D&D 3.x Monster Types, did you like them?

[Tinker Gnome]

3.X introduced the various monster types like "Giant" and "Outsider" to help manage to multitude of monsters and their various abilities. The Ranger's Favored Enemy keyed off of these types as did various spell effects. How much of a role did they play in your game? Just in the background or did they come up a lot? I liked them a lot myself and was miffed when 3.X got rid of the "Beast" and "Shapechanger" (Now a Ranger who hunts down Lycanthropes cannot select them as his Favored Enemy!) types, although reintroducing them would not be too much of a hassle with a bit of work.

 

[jdrakeh]

Personally, no, I did not like them. For me, it just meant more bookkeeping; more minutiae to keep track of.

 

[cbwjm]

I guess I liked how it created a baseline of basic statistics like skill points, attack bonus and saves which was useful when creating your own stuff if you didn't want to think too hard on that. It made it easier with spell effects that targeted X creature. I'm otherwise somewhat ambivalent.

 

[Staffan]

I liked them as hooks on which to hang other game mechanics (e.g. bane weapons). I did not like them as pseudoclasses providing baseline stats, because that pigeon-holes monster types into certain roles (e.g. frail fey with d6 HD) and if you want to go against those roles (e.g. the Wild Hunt) you need to load up the monster with bonuses elsewhere that can have unwanted secondary effects (e.g. if you want a fey that can take lots of damage you need to either give them a massive number of HD which in turn will affect BAB, saves, and save DCs, or a massive Con which will give them big Fortitude saves). I much prefer the 4e method where a monster's baseline stats are set by its tactical role rather than its type.

 

[Tonguez]

I agree with Staffan Monster Roles from 4e were a much better tool for adjusting monsters and building encounters - having a mob of goblins split between skirmisher, lurker and artillery with the Goblin Shaman as controller was fun. Monster roles even work in 5e (except the math is stupid)

I did like 3e allowing monsters to have class levels, it was very satisfying but it was also a much more complex process than using monster roles instead.

3e Monster types never really got use, except when applying templates or with Ranger Favoured Enemy - except for categories that were too broad like Magical Beast

 

[Alzrius]

I think that monster types were a great invention, and really helped make sense of a lot of things. By outlining the qualities of each category, you eliminated a lot of ambiguity; no more asking if a troll was a "person" for the purposes of casting hold person on them, for instance.

 

[Mannahnin]

I think that monster types were a great invention, and really helped make sense of a lot of things. By outlining the qualities of each category, you eliminated a lot of ambiguity; no more asking if a troll was a "person" for the purposes of casting hold person on them, for instance.

This. 100%

I liked them as hooks on which to hang other game mechanics (e.g. bane weapons). I did not like them as pseudoclasses providing baseline stats, because that pigeon-holes monster types into certain roles (e.g. frail fey with d6 HD) and if you want to go against those roles (e.g. the Wild Hunt) you need to load up the monster with bonuses elsewhere that can have unwanted secondary effects (e.g. if you want a fey that can take lots of damage you need to either give them a massive number of HD which in turn will affect BAB, saves, and save DCs, or a massive Con which will give them big Fortitude saves). I much prefer the 4e method where a monster's baseline stats are set by its tactical role rather than its type.

Also this. Same with giving undead base d12 HD but no Con bonuses, some of this placed a fetish for rationalization and categorization above playability.

 

[payn]

I liked the magic item variety in 3E. Particularly axiomatic and anarchic, but im an alignment fan weirdo. Anyways, yeah I liked that some items and spells could be used on certain types that allowed folks to specialize their characters for certain types of archetypes. Paizo did a lot of nice work int he PF1 era with it.

 

[billd91]

Yes, I liked them for some of the reasons already stated. But I also feel that they have been a bit misused of late like reclassifying giant eagles, giant owls, and giant vultures away from Beast to basically keep them off the wildshape/polymorph list. Part of the value of monster types lies in how types can be used consistently and predictably - and that makes changes like those frustrating.

 

[Celebrim]

Yes. I adored the invention.

D&D had always had monster types but always struggled to define exactly what those types were. This is most easily seen in the description of the Ranger, which amounted to defining a group of creatures as "everything inside this obscure random encounter table which you probably don't have so I'll just list them here". But of course the limitations of that are obvious.