Derro in the Dark

Staffan · Nov 23, 2003

Derro in the dark
exchanging glances
wand'ring in the dark
what were the chances
we'd be ambushed there
before we got healed up?

jaldaen · Nov 23, 2003

Ranes said:
Jaldaen, I took a closer look at the 3.5 MM's monstrous humanoids entries after I read this. Most of the others have darkvision specifically mentioned under SQ but the doppleganger doesn't (and yet there is a reminder that the doppleganger does have 60' darkvision in the section on playing a doppleganger as a PC) and one of the hags (I forget which) doesn't have darkvision listed under her SQ. However, the glossary entry on monstrous humanoids says that 60' darkvision is a trait of the type, unless otherwise noted. It does not say that the creature does not have the trait unless it is specifically mentioned in the SQ listing. Therefore, I would go with the derro having 60' darkvision in 3.5 - but I'd be interested in references that further justify your assertion that the specific MM listing takes precedence over the glossary entry.

How would it be noted however if not by its omission? Would you have to have an entry in a creature's SQ that says what it does not have? Herein lies the problem with assuming something must be indicated by expressed stance rather than by ommision.

Look at the Grimlock for instance... it does not list darkvision under SQ. Under your assumption the grimlock would have darkvision 60 ft. since it is not specifically stated that they do not gain it, under mine it does not. I think it is clear that grimlocks should not have darkvision... As for the hags, why do two of the hags have darkvision listed under SQ and one does not? I think that is indicative of the sea hag not having darkvision. If WotC is going to start listing darkvision under SQ for most creatures, then why would they not do so for all... I see that as WotC's method of indicating when a creature does not have darkvision... by ommision.

As for the specific entries taking precedence over the glossary entry isn't that indicated in the glossary itself by the words "unless otherwise noted in a creatures entry." This indicates to me that a creatures entry overrides the "norm" and since I see darkvision listed in many of the other creatures entries and omitted from some that that is the manner in which it is noted.

As for the doppleganger it is an obvious errata as under the centaur entry it lists darkvision 60 under SQ and in the Centaurs as Characters section... which tells me someone goofed that entry.

I've got to go,
Joseph

MerakSpielman · Nov 23, 2003

I don't have the 3.5 MM, but could it be that the monstrous humanoids that have darkvision listed under SQ have a different range of darkvision?

All in all it seems very poorly thought out and inconsistent whichever way you look at it. Why have a place where the generic traits of monstrous humanoids are listed if these same abilities must also be listed in the creature description? It seems much more logical to either have the centralized, one-paragraph description applying to all monstrous humanoids, and not have the traits listed in the creature description, or to not have such a paragraph and list the qualities of each under SQ in their descriptions. The way they did it just seems weird to me.

Ranes · Nov 23, 2003

Jaldaen, I see your point (and appreciate you taking the time to make it) but I still have a problem accepting it, not because there's anything wrong with your logic but because of the ambiguity of the glossary entry and the fact that, as you point out, there are errors - or at least inconsistencies - in the specific entries. And while you think it's clear that grimlocks should not have darkvision (I don't know), I think derro should have.

I didn't phrase my last post too cleverly, as the glossary entry does imply that the specific entry takes precedence over it. I meant, does an ommission take precedence when the purpose of the glossary is, ostensibly, to allow for the ommission of detailed data in the specific entry? That's why the ommissions leave me in this uncertainty.

Merak, one or two of the monstrous humanoid entries list different ranges of darkvision but most reiterate the 60' default range. I agree that the MM's approach is weird and I'd go further and add unhelpful to the list of adjectives.

jaldaen · Nov 23, 2003

Ranes said:
Jaldaen, I see your point (and appreciate you taking the time to make it) but I still have a problem accepting it, not because there's anything wrong with your logic but because of the ambiguity of the glossary entry and the fact that, as you point out, there are errors - or at least inconsistencies - in the specific entries. And while you think it's clear that grimlocks should not have darkvision (I don't know), I think derro should have.

Well... here are a few things that might help when considering 1) why the glossary definition is used and 2) why indicatation by omission is a better option than listing that a creature does not have a certain creature type trait.

As to the first question: I see the glossary term being used primarily for special qualites (particularly vision types), proficiencies, and an indicator of the biological needs of the creature type (i.e. eating, sleeping, and breathing). It is a kind of shorthand that Wizards uses to indicate all these things... now the second two trait types (proficiencies and needs) are pretty straightforward and would be wasteful to include in every statblock as there is nothing special about them, whereas the special qualities that are listed in the glossary are the "norm" for the creature type, but they are still special qualities that should be listed under the creature's entry. Note that constructs and vermin include darkvision 60 ft. under their traits, but that when you see "construct traits" or "vermin traits" listed under the SQ section they also list darkvision 60 ft.... This implies to me that special qualities included under a creature type's traits under 3.5 must still be listed under the SQ section. A further example of this is to look at the angel subtype (and others that include SQs)... which includes the following in both the glossary and in each angel's SQ section: darkvision 60 ft., low-light vision, immunity to acid, cold, and petrification, resistance to electricity and fire 10, protective aura, and tongues. This tells me that SQs are SQs and they must be listed if the creature in question has them.

2) There are two options one can use to indicate whether or not a creature has the standard traits associated with its creature type, either by affirmation or omission. The former requires some standardized language that must be included in a creatures entry, probably the SQ section, that indicates when a creature does not have a particular creature trait. Under such a system one would probably see the following in the SQ section:

Special Qualities: No darkvision 60 ft.

Contrast this with the simple (IMHO) solution of not listing darkvision or any other special quality traits that a creature does not have from those normally alloted to them via creature type. This has the benefit of not having to waste words on what traits a creature does not have.

Ranes said:
I didn't phrase my last post too cleverly, as the glossary entry does imply that the specific entry takes precedence over it. I meant, does an ommission take precedence when the purpose of the glossary is, ostensibly, to allow for the ommission of detailed data in the specific entry? That's why the ommissions leave me in this uncertainty.

I think the glossary is meant more to allow for the omission of proficiencies and other non-SQ traits under each creature, but it does not obsolve the need for the SQs of a creature to be listed under the SQ section. After all a SQ is a SQ and the omission of it from a creature's entry implies to me that that particular creature does not have it.

Ranes said:
Merak, one or two of the monstrous humanoid entries list different ranges of darkvision but most reiterate the 60' default range. I agree that the MM's approach is weird and I'd go further and add unhelpful to the list of adjectives.

I think it is helpful if you recognize omission as a method of indicating what SQs a creature does or does not have... but as you point out the MM's approach is not clearly defined and as such there is confusion. The only reason why I came to the above conclusion (ommision = creature does not have the normal SQ) is that I was designing creatures under the 3.0 rules and had noticed the changes in 3.5 and connected the dots in the only logical manner I could come up with.

Take Care,
Joseph

Ranes · Nov 23, 2003

Well, darn. You've persuaded me. I appreciate your drawing my attention to other relevant aspects of the MM. Thanks for explaining more fully your reasoning.

Accordingly, I'll adjust my idea of the derro. Actually, this could well make the derro dungeon on which I've recently started work more interesting. Maybe.

Again, my thanks.

coyote6 · Nov 24, 2003

My problem with "indication by omission" is that things get omitted accidentally (esp. in the 3.5e rules -- e.g., prestige classes not causing an XP penalty); how do you know that a particular omission of darkvision is purposeful and not a mistake?

Indication by notation -- that is, saying "X, unlike most monstrous humanoids, do not have darkvision" -- has the unassailable virtue of being perfectly clear.

Seravin · Nov 24, 2003

jaldaen said:
Well... here are a few things that might help when considering 1) why the glossary definition is used and 2) why indicatation by omission is a better option than listing that a creature does not have a certain creature type trait.
<snip>

A nice bit of logic. I follow it and nearly agree with it.
In the case of derro I have to believe it's an omission by mistake as opposed to design.
I can't prove it though. I did note that very few creatures seem to list 'Type' traits. Elementals, constructs, and undead seem to, but a quick (and incomplete) jaunt shows that animals, giants, and monstrous humanoids do not. I don't know that it means anything other than that there's some inconsistancy in the book.

Sadly the logic is on your side though.

jaldaen · Nov 24, 2003

Seravin said:
A nice bit of logic. I follow it and nearly agree with it.
In the case of derro I have to believe it's an omission by mistake as opposed to design.

Well... the reason I think they dropped darkvision from derro is b/c under 3.0 they only had darkvision 30 ft. and so the designers decided rather than up it to 60 ft. they would simply remove it entirely... It is entirely possible however that it was omission by mistake however without the errata I believe the logical thing is to assume they have it not... ;-)

Seravin said:
I can't prove it though. I did note that very few creatures seem to list 'Type' traits. Elementals, constructs, and undead seem to, but a quick (and incomplete) jaunt shows that animals, giants, and monstrous humanoids do not. I don't know that it means anything other than that there's some inconsistancy in the book.

The reason elementals, constructs, and undead actually list "<creature type> traits" under their SQ is b/c they have a number of set traits that do not have a defined glossary terms (such as a construct's cannot heal damage on own and bonus hit points) to go with them, though those items under their traits list that do have defined terms are listed under the SQ section such as low-light and darkvision. Now it can be said that perhaps it would be nice of WotC to actually list all the immunities under SQ, but I think the reason is to save space listing all the construct, elemental, and undead immunities, etc... in an understandable shorthand would use up quite a bit of probably unnecessary space. Thus the use of "elemental traits", "construct traits", and "undead traits"

On the otherhand, animals and giants only have one defined SQ listed under their traits (low-light vision, a defined glossary term) which is listed in their entry, whereas monstrous humanoids only have darkvision 60 ft (ditto).

Seravin said:
Sadly the logic is on your side though.

No one's side, young padawan, logic is. ;-)

Take Care,
Joseph

MerakSpielman · Nov 24, 2003

Well, logic be damned. I don't think it makes sense for an exclusively Underdark race to not have some sort of darkvision. [raspberry noise]So there![/raspberry noise]