Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 prestokeys Apr 18, 2015 11:05:39	I can picture a goblin do the following things: -use weapons -wear armor -drink potions     So Humanoid?  This covers goblins, orcs, kobolds.  But I can also picture Giants, skeletons doing the above (okay, so skeletons cannot drink potions, and a potion is too small for a giant).  Can an owlbear drink a potion?  So there has to be a classification for those who can use weapons and wear armor, and then a separate classification for those who can drink potions as well?  Then there are other "human-like" actions I'm sure that I haven't listed yet.
#2 EmpactWB Apr 18, 2015 11:17:57	It's not going to be nearly as easy as you hope. I'd recommend doing it on a case-by-case basis. Can a chimp use a spear? Sure. Can he drink a potion? Yep. Can he put on armor? Yep, though maybe not full plate. Creature type? Beast.   Potions, being restorative magic in a bottle, I'd allow to work on anything that isn't outright immune to such magic (sucks to be you, Rakshasha!) regardless of mass.   For any creature that could reasonably wield a weapon effectively, whether with hands, tail, prehensile tongue, or psychokinesis, I would permit them to use it.   While not every creature could use the same armor, the existence of boarding in the Player's Handbook means that there's an explicit okay to adjusting them for other body types already. Perfectly legitimate within the rules, I think.
#3 prestokeys Apr 18, 2015 11:38:18	So Humanoid and Beast would cover those who can do all of the above, and then there are others outside these categories (e.g. within Giants, Undead, Fiends) that are treated in a case by case basis.    Any monster with finger-like appendages can wear a ring?
#4 EmpactWB Apr 18, 2015 11:39:57	Pretty much, though I meant that even beasts need case-by-case treatment. How would an armadillo use a weapon? ;)   Yes on the rings, as well.
#5 Coredump00 Apr 18, 2015 15:50:47	IIRC, beast Int tends to be too low for most tool using and such.
#6 prestokeys Apr 18, 2015 17:16:43	Coredump00 wrote:
#7 EmpactWB Apr 18, 2015 17:23:09	That's a pretty common conception that real-world animals have been contradicting recently, crows and chimps in particular with making, modifying, and using tools (hence the chimp in my first example). There's a bit under Elementals in the MM where it says beasts have no society, culture, or sense of being, which is again contradicted by recent observations: certain songbirds have grammar, some apes make war for territory, and teaching a chimp that it will eventually die causes depression.   Giant eagles and giant owls have Int 8; giant apes and giant elk have Int 7; regular apes and giant vultures, Int 6; baboons, giant octopi, and giant weasels, Int 4; blood hawks, cats, dire wolves, elephants, giant goats, and giant wold spiders, Int 3; and I got bored and stopped at G. So all of these and probably more have scores available to PCs, and so are definitely smart enough to create and use tools.
#8 Grazel Apr 19, 2015 18:12:54	Most any "monster" with an Int of 3 or higher can use tools, and some below that could as well (various constructs for example). There is no easy way to categorize who can use what tools (weapons, armors, rings, wands, etc.). It's up to the DM to determine if that being has the capability, physically and mentally, to ustilize the specific item in a meaningful way. Just because something can wear a magic ring doesn't mean it can trigger it's effects if they aren't passive. A chimp could hold a wand but couldn't speak the trigger word for example.
#9 MechaPilot Apr 19, 2015 18:36:40	prestokeys wrote: