Pathfinder 1E Consolidating monster types further

VelvetViolet

Adventurer
One of the good things Pathfinder did was reduce the number of types by making Giant a humanoid subtype and Elemental an Outsider subtype.

However, I don't think this goes far enough. Several of the types can be easily reclassified as subtypes of another type based on the same rationale as giants and elementals.

Oozes are basically amorphous Aberrations, much as elementals are amorphous outsiders, and plants* would also qualify as aberrations, since their anatomy is utterly alien compared to animal anatomy (incidentally all three have the same HD/BAB progression). Creatures with the plant subtype are generally not normal plants that could be expected to exist in the real world, but are "aberrant," such as possessing the ability to walk on their own or attack and eat other creatures. "Normal" plants that don't violate real-world anatomy and are just dangerous to be around because of poisonous spores of some such are better classified as hazards.

Monstrous Humanoid and Magical Beast are just magical/better versions of humanoid and animal, respectively (e.g. a centaur is just a human with a horse lower body). In fact, they could just be condensed into a general monstrous/magical subtype that can be applied to humanoids or animals to give them better HD/BAB/skills. Dragons are just reptilian magical beasts except with better stats because dragons are just that awesome. Vermin are just animals with no intelligence score.

Monstrous Humanoid, in particular suffers from poor distinction from the humanoid type. Many humanoids have monstrous or animalistic features, but are not monstrous humanoids. The only real difference between the two is that monstrous humanoids have better stats and are immune to effects that target only humanoids, which has questionable logic behind it (why would a centaur be immune to charm person despite having the same basic psychology as a human?). Saying that this change shouldn't be made because it would overpower shapechanging spells no longer qualifies as a defense because PF changed the way those spells work precisely to prevent such things from happening.

Even construct and undead could be combined (since they already share so many traits already) or undead made into a subtype that can be applied to many of the other types rather than changing them to undead.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


WotC and Paizo did a poor job explaining what aberrations are. Eberron (and 4e) did this pretty well though.

Oozes are basically amorphous Aberrations, much as elementals are amorphous outsiders, and plants* would also qualify as aberrations, since their anatomy is utterly alien compared to animal anatomy (incidentally all three have the same HD/BAB progression).

I disagree with this particular point. I don't know if oozes need to be their own type, but aberration should not be a type. It's an "origin" subtype, much like a tiefling's quasi-demonic origin. Basically, aberrations are Cthulhu. Unfortunately, because they were given their own type, it specifies base saving throws and stuff like that. Lots of aberrations (beholders, mind flayers) make this work, but I don't see why a carrion crawler needs Will as its best base save. IMO, that's a magical beast (aberration) instead.

Sometimes aberrations overlap with demons. Dagon, mentioned in the Cthulhu mythos, is a demon. (Not just Pathfinder; there's a 4e adventure where the Voice of Dagon is a demon, not aberrant.) With a new system, Dagon could have demon and aberrant as subtypes. If you have a PC who hunts Cthulhu monsters or hunts demons, they would find Dagon's spawn easy prey.

I'm lost when it comes to plants. A lot of plants are fey.
 


Fey should be a subtype, just like "elf".

I agree with most of the other classification, especially Vermin and Monstrous Humanoid. Although I'm a bit iffy on dropping Plant.

Combining Construct and Undead sounds like a good idea, though I think it should be renamed as a new type - mostly due to the intelligent undead such as Vampires, which do not strike me as "constructed". Perhaps Artifice or Unliving.
 


The Aberation type doesn't just cover cthulhu-esque monsters: it's a catch-all category for everything that doesn't fit into one of the other types. I place ooze and plants under Aberration because of their alien anatomy.

The construct/undead type could be called "Animate" to indicated that they're magically or supernaturally animated non-living creatures. Unlike 4e, plant is not considered part of that category because they are living. However, I believe undead would be better off as a subtype that provided undead qualities, which would widen the number of spells that could affect undead because of their type.

This page and this page discussed a lot of the changes you're suggesting, but it's based on 3.5 and so would need some adjustments for pathfinder.
 

To each his own I guess but I didn't see the issue with the types in 3.5. I frankly am not all that fond of all the consolidation of skills and types.
 

In the system I've been working (for the past year and a half or so) has very similar consolidations. Part of the issue I'm still grappling with is the names of certain types (like your "aberrants") but I'll gladly share my thoughts on this subject. This kind of came and went a little while ago, discussing 5e's types/subtypes, with (I think it was) KM making very similar suggestions - though a more consolidated list.

Anyway.

Oozes not being a type. I completely agree here. But I think you are doing a disservice putting them in the Aberration category. Why isn't ooze simply a subtype that is applied to creatures without discernible anatomies. Water elementals are basically oozes. Air and fire elementals, debatable so. Earth probably not (I make them out to be either outsiders or constructs, depending on source).

Undead, also agreed, not a type; but a subtype fits them well. Again, as a subtype there is no reason to simply lump them in with "animated" but I do agree in principle. I would still consider these "animated" creatures to be constructs. Constructs of bone are still constructs. Undead are just animated using different methods than golems, but it is the same - mindless, un-living, but moving - idea.

Beyond that, if you do simply roll all undead in with constructs/animated then you might encounter some problems - especially from the non-mindless types of undead - of which there are a significant number. Zombies, skeletons and many kinds of corporeal undead would fit nicely, but ghosts, ghouls, vampires, liches and so on - not so much. But as a subtype which can be applied to any of my (see below) types it works great.

So, for types (using 3.5's terms):
Fey - Outsider - Humanoid - Animal - Magical Beasts - Constructs - Plants
(I feel like I'm missing one or two but I'm away from my design notes at the moment, just a quick reply while I can't sleep.)

I'm keeping Fey as a type, as many more "monstrous numanoids which are definitely NOT humanoid" can fit into this category where they may not elsewhile. Plus, there are a LOT of fey if you go looking. If you are going to roll this into another group - it then depends on campaign setting, whether or not fey are immortal outsiders or mortal "humanoids".

Also, the divide animal vs. magical beast (which I recommend changing to intelligent beasts but w/e) is along the lines of intelligence as opposed to magical power/s. Blink dogs seem pretty animal. So do wyverns. Unintelligence is then my semi-defining trait. Along with "mundane-ness". Agreed that dragons can fit into magical beast, that one is more or less a straight conversion - but off the top of my head wyverns, and I think dragon-turtles?, belong in animals based on my conversion. Dragon, also, then becomes a subtype. Vermin into animals too.

But yeah, @Raneth , mostly agreed here. It is funny how these things seem to crop up from time to time - with very similar results. Have fun, try to think of the implications of ALL the creatures with those types/subtypes you are affecting.

I'm lost when it comes to plants. A lot of plants are fey.

Hrmm.. Never considered that. Too big of a change for it to be registered in my calculation. I should look into that I think. It could net me a loss of a type - a very small type - which is always an interesting change. Very interesting.
 

My argument for dropping Fey as a type, and what I'd change certain things to:

Centaur [Humanoid (Fey, Monstrous)]
Dryad [Plant (Fey)]
Cooshee [Animal (Fey)]
Satyr [Humanoid (Fey)]
Faerie Dragon [Dragon (Fey)]
Glamour Ooze [Ooze (Fey)]
Baelnorn (Good elf lich) [Undead (Fey)]
Catyrid Column [Construct (Fey)]
 

Remove ads

Top