Creature Types/Subtypes & Classification

[Nellisir]

How do you penalize oozes and constructs (those have poor saves, too)? A straight penalty won't cover the save advancement. Maybe saying, those types have simply the special quality "All saves are always treated as poor."?

That'd be the simplest.
Or just let them have one good save (Fortitude, obviously). Would anyone have objected if WotC had just done that instead of giving them all poor saves?
Or leave Fort as a good save, but impose a -1 penalty per 2HD, or 3 HD...whichever good saves advance at. Probably the least elegant solution.

 

[Koewn]

Somewhat orthogonal, but the classification of:

Type: Animal
Subtype: Animal (or some synonym)
Subtype: Vermin (or some insect synonym)

would make my biologist wife happy, as she huffs at me each time she tries to use Druid spells and powers to affect Vermin, since Insects are in the Animal Kingdom, and I tell her it's a whole different type.

I'd argue for Oozes to stay their own type; as I've always gotten a 'colony of single cell organisms' vibe out of them (Kingdom Protista). Plants and Fungi are their own kingdom though...What you could do (may be odd at first, but bear with me) is put Fungi and Ooze together to keep the simple non autotrophic, non-animals together (everything simpler than Plants), leaving Plants to be everything else. Although Myconids would be lonely...or Oozes could be part of Plants, which would give you a seperation on the Animal/Plant line.

Meh. You could develop a whole 7 part classification if you got down to it, but I'm not sure what it'd get you over the current system, which is mostly geared towards providing specific classifications to aid in monster generation and the effects of spells and class features, cause you'd have to go through and redo a lot of that once done. I do applaud the effort though. The first publisher that puts out the SRD monsters in full biological classification form and tells me how to integrate it into the existing spells/powers has my money.

Animalia-Chordate-Mammal-Primates-Goblinidae-Hobs-Sienns, the common hobgoblin. (Sienns->Sienna->Brown/Orange, the color in the SRD they say they are...meh. I'm already rambling at this point )

Koewn

 

[Voadam]

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.

Who wears horseshoes besides equines? I don't think even Santa's reindeer have shod hooves.

But this is a minor point.

I just liked the idea of having a mechanical hook for something that could go across the big types, so a horse spell could also affect a nightmare or a hippogriff or a centaur.

And the idea of mount buffing spells that work on horses, and horse similar things but not the more exotic mounts appeals to me in a Plato's ideal world of forms type of way where horses are iconic mounts while other things can be mounts they are not iconic mounts in a way that some magic requires.

 

[Nellisir]

Who wears horseshoes besides equines? I don't think even Santa's reindeer have shod hooves.

Be tough to do. Reindeer have split hooves.

Cheers
Nell.

Not really on topic.

 

[Gez]

The proposed list consists of 31 types and I neither know, if this list is comprehensive, nor if the mechanical differences are enough to justify the extra work.

What proposed list? The list of words I posted was an off-topic reference to answer Roman's question, not a rule proposal.

Also, I don't understand, why is mammalian too broad, but invertebrate isn't? Is this the human-centric view? If yes, is this in a D&D-universe appropriate?

Yes, it's the humanocentric view. And as far as precedent goes, it's totally appropriate in D&D.

Look, you already have it.
Humanoid (Dwarf): Deep Dwarf, Duergar, Hill Dwarf, Mountain Dwarf
Humanoid (Elf): Aquatic Elf, Dark Elf, Grey Elf, High Elf, Wild Elf, Wood Elf, and the various Half-Elves
Humanoid (Gnome): Deep Gnome, Forest Gnome, Rock Gnome
Humanoid (Goblinoid): Bugbear, Goblin, Hobgoblin
Humanoid (Halfling): Deep Halfling, Lightfoot Halfling, Tallfellow Halfling
Humanoid (Human): Human
Humanoid (Reptilian): Kobold, Lizardfolk, Troglodyte

See? For humanoid mammals, you have nearly one subtype per race, the only exception being goblinkin with one subtype for the whole species.
Now, for reptilian humanoids, you have just one subtype. If you make a turtlefolk humanoid, they'll have the Reptilian subtype, too. Like will have the Snakefolk and the Gatorfolk. All are Reptilians. No need to be more precise.

Humans do not have any modifiers. They don't have a size bonus or penalty to attack and AC, or to Hide, or to Grapple; because their size is the Medium size. The whole system is scalled after humans. They do not have racial modifiers to this or that ability scores, because they have the average ability scores. The whole system is scalled after humans.

You could have had Humanoid (Anthropoid) and have all elves, gnomes, dwarves, halflings, orcs, goblins, and humans fall in that camp. Or even Humanoid (Mammalian).

But you don't.

On the other hand, you have Humanoid (Reptilian). And if the core-rules feature humanoid birds, you would also have Humanoid (Avian).

You do not even have Humanoid (Piscean) or (Amphibian) because they'll just use the Aquatic subtype instead.

And you don't have invertebrate humanoids because they wouldn't be humanoid to begin with.

 

[Verequus]

And the idea of mount buffing spells that work on horses, and horse similar things but not the more exotic mounts appeals to me in a Plato's ideal world of forms type of way where horses are iconic mounts while other things can be mounts they are not iconic mounts in a way that some magic requires.

So would you don't allow mount buff spells for non-equines or would you require to develop a new spell respectively new spells, which cover the rest? The first is flavor-vise(?) acceptable, but the core-rules shouldn't be shoe-horned (pardon the pun) into a particular flavor (IMO, there are still too many legacy-things to be really world-neutral, but discussing that would be off-topic in this thread.). The latter... It wouldn't make much sense, because the effect is geared for mounts in general.

Animalia-Chordate-Mammal-Primates-Goblinidae-Hobs-Sienns, the common hobgoblin.

Ehm, I don't want to change D&D into a lecture of Biology in other universes. It may be interesting and realistic, but for a game I don't need a level of that detail.

What proposed list? The list of words I posted was an off-topic reference to answer Roman's question, not a rule proposal.

I thought, that you were listing possible subtypes, which should be used instead of Mammalian.

Yes, it's the humanocentric view. And as far as precedent goes, it's totally appropriate in D&D.

Look, you already have it.
Humanoid (Dwarf): Deep Dwarf, Duergar, Hill Dwarf, Mountain Dwarf
Humanoid (Elf): Aquatic Elf, Dark Elf, Grey Elf, High Elf, Wild Elf, Wood Elf, and the various Half-Elves
Humanoid (Gnome): Deep Gnome, Forest Gnome, Rock Gnome
Humanoid (Goblinoid): Bugbear, Goblin, Hobgoblin
Humanoid (Halfling): Deep Halfling, Lightfoot Halfling, Tallfellow Halfling
Humanoid (Human): Human
Humanoid (Reptilian): Kobold, Lizardfolk, Troglodyte

See? For humanoid mammals, you have nearly one subtype per race, the only exception being goblinkin with one subtype for the whole species. Now, for reptilian humanoids, you have just one subtype. If you make a turtlefolk humanoid, they'll have the Reptilian subtype, too. Like will have the Snakefolk and the Gatorfolk. All are Reptilians. No need to be more precise.

Humans do not have any modifiers. They don't have a size bonus or penalty to attack and AC, or to Hide, or to Grapple; because their size is the Medium size. The whole system is scalled after humans. They do not have racial modifiers to this or that ability scores, because they have the average ability scores. The whole system is scaled after humans.

You could have had Humanoid (Anthropoid) and have all elves, gnomes, dwarves, halflings, orcs, goblins, and humans fall in that camp. Or even Humanoid (Mammalian).

But you don't.

On the other hand, you have Humanoid (Reptilian). And if the core-rules feature humanoid birds, you would also have Humanoid (Avian).

You do not even have Humanoid (Piscean) or (Amphibian) because they'll just use the Aquatic subtype instead.

And you don't have invertebrate humanoids because they wouldn't be humanoid to begin with.

While I don't see a real counter-argument for having a broader brush in areas farther away from the humans, I don't know a good reason for being that detailed - Humanoid (Anthropoid) wouldn't change, that humans are the center of the scale and the other races aren't so far away from the center, that it would be to have such a fine division even with a humanocentric view. Magic items, which are geared towards a certain race, can still be made, and a Favorite Enemy (Humanoid (Anthropoid)) is more reasonable, as the alternative Favorite Enemy (Outsider) exists, because Outsiders can be encountered in far more shapes - four-legged equines like Nightmares are the same as the humanoid Thri-Keen.

 

[Tonguez]

Do I interpret this correctly? You don't want to differentiate between an elf and an human regarding a Bane weapon, etc.? If yes, which subtype should be assigned? Primate or something like that?

No I wouldn't go that far all I'm saying is we don't need a specific Type to differentiate Elfs and Humans since thats already covered in the race section (by making them seperate races) and under Favoured Enemy where it says "Ranger must choose a specific race" (or something I'm quoting off the top of my head)

How do we do that? Saying, that only a Beast (Dragon) gains those advantages?

Yep - in the Creature Description. We already have the mix and match menu for describing Dragons putting in another sentence of two to say 'True Dragons (TYPE:Beast (Dragon)) differ from other Beast by having the following features: ...'

 

[Verequus]

No I wouldn't go that far all I'm saying is we don't need a specific Type to differentiate Elfs and Humans since thats already covered in the race section (by making them seperate races) and under Favoured Enemy where it says "Ranger must choose a specific race" (or something I'm quoting off the top of my head)

SRD: "At 1st level, a ranger may select a type of creature from among those given."

• Aberration
• Animal
• Construct
• Dragon
• Elemental
• Fey
• Giant
• Humanoid (aquatic)
• Humanoid (dwarf)
• Humanoid (elf)
• Humanoid (goblinoid)
• Humanoid (gnoll)
• Humanoid (gnome)
• Humanoid (halfling)
• Humanoid (human)
• Humanoid (orc)
• Humanoid (reptilian)
• Magical beast
• Monstrous Humanoid
• Ooze
• Outsider (air)
• Outsider (chaotic)
• Outsider (earth)
• Outsider (evil)
• Outsider (fire)
• Outsider (good)
• Outsider (lawful)
• Outsider (native)
• Outsider (water)
• Plant
• Undead
• Vermin

The bane weapon property uses the same list. The thread with the topic "Which Favorite Enemies should the Ranger choose?" stated, while it lies ultimately in the hand of the DM, how often a chosen foe comes into play, there was a general agreement, that some types are more useful than others. A reinforcement of the game balance would be an equal division, which leaves roughly the amount of races in each category the same. Is this possible? I don't know, how the distribution in the MM is, but every monster book can be unbalancing.

Edit:
One point, I forgot: We have only 8 main categories now, but those are fairly big. Is it advisable, if we institute a rule, which changes Bane and Favorite Enemy, so one has to choose alwas a Type and a Subtype?

 

[Voadam]

Edit:
One point, I forgot: We have only 8 main categories now, but those are fairly big. Is it advisable, if we institute a rule, which changes Bane and Favorite Enemy, so one has to choose alwas a Type and a Subtype?

No, because most types do not have many entries with any subtype. How many oozes have a subtype for instance?

The reason for outsiders and humanoids to require a subtype I presume is because the designers thought they would be too unbalanced an option otherwise. Or perhaps because they simply wanted things to target a specific race or class of outsiders for flavor reasons (elf bane weapons created by orcs or demon slaying weapons).

 

[Aaron L]

The standard D&D cosmology sets up a simple system of elements
Fire, Water, Air, and Earth
The monsters and spells however do not fit this pattern in any way, shape or form and yet D&D tries.

I think your'e looking into it too hard. D&D uses the classical elements, but isn't trying to force everything into an elemental theme. If you try to look at it assuming that every spell and monster has to tie to an element than it won't make a great deal of sense.