Creature Types

[DreadPirateMurphy]

How do people decide what creature type something should be? I've seen a couple of threads (re: war troll and hydra eggs) that have questioned types. It seems like the type of abilities you want as a designer somewhat dictates the monster type. Has anybody published other guidelines? Wizards, or maybe one of the D20 publishers? What makes a hydra a magical beast instead of an aberation or dragon?

 

[Crothian]

The only book I can think of that has something like this is Beast Builder by Expeditious Retreat Press

 

[ElvishBard]

MM2 has several charts that show the type of HD and stats the different types of monsters should have according to their size, I have always found it really useful.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

There's an article somewhere about building monsters that addresses this. I think it was for 3.0, though.

 

[DreadPirateMurphy]

Here is another example. Why are dragons not considered reptilian? They have scales, and lay eggs. How much of a difference is there between a wyvern and an awakened komodo dragon, really?

Some of them are straight-forward and relatively easy to categorize:

Construct: animated or constructed creature
Elemental: composed of one of the four elements
Fey: creature with supernatural abilities and connections to nature or some other force or place
Ooze: amorphous or mutable creature
Outsider: composed at least partially of the essence of another plane
Plant: vegetable creatures
Undead: once-living creatures animated by spiritual or supernatural forces

Then you get to various humanoids, and it isn't really clear what is a humanoid, a monstrous humanoid, or a giant.

Giant: humanoid-shaped creature of great strength, usually of at least Large size
Humanoid: two arms, two legs, and one head, or a human-like torso, arms, and a head
Monstrous Humanoid: similar to humanoids, but with monstrous or animalistc features

Would somebody like to explain what is so "animalistic" about derro? Why is a gnoll not "animalistic?" Why does an ogre qualify as a giant, but not a minotaur?

Then you get to beasties. It would seem the difference between animals and magical beasts is just intelligence. Vermin are invertibrates.

Animal: living, non-human creature, usually a vertebrate with no magical abilities and no innate capacity for language or culture
Magical Beasts: similar to animals but can have Intelligence scores higher than 2
Vermin: insects, arachnids, other arthropods, worms, and similar invertibrates

A roc counts as an animal, even though there is no way such a large avian could survive without magic. A Hellwasp swarm is a swarm of magical beasts, but giant insects are actually vermin. It is also unclear why darkmantles are magical beasts, but cloakers are aberrations.

Aberration: bizarre anatomy, strange abilities, an alien mindset, or any combination of the three

I would call a darkmantle's anatomy somewhat bizarre...

Suddenly, we come to the creature so important that it is in the title of the game.

Dragon: reptile-like creature, usually winged, with magical or unusual abilities

Dragons are not magical beasts, or reptilian. They include wyverns, even though wyverns are dumb as dirt. What really defines a dragon?

Anyway, I probably just have too much time on my hands...

 

[Crothian]

What really defines a dragon?

Being too big to really fly under your own power but can do it anyway???

 

[GrayLinnorm]

Being too big to really fly under your own power but can do it anyway???

Under that definition, a roc would be considered a dragon.

 

[GrayLinnorm]

A few more observations:

Personally, I think that "Animal" should only apply to creatures that exist (or existed) in the real world, or to giant versions of real-world animals. I think that's one reason why the (now-defunct) "beast" type was invented.

The introduction of the Extraplanar subtype doesn't make "Outsider" a cut-and-dry choice either?

If they could change the gargoyle's type in 3.5, why couldn't they do the same for the lamia and roper? (They should have changed the art for the lamia too.) And the catoplebas should be a magical beast.

 

[Crothian]

Under that definition, a roc would be considered a dragon.

Well, wizards has been slow with the errata. But obviously the definition is a little more complex. I highly doubt that creature typoes are assigned on gut feeling.

 

[CRGreathouse]

A few more observations:

Personally, I think that "Animal" should only apply to creatures that exist (or existed) in the real world, or to giant versions of real-world animals. I think that's one reason why the (now-defunct) "beast" type was invented.

The introduction of the Extraplanar subtype doesn't make "Outsider" a cut-and-dry choice either?

If they could change the gargoyle's type in 3.5, why couldn't they do the same for the lamia and roper? (They should have changed the art for the lamia too.) And the catoplebas should be a magical beast.

I tend to agree with you about Animals, and I also think the roper shouldn't be a magical beast (aberration fits better, I think). I think the lamia's fine as is, art notwithstanding.