Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Stormonu 11-09-06, 02:43 AM	Back when 3.0 was rolled over to 3.5, the monster types were slightly altered. Beasts were rolled into the animal type, and shapechangers went from their own creature type to a subtype. Yet, giants remained. Looking over the entries for the Giant type and Humanoid type, I wonder why the giant type is kept - it could easily be rolled into a humanoid subtype. From the 3.5 SRD Giant Type: A giant is a humanoid-shaped creature of great strength, usually of at least Large size. Features: A giant has the following features. —8-sided Hit Dice. —Base attack bonus equal to 3/4 total Hit Dice (as cleric). —Good Fortitude saves. —Skill points equal to (2 + Int modifier, minimum 1) per Hit Die, with quadruple skill points for the first Hit Die. Traits: A giant possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry). —Low-light vision. —Proficient with all simple and martial weapons, as well as any natural weapons. —Proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium or heavy) it is described as wearing, as well as all lighter types. Giants not described as wearing armor are not proficient with armor. Giants are proficient with shields if they are proficient with any form of armor. —Giants eat, sleep, and breathe. Humanoid Type: A humanoid usually has two arms, two legs, and one head, or a humanlike torso, arms, and a head. Humanoids have few or no supernatural or extraordinary abilities, but most can speak and usually have well-developed societies. They usually are Small or Medium. Every humanoid creature also has a subtype. Humanoids with 1 Hit Die exchange the features of their humanoid Hit Die for the class features of a PC or NPC class. Humanoids of this sort are presented as 1st-level warriors, which means that they have average combat ability and poor saving throws. Humanoids with more than 1 Hit Die are the only humanoids who make use of the features of the humanoid type. Features: A humanoid has the following features (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry). —8-sided Hit Dice, or by character class. —Base attack bonus equal to 3/4 total Hit Dice (as cleric). —Good Reflex saves (usually; a humanoid’s good save varies). —Skill points equal to (2 + Int modifier, minimum 1) per Hit Die, with quadruple skill points for the first Hit Die, or by character class. Traits: A humanoid possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry). —Proficient with all simple weapons, or by character class. —Proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) it is described as wearing, or by character class. If a humanoid does not have a class and wears armor, it is proficient with that type of armor and all lighter types. Humanoids not indicated as wearing armor are not proficient with armor. Humanoids are proficient with shields if they are proficient with any form of armor. —Humanoids breathe, eat, and sleep. Briefly scanning the list of Giant creatures, I don't find an entry that wouldn't work with a swap to become a giant subtype. proposed giant subtype Giant subype: A giant is a humanoid-shaped creature of great strength, usually of at least Large size. It possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry). —Good Fortitude saves, instead of a humanoids normal good reflex saves. —Low-light vision. —Proficient with all simple and martial weapons, as well as any natural weapons. The only change that I can think of is that this makes giants vulnerable to some spells that in the past they have been invulnerable to - charm person and other such spells that affect humanoids only. Honestly, I've never understood why such spells didn't affect giants anyways, and I know many DMs who inadvertantly allow these same spells to affect giants anyway, not realizing giants should be immune to such spells. Of course, if such bothers you, you can simply add to the giant subtype that they are immune to spells that only target humanoid creatures. What do you think of this?
Karak_Nechot 11-09-06, 02:58 AM	That was something I remember being kicked around as a possible change in 3.5 just before it came out. I just don't want enlarge person or other effect working on a giant. Other than that, I have no problem with the basic premise for the change, just there maybe some problems with the specifics.
Shinryouga 11-09-06, 04:40 AM	Ditto, the giant type is mostly a buffer between the truly "monsterous" and the "big people". But it does have important spell ramifications, which is probably why it exists. Although, consider that trolls are part of the giant group, with some of the varieties of troll, the giant group is rather unique in its own right. Also see Death Giant and Eldritch Giant.
Khalarak Ironclaw 11-10-06, 01:15 AM	I'm in favor of combining them with humanoids. Rather than make them a whole different type so they can't be enlarged, change the enlarge spell so it doesn't work on creatures with the giant subtype. I really don't see why an ogre is immune to 'charm person', or even a troll for that matter. Trolls make more sense to me as monstrous humanoids, anyway. In my games, trolls are monstrous humanoids and the male counterparts to hags. -- Of course, it's very, very late, where I am, so take everything I've said with a grain of salt.
DungeonMaster 11-10-06, 10:45 AM	Yes they do, because of the spell system as others have mentioned. Furthermore Beasts deserve their own type as well because there's nothing more ridiculous than a celtic inspired druid class wildshaping into a velicoraptor.
Carnivorous_Bean 11-10-06, 11:45 AM	I agree with DungeonMaster, the "Beast" type should have been retained. In fact, I still use it in my games, because it seems to make logical sense to me. Apparently, I'm not the only one. ;) So, I guess I'd have to say that I think "giant" should be kept as a separate type, as well -- particularly since giants often had an outsider/elemental aura about them in many of the myths on which the games are based.
Mirtek 11-10-06, 01:16 PM	Furthermore Beasts deserve their own type as well because there's nothing more ridiculous than a celtic inspired druid class wildshaping into a velicoraptor. So why are velociraptors living in the celtic inspired setting? A druid can't wildshape into an animal he has never seen. I agree with DungeonMaster, the "Beast" type should have been retained. In fact, I still use it in my games, because it seems to make logical sense to me. Apparently, I'm not the only one. ;) So what's logical about it? Why is are crocodile or komodo dragon animals but a velociraptor is a beast? Just because one is extinct in RL? Where is the line between animal and beast?
Karak_Nechot 11-10-06, 01:29 PM	Yeah, the line between animal and beast was too small to judge in many cases. Getting rid of beasts and folding them into animals was a very good move, as it helped to streamline a number of effects in the game. And druids may be based of Celtic religions, but this is not a Celtic game. This is a fantasy game, and a druid turning into a velociraptor makes about as much sense as a paladin riding a griffon. Impossible by the real world myths, but in the modern fantasy game, totally sound in premise.
Stormonu 11-10-06, 06:03 PM	I also agree on it being good that beast was rolled into animal. If you don't want your Druid turning into T-rexs, then don't have them encountering them. By the way, what is so wrong with enlarge person working on a giant (Of course, I don't agree with removing the ability to use it on any creature and limited it to only humanoids, but that's another subject entirely)? Personally, I think the reverse - reduce person would be a boon for adventurers to inflict on giant opponents. I also agree that trolls ought to be considered monstrous humanoids instead of giants. But things like an ogre would be perfect candiates to become Large Humanoid (Giant).
Karak_Nechot 11-10-06, 06:08 PM	Allowing enlarge person on giants seems problematic, adding to the reach of a creature that is already impressive with its reach. The 1st level spell just seems too powerful when combined with creatures that are already huge.
Slagger the Chuul 11-10-06, 06:13 PM	Enlarge person would probably be better limited by size, since that's the basic effect anyway. Either by changing its target to be a Medium or smaller creature, or including a maximum size limit of Large for the change. If you wanted to, there's nothing to completely prevent someone creating a humanoid race of Large size or bigger.
DungeonMaster 11-10-06, 10:30 PM	So why are velociraptors living in the celtic inspired setting? A druid can't wildshape into an animal he has never seen. It has nothing to do with the setting. It has everything to do with the inspiration for the class being bastardised. Druids should not be able to wildshape into dinosaurs by the core rules. Rules do impact flavor - in a direct way. By all means the DM is free to use leeway in the rules, or to outright contradict them, to enforce whatever flavor he wants for his game. Having animals be the creature type druids wildshape into isn't an arbitrary, it's based on the flavor of the class. You can certainly design a class that has "wildshape" into constructs. That's just no longer a druid. Fully divorcing the mechanics of the class from its flavor isn't possible. Just because one is extinct in RL? Where is the line between animal and beast? The definition in the MM p.5 is: "A beast is a nonhistorical, vertebrate creature with a reasonably normal anatomy and no magical or unusual abilities. Ex: owlbear." Why are owlbears magical beasts in 3.5? What do they have that is magical? Why are there only magical beasts but no non-magical beasts ? It was a dumb decision.
Karak_Nechot 11-10-06, 11:54 PM	It has nothing to do with the setting. It has everything to do with the inspiration for the class being bastardised. Druids should not be able to wildshape into dinosaurs by the core rules. Rules do impact flavor - in a direct way. By all means the DM is free to use leeway in the rules, or to outright contradict them, to enforce whatever flavor he wants for his game. That's blind thinking, that only your vision of a setting is the only one that matters. Yes, rules affect flavor, which is why change in the rules that make more sense for the flavor is a GOOD thing. Dinosaurs are a part of nature, so it makes sense that druids have some effect on them and with them. Having animals be the creature type druids wildshape into isn't an arbitrary, it's based on the flavor of the class. You can certainly design a class that has "wildshape" into constructs. That's just no longer a druid. Fully divorcing the mechanics of the class from its flavor isn't possible. How is a druid turning into a totally natural creature divorcing it from the concept? Why are owlbears magical beasts in 3.5? What do they have that is magical? Why are there only magical beasts but no non-magical beasts ? You mean aside from the fact the owlbear was made from a magical hybridization of an owl and a bear? Besides, there's not a single creatures in the beast section that could not easily be put into at least one other category. It was a dumb decision. No, the 3.0 ranger was a dumb decision. The hulking hurler class was a dumb decision. This decision helped the game greatly.
OamuTheMonk 11-11-06, 02:28 AM	And he said it quite politely, too.
Neutronium_Dragon 11-11-06, 04:08 AM	> "A beast is a nonhistorical, vertebrate creature with a reasonably normal > anatomy and no magical or unusual abilities. Ex: owlbear." This very definition would disqualify dinosaurs from being beasts, since they *are* historical, and leave them squarely in the animal category anyway. In any case, D&D druids aren't Celtic. They may have some vague historical roots in the Celtic druid stereotype, but the D&D class encompasses a far broader archetype than that. (I'm also pretty sure that Celtic druids couldn't turn into animals of *any* type, dinosaur or otherwise, so that makes a pretty absurd basis for limiting the D&D class.)
Stormonu 11-12-06, 01:19 AM	Please, drop the beast fight or drag it to another thread. This thread is about Giants. Are there any other problems with converting Giant to Humanoid (Giant) that I am missing? What is the problem with the eldritch giant into making it a humanoid? I see at least two giants that might be better transformed to Monsterous Humanoids - Trolls & Ettins, but think that's mostly a minor annoyance. Are there any more that might need to be reconsidered? Second, limiting enlarge person to Large size seems sensible. It makes me wonder if reduce person should have a similar limit though.
DungeonMaster 11-12-06, 01:15 PM	This very definition would disqualify dinosaurs from being beasts, since they *are* historical, and leave them squarely in the animal category anyway. You're missing the obvious distinction between history and pre-history. Dinosaurs are prehistoric. The point I was making is that the D&D druid should not become so far removed from its Celtic origin. The origins of the druid shapeshifting myth come from roman accounts.
DungeonMaster 11-12-06, 01:22 PM	Dinosaurs are a part of nature, so it makes sense that druids have some effect on them and with them. Your "blind" thinking would have them have effect on everything except some few and far removed creatures. This is the same reasoning that led to the 3.5 druid getting the "jump" spell, "because the material component is a cricket, which is natural ". You mean aside from the fact the owlbear was made from a magical hybridization of an owl and a bear? It has NOTHING magical about it. At all. No, the 3.0 ranger was a dumb decision. The 3rd edition ranger is still stronger than the 3.5 version. 3.5 ranger has no point vs. 3.5 druid. Druids shapeshifting into dinosaurs was a dumb decision, a really dumb one, in a long list.
Mirtek 11-12-06, 01:40 PM	It has nothing to do with the setting. It has everything to do with the inspiration for the class being bastardised. Druids should not be able to wildshape into dinosaurs by the core rules. Rules do impact flavor - in a direct way. By all means the DM is free to use leeway in the rules, or to outright contradict them, to enforce whatever flavor he wants for his game. Having animals be the creature type druids wildshape into isn't an arbitrary, it's based on the flavor of the class. You can certainly design a class that has "wildshape" into constructs. That's just no longer a druid. Fully divorcing the mechanics of the class from its flavor isn't possible. And a tyrannosauros or velciraptor is an animal. The definition in the MM p.5 is: "A beast is a nonhistorical, vertebrate creature with a reasonably normal anatomy and no magical or unusual abilities. Ex: owlbear." So a dinosaur is still not a beast and a valid choice for a shaping druid. Why are owlbears magical beasts in 3.5? What do they have that is magical? Why are there only magical beasts but no non-magical beasts ? It was a dumb decision. Because a non-magical beast is just an ordinary animal. Owlbears are magical beasts because they were magically created. Although they should have lbecome animals since they started to breed true
DungeonMaster 11-12-06, 01:53 PM	Please, drop the beast fight or drag it to another thread. This thread is about Giants. It's basically the same arguments. The creatures are very similar mechanically but we are making a distiction between them based on other factors. Are there any other problems with converting Giant to Humanoid (Giant) that I am missing? What is the problem with the eldritch giant into making it a humanoid? I don't like the idea of subtypes. If there are enough monsters that fit a set of common elements then it's better to name it a type than to subtype it. If the game has ~500 monsters and ~100 of those are humanoids your type is too large. Spells and abilities (ranger fav.enemy for instance) that target the largest group become over-emphasized. Large groups with multiple subtypes is simply not a balanced way to design a classification of monsters when the bulk of the rules do not care about sub-type, only type.
Mirtek 11-12-06, 06:33 PM	Spells and abilities (ranger fav.enemy for instance) that target the largest group become over-emphasized. Large groups with multiple subtypes is simply not a balanced way to design a classification of monsters when the bulk of the rules do not care about sub-type, only type. But the rules do care about subtype. A ranger can't take favored enemy (humaoid), he has to select a subtype, just like he can't takne favored enemy (outsider) but has to select the subtype too. And spells only really care about humanoid or monster anyway. So even if giant stay their own classification, it still makes only 2 types of spell to cover all. Charm person for anything that's humanoid and charm monster for anything else, no matter how many different classifications this "anything else" may be. And if you have charm monster, you don't even need charm person any longer, as charm monster covers humanoids anyway. So whether giant stays it's own type or not only lowers the spell level needed to work against them, the variety of spells stays as stinted as it already is.
DungeonMaster 11-12-06, 09:54 PM	And a tyrannosauros or velciraptor is an animal. Beast So a dinosaur is still not a beast and a valid choice for a shaping druid. There is no recorded history of dinosaurs. They are beasts, non-historic, prehistoric monsters. History implies man, contemporary. Because a non-magical beast is just an ordinary animal. Why not call them magical animals? Magical beasts only makes sense if something is a beast. Owlbears are magical beasts because they were magically created. Owlbears are not magical. None of their abilities are even remotely magical. Neither is the girallon, which doesn't even have the hint of mention of magical creation. They had to add in lines which make no sense, "a savage magical cousin of the gorilla" in 3.5, when it clearly has nothing magical.
DungeonMaster 11-12-06, 10:04 PM	But the rules do care about subtype. A ranger can't take favored enemy (humaoid), he has to select a subtype, just like he can't takne favored enemy (outsider) but has to select the subtype too. You're right, bad example on my part. Subtype is very rarely important, that is my point. Type plays a much more prominent role in the game mechanics. And spells only really care about humanoid or monster anyway. No - there are spells specific to animals, specific to undead, specific to humanoids, specific to outsiders, etc... Examples include invisibility to undead, hold animal, charm person, dismissal and so forth. So whether giant stays it's own type or not only lowers the spell level needed to work against them, the variety of spells stays as stinted as it already is. In the case of the core rules yes. But those are drastic level changes. Going from dominate monster at 9th level to dominate person at 5th is a big leap. There are also numerous templates that change their applicability as well.
Mirtek 11-13-06, 02:37 PM	No - there are spells specific to animals, specific to undead, specific to humanoids, specific to outsiders, etc... Examples include invisibility to undead, hold animal, charm person, dismissal and so forth. Yes, but in the end they all get superfluous once you have the superior version. Invisibility makes you invisible to undead and animals and anything else (there was even a FAQ question in dragon magazine asking if undead are immune to normal invisibility since they have an extra spell. The answer was no, the extra spell was simply because many necromancers selected illusion as forbidden school and so they should get something to still become invisible to undead). I did not say that spells like this do not exist, I simply said that these spells are subsumed in later spells anyway. So in the end it comes down to maybe save a spell level by being able to use a lower spell. Dismissal doesn't target outsiders, it targets extraplanar creatures and that's anyone not from the current plane. A human from the prime is extraplanar in the abyss and a demon can banish him with dismissal In the case of the core rules yes. But those are drastic level changes. Going from dominate monster at 9th level to dominate person at 5th is a big leap. There are also numerous templates that change their applicability as well. Since subtype isn't tied to capability it's an arbitrary rule. Why is the spell to charm the 30th level human fighter four levels lower than the spell to charm the CR 12 giant?
Terraneaux 11-13-06, 02:52 PM	I think the distinction they made was very clear: animals are *real* creatures, and even if it doesn't have anything clearly magical about it, an unreal creature is a magical beast. The history vs. prehistory thing is silly; drawing an arbitrary line at where humans started recording history has nothing to do with the qualities of the fauna.