisk an abberation, but a Charion Crawler is? Why is a dog head fine but a squid head isn't? Even a human torso attached to a horse isn;t abberant but having a guy with a cerebral cephelopod is It's too arbitrary. It's probably down to some guy at WOTC saying "This isn't powerful enough. Is there any excuse in the world for making it a more powerful creature type?"
Gez 09-13-03, 07:07 PM	I said it was related to symbolics. And it is. Centaurs, basiliscs, cockatrices, are all creatures from myth. And, although I don't think the behir comes from mythology, there are several other instances of multilegged beasts (like Sleipnir, Odin's eight-legged horse). That's why they aren't abberant. They correspond to accepted figures. Multiheaded creatures also. Hydra, Cerberus, for example. I don't think something like the Athach it may be found in myths. Outside of the fachan (who were 1-legged, 1-armed, 1-eyed giants), I don't see any rough humanoid with an arm in the middle of the torso. On the other hands, multiple pair of arms are OK. However, I do think too Athach should have been giants. They were listed under the Giant entry in the Mystara monstrous compendium, and the only real reason I can see for not making them giant is to have a big hulking brute against whom dwarves and gnomes would not enjoy a +4 dodge bonus to AC. If you want a rough biological guideline, you may use that: Aberration is for creature with weird anatomy or alien mindset, or both. Weird anatomy may be defined by unnatural existence or reproductive methods (illithid, drider, some yuan-ti, choldrith), invertebrate parts (illithids, beholders, carrion crawler, choker, chuul, aboleths, ettercap etc.), and/or odd number of arms or legs (athach, ethereal filcher). The icky factor is also a quickier method.