D&D 5E L&L 1/7/2013 The Many Worlds of D&D

[Hussar]

But, Tovec, in 3e, elemental type has a different set of hit dice from outsiders. As well as different save progression and skills. You cannot just smack on a type in 3e. Type actually controls all the basic chassis of that monster.

But, I will agree with you that in 3.0 D&D, they very largely stripped out most of the planar lore from D&D. I don't have the books, but I think that a lot was added back in in the 3.5 DMG.

 

[Tovec]

But, Tovec, in 3e, elemental type has a different set of hit dice from outsiders. As well as different save progression and skills. You cannot just smack on a type in 3e. Type actually controls all the basic chassis of that monster.

So? It is no more different than if you wanted to make an Outsider (Demons) into an aberration in 4e. It is NOT at all what the topic of this conversation is, at least to my knowledge. If we want to talk about how monsters are made then we can do that, but that has nothing to do with the right about of lore (especially planar) that goes into DnD books.

Actually, there was a topic of monster Types a little while back. We could go there to discuss those kinds of things.

But, I will agree with you that in 3.0 D&D, they very largely stripped out most of the planar lore from D&D. I don't have the books, but I think that a lot was added back in in the 3.5 DMG.

Then we agree. This is my main point either way.

As far as added back into the DMG, it may have been. I don't have the 3.0 for reference but I assumed both versions were more or less the same. Either way, yes there are some references to some planar stuff in DMG - that's almost exclusively where it is because it is a DM's reference and not meant to be the player's basic assumptions. Even then it is largely overlooked and under used. It was still very minor and serves as little more than knowledge of how things theoretically work, as opposed to a direct framework that was used in 4e - where it mattered. So, my point still stands.

 

[Orius]

But, Tovec, in 3e, elemental type has a different set of hit dice from outsiders. As well as different save progression and skills. You cannot just smack on a type in 3e. Type actually controls all the basic chassis of that monster.

IIRC aren't both elementals and outsiders d8 HD?

 

[Hussar]

IIRC aren't both elementals and outsiders d8 HD?

Yes, that is true. All the other stuff is different though. Which is mine and Klaus' point. In 3e, you can't just change type and keep going. Type actually has mechanical value in 3e. It doesn't in 4e. Which makes it easier in 4e to start changing types. Which I thought was what the question was.

 

[Tovec]

[sblock][h=3]Outsider Type[/h] An outsider is at least partially composed of the essence (but not necessarily the material) of some plane other than the Material Plane. Some creatures start out as some other type and become outsiders when they attain a higher (or lower) state of spiritual existence.
[h=5]Features[/h] An outsider has the following features.

• 8-sided Hit Dice.
• Base attack bonus equal to total Hit Dice (as fighter).
• Good Fortitude, Reflex, and Will saves.
• Skill points equal to (8 + Int modifier, minimum 1) per Hit Die, with quadruple skill points for the first Hit Die.

[h=5]Traits[/h] An outsider possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).

• Darkvision out to 60 feet.
• Unlike most other living creatures, an outsider does not have a dual nature—its soul and body form one unit. When an outsider is slain, no soul is set loose. Spells that restore souls to their bodies, such as raise dead, reincarnate, and resurrection, don’t work on an outsider. It takes a different magical effect, such as limited wish, wish, miracle, or true resurrection to restore it to life. An outsider with the native subtype can be raised, reincarnated, or resurrected just as other living creatures can be.
• Proficient with all simple and martial weapons and any weapons mentioned in its entry.
• Proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) it is described as wearing, as well as all lighter types. Outsiders not indicated as wearing armor are not proficient with armor. Outsiders are proficient with shields if they are proficient with any form of armor.
• Outsiders breathe, but do not need to eat or sleep (although they can do so if they wish). Native outsiders breathe, eat, and sleep.

[/sblock]
[sblock][h=3]Elemental Type[/h] An elemental is a being composed of one of the four classical elements: air, earth, fire, or water.
[h=5]Features[/h] An elemental has the following features.

• 8-sided Hit Dice.
• Base attack bonus equal to ¾ total Hit Dice (as cleric).
• Good saves depend on the element: Fortitude (earth, water) or Reflex (air, fire).
• Skill points equal to (2 + Int modifier, minimum 1) per Hit Die, with quadruple skill points for the first Hit Die.

[h=5]Traits[/h] An elemental possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).

• Darkvision out to 60 feet.
• Immunity to poison, sleep effects, paralysis, and stunning.
• Not subject to critical hits or flanking.
• Unlike most other living creatures, an elemental does not have a dual nature—its soul and body form one unit. When an elemental is slain, no soul is set loose. Spells that restore souls to their bodies, such as raise dead, reincarnate, and resurrection, don’t work on an elemental. It takes a different magical effect, such as limited wish, wish, miracle, or true resurrection, to restore it to life.
• Proficient with natural weapons only, unless generally humanoid in form, in which case proficient with all simple weapons and any weapons mentioned in its entry.
• Proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) that it is described as wearing, as well as all lighter types. Elementals not indicated as wearing armor are not proficient with armor. Elementals are proficient with shields if they are proficient with any form of armor.
• Elementals do not eat, sleep, or breathe.

[/sblock]

Similarities:
comprised of material that is not of the material plane (flavour)
d8
darkvision
cannot be raised (one body/soul)
proficient with whatever is in their description
no need to breathe, eat, sleep
feat progression

Differences:
3/4 BAB vs full
good saves dependent on element vs all
2 vs 8 skill points
elementals have immunities, outsiders do too but it varies by subtype. I could put this in the similarities column.

Seems like the similarities outweigh the differences, at least to me. That's probably why elementals were made into outsiders in PF, as they are very similar.

Like I said, I don't see the big deal of where this matters to the discussion we are having. Yes there would have to be changes if you converted a demon from outsider to elemental. You don't have to observe those differences as the outsider type is better on the face of it but ignoring that, if you did convert then yes there is some work to be done. Then again, that would be the same in other editions of the game, including 4e.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Can you give some examples on why you think this? Because it's certainly not in line with my experience.

Let's take demons, for instance. In 4e, they're "elementals", because the arose in the 4e cosmology as elemental creatures corrupted by the Heart of the Abyss. But suppose I wanted to move the Abyss to the Outer Planes (placing it on the Astral Sea or whatnot). I can simply erase "elementals", write in "immortal" and not a single thing else needs to change. In 3e, if I were to turn demons from "outsider" to "elemental", a whole list of racial characteristics, HD, saves and other assorted stuff would change, because creature type was directly tied to how monsters were built. This makes the default assumptions of 3e much more enforced by the rules than in 4e.

The only example that comes to mind for me is the odd feat, Demonbane(?), which allows a Cleric to use turn undead on elementals. So, if you changed demons to immortals, then one of three things would occur:

1) Demonbane no longer turns demons.
2) Demonbane is houseruled to turn immortals, so now it effects new creatures it would not previously effect and stop effecting those it originally did. Plus, it would invalidate the feat Devilbane, which already effects immortals.
3) Demonbane is houseruled to only effect the creature sub-type of demon. While this makes sense to me, it does weaken the feat as printed.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The only example that comes to mind for me is the odd feat, Demonbane(?), which allows a Cleric to use turn undead on elementals. So, if you changed demons to immortals, then one of three things would occur:

1) Demonbane no longer turns demons.
2) Demonbane is houseruled to turn immortals, so now it effects new creatures it would not previously effect and stop effecting those it originally did. Plus, it would invalidate the feat Devilbane, which already effects immortals.
3) Demonbane is houseruled to only effect the creature sub-type of demon. While this makes sense to me, it does weaken the feat as printed.

It's important that this (a) involves no maths, (b) involves no encounter re-calibration (outsiders, as you say, are Just Better), and (c) is at a pretty low chance of occurring. All of which are good things.

Of course, were I to do this change in 3e for my own table, I wouldn't even touch the numbers. I'd just say "Elementals are Outsiders now." And the player who pointed out that Outsider have more skill points (or whatever) would get RULE ZERO'd, because that's not how I roll. Which would give me about the same amount of things to change in the rules.

It's about the same satisfying, which is to say, not very. It gets the job done in both cases, and it'll work on the fly, but I'd really like a game that did more than that. 4e got closest to it with how it did themes and templates, but then kind of dropped the ball and rarely ever used those tricks, and never really showed us how those tricks were used to build its own critters so that we could rip them out and replace them with our own ideas (sort of, with the monster construction rules, but these were pretty broad and general). The design elements were there, but they weren't used much to show you how you could change the game.

But yeah, 4e's more tinker-friendly than 3e generally speaking, if you know how the chassis works. Which isn't to say that 3e is BAD at it, just that Rule Zero doesn't necessarily show you how the balance is going to change when changing seemingly minor things. 4e's quite a bit more transparent.

 

[Weather Report]

Yes, that is true. All the other stuff is different though. Which is mine and Klaus' point. In 3e, you can't just change type and keep going. Type actually has mechanical value in 3e. It doesn't in 4e. Which makes it easier in 4e to start changing types. Which I thought was what the question was.

...no, no, you are just doing that voodoo, that you do, so well...

 

[pemerton]

Yes there would have to be changes if you converted a demon from outsider to elemental. You don't have to observe those differences as the outsider type is better on the face of it but ignoring that, if you did convert then yes there is some work to be done. Then again, that would be the same in other editions of the game, including 4e.

In 4e the only work in changing demons from elementals to immortals is striking out one origin and writing in the other. MotP even has a sidebar which says that, if you are running the Great Wheel with 4e, you will want to do this.

 

[Weather Report]

But yeah, 4e's more tinker-friendly than 3e generally speaking, if you know how the chassis works.

I think the opposite, 3rd Ed is very easy to add whole new systems (Incarnum, Psionics, Pact, ToB, etc) and classes, etc, to make a new 4th Ed class is not that easy.

THe big draw of 5th Ed for me is ease of converting, porting over, tinkering, best chassis yet.