Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jaldaen" data-source="post: 1236901" data-attributes="member: 214">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. 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. 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</blockquote>

Verification