Post/Author/DateTime	Post
EvilVegan 11-19-06, 12:05 PM	Type. It tells you stuff about broad categories, similar to the 5 kingdoms (Plant, Fungi, Animal, Monera, Protista), but much more wonky and pointless. Apparantly anything that possesses both intelligence greater than 3 AND tentacles is an aberration, regardless of what the rest of their body structure is like. A ranger can use his favored enemy bonus on tsochar (little worms that can posess people), mind flayers (otherwise normal people with a squid head), and aboleths, despite HUGE differences in culture and body structure. However a ranger who choses Half-elf cannot deal extra damage to either a human or an elf (barring taking them as well), despite the fact that their societies and physiologies may well be 100% identical. A man made of fungi is in the same category as plants. As a biology student this just flat out offends me. Also with regards to spell targetting, enlarge person works equally well on goblins, orcs, humans, elves, changelings, bugbears, etc; yet won't work on mindflayers, humanoid angels, satyr, doppelgangers, grimlocks, etc. Also how could it possibly be easier to enlarge a person than it is to enlarge, oh I don't know, a loaf of bread or a mouse? The only real benefit of a type system is for racial HD, in that it gives info on what sort of features a creature would have if it gained only HD in it's race. Has anyone else ever been ****** off by a minor mechanical feature of the game? It's totally dumb. And so am I.
obrysii 11-19-06, 12:11 PM	Hm, I've never really worried about it. I've used types for humor, but it's never been a problem for me. It looks, for your example of Rangers, to be an error or fault in the Ranger's Favored Enemy ability.
EvilVegan 11-19-06, 12:12 PM	I know. I already condensed humanoid into 1 category for rangers (and STILL nobody plays them). That calmed me down a bit, but its still there in the PHB mocking me. I may take a sharpie to it.
Escef 11-19-06, 12:55 PM	The only problem I have with creature types is the giant type. Other than the name, it is mechanically identicle to humanoid. Furthermore, there are no size limits on giants. For example, the forest troll is a size medium giant. One could easily enough make a size tiny giant. Giant should be a subtype available to humanoids and monstrous humanoids.
EvilVegan 11-19-06, 01:06 PM	Ok. Giant is now a Subtype. What about giant animals, aberrations, magical beasts though? I think giant shouldn't even be a type OR subtype. It just means big. If anything it would be a template.
Escef 11-19-06, 01:11 PM	Ok. Giant is now a Subtype. What about giant animals, aberrations, magical beasts though? I think giant shouldn't even be a type OR subtype. It just means big. If anything it would be a template. No, no, no, no. I say subtype because I don't want dwarves and gnomes getting bonuses against giant vermin, giant weasels, or any other kind of "giant" that is a non-humanoid. Making it a template is way too dangerous.
Tempest Stormwind 11-19-06, 01:27 PM	The only problem I have with creature types is the giant type. Other than the name, it is mechanically identicle to humanoid. Furthermore, there are no size limits on giants. For example, the forest troll is a size medium giant. One could easily enough make a size tiny giant. Giant should be a subtype available to humanoids and monstrous humanoids. This is pretty much my only complaint as well. For instance, I'm not familiar enough with the Goliath to remember what its RAW type is, but I'd suspect Monstrous Humanoid. Which is odd, since it's the same size, build, and structure (with the exceptions of the skin mottling) as the XPH Half-Giant (type Giant). I look at a troll, and I think "monstrous humanoid" -- but it's a Giant. As near as I can tell, the only unifying traits between giants (that are unique to giants) are that they are supposed to be hulking examples of their sizes, and that they tend to rely on strength and size rather than speed or cunning (tend to, that is -- there are exceptions). Their other common traits are also shared by humanoids, and most monstrous humanoids. Making it a subtype of humanoid and monstrous humanoid works quite well. Although it'd require a substantial rewrite of the rules, I think the Giant subtype would be an excellent place to park the Powerful Build ability, too -- seeing as giants *tend to* be larger than others, and put this to advantage in combat, what better way to reflect that than with Powerful Build? (I'd still recommend keeping Powerful Build as a separate ability, though, for the odd case when a creator would want to make a nonhumanoid / nonmonstrous humanoid with it. But having it be a property of the Giant subtype is a good start.) I have no other concerns that grate me about types or subtypes, at least that I can readily recall at the moment. There might be a couple buried somewhere, but if they aren't coming to mind now, they probably aren't important.
Azezel 11-19-06, 01:28 PM	You missunderstand types and subtypes I think. These are out-of-character divisions used to adjudicate the effects of player actions. They are not taxonomical groups used by in-game naturalists. As for the Ranger's favoured enemy, this is a special case, but I would not allow a Ranger to take Favoured Enemy (Humanoids) - simply because the vast majority of encounters in any game will involve (Humanoids). Remember, Favoured Enemy involves bonusses to checks as well as attacks. A Ranger with Favoured Enemy (Humanoids) for instance has +2 to Sense Motive Vs just about everyone he will ever talk to. Rangers are already awsome on toast in 3.5 - if you really allow them Favoured Enemy (Humanoid) then they start to look extremely atractive in combat, and non-combat roles, moreso than they are already.
Seeker95 11-19-06, 02:08 PM	A ranger can use his favored enemy bonus on tsochar, mind flayers, and aboleths, despite HUGE differences in culture and body structure.Considering the frequency with which you might encounter these in a standard campiagn, I'd still choose half-eld as favored enemy.A man made of fungi is in the same category as plants. As a biology student this just flat out offends me.As with most of your points in this post, I feel the problem is not in the game, but rather a more personal one. I find your being offended by such a game mechanic rather amusing.Has anyone else ever been ****** off by a minor mechanical feature of the game?Probably. But I haven't.
Vestigial_Thumb 11-19-06, 02:26 PM	As for the Ranger's favoured enemy, this is a special case, but I would not allow a Ranger to take Favoured Enemy (Humanoids) - simply because the vast majority of encounters in any game will involve (Humanoids). Remember, Favoured Enemy involves bonusses to checks as well as attacks. A Ranger with Favoured Enemy (Humanoids) for instance has +2 to Sense Motive Vs just about everyone he will ever talk to. Rangers are already awsome on toast in 3.5 - if you really allow them Favoured Enemy (Humanoid) then they start to look extremely atractive in combat, and non-combat roles, moreso than they are already. This is not true. Rangers must specify which humanoid subtype they gain their bonuses against. Humanoid (Gnome), for example.
ultimateconjurer 11-19-06, 02:29 PM	What do you think about fiendish, celestial, and pseudonatural vermin. All three state that a monster of that type has an intelligence score of at least three; however, vermin are mindless. What's up with that? Do they lose one and keep the other or what?
Escef 11-19-06, 02:34 PM	What do you think about fiendish, celestial, and pseudonatural vermin. All three state that a monster of that type has an intelligence score of at least three; however, vermin are mindless. What's up with that? Do they lose one and keep the other or what? I don't think fiendish or celestial vermin would gain an Int score, but pseudonatural... Flip a coin and ignore the results, the answer can be divined from he shapes last night's spaghetti leftovers make when they hit the pavement when dropped from the window of a car in the process of jumping from the roof of a parking garage to land in the boardroom of a Fortune500 company.
Vestigial_Thumb 11-19-06, 02:40 PM	What do you think about fiendish, celestial, and pseudonatural vermin. All three state that a monster of that type has an intelligence score of at least three; however, vermin are mindless. What's up with that? Do they lose one and keep the other or what? Abilities Same as the base creature, but Intelligence is at least 3. Basically the Intelligence score of creatures with these templates is at least 3. So vermin get Int 3.
EvilVegan 11-19-06, 05:42 PM	Considering the frequency with which you might encounter these in a standard campiagn, I'd still choose half-eld as favored enemy. I find a pretty wide array of monsters in most campaigns. I've played several where we never encounted/fought any humanoids at all. Especially not specific subtypes often enough to make taking favored enemy worth it. Plus I typically play good characters. The thought of studying how to better kill sentient beings never struck me as "good". (I know D&D Morality is more about killing people who think differently than you, but that's not exactly something I'm too keen on either). As with most of your points in this post, I feel the problem is not in the game, but rather a more personal one.Well, opinions and all. . . But no, it is most definitely a problem with the game. :) I find your being offended by such a game mechanic rather amusing.Me too actually. I thought someone else might enjoy it as well. Probably. But I haven't. You've never thought a D&D mechanic/rule was poorly done to the point of irritation? Calm fellow, you. I don't doubt your sincerity, but perhaps your memory. . . :P
EvilVegan 11-19-06, 05:52 PM	You missunderstand types and subtypes I think.Nope. I understand them fully. I just disagree with their implimentation. These are out-of-character divisions used to adjudicate the effects of player actions. They are not taxonomical groups used by in-game naturalists.I never claimed they were, but now that you mention it, any in-game naturalists would easily be able to come up with exactly the same types through scientific method if they were fully submerged within a world that was divided thusly. For instance, they could test the effects of various spells on humans, elves, and elans and learn that elves and humans are similar in type (except for sleep spells) and that elans are a different type, because they can't be enlarged or charmed for example. Make this naturalist an elven or elan wizard and you've got plenty of time for him to do his studies on several different types of common monsters. Give him leadership and a government grant and you are SET. As for the Ranger's favoured enemy, this is a special case, but I would not allow a Ranger to take Favoured Enemy (Humanoids) - simply because the vast majority of encounters in any game will involve (Humanoids). Remember, Favoured Enemy involves bonusses to checks as well as attacks. I do remember it. I also notice that noone has ever played a ranger who took any humanoid as a favored enemy because they are so limited in any game I've ever played in. I also notice that the vast majority of encounters in any game I've played have been undead, dragons, constructs, fey, magical beasts, giant, and monstrous humanoids. I haven't played a single campaign where the main enemy through the whole campaign was a single type of humanoid (aside from one or two main villains). I have however played separate campaigns with dominant undead or fey or monstrous humanoid or giant themes. And in my experience ranger is much better for NPC villains hunting the party than it is for players hunting a villain. A Ranger with Favoured Enemy (Humanoids) for instance has +2 to Sense Motive Vs just about everyone he will ever talk to. Rangers are already awsome on toast in 3.5 - if you really allow them Favoured Enemy (Humanoid) then they start to look extremely atractive in combat, and non-combat roles, moreso than they are already.Good. Someone might play one. Didn't you see LOTR? Aragorn is a pimp! (:P)
Drucilla_Rocks_my_Socks 11-19-06, 06:00 PM	I agree with you. The catagories are there for mechanical purposes, so the fact that fungi lack chlorophil realy dosn't matter in D&D, so the fact that they are plants dosn't bother me. Abberations make no sence to me. They seam like a random grab-bag catagory to me. Giants should be a humanoid subtype. Monstrous humanoids should also be condenced into the humanoid catagories. As for the rangers favored enemy ability, I'd devide them as follows: Humanoids (Giants, Gnolls, and orcs), both are similar builds and methods of brut strength and such. Especialy when you have Forest trolls in there too. Humanoids (Goblinoids) it's a broad enough catagory as alot of campiegns start with goblins and scale up to hobgoblins. Humanoids (Aquatic) Again, very large catagory, no need to condence Humanoid (Reptillian) as aquatic humanoids. Humanoids (Human+half-humans) Not broad, but it covers half-humans (such as half elves and orcs as wella s most of the population in most games. Humanoids (Elves in Halflings) Both are nimble fey related races Humanoids (Dwarves and gnomes) They are always described as being best buddies and generally similar, so it just makes sence.
Azezel 11-19-06, 06:12 PM	This is not true. Rangers must specify which humanoid subtype they gain their bonuses against. Humanoid (Gnome), for example. Er, Mr. Thumb sir - that was the point of my post - Rangers must specify a race of Humaniod. I was making the point that IF they were allowed to choose Humanoids as a whole, they would be significantly better off, and that I, as a DM would not allow this.
Dark Stryke 11-19-06, 07:32 PM	I like Drucilla's suggestions, and I may implement them. I have had a problem with the ranger myself. When a friend started up his campaign (first one he's ever run, so I have to cut him a little slack) I made a halfling ranger specializing in archery. I asked him what I might want to choose as a favored enemy, so it A) Wouldn't be a wasted class feature and B) Would make sense. Eg: If I had been raised in a big city I'd have no business picking abberations, since I'd have never seen one. The conversation went something like this: Me "So, what sort of favored enemy should I pick?" DM "Uhh, I dunno." Me "Well, you said my character has trained for the army, right? So, what kinds of things would I have fought? Are there goblin tribes crawling all over the hills, or orcs raiding the city, or magical beasts in the countryside?" DM "No, no. This world is mostly populated by humans. There aren't too many of anything else. Even being a halfling is an oddity." Me "Okay, so I guess I'll pick human. We'll be fighting at least a few humans, right?" DM "Most certainly." ... But, we didn't fight at least a few humans. We didn't even fight at least one human! We started at level one and are now level 3, and we've been fighting goblins, orcs, ghouls, kobolds, big mutant kobolds, heck, even animated objects (which was cool. I had never ran for my life from a chair before!), but not a single human! It makes you feel that you've wasted your time picking a class feature that you'll never benefit from.
Vestigial_Thumb 11-19-06, 08:30 PM	Er, Mr. Thumb sir - that was the point of my post - Rangers must specify a race of Humaniod. I was making the point that IF they were allowed to choose Humanoids as a whole, they would be significantly better off, and that I, as a DM would not allow this. Okay.
darkness ninja of light 11-19-06, 09:46 PM	I never claimed they were, but now that you mention it, any in-game naturalists would easily be able to come up with exactly the same types through scientific method if they were fully submerged within a world that was divided thusly. For instance, they could test the effects of various spells on humans, elves, and elans and learn that elves and humans are similar in type (except for sleep spells) and that elans are a different type, because they can't be enlarged or charmed for example. Make this naturalist an elven or elan wizard and you've got plenty of time for him to do his studies on several different types of common monsters. Give him leadership and a government grant and you are SET. Not really. It's magic, if Elans can't be enlarged or charmed, they would probably just think they were immune to that spell (like how elves are immune to sleep). I'm sure if a new spell is researched or a different spell is cast, they could indeed charm an Elan as well as a human. The spells given to us in the books are only just the start of what effects can be produced by wizards and clerics. That would blur the lines on the D&D types.
EvilVegan 11-19-06, 11:14 PM	Yes, it is in fact magic and the limits of it are very strict within the game world. A spell you suggest already exists and it is several spell levels higher, requiring much greater study and personal ability. Elan was merely a suggestion because it happens to be a 100% completely humanoid (aberration). I was merely pointing out that with enough time and effort that a person attempting to discover why "charm person" and "enlarge person" didn't work on every type of creatue except for (but not limited to) orcs (and all subraces), elves(and all subraces), dwarves (and all subraces), gnomes (and all subraces), halflings (and all subraces), humans, half-orcs, half-elves, gnolls, kobolds, lizardfolk, locathah, changelings, and lycanthropes, but can't work on doppelgangers, derro, elans, or even creatures like apes (even awakened apes) would come to the conclusion that there were types. The distinction that is drawn is arbitrary and used as a mechanical device to split things up for ease of categorizing things quickly. It does not however, "make sense". And the fact that the distinction does exist with regards to both magic and class abilities and knowledge checks would make it fairly conceivable to have a wizard scientist come up with a list of "types". For instance, magical beasts are about as tough as a well trained fighter (without specific weapons training), but monstrous humanoids are roughly equivalent to rangers (again without specific weapon styles), but fey are only as tough as rogues (with less skills). It's like in MMoRPGS when they say "Seasons" for "Levels". They are roleplaying a character as if they didn't have levels, but within the world it is a known and highly observable law (like gravity) that if you kill enough things and do enough quests you will emit a large burst of light, regain full health, and become suddenly more powerful than you were right before killing/completing the quest. If you were a sentient being wholy restricted to this world and studied the phenomenon you would eventually be able to quantify certain variables such as experience points, level, etc. Type is similar to this in that if you were a scientist within the world and did a fully comprehensive study of every creature imaginable you would eventually learn about types and what features they share (like low-light vision, weapon proficiency, or spell targetting). But saying "it's magic" isn't exactly a good enough explanation in a world where magic can be as exacting as modern science. That would be like a geneticist saying that all mutation was just "god's work". This may be true, but WHY is it that way is really where they are trying to get.
darkness ninja of light 11-19-06, 11:55 PM	I'm saying that the fact that a spell exists that works on some creatures and not others is in NO WAY a decent method for someone in a D&D world to go about classifying those creatures, particularly because there is no limit to what a spell could be developed to do. It depends completely on how the spell was made in the first place. If you're a wizard creating a new spell, you're going to have your own pre-conceived notions of what "type" something is, and develop/name your spell accordingly. You cannot simply just sit down, create a spell you call "charm plants" then go out into the world casting it on everything in order to understand "what is plant/what is not plant". You're going to make your own assumptions about plants and develop your spell accordingly. Even so, it still blurs when it comes to the individual cases. For example, elves aren't considered non-humanoids because the sleep spell doesn't work on them, yet sleep works on basically every other humanoid. Many other creatures are also immune to sleep, but it did not put them in the same classification as elves. Same goes for other things like that. Turn undead does not work on many types of undead. They are still undead. Basically, classifying them based on magic is pretty silly. As for the types themselves, I see it more as the general groups based on what techniques work/don't work on them (in an OOC way), not necassarily something based on scientific study. For example, someone who has trained in fighting plant creatures is going to be able to take down a fungi and a shambling mound regaredless of their scientific differences. He's used to fighting them. Similarly, spellcasters would create spells effective against monsters he's used to fighting (undead, for example) and the spells would catch on.
kelvinaw273 11-20-06, 12:31 AM	The types and subtypes are useful. They define groups with similar characteristics in common - like the immunities of constructs or undead. By defining a creature as, say, undead, you define it's ability to be unafected by poison, mind affecting powers etc. It saves you having to define this all repeatedly. Why is a fungus defined as a plant subtype? Because in D&D terms is shares all the relevent properties. It's pigeon-holing, but it works.
thanatos_lich 11-20-06, 01:57 PM	Abberations make no sence to me. They seam like a random grab-bag catagory to me. I think thats the whole point of abberations.
a_psh 11-20-06, 04:10 PM	The thought of studying how to better kill sentient beings never struck me as "good".That's what all of the real-world fighting techniques that the combat classes represent actually do. Nobody goes out trying to kill bears with a sword.
EvilVegan 11-20-06, 05:08 PM	That's what all of the real-world fighting techniques that the combat classes represent actually do. Nobody goes out trying to kill bears with a sword. My statement still stands. People who try to find a better way to kill other people are not engaging in a morally/ethically "good" activity. At best it is neutral, at worst evil.
Vestigial_Thumb 11-20-06, 05:15 PM	My statement still stands. People who try to find a better way to kill other people are not engaging in a morally/ethically "good" activity. At best it is neutral, at worst evil. Not, learning to do it is unaligned. Applying that knowledge to certain situations (against innocents, for example) would be Evil.
EvilVegan 11-20-06, 08:36 PM	Sure. If that helps ya sleep. Besides, that's a moral/ethical/religious topic and not really up for argument (on these boards). And there are no innocents.
a_psh 11-20-06, 08:44 PM	My statement still stands. People who try to find a better way to kill other people are not engaging in a morally/ethically "good" activity. At best it is neutral, at worst evil.In other words, alignment sucks. Gee, big surprise there! It's pointless to argue that a ranger specializing in the killing of sentients is somehow inherently evil when fighters and wizards and everyone else in the game world spend all of their time doing it, too. You can make fun of just how moronic and shortsighted this common basis is all you want, but at least do so consistently.
Vestigial_Thumb 11-20-06, 09:06 PM	Sure. If that helps ya sleep. Besides, that's a moral/ethical/religious topic and not really up for argument (on these boards). By the definition of the Evil alignment in D&D, it's not Evil to learn stuff, so it's true, there is no argument. And there are no innocents. I'll just throw this definition into your face like a wet rag (I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything :)): in‧no‧cent  /ˈɪnəsənt/ –adjective 1. free from moral wrong; without sin; pure: innocent children. 2. free from legal or specific wrong; guiltless: innocent of the crime. 3. not involving evil intent or motive: an innocent misrepresentation. 4. not causing physical or moral injury; harmless: innocent fun. 5. devoid (usually fol. by of): a law innocent of merit. 6. having or showing the simplicity or naiveté of an unworldly person; guileless; ingenuous. 7. uninformed or unaware; ignorant. –noun 8. an innocent person. 9. a young child. 10. a guileless person. 11. a simpleton or idiot. 12. Usually, innocents. (used with a singular verb) Anything that fits one or more of the descriptions found there would count as innocent, with the exception of the guileless/naive/uninformed person and simpletons (they're not innocent if they're hurting someone else, even if they don't know better). Same goes for children.
Drucilla_Rocks_my_Socks 11-20-06, 09:13 PM	... But, we didn't fight at least a few humans. We didn't even fight at least one human! We started at level one and are now level 3, and we've been fighting goblins, orcs, ghouls, kobolds, big mutant kobolds, heck, even animated objects (which was cool. I had never ran for my life from a chair before!), but not a single human! It makes you feel that you've wasted your time picking a class feature that you'll never benefit from. Thats the thing about DMing a ranger, you got to have SOME of thier favored enemy. In my campiegn we have a ranger with Undead as thier favored enemy. So far there have been 5-6 adventures, and 2 of them have revolved around undead (as is the next one coming up...partially). I try to make sure he isn't useless. However, in a crusade through the abyss where every counter involves deamons, a ranger with favored enemy (deamons) is overpowered. My friend is starting a campiegn up, and I may verywell take some levels of ranger. But it won't be my first class. I want to have some idea of what we'll be fighting before I choose. So I'll have rogue as my first level (and maby my second) before I pick up ranger, at that point I will be able to make a somewhat educated decision.
EvilVegan 11-21-06, 11:57 AM	By the definition of the Evil alignment in D&D, it's not Evil to learn stuff, so it's true, there is no argument.I wasn't necessarily limiting my description to D&D, but I think the catholic church would argue with you about it not being Evil to learn stuff (:P). I'm also limiting it to learning the knowledge for the express purpose of killing someone, such as in the military. I'll just throw this definition into your face like a wet rag (I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything :)):JERK! (jk) Anything that fits one or more of the descriptions found there would count as innocent, with the exception of the guileless/naive/uninformed person and simpletons (they're not innocent if they're hurting someone else, even if they don't know better). Same goes for children.So eating babies is evil? Shucks! Oh wait, I'm evil! muahahahahhaha. Anyway, so anyone under the age of 8 who hasn't killed someone else is innocent. I'd say that just about every child I've ever met is unashamedly evil. They delight in causing pain, stealing, and being really loud and messy. The only time they ever stop doing these things is when they're punished. Then they calm down quite a bit (until you aren't watching!). If they're excused for not knowing any better, I'd have to say that mentally challenged people would also be excused for the same reason. I'm probably not going to respond seriously to these arguments. It is all opinion and semantic based. But if you're having fun with my responses, by all means try and refute my opinion :tongue:
EvilVegan 11-21-06, 12:07 PM	In other words, alignment sucks. Gee, big surprise there!Exactly! It's pointless to argue that a ranger specializing in the killing of sentients is somehow inherently evil when fighters and wizards and everyone else in the game world spend all of their time doing it, too. You can make fun of just how moronic and shortsighted this common basis is all you want, but at least do so consistently.Wizards don't have to learn spells to kill sentient beings. Fighters don't focus specifically on killing one type of humanoid, they learn how to use their weapons better, which as a side-effect improves their ability to kill ANYONE/THING! In these cases they are just learning how to do something well (wielding weapons and magic) and they CAN apply it to killing people. Like a demolitions expert. A ranger only focuses on killing one very specific kind of humanoid and gains a benefit when hunting people. Like a psychopath.
a_psh 11-21-06, 01:53 PM	If alignment is worthless anyway, why harp on this point? Every single real-world martial art is based on killing people. Not cats, not elephants, not demons or big scaly flying lizards. People. Everything from swords to pikes to flails to wrestling to open-hand techniques is all about how best to kill people. Sometimes their horses, too, when that's the most expedient way to get at the guy atop the horse. That's pretty much it. Nobody who's ever seriously learned to wield a sword in the history of mankind hasn't mastered the art of killing people. Fantasy occludes this by giving us all kinds of green and scaly things for knights to fight so they look good while they're doing it, just so you aren't constantly reminded of just what a sword is actually for. But any weapon is a tool made to inflict suffering upon another. There's just no way around it. Also, you'll note that rangers get all kinds of other bonuses that aren't just about killing their favored enemy. A ranger who picks humans as a priority is a master of tracking them and dealing with them as well as fighting them. Which makes a pretty good bounty hunter, actually. As opposed to, say, a fighter, who only really learns how to do battle with his foes. You can try to whitewash the fighter by saying that maybe he only kills really really evil things, but didn't we just go and say alignment is dumb in the first place?
EvilVegan 11-21-06, 05:44 PM	I'm not harping on it. I just said it's evil. People studying martial arts aren't always trying to kill, some just want to maim, some just want to do some exercise. Either way. It doesn't have anything to do with type.
ALRUFF 11-21-06, 05:57 PM	Why not just use the five kingdoms, then? I think you solved the problem!
a_psh 11-21-06, 06:00 PM	Why not just use the five kingdoms, then? I think you solved the problem!Then everyone would have favored enemy: animals. Because those are the ones that move. =)
Grand Theft Otto 11-21-06, 06:13 PM	I know. I already condensed humanoid into 1 category for rangers (and STILL nobody plays them). That calmed me down a bit, but its still there in the PHB mocking me. I may take a sharpie to it. Same (except for no one playing them, 3 PC's have ranger levels). It has the side benefit of actually making NPC enemy rangers useful, as opposed to the jokes they currently are.
EvilVegan 11-21-06, 06:27 PM	Why not just use the five kingdoms, then? I think you solved the problem! CORRECT!!!!!
darkness ninja of light 11-21-06, 07:08 PM	I'm so gonna have a ranger with favored enemy: Protista "I swear, they're there! You just can't see them!" *stabs at everything in desperate attempt to kill all the protists*
Bruunwald 11-21-06, 07:30 PM	I use the type/subtype stuff when making new creatures, which happens to be something I spend about two-thirds of my time doing when working on an adventure, and as far as I am concerned there is not one iota of a tiny little bit of a smidgen of a speck of a dot of a freckle on a nanoflea's tiniest nanoflea's left buttcrack's mole of a thing wrong with or confusing about any of it, and it's all very helpful. OP could have (should have?) been avoided with the expenditure of about two brain cells on a simple house ruling on a ranger's probably least-used ability.
JulesCARV 11-22-06, 01:27 AM	Well, in Eberron, aberrations make at least a bit more sense, since they have a common origin in the Daelkyr of Xoriat (at least, most of 'em). One possibility would be to keep the aberration type (just as a grab-bag), but forbid any specific mechanical things that affect aberrations as a whole -- for example, weapons can't be aberration-bane, and rangers can't take favored enemy (aberrations). This would make aberrations slightly stronger, but eh, such is life.. The mechanical issue that most gets me is the 1d6 crushing damage from water when at 100 feet below or under. That doesn't happen. Well, maybe you'll blow an eardrum if you don't equalize your eustachion tubes well, but still... spending 10 minutes at 120 feet below really shouldn't crush you to death, provided you take precautions and go down and come up slowly.
babysamurai 11-22-06, 04:54 AM	How about we bring back the "Beast" type. *Ducks* I do like the idea of merging the Humanoid/Giant/Monstrous Humanoid type. …Maybe in 4th edition.
lord_blackfang 11-22-06, 05:56 AM	I use the type/subtype stuff when making new creatures, which happens to be something I spend about two-thirds of my time doing when working on an adventure, and as far as I am concerned there is not one iota of a tiny little bit of a smidgen of a speck of a dot of a freckle on a nanoflea's tiniest nanoflea's left buttcrack's mole of a thing wrong with or confusing about any of it, and it's all very helpful. OP could have (should have?) been avoided with the expenditure of about two brain cells on a simple house ruling on a ranger's probably least-used ability. It might work for you, but it's utter nonsense to anyone with even a basic knowledge of biology.
EvilVegan 11-22-06, 11:57 AM	I'm so gonna have a ranger with favored enemy: Protista "I swear, they're there! You just can't see them!" *stabs at everything in desperate attempt to kill all the protists* Take favored enemy Eukaryotes. That's anything with a nucleus from yeast through fungi, plants, and animals. Its part of the new "Three Domain" nomenclature that came out about a decade ago.
EvilVegan 11-22-06, 12:45 PM	I use the type/subtype stuff when making new creatures, which happens to be something I spend about two-thirds of my time doing when working on an adventure, and as far as I am concerned there is not one iota of a tiny little bit of a smidgen of a speck of a dot of a freckle on a nanoflea's tiniest nanoflea's left buttcrack's mole of a thing wrong with or confusing about any of it, and it's all very helpful.Good for you! It can be quite useful.OP could have (should have?) been avoided with the expenditure of about two brain cells on a simple house ruling on a ranger's probably least-used ability. Hm. Trolling aside, your grasp of brain function is seemingly as limited as your grasp of the intent of my OP. My thread is not specifically limited to Rangers, but the Type system in general having glaring logical discrepancies with regards to biology, sociology, and physics (with regards to spells that alter the mass of objects only functioning on a wide variety certain objects and not other nearly identical objects or simpler objects, for instance). The fact that it makes the game easier to manage is not under debate and I am certainly glad you enjoy it! By the way, thoughts don't "expend brain cells" they "utilize brain cells." Have a wonderful day. Please avoid fire and acid.
EvilVegan 11-22-06, 02:20 PM	Well, in Eberron, aberrations make at least a bit more sense, since they have a common origin in the Daelkyr of Xoriat (at least, most of 'em). One possibility would be to keep the aberration type (just as a grab-bag), but forbid any specific mechanical things that affect aberrations as a whole -- for example, weapons can't be aberration-bane, and rangers can't take favored enemy (aberrations). This would make aberrations slightly stronger, but eh, such is life..This isn't a bad idea, but I was thinking more along the lines of an aberration subtype. For instance an aboleth would be Magical Beast (Aberration) and Mind Flayers would be Monstrous Humanoid (Aberration) and Elans would be Humanoid (Aberration). I mean Aberration means deviation, which would indicate it was deviating from something. I personally think that Humanoids should be grouped and the subtypes would be Goblinoid (bugbears, goblins, hobgoblins), Reptilian (kobolds, lizardmen, dragonfolk), Hominid (Elves, humans, gnomes, dwarves, orcs, etc), Monstrous (gnolls, grimlocks, etc), Aberration (Elan, mindflayer), giant (giants), fey (fey), outsider (outsiders), shapechanger (shapechangers). Anything that looks, feels, acts, and bleeds like a human should be grouped with them. I mean if you shoot a giant in the eye it has effectively the same impact as shooting a pixie in the eye (adjusting for size of course). As such a ranger's favored enemy would be reworked to adjust, perhaps granting a lower bonus for a type only bonus and a higher bonus for a subtype only bonus. So, if you took "humanoids" you'd get +1 to all humanoids, if you only took "Hominids" you'd get +2. I think these should be grouped based on the fact that most of those creatures can 1) interbreed (without shapechanging) and 2) share very similar physiology. They are sub-divided by 1) typical breeding habits/outcomes (birth rate) 2) typical social structure 3) minor physiological commonalities. For instance, bugbears, goblins, hobgoblins all have enlarged canines, stooped posture, large litters of childrens, typically primative social structure, and they smell bad. Monstrous humanoids typically have animal traits or mixtures of traits, but not so much so that they are aberrations. Aberrations generally have tentacles and severly distorted views of reality. Could go further with this idea: Animals - Beast - Magical Beast - Dire beast - Dinosaur - Aberration - Outsider - Insect Dragons - True - False - Aberration (ew tentacle dragons!) - Outsider Plants - Fungi (Myconids) - Entish (Treants, Orcwort trees, any sort of mobile tree) - Herbacious (Non-tree plants, no bark) - Aberration (ew tentacle trees!) - Outsider Undead - Corporeal - Incorporeal - Deathless (Positive Energy undead) Construct - Nonliving - Living And so on. The mechanical issue that most gets me is the 1d6 crushing damage from water when at 100 feet below or under. That doesn't happen. Well, maybe you'll blow an eardrum if you don't equalize your eustachion tubes well, but still... spending 10 minutes at 120 feet below really shouldn't crush you to death, provided you take precautions and go down and come up slowly.Indeed! Are there rules for abrupt pressure change from rising suddenly?
Drucilla_Rocks_my_Socks 11-22-06, 02:45 PM	EvilVegan, I agree with you, though I think that orcs should be seperate from goblins. There is a nice effort among alot of people to seperate the orcs and the goblins.
EvilVegan 11-22-06, 04:07 PM	Yea I don't know how much I like grouping them with goblins. Throw them in hominids then.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 11-22-06, 04:51 PM	Since no one else has said it yet, or course it doesn't make sense in regards to biology. It's fantasy. If you wanted things that made sense biologically, you'd lose almost every monster in the game.
EvilVegan 11-22-06, 07:30 PM	Technically you're correct. However, I am not so much concerned with it matching with real biology, but more with logical taxonomy. The system is arbitrarily dividing things that have no real OR fantasty reason to be divided so. If a spell can enlarge a person, it should work on an elan or a piece of ice. If a ranger can stab a human where it hurts he should be able to stab a half-elf in the same spot. It isn't so much that it isn't biologically possible (like dragons could really fly!) but that it isn't internally consistent. Also despite being able to always fall back on "it's fiction" there is never a point where that should be the only recourse. There are always real world forces that let you set a frame of reference so that the world is more immersive. For example, gravity still works in a fictional prime material plane and time passes the same (even if divided into rounds). If they add a mechanic, such as magic, they try to make it logically consistent by explaining how it works within the framework of the system (re-weaving possibilities, forcing your will on the cosmos, understanding the divine essence, blah blah). If they want to make a "Type" system I would appreciate it if they put some effort into making it as logical and consistent, not just a catch-all blob of nonsense with poorly applied class abilities and effects attempting to compensate. I think I'm going to start a new thread in Monster Manual forum about a new type system that makes more sense. Anyone who wants to contribute can do so. I'll post a link after I get it up. (Ew!) Here's a link. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=10714220#post10714220) Please contribute if you even partially agree.