Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Roman 11-02-04, 04:09 AM	Do you like the current creature type/subtype classifications in D&D/d20 system? Would you change anything - perhaps change characteristics of some types, or merge some types, or create some new types, or rearragne creatures accross types, or something else entirely? I think the current system is not too bad. That said, I would advocate rearranging some creatures between humanoid and monstrous humanoid types in order to achieve greater consistency and a clearer dividing line between the two. Also, I would consider the return of the Beast type for non-magical mythical creatures that are not animals and also perhaps for extinct animals, but I am not totally sure about that. Back to humanoids, eliminating the Giant type also bears consideration, since Giants are basically large and bigger humanoids. Apart from this, although I have not thought about the implementation, I think I would split the Abberation type into several types, since now it seems to be too diverse and sort of a catch all category for creatures that did not fit elsewhere. What would you change about the creature classification system? Does the current classification/type/subtype system work well for all your monsters and creatures? What, if any, new types or subtypes would you create?
Thorak 11-02-04, 08:47 AM	My only issues surround it's interactions with Polymorph and such. Because none of the abilities listed in the Types are listed as Ex, despite some, like low-light vision, always being Ex outside of them. Meaning that there's absolutely no reason a Druid Wildshaping into an animal doesn't gain Low-Light Vision. Even though debate rages, because it's an Ex ability everywhere else. Either it needs to be explicitly mentioned that they're written exactly as intended, and an animal's LLV isn't Ex, or they need to be corrected, or (preferably) Polymorph and it's related spells and abilities need to be fixed. But that's really incidental. Beyond that, I like the system.
Seeker95 11-02-04, 09:22 AM	I'm with Thorak on this one. The system works well enough. We hit its limitations on a case by case basis rather than across the board. This indicates the system of classification serves its purpose. Ultimately, the cases in which the system is cumbersome can easily be resolved by common sense or even intuition... ...as long as you don't bring the case to the WotC discussion boards!
Roman 11-03-04, 07:21 AM	Interesting... so you guys and gals don't consider for example the 'Giant' type to be redundant? Also don't you believe that the 'Abberation' type is too much of a catch-all category?
Seeker95 11-03-04, 08:35 AM	so you [...] don't consider for example the 'Giant' type to be redundant?Not at all. Gnomes and dwarves have a vested interest in knowing what constitutes a "giant", and are glad it is included as a type, since this means it includes the ettin, ogre and troll.Also don't you believe that the 'Abberation' type is too much of a catch-all category?Again, no. It is a "catch-all" but not too much of one. The creatures in this category just don't quite fit the others. They are, in a word, aberrant.
OrbitalB 11-03-04, 08:41 AM	Giants could, in theory, work quite well if changed into a sub-type... and generally applied to the 'Humanoid' type. The problem with going down that kind of consolidation path is it gives more strength to spells and such that would otherwise not apply to a Giant... but that wouldn't be the end of the world either. The other side of the arguement might be that Giants are no more Humanoids than Dragons are Magical Beasts, Oozes are Aberrations, or Vermin are Animals. And as for Aberrations being a 'catch-all'. I don't see them as being any more broad a catagory than Outsiders or Magical Beasts.