Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Telperion" data-source="post: 1831707" data-attributes="member: 15711">I don't really see such a big difference between animals and beasts to warrant this sort of change. If you want a mythical, non-magical, beast then you can take an animal and give it more HD, templates and so forth. No need to start dividing creatures into mythical / special beasts that are basically just slightly tougher animals. Again I would have to disagree. I see giants as a significantly different type of creature from humanoids. Although they appear to be simply larger versions of regular humanoids the power boost they get is so dramatic when compared to humanoids that their HD just doesn't justify them. Therefore I see it as a logical means of separating a group of creatures that are significantly different from humanoids, although their outward appearance may not be so.Here I agree with your somewhat. The aberration type gets everything that isn't undead and can't be easily placed in another type. Therefore it might be more useful to have several subgroups that would have slightly different basic stats / saves / BAB, etc. That's what the Type system is all about, after all: gathering similarly attributed creatures under a single name that somehow describes them all. I don't like dragons or their kin. They are just too powerful and fairly poor as far as fluff goes. Okay, I could probably fix the fluff by reading Dragonomicon, but I don't feel like spending a whole lot of money into a book that I'll probably never use....but...the crowds need a death dealing combat machine that can withstand huge amounts of damage, crush its opponents with multiple attacks and whip out magic with the best of them. Dragons do those things just fine, if you need that sort of monsters. I certainly don't.</blockquote>

Verification