Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Roman" data-source="post: 3988220" data-attributes="member: 1845">I am wondering about how to define creature types based on shape. I am looking at it from a metagame perspective, because I find it interesting, although I know it has little practical relevance for the game, so please avoid comments such as &quot;it is irrelevant&quot;, &quot;a creature has whatever type the designer wants it to have&quot;, or &quot;just eyeball it&quot;. With the above in mind, the question is, how would you fully define each type in terms of shape? Let's look at a humanoid (the only 'type' that has been confirmed in 4E thus far) as an example. One could say that a humanoid is a creature with an upright posture, a bipedal locomotion, two upper limbs and a head. This would indeed describe the physical shape of most fantasy humanoid creatures, but I think it does not cover them all. Would a creature with multiple upper limbs/appendages really cease to be a humanoid? I don't think so and neither would a creature (such as a genie) that does not have bipedal locomotion and has a whirlwhind in place of legs. Even a centaur with four legs is a humanoid creature (regardless of the monstrous humanoid classification in 3E - I doubt this classification will make it into 4E anyway). The Centaur does not even necessarily have an upright posture, depending on interpretation it is about as long as it is tall and creatures that satisfy all other humanoid criteria but like to crawl (perhaps inhabiting underground passages) would still be humanoid. So, what is it that makes a humanoid? I suppose, the creature has does not need to meet any single criterium of physical shape, but must meet a sufficient number of the ideal humanoid criteria to qualify. I would say it needs to meet at least two (2) of my above four (4) criteria. What do you think?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Roman, post: 3988220, member: 1845"] I am wondering about how to define creature types based on shape. I am looking at it from a metagame perspective, because I find it interesting, although I know it has little practical relevance for the game, so please avoid comments such as "it is irrelevant", "a creature has whatever type the designer wants it to have", or "just eyeball it". With the above in mind, the question is, how would you fully define each type in terms of shape? Let's look at a humanoid (the only 'type' that has been confirmed in 4E thus far) as an example. One could say that a humanoid is a creature with an upright posture, a bipedal locomotion, two upper limbs and a head. This would indeed describe the physical shape of most fantasy humanoid creatures, but I think it does not cover them all. Would a creature with multiple upper limbs/appendages really cease to be a humanoid? I don't think so and neither would a creature (such as a genie) that does not have bipedal locomotion and has a whirlwhind in place of legs. Even a centaur with four legs is a humanoid creature (regardless of the monstrous humanoid classification in 3E - I doubt this classification will make it into 4E anyway). The Centaur does not even necessarily have an upright posture, depending on interpretation it is about as long as it is tall and creatures that satisfy all other humanoid criteria but like to crawl (perhaps inhabiting underground passages) would still be humanoid. So, what is it that makes a humanoid? I suppose, the creature has does not need to meet any single criterium of physical shape, but must meet a sufficient number of the ideal humanoid criteria to qualify. I would say it needs to meet at least two (2) of my above four (4) criteria. What do you think? [/QUOTE]

Verification