Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6174277" data-attributes="member: 95493">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,  @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=6686357" target="_blank">Raneth</a> , 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.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.</blockquote>

Verification