Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sigurd van Norhusen 11-16-05, 01:41 PM	This material is Open Game Content, and is licensed for public use under the terms of the Open Game License v1.0a. Copied straight from an .odt, so the formatting is off. I guess you'll manage. TYPES Aberration Type: An aberration has a bizarre anatomy, strange abilities, an alien mindset, or any combination of the three. In other words: nature didn't intend them, and in most cases, did not create them. Features: An aberration has the following features. —d8 Hit Dice. —Base attack bonus equal to 3/4 total Hit Dice (as cleric). —Good Will saves. —Skill points equal to (2 + Int modifier, minimum 1) per Hit Die, with quadruple skill points for the first Hit Die. Traits: An aberration possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s or subtype's entry). —Darkvision out to 60 feet. —Proficient with its natural weapons. If generally humanoid in form, proficient with all simple weapons and any weapon it is described as using. —Proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) it is described as wearing, as well as all lighter types. Aberrations not indicated as wearing armor are not proficient with armor. Aberrations are proficient with shields if they are proficient with any form of armor. —Aberrations eat, sleep, and breathe. Arachnid Type: An arachnid is a living creature, with no magical abilities and no innate capacity for language or culture. Examples for arachnides are spiders, crabs, or scorpions. Features: An arachnid has the following features (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s or subtype's entry). —d8 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: An arachnid possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s or subtype's entry). —Low-light vision. —Alignment: Always neutral. —Treasure: None. —Proficient with its natural weapons only, if any. —Proficient with no armor unless trained for war. —Arachnids eat, sleep, and breathe. Construct Type: A construct is an animated object or artificially constructed creature. Features: A construct has the following features. —d10 Hit Dice. —Base attack bonus equal to 3/4 total Hit Dice (as cleric). —No good saving throws. —Skill points equal to (2 + Int modifier, minimum 1) per Hit Die, with quadruple skill points for the first Hit Die, if the construct has an Intelligence score. However, most constructs are mindless and gain no skill points or feats. Traits: A construct possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s or subtype's entry). —No Constitution score. —Low-light vision. —Darkvision out to 60 feet. —Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects). —Immunity to poison, sleep effects, paralysis, stunning, disease , death effects, and necromancy effects. —Cannot heal damage on their own, but often can be repaired by exposing them to a certain kind of effect (see the creature’s description for details) or through the use of the Craft Construct feat. A construct with the fast healing special quality still benefits from that quality. —Not subject to critical hits, nonlethal damage, ability damage, ability drain, fatigue, exhaustion, or energy drain. —Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects, or is harmless). —Not at risk of death from massive damage. Immediately destroyed when reduced to 0 hit points or less. —Since it was never alive, a construct cannot be raised or resurrected. —Because its body is a mass of unliving matter, a construct is hard to destroy. It gains bonus hit points based on size, as shown on the following table. <table cut, same as in SRD> —Proficient with its natural weapons only, unless generally humanoid in form, in which case proficient with any weapon mentioned in its entry. —Proficient with no armor. —Constructs do not eat, sleep, or breathe. Elemental Type: An elemental is a being composed of one of the six magical elements: air, earth, fire, water, positive energy, or negative energy. Combinations of two of those magical elements in a single being is possible. Features: An elemental has the following features. —8-sided Hit Dice. —Base attack bonus equal to 3/4 total Hit Dice (as cleric). —Good saves depend on the element: Fortitude (earth, water) or Reflex (air, fire). —Skill points equal to (2 + Int modifier, minimum 1) per Hit Die, with quadruple skill points for the first Hit Die. Traits: An elemental possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s or subtype's entry). —Darkvision out to 60 feet. —Immunity to poison, sleep effects, paralysis, and stunning. —Not subject to critical hits or flanking. —Unlike most other living creatures, an elemental does not have a dual nature—its soul and body form one unit. When an elemental is slain, no soul is set loose. Spells that restore souls to their bodies, such as raise dead, reincarnate, and resurrection, don’t work on an elemental. It takes a different magical effect, such as limited wish, wish, miracle, or true resurrection, to restore it to life. —Proficient with natural weapons only, unless generally humanoid in form, in which case proficient with all simple weapons and any weapons mentioned in its entry. —Proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) that it is described as wearing, as well as all lighter types. Elementals not indicated as wearing armor are not proficient with armor. Elementals are proficient with shields if they are proficient with any form of armor. —Elementals do not eat, sleep, or breathe. Dragon Type: A dragon is a reptilelike creature, usually winged, with magical or unusual abilities. Features: A dragon has the following features. —d12 Hit Dice. —Base attack bonus equal to total Hit Dice (as fighter). —Good Fortitude, Reflex, and Will saves. —Skill points equal to (6 + Int modifier, minimum 1) per Hit Die, with quadruple skill points for the first Hit Die. Traits: A dragon possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s or subtype's entry ). —Darkvision out to 60 feet and low-light vision. —Immunity to magic sleep effects and paralysis effects. —Proficient with its natural weapons only unless humanoid in form (or capable of assuming humanoid form), in which case proficient with all simple weapons and any weapons mentioned in its entry. —Proficient with no armor. —Dragons eat, sleep, and breathe. Exemplar Type: An exemplar is being composed of one or two of the fundamental alignments: law, chaos, neutrality, good, or evil. They generally exist outside of the Prime Material Plane, but can be summoned. Features: An exemplar has the following features. —8-sided Hit Dice. —Base attack bonus equal to total Hit Dice (as fighter). —Good Fortitude, Reflex, and Will saves. —Skill points equal to (8 + Int modifier, minimum 1) per Hit Die, with quadruple skill points for the first Hit Die. Traits: An exemplar possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s or subtype's entry). —Darkvision out to 60 feet. —Unlike most other living creatures, an exemplar does not have a dual nature—its soul and body form one unit. When an exemplar is slain, no soul is set loose. Spells that restore souls to their bodies, such as raise dead, reincarnate, and resurrection, don’t work on an exemplar. It takes a different magical effect, such as limited wish, wish, miracle, or true resurrection to restore it to life. —Proficient with all simple and martial weapons and any weapons mentioned in its entry. —Proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) it is described as wearing, as well as all lighter types. Exemplars not indicated as wearing armor are not proficient with armor. Exemplars are proficient with shields if they are proficient with any form of armor. —Exemplars breathe, but do not need to eat or sleep (although they can do so if they wish). Native exemplars breathe, eat, and sleep. Fey Type: A fey is a creature with supernatural abilities and connections to nature or to some other force or outerdimensional place. Most feys are at least partially humanoid. Features: A fey has the following features. —6-sided Hit Dice. —Base attack bonus equal to 1/2 total Hit Dice (as wizard). —Good Reflex and Will saves. —Skill points equal to (6 + Int modifier, minimum 1) per Hit Die, with quadruple skill points for the first Hit Die. Traits: A fey possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s or subtype's entry). —Low-light vision. —Proficient with all simple weapons and any weapons mentioned in its entry. —Proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) that it is described as wearing, as well as all lighter types. Fey not indicated as wearing armor are not proficient with armor. Fey are proficient with shields if they are proficient with any form of armor. —Fey eat, sleep, and breathe. Fish Type: A fish is a living, nonhuman creature, with no magical abilities and no innate capacity for language or culture. Features: A fish has the following features (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry). —d8 Hit Dice. —Base attack bonus equal to 3/4 total Hit Dice (as cleric). —Good Fortitude and Reflex saves. —Skill points equal to (2 + Int modifier, minimum 1) per Hit Die, with quadruple skill points for the first Hit Die. Traits: A fish possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s or subtype's entry). —Alignment: Always neutral. —Treasure: None. —Proficient with its natural weapons only. A noncombative herbivore uses its natural weapons as a secondary attack. Such attacks are made with a –5 penalty on the creature’s attack rolls, and the mammal receives only 1/2 its Strength modifier as a damage adjustment. —Proficient with no armor. —Fishes eat, sleep, and breathe. Insectoid Type: An insectoid is a living insect, with no magical abilities and no innate capacity for language or culture. Features: An insectoid has the following features (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s or subtype's entry). —d8 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: An insectoid possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s or subtype's entry). —Alignment: Always neutral. —Treasure: None. —Proficient with its natural weapons only, if any. —Proficient with no armor unless trained for war. —Chitinous hide: Insectoids receive damage reduction 1/adamantine because of their chitinous exoskeleton. —Inefficient lungs: Insectoids should not be larger than small size. —Insectoids eat, sleep, and breathe. Mammal Type: A mammal is a living, nonhuman creature, with no magical abilities and no innate capacity for language or culture. Features: A mammal has the following features (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry). —d8 Hit Dice. —Base attack bonus equal to 3/4 total Hit Dice (as cleric). —Good Fortitude and Reflex saves. —Skill points equal to (2 + Int modifier, minimum 1) per Hit Die, with quadruple skill points for the first Hit Die. Traits: A mammal possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s or subtype's entry). —Alignment: Always neutral. —Treasure: None. —Proficient with its natural weapons only. A noncombative herbivore uses its natural weapons as a secondary attack. Such attacks are made with a –5 penalty on the creature’s attack rolls, and the mammal receives only 1/2 its Strength modifier as a damage adjustment. —Proficient with no armor. —Mammals eat, sleep, and breathe. Outsider Type: An outsider is at least partially composed of the essence (but not necessarily the material) of some plane other than the Material Plane, but are not composed or associated with a particular alignment type. Some creatures start out as some other type and become outsiders when they attain a higher (or lower) state of spiritual existence. Features: An outsider has the following features. —8-sided Hit Dice. —Base attack bonus equal to total Hit Dice (as fighter). —Good Fortitude, Reflex, and Will saves. —Skill points equal to (8 + Int modifier, minimum 1) per Hit Die, with quadruple skill points for the first Hit Die. Traits: An outsider possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry). —Darkvision out to 60 feet. —Unlike most other living creatures, an outsider does not have a dual nature—its soul and body form one unit. When an outsider is slain, no soul is set loose. Spells that restore souls to their bodies, such as raise dead, reincarnate, and resurrection, don’t work on an outsider. It takes a different magical effect, such as limited wish, wish, miracle, or true resurrection to restore it to life. An outsider with the native subtype can be raised, reincarnated, or resurrected just as other living creatures can be. —Proficient with all simple and martial weapons and any weapons mentioned in its entry. —Proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) it is described as wearing, as well as all lighter types. Outsiders not indicated as wearing armor are not proficient with armor. Outsiders are proficient with shields if they are proficient with any form of armor. —Outsiders breathe, but do not need to eat or sleep (although they can do so if they wish). Native outsiders breathe, eat, and sleep. Plant Type: This type comprises vegetable creatures. Note that regular plants, such as one finds growing in gardens and fields, lack Wisdom and Charisma scores (see Nonabilities, above) and are not creatures, but objects, even though they are alive. Features: A plant creature 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, if the plant creature has an Intelligence score. However, some plant creatures are mindless and gain no skill points or feats. Traits: A plant creature possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s or subtype's entry). —Low-light vision. —Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects). —Immunity to poison, sleep effects, paralysis, polymorph, and stunning. —Not subject to critical hits. —Proficient with its natural weapons only. —Proficient with no armor. —Plants breathe and eat, but do not sleep. Reptile Type: A reptile is a reptilelike creature, without magical or unusual abilities. Features: A reptile has the following features. —d8 Hit Dice. —Base attack bonus equal to 3/4 total Hit Dice (ascleric). —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 reptile possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s or subtype's entry). —Alignment: Always neutral. —Vulnerable against cold. —Darkvision out to 60 feet and low-light vision. —Proficient with its natural weapons only. —Proficient with no armor. —Reptiles eat, sleep, and breathe. Ooze Type: An ooze is an amorphous or mutable creature, usually mindless. Features: An ooze has the following features. —10-sided Hit Dice. —Base attack bonus equal to 3/4 total Hit Dice (as cleric). —No good saving throws. —Skill points equal to (2 + Int modifier, minimum 1) per Hit Die, with quadruple skill points for the first Hit Die, if the ooze has an Intelligence score. However, most oozes are mindless and gain no skill points or feats. Traits: An ooze possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s or subtype's entry). —Mindless: No Intelligence score, and immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects). —Blind (but have the blindsight special quality), with immunity to gaze attacks, visual effects, illusions, and other attack forms that rely on sight. —Immunity to poison, sleep effects, paralysis, polymorph, and stunning. —Some oozes have the ability to deal acid damage to objects. In such a case, the amount of damage is equal to 10 + 1/2 ooze’s HD + ooze’s Con modifier per full round of contact. —Not subject to critical hits or flanking. —Proficient with its natural weapons only. —Proficient with no armor. —Oozes eat and breathe, but do not sleep. Vermin Type: This type includes arthropods, worms, and similar invertebrates. Features: Vermin have 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, if the vermin has an Intelligence score. However, most vermin are mindless and gain no skill points or feats. Traits: Vermin possess the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry). —Darkvision out to 60 feet. —Proficient with their natural weapons only. —Proficient with no armor. —Vermin breathe, eat, and sleep. SUBTYPES Air Subtype: This subtype usually is used for elementals and outsiders with a connection to the Elemental Plane Air. Air creatures always have fly speeds and usually have perfect maneuverability. Aquatic Subtype: These creatures always have swim speeds and thus can move in water without making Swim checks. An aquatic creature can breathe underwater. It cannot also breathe air unless it has the amphibious special quality. This subtype cannot be added to fishes, as they are always aquatic Augmented Subtype: A creature receives this subtype whenever something happens to change its original type. Some creatures (those with an inherited template) are born with this subtype; others acquire it when they take on an acquired template. The augmented subtype is always paired with the creature’s original type. A creature with the augmented subtype usually has the traits of its current type, but the features of its original type. Chaotic Subtype: A subtype usually applied only to exemplars native to the chaotic-aligned Outer Planes. Most creatures that have this subtype also have chaotic alignments; however, if their alignments change they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has a chaotic alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the chaotic subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields were chaotic-aligned (see Damage Reduction, below). Cold Subtype: A creature with the cold subtype has immunity to cold. It has vulnerability to fire, which means it takes half again as much (+50%) damage as normal from fire, regardless of whether a saving throw is allowed, or if the save is a success or failure. Earth Subtype: This subtype usually is used for elementals and outsiders with a connection to the Elemental Plane of Earth. Earth creatures usually have burrow speeds, and most earth creatures can burrow through solid rock. Evil Subtype: A subtype usually applied only to exemplar native to the evil-aligned Outer Planes. Evil outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the evil subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields were evil-aligned (see Damage Reduction, above). Extraplanar Subtype: A subtype applied to any creature when it is on a plane other than its native plane. A creature that travels the planes can gain or lose this subtype as it goes from plane to plane. Monster entries assume that encounters with creatures take place on the Material Plane, and every creature whose native plane is not the Material Plane has the extraplanar subtype (but would not have when on its home plane). Every extraplanar creature in this book has a home plane mentioned in its description. Creatures not labeled as extraplanar are natives of the Material Plane, and they gain the extraplanar subtype if they leave the Material Plane. No creature has the extraplanar subtype when it is on a transitive plane, such as the Astral Plane, the Ethereal Plane, and the Plane of Shadow. Fire Subtype: A creature with the fire subtype has immunity to fire. It has vulnerability to cold, which means it takes half again as much (+50%) damage as normal from cold, regardless of whether a saving throw is allowed, or if the save is a success or failure. Good Subtype: A subtype usually applied only to exemplar native to the good-aligned Outer Planes. Most creatures that have this subtype also have good alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has a good alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the good subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields were good-aligned (see Damage Reduction, above). Humanoid Subtype: 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. 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. Incorporeal Subtype: An incorporeal creature has no physical body. It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities. It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms. Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it has a 50% chance to ignore any damage from a corporeal source (except for positive energy, negative energy, force effects such as magic missile, or attacks made with ghost touch weapons). Although it is not a magical attack, holy water can affect incorporeal undead, but a hit with holy water has a 50% chance of not affecting an incorporeal creature. An incorporeal creature has no natural armor bonus but has a deflection bonus equal to its Charisma bonus (always at least +1, even if the creature’s Charisma score does not normally provide a bonus). An incorporeal creature can enter or pass through solid objects, but must remain adjacent to the object’s exterior, and so cannot pass entirely through an object whose space is larger than its own. It can sense the presence of creatures or objects within a square adjacent to its current location, but enemies have total concealment (50% miss chance) from an incorporeal creature that is inside an object. In order to see farther from the object it is in and attack normally, the incorporeal creature must emerge. An incorporeal creature inside an object has total cover, but when it attacks a creature outside the object it only has cover, so a creature outside with a readied action could strike at it as it attacks. An incorporeal creature cannot pass through a force effect. An incorporeal creature’s attacks pass through (ignore) natural armor, armor, and shields, although deflection bonuses and force effects (such as mage armor) work normally against it. Incorporeal creatures pass through and operate in water as easily as they do in air. Incorporeal creatures cannot fall or take falling damage. Incorporeal creatures cannot make trip or grapple attacks, nor can they be tripped or grappled. In fact, they cannot take any physical action that would move or manipulate an opponent or its equipment, nor are they subject to such actions. Incorporeal creatures have no weight and do not set off traps that are triggered by weight. An incorporeal creature moves silently and cannot be heard with Listen checks if it doesn’t wish to be. It has no Strength score, so its Dexterity modifier applies to both its melee attacks and its ranged attacks. Nonvisual senses, such as scent and blindsight, are either ineffective or only partly effective with regard to incorporeal creatures. Incorporeal creatures have an innate sense of direction and can move at full speed even when they cannot see. Lawful Subtype: A subtype usually applied only to exemplars native to the lawful-aligned Outer Planes. Most creatures that have this subtype also have lawful alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has a lawful alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the lawful subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields were lawful-aligned (see Damage Reduction, above). Native Subtype: A subtype applied only to outsiders. These creatures have mortal ancestors or a strong connection to the Material Plane and can be raised, reincarnated, or resurrected just as other living creatures can be. Creatures with this subtype are native to the Material Plane (hence the subtype’s name). Unlike true outsiders, native outsiders need to eat and sleep. Negative Energy Subtype: A creature with the negative energy subtype is immune to the draining effects that exposure to negative energy wields. It has vulnerability to positive energy, which means it is damaged, rather than healed, by positive energy, regardless of whether a saving throw is allowed, or if the save is a success or failure. Negative energy works with 50% efficiency to heal it, just as positive energy would to a normal being. Positive Energy Subtype: A creature with the negative energy subtype is immune to the cancerous effects that exposure to positive energy wields. It has vulnerability to negative energy, which means it takes half again as much (+50%) damage as normal from negative energy, regardless of whether a saving throw is allowed, or if the save is a success or failure. Shapechanger Subtype: A shapechanger has the supernatural ability to assume one or more alternate forms. Many magical effects allow some kind of shape shifting, and not every creature that can change shapes has the shapechanger subtype. Traits: A shapechanger possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry). —Proficient with its natural weapons, with simple weapons, and with any weapons mentioned in the creature’s description. —Proficient with any armor mentioned in the creature’s description, as well as all lighter forms. If no form of armor is mentioned, the shapechanger is not proficient with armor. A shapechanger is proficient with shields if it is proficient with any type of armor. Swarm Subtype: A swarm is a collection of Fine, Diminutive, or Tiny creatures that acts as a single creature. A swarm has the characteristics of its type, except as noted here. A swarm has a single pool of Hit Dice and hit points, a single initiative modifier, a single speed, and a single Armor Class. A swarm makes saving throws as a single creature. A single swarm occupies a square (if it is made up of nonflying creatures) or a cube (of flying creatures) 10 feet on a side, but its reach is 0 feet, like its component creatures. In order to attack, it moves into an opponent’s space, which provokes an attack of opportunity. It can occupy the same space as a creature of any size, since it crawls all over its prey. A swarm can move through squares occupied by enemies and vice versa without impediment, although the swarm provokes an attack of opportunity if it does so. A swarm can move through cracks or holes large enough for its component creatures. A swarm of Tiny creatures consists of 300 nonflying creatures or 1,000 flying creatures. A swarm of Diminutive creatures consists of 1,500 nonflying creatures or 5,000 flying creatures. A swarm of Fine creatures consists of 10,000 creatures, whether they are flying or not. Swarms of nonflying creatures include many more creatures than could normally fit in a 10-foot square based on their normal space, because creatures in a swarm are packed tightly together and generally crawl over each other and their prey when moving or attacking. Larger swarms are represented by multiples of single swarms. The area occupied by a large swarm is completely shapeable, though the swarm usually remains in contiguous squares. Traits: A swarm has no clear front or back and no discernable anatomy, so it is not subject to critical hits or flanking. A swarm made up of Tiny creatures takes half damage from slashing and piercing weapons. A swarm composed of Fine or Diminutive creatures is immune to all weapon damage. Reducing a swarm to 0 hit points or lower causes it to break up, though damage taken until that point does not degrade its ability to attack or resist attack. Swarms are never staggered or reduced to a dying state by damage. Also, they cannot be tripped, grappled, or bull rushed, and they cannot grapple an opponent. A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures (including single-target spells such as disintegrate), with the exception of mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects) if the swarm has an Intelligence score and a hive mind. A swarm takes half again as much damage (+50%) from spells or effects that affect an area, such as splash weapons and many evocation spells. Swarms made up of Diminutive or Fine creatures are susceptible to high winds such as that created by a gust of wind spell. For purposes of determining the effects of wind on a swarm, treat the swarm as a creature of the same size as its constituent creatures. A swarm rendered unconscious by means of nonlethal damage becomes disorganized and dispersed, and does not reform until its hit points exceed its nonlethal damage. Swarm Attack: Creatures with the swarm subtype don’t make standard melee attacks. Instead, they deal automatic damage to any creature whose space they occupy at the end of their move, with no attack roll needed. Swarm attacks are not subject to a miss chance for concealment or cover. A swarm’s statistics block has “swarm” in the Attack and Full Attack entries, with no attack bonus given. The amount of damage a swarm deals is based on its Hit Dice, as shown below. <table cut, same as in SRD> A swarm’s attacks are nonmagical, unless the swarm’s description states otherwise. Damage reduction sufficient to reduce a swarm attack’s damage to 0, being incorporeal, and other special abilities usually give a creature immunity (or at least resistance) to damage from a swarm. Some swarms also have acid, poison, blood drain, or other special attacks in addition to normal damage. Swarms do not threaten creatures in their square, and do not make attacks of opportunity with their swarm attack. However, they distract foes whose squares they occupy, as described below. Distraction (Ex): Any living creature vulnerable to a swarm’s damage that begins its turn with a swarm in its square is nauseated for 1 round; a Fortitude save (DC 10 + 1/2 swarm’s HD + swarm’s Con modifier; the exact DC is given in a swarm’s description) negates the effect. Spellcasting or concentrating on spells within the area of a swarm requires a Concentration check (DC 20 + spell level). Using skills that involve patience and concentration requires a DC 20 Concentration check. Undead Subtype: Undead are once-living creatures animated by spiritual or supernatural forces. Features: An undead creature has the following features. —d12 Hit Dice. —No Constitution score. —Darkvision out to 60 feet. —Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects). —Immunity to poison, sleep effects, paralysis, stunning, disease, and death effects. —Not subject to critical hits, nonlethal damage, ability drain, or energy drain. Immune to damage to its physical ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution), as well as to fatigue and exhaustion effects. —Cannot heal damage on its own if it has no Intelligence score, although it can be healed. Negative energy (such as an inflict spell) can heal undead creatures. The fast healing special quality works regardless of the creature’s Intelligence score. —Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects or is harmless). —Uses its Charisma modifier for Concentration checks. —Not at risk of death from massive damage, but when reduced to 0 hit points or less, it is immediately destroyed. —Not affected by raise dead and reincarnate spells or abilities. Resurrection and true resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead. —Proficient with its natural weapons, all simple weapons, and any weapons mentioned in its entry. —Undead do not breathe, eat, or sleep.
Xeviat-DM 11-16-05, 07:51 PM	First off, why are you splitting up the Animal types? Why is Arachnid, Arthropod, and Insect separate types? Similarly, if you're going to make so many animal types, you might as well just do vertibrate and invertebrate (but that's almost the animal-vermin difference). But i think there's a reason they split beasts up amongst animals and magical beasts. On a similar note, if you're separating animals because they aren't related to each other, why are all aberrations aberrations? What do beholders and mindflayers have in common? In my campaign, for instance, all aberrations either come from the realm of madness, or were created through magically splicing creatures together (which is linked loosly to the realm of madness anyway). If something similar is true in your setting, then aberration is okay as a type. I do like your differentiation between exemplar and outsiders, but it's a distinction I don't feel is necessary. Largely, I think you're looking to have different HD, BAB, and Saves for the types you split up, but I think these abilities are part of ability scores and relative hit dice. Again, I'm not sure what you're intended goal with this is.
Bikkusu 11-16-05, 09:21 PM	First off, why are you splitting up the Animal types? Why is Arachnid, Arthropod, and Insect separate types? Similarly, if you're going to make so many animal types, you might as well just do vertibrate and invertebrate (but that's almost the animal-vermin difference). But i think there's a reason they split beasts up amongst animals and magical beasts. On a similar note, if you're separating animals because they aren't related to each other, why are all aberrations aberrations? What do beholders and mindflayers have in common? In my campaign, for instance, all aberrations either come from the realm of madness, or were created through magically splicing creatures together (which is linked loosly to the realm of madness anyway). If something similar is true in your setting, then aberration is okay as a type. I do like your differentiation between exemplar and outsiders, but it's a distinction I don't feel is necessary. Largely, I think you're looking to have different HD, BAB, and Saves for the types you split up, but I think these abilities are part of ability scores and relative hit dice. Again, I'm not sure what you're intended goal with this is. Take note of the subtypes as well. Humanoid is now a subtype. This ingenious method allows for a humanoid insectoid, a humanoid elemental, and even a humanoid construct, as well as the normal mammal humanoid. Following suit there can be aquatic vermin, cold arachnids, and incoporeal plants. This is plenty of reason to split these types. For grouping aberrations as one we turn to the definition of aberration. Aberration (n): A deviation from the proper or expected course. The only thing they have similiar is that they're different from everything else.
FlameLover 11-16-05, 10:40 PM	I like the idea that Humanoid is a sub-type: if you don't mind i'll be yoinking that. But distinguishing arachnids, vermin and insects is going too far IMO. Just having "Insects" covers it along with a "Mammal" and "Reptile" set. I'm not sure what to do with the Fish type - I really need to brush up on this stuff. Maybe include the subtypes of Humanoid (maybe even just Bipedal), Quadpedal, etc. I'm not sure how far to take that though :| Well this has some good stuff but in other areas it seems weird (like having 3 types of essentially insects).
Sigurd van Norhusen 11-17-05, 01:44 AM	>First off, why are you splitting up the Animal types? Because it makes more sense to me, honestly. >Why is Arachnid, Arthropod, and Insect separate types? I'm trying to base this on biology. Arachnids (which are actually both arachnids and crustaceans atm) aren't insects. Vermin, however, is a collective type which not only covers worms but much of the smaller "nuisance" type of beings as well. I don't want to get it too detailed. >But i think there's a reason they split beasts up amongst animals and magical beasts. Yes, but just because there is a reason doesn't mean that it has to be a good one. It doesn't have to mean that I have to roll over and accept it either. >What do beholders and mindflayers have in common? Nature didn't intend them. Both were created from outer sources. Mindflayers were brought into the world by Far Realm visitors, while the beholder Great Mother is something else. As a matter of fact, one reason I did this reorganisation was that too much was stuffed into the Aberration type. For example, you cannot really have a medium-sized sentinent insect unless you start ignoring rules as you go along, as it would be the vermin type, which is per default mindless. So it would have to be an aberration, which I think is very silly. >In my campaign, for instance, all aberrations either come from the realm of madness, or were created through magically splicing creatures together (which is linked loosly to the realm of madness anyway). Spliced creatures (aka chimeras) would be magical animals in this new categorization, although I'm debating with myself if I shouldn't remove the type entirely. Then they would be Aberrations, too. But I dunno... >I do like your differentiation between exemplar and outsiders, but it's a distinction I don't feel is necessary. It is one of those things that annoy me greatly - like Aberrations, Outsiders are some kind of trash can of creature types. Everything and their grandmother is an outsider. By differentiating Exemplar and Outsider, I feel that I'm at least opening the lid of the can and differentiating between two things which shouldn't be mixed up, namely one kind of beings being living embodiments of alignments and other beings not of this world. > I like the idea that Humanoid is a sub-type: if you don't mind i'll be yoinking that. I don't mind. > Just having "Insects" covers it along with a "Mammal" and "Reptile" set. Ticks, scorpions, spiders, and crabs aren't either. What's with them? >I'm not sure what to do with the Fish type - I really need to brush up on this stuff. Fish is for eating. :D
FlameLover 11-17-05, 05:58 PM	Yeah but if you're going for completley biological you'll need seperate subtypes for both warm and cold blooded creatures (forget the correct terms atm), different subtypes for bipedal, quadpedal, etc. If you get all technical like that it gets way too complicated. I do agree though that Magical Beasts should be gone, same with Monstrous Humanoids. And about Ticks, scorpions, spiders, and crabs - the first three would be Insects and the latter would be of the Fish type but maybe Exoskeleton subtype or something. But it gets too complicated splitting them up like this I think - just having "animals" would be enough (although Humans would be Animals then so i'm now not sure). Ohwell, i've just got myself confused :|
Xeviat-DM 11-19-05, 04:02 PM	Types only matter for two things: Spell effects and HD/BAB/Skills/Saves. If you're really determined to change everything entirely, I'd say you should make less types and more subtypes. For instance, you could do this for types: Animals Plants Oozes and Fungi Constructs Fey Outsiders Aberrations Then make different subtypes for each; but remember that subtypes aren't there for cataloging, they're there to organize traits. "Cold blooded" could be a subtype for some Animals and possibly Aberrations, which would detail penalties they'd take from being in too hot and too cold environments, as well as any other resistances and abilities they may get (cold blooded creatures have slower metabolisms, meaning they'd need to eat less: to simulate their lack of mobility in the cold just have different Dex penalties for different temperature bands). As for mindlessness, make the immunity to mind affecting effects part of having no intelligence, not part of the type. Good luck.
Gilean 11-20-05, 05:52 AM	Xeviat-DM, what is the difference between, say, fey and outsiders (I assume former elementals are outsiders in that categorisation)? Sigurd van Norhusen, It would have been easier to notice changes if only relevant parts were posted, or if you gave a summary.
Sigurd van Norhusen 11-20-05, 07:08 AM	> Types only matter for two things: Spell effects and HD/BAB/Skills/Saves. True, but I feel that you should know more about a certain creature via type than just that. Starting from real world categorization feels like a good start to me. It's a design philosophy more than anything, so if you don't agree with me, we can hardly do anything about it, I fear. > If you're really determined to change everything entirely, I'd say you should make less types and more subtypes. Sorry, but that one doesn't fly with me. One of the problems I have with the current way D20 does types is that if anything sapient isn't humanoid, it is somehow unnatural or magical. You can only really solve that by either adding a [sapient] subtype or by splitting [animal] in several types and having [humanoid] as a subtype. > As for mindlessness, make the immunity to mind affecting effects part of having no intelligence, not part of the type. I didn't change anything about the mindless trait, but you are right. I will change that in my next revision (later today, hopefully). > It would have been easier to notice changes if only relevant parts were posted, or if you gave a summary. True. Creature Types Aberration - No change. Arachnid - New: these are actually all Chelicerata grouped into one, but calling them "Arachnid" has the added bonus that people actually know what this is supposed to be. Basically, spiders, scorpions, crabs, etc. Construct - No change. Elemental - No change. Dragon - No change. Exemplar - I split the Outsider type in two. I feel like they mix two things that don't really belong together - creatures from outer planes and creatures that are embodiments of alignment (or servants of deities). Fey - No change. Fish - New. Insectoid - New. Has DR because of chitin (should I have this be natural armor instead? Lizard - New. Will be reptile in my next revision. Should be vulnerable to cold (isn't currently). Magical Beast - No change. Should be removed, I think. Then chimerae would be aberrations, which is not that unlogically, really. Mammal - New. Outsider - Other than the fact that Exemplar was split, there is no change here. Plant - No change. Ooze - No change. Vermin - Things that go splash in the night. Removed insects and arachnids from this. Basically, worms and other filthy stuff right now. I'm thining about adding rats to this and removing the mindless trait (as Xeviat-DM pointed out, it shouldn't be in a creature type). Subtypes Air - No change. Aquatic - No change. Fishes don't need aquatic subtypes, logically. Augmented - No change. Chaotic - Applies only to Exemplars, not Outsiders. Cold - No change. Earth - No change. Evil - Applies only to Exemplars, not Outsiders. Extraplanar - No change. Fire - No change. Good - Applies only to Exemplars, not Outsiders. Humanoid - Is now a subtype. Incorporeal - No change. Lawful - Applies only to Exemplars, not Outsiders. Native - No change. Shapechanger - No change. Swarm - No change. Undead - Is now a subtype. Still changes hd and similar stuff.
Gilean 11-20-05, 09:43 AM	Should be removed, I think.True (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=495600), that.Outsider - Other than the fact that Exemplar was split, there is no change here.The great difference from the extraplanaer subtype is exactly what? I am not seeing the benefit of dividing bugs in insects, arachnids and all-the-rest. This could be a basis for drow PrCs, but other than that, I miss the benefit.
Sigurd van Norhusen 11-20-05, 10:15 AM	True (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=495600), that.The great difference from the extraplanaer subtype is exactly what? Extraplanetar is added when you are not on the plane you were born in. That is pretty much standard D20, however. I am not seeing the benefit of dividing bugs in insects, arachnids and all-the-rest. This could be a basis for drow PrCs, but other than that, I miss the benefit. Well, for one, arachnids aren't insects, and I'm trying to bring a bit more realism into the whole mess that I feel creature types are. Specifically: there should not be groupings of beings which have very little to do with each other. Sure, they're all Arthropods, but that is not exactly that much in common. The Vermin type has just had arachnids and insectoids removed. It still includes Myriapoda, Crustacea (although I don't really know if they should be in there), Trilobitomorpha, worms, and other miscellancious things that people will hardly ever interact with. On the other hand, Drow interaction does indeed profit much from that. Now they won't be told they worship vermin anymore. :D
Gilean 11-20-05, 01:09 PM	Extraplanetar is added when you are not on the plane you were born in. That is pretty much standard D20, however.Which begs the question: why is there a need for the outsider type? Most of them that are not exemplars are elementals. Humanoid would fit for many, even many exemplars.
Sigurd van Norhusen 11-20-05, 01:15 PM	Wait, what are you talking about now? Exemplar or Extraplanetar? Those are two different things.
Gilean 11-20-05, 01:21 PM	Are extraplanar and outsider different enough to warrant differing treatment, or should another be removed?
Sigurd van Norhusen 11-20-05, 02:07 PM	Oops. It's "extraplanar", not extraplanetar. Sorry, not my day. Now I understand what you mean, and it is actually a pretty good question. For the record: Extraplanar is something not being on its own plane (unless it is on one of the two transitive planes), while Outsider is something that is not born from Prime Material matter, while not being a living manifestation of abstract alignment or an abstract element. Following that, it does not Removing the Outsider type would mean that you need to be able to represent those beings logically under the other types. I do not think this is adequately possible. The Outsider Type encompasses things like Astral Dreadnaughts (Astral Plane), Brain Collectors (Far Realms), and Dharculi (Ethereal Plane/Far Realms), neither of which resemble anything that could be created on the Prime Material Plane. While Dharculi and Brain Collectors could (possibly) be Aberrations, this idea falls apart when things like the Astral Dreadnaught come into the equation... representing that thing as Elemental(Astral) might be possible, but it would go against the DnD (or PS) philosophy that elementals do only appear on the Inner, not the Outer Planes. Of course, maybe removing the Exemplar type again would be better, now that I think about it. I guess I should ask the experts at the Planes' forum what they think about it.
Gilean 11-20-05, 02:12 PM	I haven't heard from those ever before, but the astral dreadnought sounds like construct. I don't know.
Sigurd van Norhusen 11-20-05, 02:45 PM	Astral Dreadnaught (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MotP/Astral_Dreadnought.jpg) Well, it is something on the Astral Plane that attacks certain travelers. I forgot the details. Dharculus (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/planar_gallery/82535.jpg) A thing that lives on the Ethereal Plane and feeds via sticking its tentacle-mouths into the Prime Material Plane and eating (as can be seen here).
Xeviat-DM 11-21-05, 12:31 AM	Alright, I'll attack this from a different angle. Within the rules (BAB, HD, Saves, Skills), what's the difference between an arachnid and an insect? Does one have different special qualities than others? I ultimately don't see the reason to split them up. Neither do I see a reason to split up animals. If you want to make things more realistic, have animals be all natural creatures. Fish would be Animal (aquatic), noting that they cannot breathe unless underwater. Maybe you could have subtypes for animals for each phillum, and then have a humanoid subtype as well. Also, your outsider split isn't something that the current subtypes don't cover, unless you feel they should have different BAB, HD, Saves, or skills. "Exemplar" are outsiders with alignment subtypes, and also most alignment subtype outsiders belong to a "genus" of their own, such as Archon and Tanarri. To another poster: spirits in my setting are fey, outsiders, elementals, or undead, depending what kind of spirit they are. In my primary setting, most spirits are fey. Undead are the spirits of the dead; skeletons and zombies are not spirits but their spirit is unnaturally bound to the corpse, forcing/allowing it to animate. Elementals are sentient animate elements; they are spirits whose associated object is themselves (fey are bound to an object, such as a nymph and its lake and a driad and its tree). Undead are the spirits of the dead, who are unnaturally kept from their proper afterlife (where they are typically reincarnated or become outsider servants to their deity).
Sigurd van Norhusen 11-21-05, 03:20 PM	Alright, I'll attack this from a different angle. Within the rules (BAB, HD, Saves, Skills), what's the difference between an arachnid and an insect? Does one have different special qualities than others? I ultimately don't see the reason to split them up. Insects generally are covered by chitin, which gives them a slight DR. The ultimate reason is logic. They are two different things. Neither do I see a reason to split up animals. If you want to make things more realistic, have animals be all natural creatures. Fish would be Animal (aquatic), noting that they cannot breathe unless underwater. Maybe you could have subtypes for animals for each phillum, and then have a humanoid subtype as well. This is basically what I am doing, only I am making it into types rather than subtypes. Okay, let me ask you a couple questions: if you would do it that way, what would the following be: 1) A human being? Under the current system, this is a Humanoid, under my proposed system, it would be Mammal(humanoid). 2) A lizardfolk? Under the current system, this is a Monstrous Humanoid, under my proposed system, it would be a Reptile(humanoid). 3) A medium-sized intelligent, perfectly mundane insect? Under the current system, this is an aberration or a magical beast (most likely aberration, because insects are icky, unlike, say, Sphinxes), under my proposed system, it would be a simple Insectoid. Not that the same insect without intelligence would be vermin. I don't see a creature type change warranted just because it evolved into being smarter than the average doohickey. 4) An undead sea spider? Under the current system it would be Undead, under my proposed system it would be Arachnid(undead). Maybe I wasn't clear enough, so I will try it again: my problem with the current way types are handled are basically three: 1) It is absurdly human-centric. Everything that is not human-like in appearance and is intelligent is either magical or unnatural. This is utter bollocks imnsho. By having the "monstrous humanoid" type it is directly implied that humans are the crown of evolution. 2) There are three "trashcan" creature types where everything ends up that can't run away fast enough: outsider, vermin, and aberration. I wanted to change that. 3) Creature type seperation does not have anything to do with real-life categorization. It is my belief that by making it more in-line with real-life categorization, a great lot of strangeness can be removed (You can awaken a bear or an owl, but not an Owlbear? Because a wizard did it?) That is my "benefit" and my reason to do this. Ich habe fertig. Flasche leer.
Xeviat-DM 11-22-05, 02:14 AM	Insects generally are covered by chitin, which gives them a slight DR. And arachnids aren't? I'm pretty sure a crab's shell is much harder than a beetle's, what with the having to survive under emense water pressure and all ... The ultimate reason is logic. They are two different things. I'm sorry, I just noticed that your arachnid and insect types have the exact same BAB, HD, saves, and skill points. Doesn't seem different to me. Okay, let me ask you a couple questions: if you would do it that way, what would the following be: 1) A human being? Under the current system, this is a Humanoid, under my proposed system, it would be Mammal(humanoid). Animal (Mammal, Humanoid) 2) A lizardfolk? Under the current system, this is a Monstrous Humanoid, under my proposed system, it would be a Reptile(humanoid). First off, lizardfolk are Humanoid (Reptilian), just like kobolds and troglodites. I'd have them as Animal (Reptile, Humanoid) 3) A medium-sized intelligent, perfectly mundane insect? Under the current system, this is an aberration or a magical beast (most likely aberration, because insects are icky, unlike, say, Sphinxes), under my proposed system, it would be a simple Insectoid. Not that the same insect without intelligence would be vermin. I don't see a creature type change warranted just because it evolved into being smarter than the average doohickey. It would be a magical beast because of it's intelligence, unless it had an "alien mindset", then it would be an aberration. Part of the current vermin type is a lack of an intelligence score. If it evolved, it could become a different type: humans became humanoids from animals, elves became humanoids from fey ... or one could assume. I'd have it be Animal (Arthropod) with an intelligence score higher thafn 3. 4) An undead sea spider? Under the current system it would be Undead, under my proposed system it would be Arachnid(undead). I can see undead as a subtype, but I also don't see any mechanical reason to do so unless there were some effects that could only harm certain undead. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, so I will try it again: my problem with the current way types are handled are basically three: 1) It is absurdly human-centric. Everything that is not human-like in appearance and is intelligent is either magical or unnatural. This is utter bollocks imnsho. By having the "monstrous humanoid" type it is directly implied that humans are the crown of evolution. Actually, monstrous humanoids not only look different, but they tend to have magical abilities. Look at the Minataur and the Lizardfolk; minataur is monstrous humanoid while lizardfolk is humanoid. I don't like the monstrous humanoid type because it is too broad, not because it's "human-centric". Remember, types only really matter for spell effects, the bane enhancement, and ranger favored enemy bonuses. You realize you're going to have to entirely revise the ranger, right? 2) There are three "trashcan" creature types where everything ends up that can't run away fast enough: outsider, vermin, and aberration. I wanted to change that. Outsider has subsections, vermin are all mindless, but natural, creatures. But I do agree that aberration is too large in the current rules, because I can't see them all being phisiologically similar enough for a ranger to apply their knowledge to all of them. 3) Creature type seperation does not have anything to do with real-life categorization. It is my belief that by making it more in-line with real-life categorization, a great lot of strangeness can be removed (You can awaken a bear or an owl, but not an Owlbear? Because a wizard did it?) I guess ... such categorization doesn't exist in the standard D&D world, though. I just don't see what this adds to the system. I'm sorry. I offered my advice.
Patrick Draken-Korin 12-09-05, 01:13 AM	ok, Sigurd, you're missing something big, but hey, most people seem to do so. type & actual body form have very little to do with each other. now, i'm not claiming there's no relation at all, just that it's only tenuous. under core D&D (meaning no use of splatbooks), it would be acceptable to do the following; - a 6 legged colossal cat, that has a swim speed, but isn't aquatic and can't breath water. it is an entirely mundane creature, and qualifies as an animal (max int 2, min int 1). - a small centipede creature with 6 multifaceted eyes on arrayed around it's head. it is intelligent (int 14) and has a psionic telekenisis ability, as well as telepathy 100ft. it could easily be an aberration, a magical beast or an outsider. - a psuedodragon, except that you take all of it's special qualities except low-light vision, you cut it's intelligence to 2, change it's alignment to true neutral, and grant it a bonus to hide checks in caves. now you can change it's type to animal, and have them created by nobles to have the prestige without actually having to be good (real pseudodragons are ****** of about this). - take a dog, give it wings and a whip-tail attack. give it a breath weapon. poof, make it a dragon. (look at the dragonne, they can have fur. the winged-dog dragon, just has fur covering it's scales). - take the hill giant. modify to tiny, with only 2 HD. it remains a giant (a pretty pitiful bloke of a giant, but still a giant). - take a humanoid, say the lizardfolk, and make it gargantuan, and give it four arms, and a third eye. it can remain a humaniod. (it should have at least 8 HD, and an LA of +2 to +5, but it could remain humanoid). - make an anthropomorphic crab, say medium sized. give 1 HD, and racial stats on par with te dwarf (except focused on the sea). it's a humanoid. - take the elf, add a gaze ability, and a touch attack (say both paralyze). it's now a mnostrous humanoid. when you take splatbooks into account, things get even weirder, so i won't go there. the point is that just because a creature could easily be limited to one type due to it's general nature, that isn't necessary. there is no rule that insectoid creatures are automatically vermin, just that vermin are automatically mindless. you could have a warmblooded vermin, or a feathered one, or whatever. there is no rule that all constructs must be slaves to thier maker's. it's just a standard preconception that bites (look at the maug in the fiend folio). there is no rule that all aberrations have to be evil, though that seems to be the case, minus the silthiar (in lords of madness). there is no rule that undead have to be evil (or necromancers or other users of negative energy), but the stigma remains, and they all seem to be evil. they even goofed and made deathless, futher entrenching the misunderstanding, because they never made the rule. change an animal's type to magical beast. what changes? HD, bab, possibly saves, max int, gains darkvision, gains other possible alignments (if it's intelligence ever rises above 2). but it's shape doesn't change. it's full attack doesn't change. it's speed doean't change. now, don't get me wrong, i like the idea of messing with types (and more effectivly the subtypes). why don't i? because if it ain't broke don't fix it. for the way my group plays, type isn't a limitation, except where the rules state that's the case. your system is an interesting idea, but not exactly useful. as Xeviat-DM stated, to my understanding anyway, several of your types (arachnid, mammal, exemplar) would make good subtype, but aren't neccessary as types. -------------------- 1) It is absurdly human-centric. Everything that is not human-like in appearance and is intelligent is either magical or unnatural. This is utter bollocks imnsho. By having the "monstrous humanoid" type it is directly implied that humans are the crown of evolution. agreed, partially. but as was thrown in my face in another thread, the system MUST be humano-centric. it all a matter of reference. creatures relate the best to thing that look similar, in both general shape and in specific form. in core D&D, the focus is introducing the system. they can only make up that which the buyer's will swallow. on the other hand, about humans as the peak of evolution... they suck. they always will. oh, sure a human gets a full 20 levels before epic. that's a detriment if taken from an evolutionary standpoint. a lizardfolk is as efficient as a level 3 human. that means if the humans and lizardfolk have equal populations at point A, for every thousand humans, they'll have a level 3 creature, while every lizardfolk will already be that efficient. check out true dragons. they are the peak. they advance in an awesome manner just by surviving a few centuries (note that a wyrmling is as efficient as a level 3-7 human, if not better). sure they advance slower. but acording to evolution, they're allready that much better. it's called a head start. the overall human population outnumbers dragons, but the overall mosquitoe population outnumbers humans. are mosquitoes the peak then? 2) There are three "trashcan" creature types where everything ends up that can't run away fast enough: outsider, vermin, and aberration. I wanted to change that. vermin are mindless. you can have instectoids that aren't mindless. i don't see what you mean about them being a doumping ground. outsiders, now they're a dumping ground, but with good cause. everything that is somewhat mystical without being nature-based or element-based can be dumped here. note that outsiders are devided into eight seperate subgroups (alignment and element subtypes). this means that though outsider may be a "trashcan" type, it's not overly disorganized (consider that a sword baned for all outsiders is a +9 weapon). aberrations on the other hand... but i've got a simple answer. aberrations are "mystially" similar (in that magic just recognizes that some isn't right), but physically are totally different (though it doesn't really matter). favored enemy (aberration) allows the ranger to attack the strangeness regardless of the creatures specific strcuture. same with undead and outsiders. 3) Creature type seperation does not have anything to do with real-life categorization. It is my belief that by making it more in-line with real-life categorization, a great lot of strangeness can be removed (You can awaken a bear or an owl, but not an Owlbear? Because a wizard did it?) Exactly! why is an owlbear differnet? com'mon on it's obvious! so it isn't affected as an animal. as i stated way up above, type chages have nothing to do with shape, but with effects. say you're an evil god (bane), and you've decided to create a batch of monsters (owlbears). are you A) going to take the easy route and make 'em animals, B) going to take the difficult route and give 'em powerful abilities (requireing that they must be magical beasts and thereby justifying the type), or C) take the middle route, somewhat nastily make them magical beasts so druids & rangers have no direct power over them? also the fact that they're magical beasts means that the owlbear has superior HD (D10, better bab). all the better to kill with. of course, i take this view because i first read about owlbears in the third book of the moonshae trilogy, when bane, suprise suprise, created the first owlbear. that's forgotten realms though, so you migh not care. as for creature type have little or nothing to do with RL creatures... in RL all creatures are animals, vermin or humanoids. that's messing with a system of 15 types, because they don't evenly match with a system of 3 types (sure 7 of the 15 are totally unaffected, but that's less than half). --------------------- ok, in parting i'll wish you a good day, and luck with you're new type list. i think you'll need it as i have (yet ;) ) seen a signifigant change that is useful. but i'll watch this thread, hoping. :) seperated the text somewhat as you asked
Gilean 12-10-05, 04:38 AM	Just to encourage people reading that text, could you use shift a bit more? It is painful to read. Please?
WarColonel 12-10-05, 11:42 AM	Instead of having the different phylums of creatures, since that is essenttually what you did, put the type animal or beast and make everything a subtype. I mean, you have completely left out the dinosaur (of which there are a few), something that is neither reptile or bird, so you need a new type. I've also never liked the consept of Magical Beasts. A giant eagle is just an extra-large bird, why neccessarily make it magical? The ankheg is a completely legitimit insectoid. It is just must too large to ever truely exist. A roc is not considered a magical beast, but a girallon is. Why? If you indeed make it magical, consider it a subtype. You could use that subtype for other creatures with inate magical abilities are aren't neccessarily inherent to all creatures of the type, like beholders, who produce magical rays, which is not a norm for an abberation. The only types that would just all become magical, with very few exceptions, is the Elementals, Outsiders, and posssibly Constructs.
Patrick Draken-Korin 12-10-05, 10:03 PM	the giant eagle is a magical beast because it's got 10 intelligence and a neutral good alignment. it also has an evasion ability. two of these facts prohibit it from being an animal in core D&D. (specific restrictions; int of 1 or 2, only a true neutral alignment). the evasion ability is iffy, but i'd state it as more than entirely mundane, imo, even though it is just an extraordinary ability. the ankheg is a magical beast because it's got an ability to spit acid as well as acid damage added to it's bite attack. altogether the spit acid ability is the most likely reason that the ankheg is a magical beast (either that or my answer for the owlbear- so that it is immune to animal specific effects and thus not a viable target for many druid/ranger abilities. the additional hit point per HD and superior bab also don't hurt). as for the girallon, my guess is the same as for the owlbear. no good reason other than to make an animal looking creature that druids/rangers have no special power over. now consider; how useful is it really for a DM to have a half dozen or even a couple dozen creatures on hand that a druid can't manipulate/target any better than say a sorcerer? VERY USEFUL. say for a plot hook (druid that can't communicate with new animal species; four armed gorilla). or a challenge if there are multiple druid/ranger types in the group, especially multiclassers. or as pets/guard beasts for creatures that fear opposition by druids/rangers (owlbears are good for this).
Gilean 12-11-05, 02:32 AM	Inability of druids and rangers to affect something is not enough. It can be done with a simple special quality.
Patrick Draken-Korin 12-11-05, 07:41 PM	what special quaility? not that you can't make up anything you want, but what would the ability be? say, that the creature counts as a magical beast rather than an animal? to my mind it's MUCH easier just to set it's HD for that. especially when you add the fact that magical beast HD are more valuable than animal HD. besides an ability that allows a creature to be immune to effects that target it according to it's type seems like a bad precident. if you do that then you might be tempted to have undead that are immune to turning (not affected backwards like deathless) or other creatures immune to thier bane ability. too much of D&D is based on the creature type targeting system; to make any part of it irrellavent could prove to be catastrophic for the rest*. now i ain't telling you what to do, merely waning how bad it could be if you do it. *oh, and i think my statement is insufficient to convey my full opinion on that idea without resorting to insults or swearing (though i guess stating this sorta works).
Sigurd van Norhusen 12-12-05, 02:50 AM	OK, I will try to answer the issues a bit more in general, ok? First of all, I wonder where the downright hostility from several posters comes from. It seems to me that as soon as one leaves the more common houserules (wp/vp, defense bonus, armor as DR), people become angry. I'm not trying to demolish your game, I'm not forcing you to play this game with my adjustments, I'm not even trying to tell you that you are dumb for playing with standard creatures types, so please don't tell me I'm dumb because I want to change something that is not broken. If I did not feel that it was broken, I would not change it. Patrick Draken-Korin: It might not feel broken to you, but it does to me. Also,thank you for not swearing. I think I would put you on ignore if you came in here swearing about how I'm destroying DnD. Also, thank you for pointing out why the creature type system doesn't work if you want to break it. According to the SRD: Vermin Type: This type includes insects, arachnids, other arthropods, worms, and similar invertebrates. It seems to me like all insects are vermin. That also means that any insect, arachnid, arthropod or worm that is not mindless has to be either a magical beast, an outsider, or an aberration. Most of the time they are aberrations. Unless they are (monstrous) humanoids, in which case it is perfectly fine for them to be unmagical, because they look largly like us. Constructs being slaves to their masters, undead/aberrations being evil is not the point of the thread, and I honestly don't see why you brought that up. If you want to argue, at least argue about things that I posted here. You do not seem to understand the difference between humano-centric and humanoid-centric. The first means that humans are the basis by which everything else is measured, the second means that humanoids (that means: things that look like humans) are the basis by which everything else is measured. The first I can understand for reasons of familiarity and logical deduction ("It is twice as fast as a human sprinter." "Dude, that's fast!"), the second I can't ("Look, it is a speaking cat-like being." "OMG, there must be magic involved in this unnatural occurence!"). In RL we do not differentiate creatures into "animals, vermin or humanoids". We have this thing called phylums, creature categorisations. Your argument against changing the creature system is the same is basically wrong. You'd have to change Bane-weapons, sure, and you can easily change the "Person" family of spells to affect only creatures with an intelligence of more than 4, or those with humanoid subtype, or both, and blame it on the human wizard that developed the spells. Then state that the "animal" type of spells only affects things with an intelligence of 0-3, and be done with it. Also, as far I as I am aware, there are feats that make undead virtually immune to turning. WarColonel: Are you thinking of the Archeopterix? I would say that it is more reptile than bird, personally. The one that gets me really thinking is the Platypus, though. Of course, no system is perfect, so you might want to add a Hybrid(creature type1, creature type2) type if you feel like it. On the other hand, those might be good candidates for Aberration. I removed the Magical Beast type because it makes no sense to me as well. Semi-OT: The problem with large insects is that their lungs are highly inefficient for larger sizes (I think the largest insects on earth were arounnd the sizes of dogs). It is however not unthinkable that in a different kind of evolutions, insects appeared that had more efficient lungs and could thusly become even larger.
Gilean 12-12-05, 11:48 AM	what special quaility?Tainted by [insert deity here] This creature is immune to spells that only affect animals, by virtue of having deific power invested to that end. Also, this animal can't be an animal companion.
Patrick Draken-Korin 12-13-05, 12:07 AM	:eek: :confused: ??? oh, :rolleyes: . Sigurd, you missed my points (or so it seems from your replies). ------------ my first post on this thread was directed towards yourself. 1) i stated that the relation (between type and form) wasn't as absolute as you were making it sound. that absolute definition problem seemed to be the main reason for your new creature types. it was a (hopefully helpful) suggestion, not dictated orders or an insult or anything hostile. i may have been incorrect for vermin if quoting from the SRD, but isn't it easier to change THAT than re-invent the type system? but hey, do what you want. 2) as for constructs and undead, i was merely listing similar misconeptions to your (to my mind at the time) narrow view of what different types allowed. 3) check my first quote of yourself in my first post. you said "human-centric" not "humanoid centric". my replay was based on that*. 4) sure, we've got humanoids, animals and vermin. or at least that's how they're classified as you translate them into D&D (and d20 modern). my point was that you're changing an important part of the D&D creature system to match RL, when RL isn't nearly as streamlined as D&D, so when you're finished you'll have a system that is extremely complicated. (not that complicated is bad, just a possible drain on time). oh, and D&D can have kindoms and phylums and general and specific species. you should look for that thread on the monster board about determinig the spcies of D&D monsters by latin/greek name. Your argument against changing the creature system is the same is basically wrong. You'd have to change Bane-weapons, sure, and you can easily change the "Person" family of spells to affect only creatures with an intelligence of more than 4, or those with humanoid subtype, or both, and blame it on the human wizard that developed the spells. Then state that the "animal" type of spells only affects things with an intelligence of 0-3, and be done with it. 5) of course you can change the spells. and the magic items. and the various special abilities of various creatures. this was in no way refered to by myself. i did mention that a weapon baned to all outsiders would be a +9 weapon (+1 good outsider, evil outsider, chaotic outsider, lawful outsider, fire outsider, water outsider, earth outsider, air outsider dagger), but that was refering to the fact that the outsiders as a "trashcan" type is reasonable. with eight subtypes, including overlap, outsiders could be considered diverse enough, even though there are more outsiders than any other creature type. creatures immune to thier bane ability refered to the possibly of a dragon that was immune to dragon-bane weapons**. not an owlbear (now an animal in your system) being immune to magical beast-bane weapons. my argument against your type rearangement was that it ultimate hadn't accomplished much beyond muddying the waters. i even said it had potential, and would keep watch. 6) there is NO official feat that grants undead creatures immunity to the turn undead ability. turn resistance and increases thereto aren't immunity. if WotC are at all intelligent there never will be. because it would mean that the most powerful tool to use against undead (and the most common one) is instantly obsolete, as what undead that can take feats wouldn't have it? 7) messing with the intelligence range that is described as animal (normally 1 to 2) is probably a bad idea too. go ahead, see if it is. that's just my opinion. ----------- my second post was directed at WarColonel, trying to explain my reasoning on why WotC did what they did for those creatures. ----------- my third post was replying to Gilean, unbeliving that someone would actually create any part of a system that possibly made the entire system irrelavent. oh, and i wouldn't have sweared anyways. the point on my astrix note wasn't selfcontrol, but the total inability to respond to the proper degree when restricted to a civilized manner (as everyone should be on these message bords). **any and EVERY effect that allows a creature to dodge type targeting effects is a bad idea. Gilean, you can make up what you want, but if it is successful (entierly possible) and not abused/misused (which i doubt), you've still got to use such effects sparingly. otherwise your players won't ever use any type targeting effects, unless they develope the "detect type" spell chain. ---------- *an on the subject of humano-centric vs. humanoid centric; the first refers to humans from RL playing D&D, and thier perspective towards the game. the second refers to humanoids (which includes but isn't limited to humans) in general and thier perspective towards everything else (which includes but isn't limited to D&D). did you notice how they're basicly the same? why are they? because it just so happens that humans in RL are humanoids (strange conicidence huh? what with the humanoid type based around humans and all...). D&D first compares RL to what D&D's got, then what is "normal" in D&D to what isn't. in core D&D humanoids, animals, vermin, mundane equipment, and little else is normal. the rest is what makes D&D interesting (in comparison to RL). creating more "normal" things for D&D is both easy and difficult; you've either got to change what was considered normal before, or add something entirely new. either change can be made quickly, but the ramifications may never be fully determined. --------------------- when you rearrange a section of the game, though, do you first look for a loose thread or just grab and tug? do you check what where the string goes/went or tear any odd one out and weave back they way you want at the time? whenever i make changes, i consider these things (note that i still make pretty big changes, i just look before i leap). i pointed out possible problems and things you might have forgotten or never understood. if you take anything as other than constructive criticism, that's your problem. if you're unwilling or unable to differenctiate between constructive criticism and hostility, that's my problem (as it was supposedly my hostility, so therefore i didn't convey myself correctly). PS. note that i rarely if ever use imo, or imho. this is because EVERYTHING that i say is my opinion or repeating someone else's opinion, which i agree with (therefore claiming some or all of the opinion as my own). this is true for everybody (except for mindless drones that can't think for themselves and only spout what they've been told; very few people on these message boards should qualify as drones, as they're gamers). if my lack of use for those terms is what encouraged you to missunderstand me, then sorry, but that's all it was. PPS. if any of this post has offended you, then you're probably going to be offended by whatever i say/write/think, so i'd simply ignore you from that point on. goodbye, hopefully, until i've got something worth adding to this thread, rather than forever, as you seem to have interesting ideas, Sigurd, even if i think they're overly complicated and inefficient. (you should, no wait, SHOULDN'T see what my brother comes up with :rolleyes: ).
Sigurd van Norhusen 12-13-05, 09:15 AM	1) i stated that the relation (between type and form) wasn't as absolute as you were making it sound. that absolute definition problem seemed to be the main reason for your new creature types. And yet, the "trashcan" phenomenon (while most visible in aberration and outsider, by no means limited to them) is one of my issues with the current system. The current creature types are both arbitary and too restricting. Okay, I will try to offer my opinion on all the examples you gave, and what they would be in the system I have. Maybe it shows that it is less complicated or more complicated than the current one. - a 6 legged colossal cat, that has a swim speed, but isn't aquatic and can't breath water. it is an entirely mundane creature, and qualifies as an animal (max int 2, min int 1). Current system: Animal/Aberration. Proposed system: Mammal. - a small centipede creature with 6 multifaceted eyes on arrayed around it's head. it is intelligent (int 14) and has a psionic telekenisis ability, as well as telepathy 100ft. it could easily be an aberration, a magical beast or an outsider. Current system: Aberration/Magical Beast/Outsider (Outsider only because you said so). Proposed system: Insectoid (You do not qualify for Aberration as soon as you have psionics or intelligence in my book. And it is too vague for Outsider.) - a psuedodragon, except that you take all of it's special qualities except low-light vision, you cut it's intelligence to 2, change it's alignment to true neutral, and grant it a bonus to hide checks in caves. now you can change it's type to animal, and have them created by nobles to have the prestige without actually having to be good (real pseudodragons are ****** of about this). Current system: Not sure, actually. I'd go for Dragon still, but Animal could be true, too. Proposed system: Dragon (just a really dumb one). - take a dog, give it wings and a whip-tail attack. give it a breath weapon. poof, make it a dragon. (look at the dragonne, they can have fur. the winged-dog dragon, just has fur covering it's scales). Current system: Aberration/Magical Beast/Outsider/Dragon (I'm not sure about the dragon part, however). Proposed system: Aberration (I blame that type on the breath weapon.). - take the hill giant. modify to tiny, with only 2 HD. it remains a giant (a pretty pitiful bloke of a giant, but still a giant). Current system: Giant. (I dislike the Giant type for this reason.) Proposed system: Mammal (humanoid). - take a humanoid, say the lizardfolk, and make it gargantuan, and give it four arms, and a third eye. it can remain a humaniod. (it should have at least 8 HD, and an LA of +2 to +5, but it could remain humanoid). Current system: Monstrous humanoid (Can't be humanoid, because they have four arms). Proposed system: Reptile (humanoid). - make an anthropomorphic crab, say medium sized. give 1 HD, and racial stats on par with te dwarf (except focused on the sea). it's a humanoid. Current system: Humanoid. Proposed system: Mammal (humanoid). - take the elf, add a gaze ability, and a touch attack (say both paralyze). it's now a mnostrous humanoid. Current system: Aberration/Monstrous Humanoid. Proposed system: Aberration (humanoid). i may have been incorrect for vermin if quoting from the SRD, but isn't it easier to change THAT than re-invent the type system? but hey, do what you want. First of all, I want a system that I like, which makes sense to me. I do not mind it being a bit more complicated, because I think DnD's creature system is too oversimplified. 2) as for constructs and undead, i was merely listing similar misconeptions to your (to my mind at the time) narrow view of what different types allowed. Uh-huh. 3) check my first quote of yourself in my first post. you said "human-centric" not "humanoid centric". my replay was based on that*. Ooops. I apologize, it should be "humanoid-centric" instead. I used human-centric in relation to the creature types (because humanoid in itself is human-centric), but I should have clarified it better. 4) sure, we've got humanoids, animals and vermin. or at least that's how they're classified as you translate them into D&D (and d20 modern). my point was that you're changing an important part of the D&D creature system to match RL, when RL isn't nearly as streamlined as D&D, so when you're finished you'll have a system that is extremely complicated. I don't know about extremely complicated. Care to provide an example that would be extremely complicated in my system? Unless you want to count things like the Platypus. I have a couple of examples of my own: - Rats are not vermin, yes, cannot be vermin, yet they are the creature who has been for the greatest part of its history defined *vermin*. - No matter if it was a fish, a bird, a vermin, or uncle Joe, as soon as it is undead, it might as well not have mattered. - Dharculi (intruders from outside of reality) and Ultroloths (perfect manifestations of Neutral Evil, spawned from the Gray Waste itself) are of the same creature type. (not that complicated is bad, just a possible drain on time). oh, and D&D can have kindoms and phylums and general and specific species. you should look for that thread on the monster board about determinig the spcies of D&D monsters by latin/greek name. Link? Also, does that affect creature categorization as relating to gameplay in any way? 5) of course you can change the spells. and the magic items. and the various special abilities of various creatures. this was in no way refered to by myself. i did mention that a weapon baned to all outsiders would be a +9 weapon (+1 good outsider, evil outsider, chaotic outsider, lawful outsider, fire outsider, water outsider, earth outsider, air outsider dagger), but that was refering to the fact that the outsiders as a "trashcan" type is reasonable. That only shows why Outsider bane weapons are overpowered. Splitting Outsiders in Outsiders and Exemplars reduces the issue. with eight subtypes, including overlap, outsiders could be considered diverse enough, even though there are more outsiders than any other creature type.New version splits off 4 Examplar subtypes, less overlap, less overall issues. refered to the possibly of a dragon that was immune to dragon-bane weapons**. not an owlbear (now an animal in your system) being immune to magical beast-bane weapons. My system does not have "animal" as type. my argument against your type rearangement was that it ultimate hadn't accomplished much beyond muddying the waters. i even said it had potential, and would keep watch. That is not an argument, that is an opinion. Argument would be "it muddies the water, this is bad because", like your example with the outsider bane weapons. 6) there is NO official feat that grants undead creatures immunity to the turn undead ability. turn resistance and increases thereto aren't immunity. if WotC are at all intelligent there never will be. because it would mean that the most powerful tool to use against undead (and the most common one) is instantly obsolete, as what undead that can take feats wouldn't have it? Hm, I guess I'd need to read up on the feats. I lost count somewhere around 1,000. I will refrain from saying this again until I have seen it. 7) messing with the intelligence range that is described as animal (normally 1 to 2) is probably a bad idea too. go ahead, see if it is. that's just my opinion. Mistyped, sorry. The animal range should be unchanged. But then, they're just randomly thrown out numbers anyway. my third post was replying to Gilean, unbeliving that someone would actually create any part of a system that possibly made the entire system irrelavent. oh, and i wouldn't have sweared anyways. the point on my astrix note wasn't selfcontrol, but the total inability to respond to the proper degree when restricted to a civilized manner (as everyone should be on these message bords). And you wonder why I found you hostile? I am, however, not that easily offended. Gilean, you can make up what you want, but if it is successful (entierly possible) and not abused/misused (which i doubt), you've still got to use such effects sparingly. otherwise your players won't ever use any type targeting effects, unless they develope the "detect type" spell chain. So, do they use the "detect type" spell chain if they are unsure if something is a magical beast, aberration, well-conserved undead, outsider, or animal, too?
Evil DM Mk3 12-13-05, 01:13 PM	Whilst you are about it two things. 1. You missed birds. Where do they go. They aint mamals!(Closest I could find) Far from it! 2. Whist you are about it you can do away with the annoying int cap of 2 on non-sentiant creatures by instead giving any creature that isnt sentiant a non-sentiant sub type. Would also apply to things like formian workers who are only an extention of a hive mind.
Pz.Az.04Maus 12-14-05, 10:21 AM	I like the idea that Humanoid is a sub-type: if you don't mind i'll be yoinking that. But distinguishing arachnids, vermin and insects is going too far IMO. Just having "Insects" covers it along with a "Mammal" and "Reptile" set. I'm not sure what to do with the Fish type - I really need to brush up on this stuff. Maybe include the subtypes of Humanoid (maybe even just Bipedal), Quadpedal, etc. I'm not sure how far to take that though :| Well this has some good stuff but in other areas it seems weird (like having 3 types of essentially insects). I like how Humanoid is now a subtype, but why did you make the aquatic subtype 'fish'? Why not say Aquatic animal (or aquatic animaloid?:eek: ;) ). It just sounds ooky that I'm categorizing a Dolphin, a Mermaid, and a Kraken by the Type "Fish," if I were to use this? And, by the way, I made up the word of Animaloid to help me a little, anyone else with something more official and who is outraged at my mutilation of the English language, please stand up. While I'm at this, why is there arachnopods and Insects? Then theres a Vermin Subtype? Make your mind, please. Oh... I see now... Vermin is to show that the insect/arachnid is actually a bug, my bad. Well, what about the others? Surely you wouldn't call a worm or a Centipede a arachnopod or a Insect. Another thing, why isn't there a type for flying creatures? I think that there should be some division in if an animal lives normally on land, sea, or in the air. Next, why are most of the monster types saying that they do not have magical or innate abilities? Can only Outsiders and Aberrations, along with other things be the only true "Spellcaster-Folk?" Lastly, where do Warforged come in? Since they are Living Constructs, shouldn't there be a Sentient and unsentient Construct Subtype? Thats all I've got for now. Good work, but I feel that something is a little ooky with what you got, and I really don't have the time to actually categorize every monster from the Monster Manual down since I've got my hands full with trying to get a campaign fully launched, and many Homebrewed things to brew. Plus I've got lots of schoolwork. Ciao. [PS: I think the reason why the Creature types/subtypes thing is "ooky" is because of it being something of an attempt to categorize something that is difficult to categorize already. But, you're doing good, keep it up!]
Sigurd van Norhusen 12-14-05, 12:47 PM	I like how Humanoid is now a subtype, but why did you make the aquatic subtype 'fish'? Why not say Aquatic animal (or aquatic animaloid?:eek: ;) ). It just sounds ooky that I'm categorizing a Dolphin, a Mermaid, and a Kraken by the Type "Fish," if I were to use this? Dolphins and Mermaids are mammals with a swim speed. I'd say that a Kraken, having no real spine, would fall under Vermin. Just a really big one. While I'm at this, why is there arachnopods and Insects? That is arachnids, as in "spider-like". Then theres a Vermin Subtype? Make your mind, please. Oh... I see now... Vermin is to show that the insect/arachnid is actually a bug, my bad. Arachnids are not bugs. Bugs are insects, but insects aren't bugs per se. Well, what about the others? Surely you wouldn't call a worm or a Centipede a arachnopod or a Insect. Those are vermin. Another thing, why isn't there a type for flying creatures? I think that there should be some division in if an animal lives normally on land, sea, or in the air. I forgot to add a bird type for those. Other than that, if they have a fly speed, they can fly. Next, why are most of the monster types saying that they do not have magical or innate abilities? Can only Outsiders and Aberrations, along with other things be the only true "Spellcaster-Folk?" Copy & Paste error. It is honestly not a very well refined draft. Lastly, where do Warforged come in? Since they are Living Constructs, shouldn't there be a Sentient and unsentient Construct Subtype? I don't know about Warforged, as I don't really care about Eberron. I don't see what's wrong with the construct type, though. Just give them sentinence and be done with it.
Pz.Az.04Maus 12-15-05, 07:25 PM	While I'm at this, why is there arachnopods and Insects? Then theres a Vermin Subtype? Make your mind, please. Oh... I see now... Vermin is to show that the insect/arachnid is actually a bug, my bad. Well, what about the others? Surely you wouldn't call a worm or a Centipede a arachnopod or a Insect. D'oh. Arachnid. My bad.
Patrick Draken-Korin 12-19-05, 10:02 PM	hmm. first, i'll reiterate the fact that i ain't trying to stop you're type rearrangement, just clear up problems as i see 'em. at the very least i can ignore the more extreme changes and use the ones that fit my campaign. think of me as a critic that never the less is taking notes and occasionally suggests useful facts/suggestions. (meaning i don't expect responses, just thought) so, here's what i'm going to do today; i'll quote stuff from the MM, MM3 and possibly other creature book locations, and ask for opinions and what you'll be doing to that. k? i'll also include my take on each thing, so you can see my point of view. ------- Aberrations. from the MM: an aberration has a bizarre anatomy, strange abilities, an alien mindset, or any combination of the three. now, i've got lords of madness, but i'll not quote it because that would take too long. i'll just include that in my take on aberrations below. my take on aberrations: tentacles don't make an abberation. neither do gaze attacks (why would my proposed not-elf be an aberration?) a bizarre anatomy isn't the face tentacles of an illithid; it's thier body structure being made made entirely from brain-matter. organs that animals couldn't have apply but not just a strange appearance. strange abilities aren't merely psionics or those unavailable to humanoids. the aboleth's genetic memory and transformation abilities, though... an alien mind-set is the easiest to classify; you've actually got to state the fact that it exists, so if none is suggested, it's got a normal mind-set. illithids can't feel any positive emotions and the neogi view all things as food and/or property. altogether aberration are a mixed bag, but as as "trashcan" type, well you may've seen all the differnet aberrations and said "look at this mess. they don't match up and there's no overall structure. gotta fix this". but if you did, you missed the point- aberrations are WEIRD. they don't mesh with anything else, and are too hard to classify. that is the overall structure. on the rare occasion that an aberration's make-up included evolution it usually either was an aberration before it evolved or else it evolved alongside other creatures classed as aberrrations. ------- Animals. from the MM: a living nonhuman creature, usually a vertebrate with no magical abilities and no innate capacity for language and culture. my take on animals: the MM description bites. mine is as follows; a living creature of minimal intelligence that evolved naturally without mystical or abnormal influence (controlled breeding allows animals, magical crossbreeding or genetic manipulation doesn't). must not include any mystical abilities, or abilities that require thought (excluding most extraordinary class features). birds, lizards, dinosaurs, mammals, fish, and insectoids that have an intelligence of 1 or 2 all qualify as animals in my book. but i will look into making subtypes fr all of these (though i'm not so sure about fish). as for you're insectoids, wouldn't it be more logical for thier DR to A) be based on size and b) be DR X/bludgeoning? DR/adamanitine applies to golems mostly because golems are bloody powerful. even DR 1/adamanitine is more powerful than DR 5/bludgeoning. on the other hand, normally chitin is natural armor. as is scales, thick fur, reptilian shell (such as turtles) and just plain thick hide. ------- Construsts. you'don't care, and i'm not bothing you with them, at least unless you express intrest in changing them (cause i've got my own ideas there). ------- Dragon. you don't care, and i ain't gonna defend changing them (though i'm not going to fascilitate it either). ------- Elemental. you don't care, though maybe you should as those exemplars of your's sound like they're just alignmentals (an idea i've been working on- elementals created from an alignment componment rather than a physical element). i'll post junk on elementals at you request, but otherwise will ignore them. ------- Fey. you don't care, though changing outsiders to have your exemplars seperate might affect them in some manner or another. ------- Giants. no quote, just a comment. the difference between giants an humanoids isn't JUST size (remember, size matters not), though the people at WotC didn't clarify this anywhere obvious. check p.297 of the MM3.5, on the str/dex/con of creatures according to thier types. giants have a higher str and con for creatures of thier size. that's as far as core goes. me, i go further. but rather than enhancing giants, mostly i reduce humanoids. see below for details. ------- Humanoids. from the MM: a humanoid usually has two arms, two legs and one head, or a human-like toraso, arms and a head. humanoids have few or no supernatural or extraordinary abilities, but most can speak and have well-developed societies. they are usually small or medium. every humanoid also has a subtype, etc. my take on humanoids: the MM description bites. mine is as follows; humans suck. get over it. why do humanoids trade thier first HD for that of a class (even if it's COMMONER)? becasue they don't. humanoids DON'T have racial HD, instead they automatically get commoner HD and can swap thier latest hit die for another class (first hit die for player humanoids and a few others, final hit die for humanoids that actually have racial HD). this eliminates requirement for the explanation as to why any humanoid (human, elf, whatever) would stoop to trading d8, 3/4 bab and 1 good save for d4, 1/2 bab and no good saves. it's freaking insane according to core rules. note that this also makes taking caster levels as a racial HD humanoid easier, as well as lowering LA for them (but not for others). also note that had i not already though up this answer, i'd run with your humanoid subtype as far as it'd go, but i've already got (what i think to be) a superior answer. oh, and consider that the MM states "usually has two arms, two legs and one head, or a human-like torso, arms and a head", not only these two configurations. acceptable changes include (to my mind); four arms, wings but no arms, wings and arms, or a tail. two heads, claws, fangs, or horns though are only rarely acceptable (say if there pretty ineffectual or are merely for show). ------- Magical Beasts. from the MM: magical beasts are simliar to animals but can have an intelligenc higher than 2. magical beasts usually have supernatural or extraordinary abilities, but some are merely bizarre in appearance or habits. my take on magical beasts: the MM description bites (though i never realized it till now). mine is as follows (and is sorta written on the fly); magical beasts are more than merely animals, having mystical or extraordinary abilities, a higher intelligence or an ancestry that isn't entierly mundane. a few magical beasts could otherwise have been animals except that they were enhanced to be more than thier forebears. as for girallons and owlbears, the bizarre appearance is most likely the cause. and i thought that the writers at WotC had put careful thought into making anti-druid beasties. that bites. and consider; if you keep the animal and magical beast types, but add the various mammal, lizard, fish, bird, arachnid subtype, then you'd have types that remain balanced, but the classification and type targeting that you method would achive. not to say that this would be overall superior, but just that it's a thought, a plan B if you will. ------- Monstrous Humanoids. from the MM: monstrous humanoids are similar to humanoids, but with monstrous or animalistic features. they often have magical abilities as well. my take on monstrous humanoids: the MM description bites (i say that alot don't i?). mine is as follows; monstrous humanoids are usually creatues that would otherwise qualify to be humanoid except that they have worthwhile HD. most monstrous humanoids have mystical or extraordinary abilities, or an anatomy that is slightly too far off from humanoid normalcy (centaur, medusa). i'm really wondering how these creature will fit ibto your new type system. they will in generall be counted in the same manner as humanoids would, thus losing out on thier superior HD. a counter to that would be to include a mantrous humanoid subtype, but i think that's going too far- you're goal is to elimate such destinctions. altogether i expect that to be a sticky issue, though i'll help if i can. ------- Oozes. you don't care, and niether do i. ------- Outsiders. from the MM: an outsider is atleast partially composed of the essence (but not necessarily material) of somew plane other than the material plane. some creatures start out as some other type and become outsiders as they attain some higher (or lower) state of spiritual being). my take on monstrous humanoids: the MM description bites (i really say that alot. i guess i'm just as dissatisfied with they types as you, i'm just looking for simpler answers). mine is as follows; an outsider is somehow more than other creatures. more spiritual, more immoral, more enlightened, more active, more resilient, more openminded, more intolerant. more REAL. outsiders are almost always created with the essence of an outer plane, and possibly created from the material of that plane. a few outsiders were "normal" creature before, but were change fundementally in one way or another to become an outsider. as for exemplars, i like the idea (as long as they're seperated from alignmentals), but i'd probably have exemplar as either a subtype, with an alignment associated with it or as a trait that is applied to creatures that have the alignment subtypes. one question about your campaign; do you soley adventure on the material plane or is planar travel relativly common? if it's the first, then adding the exemplar type probably will have only minor chnages applied. but if planar travel is common, then exemplars as another type may cause problems (though i admittedly can't think of any off hand). ------- Plants. whatever. no one cares about the plants. ------- Undead. skip the quote. undead as a subtype works, i just don't agree with it. i prefer to run the other way; for most creature that become undead, they have thier previous type as the augmented "type" subtype. as a sidenote, how are you handling undead cretures that really should be templates, but aren't? such as ghouls, vampire spawn and wights. for me, i'm taking all of these and will eventually turn them into true templates. how about you? with undead as a subtype it might be easier than my method, but eh. whatever. oh, and about deathless. i know that they're one of the stupidest things that WotC ever did to psotive and negative energy in comparison to alignment. but besides that, would deathless be another subtype or just as sidenote with your undead subtype? ------- vermin. skip the quote, suffice to say it includes all creepy crawly invertebrates. as far as this goes, it's just plain silly. many invertebrate creatures should qualify as animals, and as for all insectoids being mindless, i've gotta object. on the other hand, rearranging types because rats are labled as vermin in RL is silly too. too much of D&D is based on alternate deffinitions for this to be a major point. just look at druids. the vermin type has no influence on what the common people of a D&D world would refer to as vermin, any more than the RL term geek has much to do with biting off chicken heads anymore. in fact to commoners in a D&D world "vermin" could include everything from creepy crawlies to rodents to weak monsters to adventurers. you never know. ------- ---------- well, that's just about it for today. oh, and i was wondering if you'd come up with a better term than positive energy and negative enrgy subtypes? i'm going with posiphilic and negaphilic until i come up with something better. bye.