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

[payn]

I appreciate it.

I don't want to go back to the days when rangers had a bonus to hit against deep breath....bugbears, ettins, giants, gnolls, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, ogres, ogre magi, orcs, and trolls.

I love those days!

 

[Richards]

Did I like them? Yes. Do I still like them: Also yes. We never moved on from 3.5 (we have two separate campaigns running: mine on alternate Saturdays and my son's every Wednesday night), and monster types are a big part of the rules set. I like the "standardization" of a given monster type, with the option to stray from the standard rules if it makes sense to me as a DM in any specific instance.

Johnathan

 

[Staffan]

Also, there shouldn't have been a split between Humanoid/Monstrous Humanoid, but maybe that's just me.

I think it's good to treat e.g. minotaurs and centaurs differently from orcs and elves. Exactly where to draw that line can be a bit fuzzy though.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

I found that the number of monster types weakened the Ranger's favored enemy feature too much. So I allowed "take a feat instead, if you want" in my Brotherhood of Rangers campaign, and all my players did so. In the next campaign, I'll use a house/optional rule I found that consolidates the different types into a smaller list of favored enemy categories - but will also continue with "take a feat instead, if you want."

 

[Voadam]

I found that the number of monster types weakened the Ranger's favored enemy feature too much. So I allowed "take a feat instead, if you want" in my Brotherhood of Rangers campaign, and all my players did so. In the next campaign, I'll use a house/optional rule I found that consolidates the different types into a smaller list of favored enemy categories - but will also continue with "take a feat instead, if you want."

I had issues with the ranger's favored enemy ability being too niche as well, but I eventually went the other way in houseruling pathfinder 1e for games I DMd. I made the combat bonuses apply regardless of type and had the skill bonuses apply to the chosen type/subtype. I like rangers as 4e style strikers, lightly armored heavy hitters, essentially fighters who trade AC for some weapon bonuses.

Also since 3e I allowed them the 3rd party options of going spell less for bonus feats.

 

[el-remmen]

I liked them and still use “Outsider” as a type inclusive of elemental, fey, celestial, fiend, and undead in my homebrew 5e ruleset.

 

[Blue]

I liked them, consistency was great for immersion, plus less minutia to keep track of. Undead were always X, as opposed to different undead being all over the place -- a pain to keep track of during a session with lots of different undead. And keeping things simple and quick during the session is weighed so much more than spending a little more time on prep outside a session.

 

[ErisIndomina]

I liked them and still use “Outsider” as a type inclusive of elemental, fey, celestial, fiend, and undead in my homebrew 5e ruleset.

Outsider is such a fun term. I still use it as a catch-all for the angels, devils, demons, yuggoloths, and weird stuff like the Slaadi. I don't know if I'd include Undead or Fey in the term though. Elementals I feel could be made into a subtype for Outsider, but it never occurred to me.

 

[Alzrius]

Elementals I feel could be made into a subtype for Outsider, but it never occurred to me.

Fun fact: that's exactly what Pathfinder 1E did.

 

[amethal]

I appreciate it.

I don't want to go back to the days when rangers had a bonus to hit against deep breath....bugbears, ettins, giants, gnolls, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, ogres, ogre magi, orcs, and trolls.

And I seem to remember they were called "giant class" creatures in 1st edition AD&D.

Kobolds and goblins are "giant class"?