Creature Types/Subtypes & Classification

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

Okay, while I can understand your first point completely (the main difference between Giants and Humanoids is, that the first all have low-light vision, the rest can be easily consilodated),

Okay.

I think, that merging Dragons with Magical Beast weakens the Dragons strongly - only a d10, a lost good will save, some immunities and 4 skill points per hit dice.

Whatever way you slice it, dragons 'are' magical beasts. So its silly that they don't use that format. Also d10 is still viable, and theres no given reason why dragons should be so very skillful. I do think they should have a good will save though, so I suppose thats a point of contention.

Maybe a subtype (Dragon) would be appropriate, if the main motiviation behind the mergings is that Giants and Dragons encompass more or less one kind of creature. A general type shouldn't be so limited.

There is no real reason why giants should have superior to human vision by default.

I can see a reason for a Dragon subtype though.

To the Spirit type: Wouldn't it be to many creatures packed into a type?

There would be a lot, but I don't see how it could be too many, the idea should be to condense monsters into as few number of types as possible without compromising their abilities.

This change warrants at least the suggested subtypes (demon, tanar'ri) and then (fey).

Well we already have the Eladrin subtype which are essentially Fey in all but name.

 

[Tonguez]

I'm impressed - that is the most far reaching attempt so far.

Thank You

Equine or not equine... At least under your attempt it seems out place. How would you place the Gynosphinx? Still as a magical beast? To the Humanoid template: Isn't there such a template in Savage Species? Can we create one of our own without violating the copyright law?.

Gynosphinx I'd leave as a Magical Beast, In my mind it would seem that the essential qualities for being humanoid are
1. being Sentient
2. Having arms and 'fine manipulators' (ie hands).

Gynosphinx lack fine manipulators are so remain beasts.

and as long as we stick with OGL I'm sure we can develop a(nother) humanoid template

If you already include into the Aberration type oozey stuff, then Ooze could be easily a subtype.

Actually, I wouldn't mind so much, if Dragon would become a subtype, but the problem is, how are humanoid dragons treated? Half-Dragons or other races like Dracotaur or Dragon-Kin are more humanoid in shape. Where have those to be put then?.

I'd probably put Dracotaur as Monstrous Humanoid (Dragon) since Dragon would be a possible subtype same with the others. And like I said I can see Dragon being a beast subtype -but is that doing justice to Dragons -

and yeah Ooze is easily made a subtype

And you ignored all existing subtypes. Would you change something there?

IMHO each Subtype should highlight a particular 'trait' (which has a mechanical effect)

for instance using the BEAST type we would have

BEAST
Features:
—d8 Hit Dice.
—Base attack bonus equal to 3/4 total Hit Dice (as cleric).
—Good Fortitude and Reflex saves (certain beasts have different good saves).
—Skill points equal to (2 + Int modifier, minimum 1) per Hit Die, with quadruple skill points for the first Hit Die.
—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 animal receives only 1/2 its Strength modifier as a damage adjustment.
—Proficient with no armor unless trained for war.
—Beasts eat, sleep, and breathe.

subtypes
Animal Traits:
—Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal).
—Low-light vision.


Magical Beast Traits
—Intelligence score of 3 or more
—Darkvision out to 60 feet and low-light vision.

Vermin Traits:
—Mindless: No Intelligence score, and immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects). gain no skill points or feats.
—Darkvision out to 60 feet.

(currently Magical Beast has HD 10 and BAb as fighter but why should a Large Griffon (7d10+21) have the same HD as a Huge Giant Crocodile (7d8+28)? )

 

[Roman]

I'd go further, and essentially give all monsters classes seperate from their race -- brawler, runner, and spellcaster (Crummy names, I know). Warriors have d10 HD, 2+ skill points, and good Fort saves; Rogues have d8 HD and 4+ skill points, and good Ref saves; spellcasters have d6 HD, 6+ skill points, and good Will saves. Increases in skill points or hit points can be dealt with by Int or Con type modifiers -- all dragons get +2 Con, for example, which gives a automatic +1 hp/HD, which mimics the statistical increase from a d10 to a d12. Skills are a little trickier, since you'd need a +4 Int bonus to give +2 skill points, which seems a little excessive, but you can either settle for +1 skill points or give bonus points by type or race (all outsiders get +2 bonus skill points per HD). A feat that gives bonus skill points might not be bad either.

Each creature then has set qualities, attacks, ability modifiers, and the like, either broken down by HD advancement or with a recommended set HD.

A hill giant, for instance, would be a 12th level brawler; a cloud giant might be a 15th level brawler, 2nd level spellcaster; a beholder might be a 5th level spellcaster, 1st level brawler; and a bugbear might be a 2nd level brawler, 1st level runner.

Animals would be either brawlers (for aggressive animals) or runners (for non-agressive animals).

Just a thought for now,
Nell.

This is actually a very interesting thought, but how would you differentiate between various types of monsters in this system? Hill Giant might be a 12th level brawler, for example, but so could another type of monster - say a minotaur - yet the two are far from being the same.

 

[Tonguez]

Anyway to the current Subtypes

Sub-types
Elemental Types (Fire, Water, Earth, Air)
Aquatic - keep Trait: Breath underwater, Swim
Cold - it is Cold (not Water) that opposes Fire and looking at the SRD it seems the Water subtype gives the same traits as the Aquatic subtype, so overall Water seems pointless except as an Elemental subtype

Goblinoid - has not real purpose (no attached traits) thus gone
Incorporeal -as is

Alignment Subtypes (Lawful, Chaotic, Evil, Good) - keep

Native - applied to Outsiders (and Entity and Fey?) for those creatures from the Material Plane.

Reptillian - as is not needed (but add to the beast types with Avian, Mammalian etc)

Shapechanger - as is

 

[Nellisir]

This is actually a very interesting thought, but how would you differentiate between various types of monsters in this system? Hill Giant might be a 12th level brawler, for example, but so could another type of monster - say a minotaur - yet the two are far from being the same.

Same way they're mechanically differentiated now -- through special attacks, qualities, and ability score adjustments. If you advanced a minotaur to 12 HD, it actually would be very similar, mechanically, to a hill giant.

If you take away the name, a hill giant is a 12d8 HD creature with high Strength and Con bonuses, Intelligence and Charisma penalties, natural armor, a slam attack, and the rock throwing/catching abilities.

A minotaur is a 6d8 HD creature with slightly lower Strength and Con bonuses, Intelligence and Charisma penalties, natural armor, a gore attack, and the natural cunning, powerful charge, scent, and darkvision abilities.

The perceived differences between minotaurs and hill giants are more a matter of roleplaying & design on the DM's part, and attack routines. Minotaurs are placed in mazes, hill giants in hills. Minotaurs literally charge into melee, hill giants throw things, then charge into melee. Minotaurs look like bulls, hill giants look like really big humans.

Cheers
Nell.

 

[Voadam]

Ehm, what kind of spell could be created, which is usable on equine beings only? I can't think of any. Hmm, if there isn't more than one special case, then having such a subtype is useless. Maybe the focus should be reptilian, avian, mammalian, etc.? Some spells like a modified Summon Monster would profit from it, some characteristics can be shared, but if this affects the gameplay enough? I haven't seen a single complain yet.

Spells to be created for equines - special saddles, horseshoes, allow mount only type spells such as for paladins, but useable on any mountable type creature.

In addition there could be new bane weapons, favored enemy category, more focused charm types (instead of charm person, charm equine).

It seems silly that reptilian favored enemy applies to reptilian humanoids but not scaly monstrous humanoids or other things you would think of as reptiles, such as crocodiles.

 

[Verequus]

Spells to be created for equines - special saddles, horseshoes, allow mount only type spells such as for paladins, but useable on any mountable type creature.

In addition there could be new bane weapons, favored enemy category, more focused charm types (instead of charm person, charm equine).

It seems silly that reptilian favored enemy applies to reptilian humanoids but not scaly monstrous humanoids or other things you would think of as reptiles, such as crocodiles.

Arg, again beaten, before I could post the idea with bane weapons and the charm types. Anyways, alone folding types together makes the existing spells more powerful - check Charm Person. Now this spell affects Monstrous Humanoids, too. Maybe for this spell it is okay, maybe it should be upped a level, but the question is: Are other spells altered too much in their power? Polymorph as example allowed aberration, animal, dragon, fey, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze, plant, or vermin. Nope, I don't see a gain or loss here. Ahh, Alter Self would allow to choose claw attacks or a better natural armor. After reading the description, I believe, that Alter Self allows now really the use of all its features - many things like extra limbs qualify for Monstrous Humanoid.

Even a spell like Charm Beast wouldn't be broken, if it can affect dragons - those creatures have already a boosted willsave and the argument, that it should affect only beings with an intelligence of 1 or 2 is countered that Magical Beasts are more intelligent than normal animals and they are affected. (I'd like to point out, that without their immunity, undeads are in the same situation.)

Before I forget it: "allow mount only type spells such as for paladins, but useable on any mountable type creature" - this is already possible, because mountable is every creature with the correct body shape. But I have yet to see the subtype Mountable. The other examples aren't convincing, too: Saddles and horseshoes need only a certain body shape respectively a certain body part - both are available to more creatures than Equines.

Tonguez:
Subtypes like Elf or Human are used now - are they disregarded with your system? And if we have both Beast (Dragon) and a Humanoid (Dragon), then we still need to determine which certain benefits are shared by both types.

Nellisir:
I see two problems with your system. It doesn't account, that 8 creature types give none, two or three good saves instead only one - a bit more than half of all existing types. This can't be compensated by multiclassing. Also I miss spellcasting levels for the spellcasters. That the hit dice change for every mixed bag, takes getting used to, but is precedented by multiclassing.

 

[Roman]

Same way they're mechanically differentiated now -- through special attacks, qualities, and ability score adjustments. If you advanced a minotaur to 12 HD, it actually would be very similar, mechanically, to a hill giant.

If you take away the name, a hill giant is a 12d8 HD creature with high Strength and Con bonuses, Intelligence and Charisma penalties, natural armor, a slam attack, and the rock throwing/catching abilities.

A minotaur is a 6d8 HD creature with slightly lower Strength and Con bonuses, Intelligence and Charisma penalties, natural armor, a gore attack, and the natural cunning, powerful charge, scent, and darkvision abilities.

The perceived differences between minotaurs and hill giants are more a matter of roleplaying & design on the DM's part, and attack routines. Minotaurs are placed in mazes, hill giants in hills. Minotaurs literally charge into melee, hill giants throw things, then charge into melee. Minotaurs look like bulls, hill giants look like really big humans.

Cheers
Nell.

Right, but how do you account for the special attacks, qualities and ability score adjustments with these classes?

 

[Knight Otu]

The other examples aren't convincing, too: Saddles and horseshoes need only a ceratin body shape respectively a ceratin body part - both are available to more creatures than Equines.

Another possibility, feats like:

Horse Master
Get a +2 bonus to Ride and Handle Animal checks concerning Equines, and a +2 bonus to checks made to influence equines.

 

[Nellisir]

Nellisir:
I see two problems with your system. It doesn't account, that 8 creature types give none, two or three good saves instead only one - a bit more than half of all existing types. This can't be compensated by multiclassing.

Bonus feats could probably take up most of the slack, and if you really want to penalize oozes, give them a penalty to saves. It wouldn't be a 100% match to the way things are now, but I think it could be close.

Also I miss spellcasting levels for the spellcasters. That the hit dice change for every mixed bag, takes getting used to, but is precedented by multiclassing.

Theoretically you could still cast spell-like abilities or supernatural abilities at your total hit dice, you just wouldn't have so many -- if spellcaster levels gave spell-like abilities or somesuch.

I've given some thought to this today, but haven't time to write it down right now.

Nell.