Monster Subtypes

[Baby Samurai]

I though the types was just fine, barring some bad calling on which type certain creatures should be, and any change in your concept of a 'race' could be changed easily via the class and ability score systems.

So you really think all Outsiders should have all good saves and full BAB just because they are extraplanar?

And what about Fire Giants – I don't think a militant race of giants should have a default 3/4 BAB, but that's just me.

 

[Pinotage]

So you really think all Outsiders should have all good saves and full BAB just because they are extraplanar?

And what about Fire Giants – I don't think a militant race of giants should have a default 3/4 BAB, but that's just me.

But being militant is not genetics or race. It's training and attitude. I could be wrong of course, but I think there are baseline characteristics that define a race rather than 'external' factors. Perhaps giant type creatures being bigger with longer limbs or what-not are just not good at fighting.

As for outsiders - heck most demons and devils live to fight so there's no reason they can't have good BAB or saves. It's a characteristic of their race and genetics and that's how it's defined. Humans in our world are all race 'human' with broadly the same genetics. Training and ability scores set us apart from one another. Abiltiy scores and class do fine to sort out other features.

Pinotage

 

[Baby Samurai]

1.) I could be wrong of course, but I think there are baseline characteristics that define a race rather than 'external' factors. Perhaps giant type creatures being bigger with longer limbs or what-not are just not good at fighting.


2.) As for outsiders - heck most demons and devils live to fight so there's no reason they can't have good BAB or saves. It's a characteristic of their "race and genetics"

1.) Okay, than why should all magical beasts/monstrous humanoids have full BAB?



2.) "Some" devils and demons, but what about the myriad of outsiders that are completely unwarlike/peaceful, and I thought you said good BAB should be from training?

 

[Pinotage]

1.) Okay, than why should all magical beasts/monstrous humanoids have full BAB?

2.) "Some" devils and demons, but what about the myriad of outsiders that are completely unwarlike/peaceful, and I thought you said good BAB should be from training?

First off, let me reiterate that the monster 'type' is a baseline characteristic of the race. Just like all animals have four legs and all humans have two eyes. It defines the race at its most basic. You can then create specific variants of that race by building on the core - giants are an exxample - frost, fire, stone, etc. All different races build on the same giant type.

1) Why not? Perhaps they have more feral characteristics in their genes? Perhaps that's just what they are by nature. Just like animals have 4 legs. Perhaps their underlying anatomy lends them well to fighting and battle. Perhaps their eyes allow them to see better and quicker or their brians process information more easily. BAB from 'type' is genetic. If you want a better fighter from a particular race or more 'warlike' add class levels in Warrior or Fighter, and boost Strength.

2)Nothing wrong with being peaceful and being genetically predisposed to being good at wielding weapons or handling yourself in a fight. I never said good BAB came from training. I said if you wanted to improve a race to make it more warlike add Strength or class levels to give it that edge. The genetics of race or type can be left alone.

My point is that types form a baseline that would carry over into each race. Why are certain types the way they are - don't know, ask the designers. But, it creates an easy baseline to create creatures from, a genetic blueprint if you will for a certain type of creature like mammal or somesuch. The way I see it, you can fit any concept into the 'type' categorization, and that's why I'm content with it. Want war-like fey? Give the a higher Strength and Constitution. Want war-like military giants - do the same or add class levels.

Pinotage

 

[Baby Samurai]

1) Why not? Perhaps they have more feral characteristics in their genes? Perhaps that's just what they are by nature. Just like animals have 4 legs. Perhaps their underlying anatomy lends them well to fighting and battle. Perhaps their eyes allow them to see better and quicker or their brians process information more easily. BAB from 'type' is genetic. If you want a better fighter from a particular race or more 'warlike' add class levels in Warrior or Fighter, and boost Strength.

2)Nothing wrong with being peaceful and being genetically predisposed to being good at wielding weapons or handling yourself in a fight. I never said good BAB came from training. I said if you wanted to improve a race to make it more warlike add Strength or class levels to give it that edge. The genetics of race or type can be left alone.

I see where you're coming from, I may not at all agree, but I see your take on it.

Well, all of this will be moot anyway, as the 4th Ed designers have realized how arbitrary and silly it is to have things such as BAB and saves tied to creature type.

We also don't know how BAB is being implemented in 4th Ed.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

So you really think all Outsiders should have all good saves and full BAB just because they are extraplanar?

And what about Fire Giants – I don't think a militant race of giants should have a default 3/4 BAB, but that's just me.

That's what class levels are for.

 

[Baby Samurai]

That's what class levels are for.

I don't think you should have to slap on fighter levels to a creature such as the Fire Giant, which already has quite a few HD, just to bump up his BAB.

And I'll pose the same question to you: Do you think all outsiders should automatically have full BAB and all good saves just "because"?

And speaking of Outsiders, is anyone else as happy as I am that they are dropping that term? It has never jived with me – reminds me of that early 80's film with Matt Dillon, Tom Cruise, Emelio Estevez, C. Thomas Howell, Rob Lowe, Patrick Swayze and that man-child from The Karate Kid.

 

[Pinotage]

Well, all of this will be moot anyway, as the 4th Ed designers have realized how arbitrary and silly it is to have things such as BAB and saves tied to creature type.

Well, I wouldn't call it silly, but certainly it is arbitrary. I mean, really, everything in D&D is, isn't it? From how many HD a creature has to its special abilities. Everything's as arbitrary as you want it to be. There's nothing wrong with, for example, deciding that all creatures with the giant type should have full BAB progression. I was just pointing out that the concept of types works - how you set them up in your game is arbitrary, just like everything else.

I don't think you should have to slap on fighter levels to a creature such as the Fire Giant, which already has quite a few HD, just to bump up his BAB.

And I'll pose the same question to you: Do you think all outsiders should automatically have full BAB and all good saves just "because"?

Not necessarily class levels. You could bump up Strength to increase attack bonus, and given giants as large clumsy brutes, I'd half expect them to have low BAB so they have less attacks - can't swing that club as often as a nimbler smaller creature. Bad argument, but the idea is there.

I think I've answered the 'just because' bit before and above.

Pinotage

 

[Baby Samurai]

1.) I was just pointing out that the concept of types works


2.) and given giants as large clumsy brutes

1.) The concept yes, but the implementation, um, not so much (I prefer subtypes).


2.) Maybe some giants (hill?), but I certainly wouldn't put Fire, Cloud and Storm into that category.

 

[GreatLemur]

Mortal sounds good. I'd guess we'd get "Metabolisms" (I can't think of a better word for it) of Immortal, Mortal, Undead, Construct and possibly Elemental. Shapes would be Humanoid, Beast, Dragon, Worm/snake, Ooze and Abberration as a type for things that can't really be classified.

I could see quite a lot of Shapes but not that many Metabolisms.

Damn, you beat me to the Aberration-as-Shape theory. Good guesses on the Metabolism list, too. I don't think I can add anything to that.