Thread by @Melb_DM

Alright, so I have some final thoughts on the whole Druid & Owlbear thing that has nothing to do with the technicalities of the rules, or the "rule of cool" style of GM'ing...

... it's a question of how thematically important are defining monster types in your #dnd world? 🧵

The monster manual described monstrosities as defying "categorization, and in some sense serve as a catch-all category for creatures that don't fit into any other type".

But I find this definition terribly unsatisfying and feels more like a meta admission on the writers behalf.

I much prefer the earlier description of monstrosities as "frightening creatures that are not ordinary, not truly natural, and almost never benign".

A monstrosity is defined as a creature that cannot and should not exist as part of a natural ecosystem...

They are scourges upon the natural lands which they inhabit, even when they don't come into conflict with humanoids.

They throw ecosystems off balance by becoming a predator of other predators, or warping or damaging the natural environment around them...

This is often how I clue players that the creature they are hunting isn't simply a pack of wolves... because they find a pack of wolves dead. Or there is no sound of birds in the area. Or the trees are scorched by fire or a elk statue stands randomly in the forest...

Monstrosities feel supernatural in some way, not just because of their appearance but because of their behaviour and their effects on a region.

Beasts by comparison are organic parts of an ecosystem that don't throw it off balance.

In fact beasts likely help maintain the natural balance of an environment. They may still come into conflict with and predate upon humanoids when the need, opportunity, or instinct drives them. But they aren't forces of chaos or manipulation on their natural world.

To put it simply:

Beasts are part of their natural environment and though sometimes scary, rarely have deliberately malicious intent.

Monstrosities are defined by their preternaturalness and the warping effect they have on an environment.

A final example before we get back to Owlbears and Druids...

Comparing wolves/dire wolves to worgs/winter wolves. The former are beasts, the latter monstrosities.

Dire wolves don't exist in the real world, but as beasts they do within the fantasy world of a D&D campaign.

This significantly changes how I would run dire wolves as a monster encounter in comparison to worgs.

Dire wolves would have a natural impact on their environment, hunting giant elk or wild horses but rarely conflicting with other predators unless over territory...

A pack of worgs might take down a giant elk but leave it uneaten, just for fun. Or they might pick off a pack of dire wolves instead of deer because they enjoy the challenge.

They're no mere animals driven by instinct, they are monstrosities in the thematic and literal meaning.

This difference in behaviour is a subtle clue to your D&D party, and particularly the monster hunters therein, that the creatures they've been hired to slay aren't simply animals. They are hunting supernatural creatures, the knowledge which may influence your party's choices.

So bringing this back to Owlbears and Druids...

If monster types are thematically important to your campaign, it's important to define if an Owlbear is a natural part of the world or a monstrosity that warps it.

And do your Druids draw magic PURELY from the natural world?

If your Owlbears are beasts, as I've heard a few GMs treat them, there's probably no further need to continue the discussion. Druids can turn into Owlbears.

But if Owlbears are monstrosities, are they a power your Druids would even want to draw upon if they could?

If Owlbears are monstrosities and Druids draw on the power of the natural world to defend it, then I would rule as GM that the Druid could NOT turn into an Owlbear because Owlbear's are probably the exact chaotic evil a Druid would protect the natural world from!

IF Owlbears are monstrosities and Druids CAN wild shape into them, then Druids are perhaps closer to Wizards who manipulate magic to bend the natural world to their whim... but like, they're also conservationists and like camping.

Defining this difference may not matter in a D&D campaign if you'd rather say yes to facilitate players fun, and not get bogged down in semantics of the themes of a fantasy world any more than the mechanics of a rules system.

... but honestly part of the fun for me IS creating and exploring a fantasy world robust with 'natural laws' like strict monster types that serve an atmosphere or theme.

Not allowing a druid to wild shape into an Owlbear isn't getting stuffy about rules, it's getting stuffy about my campaign world. 😅

But in honesty I'd probably just let the player do what they want anyway because we're all here to have fun and it's not a hill worth dying on. 😂

... but if it IS something important to you as a GM, discuss with your player WHY they want to be an Owlbear. The answer may be as simple as "I saw it in the cool movie trailer" and that's great!

A compromise can likely be reached that maintains your thematic fantasy world.

This could simply be that Owlbears are beasts now, and not monstrosities. Or it could be that your player's character is one druid capable of Monstrosity wild shaping, which is what MAKES them unique and starts them on their quest.

If they're playing something like a Tiefling Druid, maybe their infernal heritage has corrupted their mastery of the natural world to allow monstrosity wild shaping?

Holy crap! I think I just solved the Owlbear mystery of the #DnDMovie !