Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Xeviat-DM 04-01-07, 01:41 AM	One thing I've noticed in 3.5 is that there are still too many creature types, in relation to 3.0. 3.5 got rid of beasts and shapeshifters, but we still have a few reduntant types. First off, I believe that Giants is a reduntant type. Aside from their fixed saving throw, they are exactly the same as humanoids (though I think giants all get low-light vision). If giants are just larger humanoids, then they could just be humanoids of large and larger size. Secondly, I think oozes and plants could be condenced. If Phantom Fungi are plants, and most slimes in are fungi (though some are even lower lifeforms), then there really shouldn't be a difference. Again, their HD are almost identical. I'm also not a fan of the distinction between vermin and animals, and I'm shaky with the monstrous humanoid and magical beast types as well. I guess those two are fine in the end. What this boils down to is a semblence of consistancy amongst monsters. Rangers bring this into light; why does casting awaken on a dog suddenly mean a Ranger doesn't know how to strike it where it hurts anymore? Why does Favored Enemy (Aberrations) work on things as different as aboleths and mind flayers, creatures with completely separate origins, yet elves and humans (which can breed successfully) are separated. I know it's a matter of balance for the Favored Enemy mechanic, but it does bring some odd issues to bear. I'm not sure what condencing the monster types would really do in the long run, though, so it's mostly just me wanting things to make more sense.
Angelflesh 04-01-07, 02:59 AM	I suppose it could work, except putting oozes in with plants is pushing it.
Slagger the Chuul 04-01-07, 04:30 AM	Having addressed this before, the answer I came up with was to break the description of monsters into: Type - describes the basic physical properties of a creature Subtype - describes the secondary characteristics of a creature (as currently used, not necessarily physical) Group - describes the features of the creature like racial attack bonus, Hit Dice size, skills, saves, and some specific properties The main concept is to separate a monster's basic physical nature from those aspects which are more like the features of a character class, and group monsters accordingly. For example, a nymph is physically similar to a human, but shares a group with other fey, who possess magical abilities, good Will saves, and so on. Since I refined "Type" to be referring to the physical nature of a creature, the types became based on physical structure, as follows: Animals - flesh and blood; humans, dogs, storm giants, giant vermin Construct - unliving matter; golems, zombies Amorpha - living, but lacking true form; earth elemental, black pudding Plant - vegetable matter; assassin vine, treant Spirit - energy or spiritual substance; ghost Other current types become subtypes or groups. Undead is a good example of the differences, since their type becomes construct (a creature of unliving matter), with an array of additional abilities and weaknesses (like positive energy) based on their group. There are two main advantages to this approach. Firstly, it allows abilities whose function is based on a creature's physical design to work consistently. For example, a spell like charm person (with a slight name change) could affect any creature of the animal type, while a ranger specialized against amorpha could learn to disrupt the physical structure of such being with his attack. Secondly, it allows creatures with radically different physical designs to share the same group because of their common nature. For example, both a treant (with the plant type), and a nymph (with the animal type) are in the fey group.
mythSSK 04-01-07, 04:35 AM	Changes I've made to creature types: - Giant is now a subtype of Monstrous Humanoid (in favor of Humanoid so things like "enlarge person" don't work on them). - Vermin is now a subtype of Animal. - Magical Beasts are now called Wondrous Beasts (to make more sense of "magical" beasts with no magical abilities, ie. ones with psionics) I thought long and hard about changing Ooze to a subtype of the Plant and Aberration types, but eventually decided against it, as it isn't really a clear issue to me as to what exactly most oozes are. --- I like my monster types to make sense to me. I'm still trying to work out a better name for the "Monstrous Humanoid" type so newbies don't keep mixing up the Monstrous Humanoids with the regular Humanoids when it comes to spells and such. I want one that keeps the descriptiveness of the type, without using the word "humanoid" in it. I've had suggestions like "Monstrous Creature" (seems too vague to me, could include aberrants or wondrous beasts), "Monstrous Being", "Terratomorph" (bwuh?) and "Monstrosity" (very vague, could mean aberrants or wondrous beasts), but I'm still thinking about it. I think Monstrous Being is the best one so far, but I haven't completely decided yet.
Angelflesh 04-01-07, 11:37 AM	What's the point of grouping creature types together if you're just going to increase the number of subtypes from the now unused creature types? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense grouping constructs and undead together because they require different traits. If you add an undead subtype to give undead their traits back, you've pretty much defeated the purpose of eliminating the undead type in the first place. Slaggers 2 points on how this is beneficial does make some sense though. It justs seems that some creature types shouldn't be merged with others.
Thomar_of_Uointer 04-01-07, 11:46 AM	Hmm... I'd say "Animal", "Vegetable", and "Mineral" would cover things pretty well. Everything else is just subtypes, right? Thus, undead are Mineral with the Undead subtype, humans are Animals with the Humanoid and Human subtypes, and so on. If you don't also modify spells to cover subtypes, this will expand the versatility of most type-specific spells quite a bit. It also would make rangers too powerful if you didn't make their abilities subtype-specific. However, I think it's totally unnecessary, the current system works just fine, and spellcasting and the Ranger class hinge on it.
Dracomortis 04-01-07, 11:48 AM	The biggest offender for me has always been the magical beast type. Every last creature in that category is either more appropriate as an abberation, or could fit under the animal or vermin types. Why they think a creature gets a new type just because it has magical abilities is beyond me - a humanoid with magical powers does not become a magical humanoid, so a squirrel that shoots fireballs should not be a magical beast. Outsider is another annoying one. Every creature could fit into another type with the extraplanar subtype. For example, angels are humanoids (possibly monstrous humanoids, depending on how you look at it), ravids are dragons, and so on. This would also eliminate the oxymoronic native subtype. Deathless, of course, is so stupid that the creator should be shot, but that pretty much goes without saying.
Thomar_of_Uointer 04-01-07, 03:06 PM	The biggest offender for me has always been the magical beast type. Every last creature in that category is either more appropriate as an abberation, or could fit under the animal or vermin types. Why they think a creature gets a new type just because it has magical abilities is beyond me - a humanoid with magical powers does not become a magical humanoid, so a squirrel that shoots fireballs should not be a magical beast. 3rd edition had the Beast type for dinosaurs and creatures that don't exist on Earth. Just sayin'...
Dracomortis 04-01-07, 05:15 PM	My point is there doesn't need to be another type. If it's just an animal with magic abilities, make it an animal type. If it's so bizarre that it doesn't make sense for it to be an animal, it's an abberation.
mythSSK 04-01-07, 05:27 PM	This would also eliminate the oxymoronic native subtype.Ah, forgot this one. I also changed the Native subtype to the Mortal subtype. Still only goes on Outsiders. Makes more sense and doesn't cause any confusion any more.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 04-02-07, 12:07 AM	My point is there doesn't need to be another type. If it's just an animal with magic abilities, make it an animal type. Why?
Xeviat-DM 04-02-07, 06:15 AM	Their point is that some humanoids, like drow or gnomes, have magical abilities innately, but are no less humanoid than other humanoids. So, a pegasus, gryphon, or any other "magical beast" that is otherwise completely normal should be an animal (if it's a natural part of the world), or an aberration (if it was a foul creation of "science", like carrion crawlers). I like humanoid and animal being separated, but there are some interesting ideas going on about combining them. One issue with the human-centric viewpoint of D&D is that it mucks up the types quite a bit. If you look at the creatures native to the material plane, you have many creature types that are evolutionarily related to each other, but are different enough to warrent different types. Yet every creature from an inner plane is an elemental, or possibly an outsider or maybe a magical beast. Creatures from the outer planes are outsiders or magical beasts (there might be others). Creatures from far realm are outsiders or aberrations ... heck, in one of the monster manuals, there are new creatures that are related to illithids as animals are related to humans, but these new monsters are aberrations just like illithids (and thus are covered by the same ranger favored enemy bonus). So, again, strangeness. I'm not sure I'd want to combine things as much as others have stated, but I think a number should be combined for simplicity. And a PS: if it's okay for a human wizard to cast enlarge person on themselves, then why is it any different for a giant to cast enlarge person on themselves?
Slagger the Chuul 04-02-07, 07:22 AM	What's the point of grouping creature types together if you're just going to increase the number of subtypes from the now unused creature types? Subtypes reflect (or should reflect) relatively small difference between creatures that are otherwise similar. Part of the trouble with the current types is that they fuse the idea that some creatures share a particular physical design with the idea that some creatures share a particular nature to their behaviour. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense grouping constructs and undead together because they require different traits. If you add an undead subtype to give undead their traits back, you've pretty much defeated the purpose of eliminating the undead type in the first place. The point I'm approaching it from is that physically there isn't much difference between constructs and undead, so it would make sense to have a single type apply for both when determining what physical effects apply. But rather than make undead a subtype, I prefer to introduce the concept of a group. A group is arranged by the behaviour and underlying nature of the creatures in it, as opposed to their physical design. If creatures have the same sort of origin and/or behaviour, they're a group no matter what their physical makeup is. For example, an undead skeleton is physical identical to an construct skeleton (created by casting animate objects on a skeletal corpse), but completely different to a ghost. Currently, the creation of a ghost involves the application of the extensive incorporeal subtype. However, both ghosts and undead skeletons are lifeless creatures powered by negative energy; they often share malevolence for the living or an attachment to their former lives, and they adopt similar strategies due to their unliving state. Perhaps the best example of the deficiency comes with the aberration type; this type is supposed to accomodate all the wildest and weirdest creatures in existence, but when you boil it all down, they're just flesh and blood. In theory, an aberration should have almost any form; a slimy blob, a many-eyed monster of flesh, a rabid spider mechanism, and so on. For the sake of completeness, I should note that it's possible to roughly simulate the idea of separate groups and types by using templates. In particular, the augmented subtype usually applies when a creature possesses the features of its old type and the traits of its new type. It's kind of messy, however, and leaves the creature straddling the gap between two types, when the types themselves are a fusion of two separate ideas (the physical design of a creature and its nature and behaviour).