Simia Saturnalia
First Post
Or maybe it's not so bad if dragons, the iconic monster and the only ones who get a name credit, are a type unto themselves.
Monster Types
- Thread starter Szatany
- Start date
Gold Roger
First Post
I think it is pretty much confirmed (with the whole talk about monster roles) that creature type won't define hitdice, saves, skills and bab.
I have two big wishes for future creature types:
Extraplanar is not a subtype, it's a condition. A human in hell is extraplanar, a devil in hell isn't.
There should be no creature type that definitely puts a creature in another plane (meaning-kill the outsider type).
All in all, I wouldn't shed a tear if creature types as 3rd had them where completely gone. The big worldbuilding constraint is not worth the slight advantage of templating.
I have two big wishes for future creature types:
Extraplanar is not a subtype, it's a condition. A human in hell is extraplanar, a devil in hell isn't.
There should be no creature type that definitely puts a creature in another plane (meaning-kill the outsider type).
All in all, I wouldn't shed a tear if creature types as 3rd had them where completely gone. The big worldbuilding constraint is not worth the slight advantage of templating.
Gold Roger said:
Thank god, I hated the fact that any creature of the Fey type would have the crap 1/2 BAB and poor Fort just because it was "Fey", I mean, what about more warlike or martial fey (satyr etc).
I would like creature type to go, but still have something like the sub-types.
I've seen a number of suggestions come close to the solution I would like to see, but none have been exact.
Aberration
(incl. Ooze)
Animal
(incl. Vermin, non-magical Magical Beast)
Construct
Elemental
(incl. some Fey)
Humanoid
(incl. Giant, Monstrous Humanoid, some Fey)
Magical beast
(incl. Dragon, some Fey)
Plant
Undead
With an Extraplanar descriptor for Outsiders (or non-Outsiders on the planes).
I can't justify putting Plant under Elemental or Construct - it is neither living, pure matter like an elemental or animated objects like a Construct. Likewise Aberration doesn't fit under Magical Beast, though Dragon does. I also think my suggested types give a fairly good balance, so a ranger choosing any particular type isn't hosed.
Aberration
(incl. Ooze)
Animal
(incl. Vermin, non-magical Magical Beast)
Construct
Elemental
(incl. some Fey)
Humanoid
(incl. Giant, Monstrous Humanoid, some Fey)
Magical beast
(incl. Dragon, some Fey)
Plant
Undead
With an Extraplanar descriptor for Outsiders (or non-Outsiders on the planes).
I can't justify putting Plant under Elemental or Construct - it is neither living, pure matter like an elemental or animated objects like a Construct. Likewise Aberration doesn't fit under Magical Beast, though Dragon does. I also think my suggested types give a fairly good balance, so a ranger choosing any particular type isn't hosed.
Nightchilde-2
First Post
I was emailing my group with this discussion just this morning. Here's a C&P from my email.
I've been pondering monsters in 4e lately. Here's what I'd like to see...
The old types (humanoid, monstrous humanoid, animal, undead, vermin, etc) become descriptors. These descriptors would help determine how the creature would interact with spells and such (i.e. creatures with the Undead descriptor could be turned by clerics)
BaB, hit points and so on are based off of role, with each role represented by a non-heroic class. Boss fights and superbad creatures should take standard heroic classes.
For example, let's say the Bruiser roll gives +1 progression to BaB, +2 to Fortitude Defense and +1 to Reflex Defense and d10 hit points (which, due to the fact that it's not a heroic class, is not tripled at first level).
Let's say the Striker roll gives +1/2 progression to BaB, +1 to Reflex saves, +2 to Will saves, spells and d4 hit points.
Thus, a 4th level Goblin Bruiser would have a +4 BaB and an average of 25 hit points and 2 feats, whereas a 4th level Goblin Striker would have a +2 BaB and an average of 10 hit points, 2 feats and spells/spell-like abilities to bring into the fight. Either of them would, theoretically, be a decent challenge for a 1st level PC.
This could lead to all kinds of fun with striker zombies, bruiser kobolds and sneak golems.
However, a 4th-level dragon fighter would have +4 BaB, an average of 45 hit points*, 2 feats plus a 4th-level fighter's bonus feats and talent choices. Additionally, they'd have draconic stuff (maybe extra hit points, fire breath and so on) as described in the creature's stats (but not **necessarily** tied to the [dragon] descriptor) and would be a challenge for a 4th level character (or four 1st level PCs). *Barring con modifiers.
This could make templates pie-easy to throw on. Undead dragon? Gains the [Undead] descriptor (possibly supplanting the main descriptor type) and the special abilities for the type of undead it's becoming (a dragon with the zombie template, for example, might gain the Slow ability (meaning it can move OR attack each round, not the ability to slow others) and would lose the [Dragon] descriptor and supernatural or spell-like abilities; hit points (but would lose the HP from Con since undead wouldn't have a Con score), BaB and so on could stay the same). Man, that'd make templates way easier.
I've been pondering monsters in 4e lately. Here's what I'd like to see...
The old types (humanoid, monstrous humanoid, animal, undead, vermin, etc) become descriptors. These descriptors would help determine how the creature would interact with spells and such (i.e. creatures with the Undead descriptor could be turned by clerics)
BaB, hit points and so on are based off of role, with each role represented by a non-heroic class. Boss fights and superbad creatures should take standard heroic classes.
For example, let's say the Bruiser roll gives +1 progression to BaB, +2 to Fortitude Defense and +1 to Reflex Defense and d10 hit points (which, due to the fact that it's not a heroic class, is not tripled at first level).
Let's say the Striker roll gives +1/2 progression to BaB, +1 to Reflex saves, +2 to Will saves, spells and d4 hit points.
Thus, a 4th level Goblin Bruiser would have a +4 BaB and an average of 25 hit points and 2 feats, whereas a 4th level Goblin Striker would have a +2 BaB and an average of 10 hit points, 2 feats and spells/spell-like abilities to bring into the fight. Either of them would, theoretically, be a decent challenge for a 1st level PC.
This could lead to all kinds of fun with striker zombies, bruiser kobolds and sneak golems.
However, a 4th-level dragon fighter would have +4 BaB, an average of 45 hit points*, 2 feats plus a 4th-level fighter's bonus feats and talent choices. Additionally, they'd have draconic stuff (maybe extra hit points, fire breath and so on) as described in the creature's stats (but not **necessarily** tied to the [dragon] descriptor) and would be a challenge for a 4th level character (or four 1st level PCs). *Barring con modifiers.
This could make templates pie-easy to throw on. Undead dragon? Gains the [Undead] descriptor (possibly supplanting the main descriptor type) and the special abilities for the type of undead it's becoming (a dragon with the zombie template, for example, might gain the Slow ability (meaning it can move OR attack each round, not the ability to slow others) and would lose the [Dragon] descriptor and supernatural or spell-like abilities; hit points (but would lose the HP from Con since undead wouldn't have a Con score), BaB and so on could stay the same). Man, that'd make templates way easier.
Szatany
First Post
Interesting. Thanks to this http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb5/bmouse70/IMG_1532.jpg we now know there is a Humanoid type (not surprising). What is very interesting that oustider because some sort of subtype: Immortal.
Based on the assumption that 'immortal humanoid' is a type, I shall now guess that the 4th edition types might be:
Mortal Humanoid (example: orc)
Mortal Beast (example: roc)
Mortal Plant (example: assassin vine)
Mortal Item
Mortal Amorphous (example: ochre jelly)
Immortal Humanoid (example: dryad)
Immortal Beast (example: nightmare)
Immortal Plant (example: treant)
Immortal Item
Immortal Amorphous (example: water elemental)
Undead Humanoid (example: ghoul)
Undead Beast (example: wolf skeleton)
Undead Plant
Undead Item
Undead Amorphous (example: allip)
Constructed Humanoid (example: iron golem)
Constructed Beast (example: retriever)
Constructed Plant
Constructed Item (example: intelligent magic sword)
Constructed Amorphous
Some of the old type (such as animal & fey) will become subtypes.
Mortal Humanoid (example: orc)
Mortal Beast (example: roc)
Mortal Plant (example: assassin vine)
Mortal Item
Mortal Amorphous (example: ochre jelly)
Immortal Humanoid (example: dryad)
Immortal Beast (example: nightmare)
Immortal Plant (example: treant)
Immortal Item
Immortal Amorphous (example: water elemental)
Undead Humanoid (example: ghoul)
Undead Beast (example: wolf skeleton)
Undead Plant
Undead Item
Undead Amorphous (example: allip)
Constructed Humanoid (example: iron golem)
Constructed Beast (example: retriever)
Constructed Plant
Constructed Item (example: intelligent magic sword)
Constructed Amorphous
Some of the old type (such as animal & fey) will become subtypes.
WyzardWhately
First Post
I'd like Aberration to stay its own type, although I'd be totally fine with some of the things that are currently aberrations getting stripped out. Aberration should sort of mean 'completely alien and potentially lovecraftian horror.' Which I think is a valid 'slot' for monsters to fit into.
Or maybe I just really like the history of that subset of monsters. Especially the Illithid.
Or maybe I just really like the history of that subset of monsters. Especially the Illithid.
Nifft: I respect your design-fu a LOT, as a preface to this.
Why does fey and demon being the same type make you theologically uncomfortable? I mean, why should fey (sprightly embodiments of nature) be all that different from demon (angry embodiments of bad stuff)?
Just curious. "Just 'cause" is valid here, of course, as is "taste", but I want to know what about it off-puts: it suits me really well.
With one caveat: Anything summoned, from anywhere, should be marked as such, of course.
Why does fey and demon being the same type make you theologically uncomfortable? I mean, why should fey (sprightly embodiments of nature) be all that different from demon (angry embodiments of bad stuff)?
Just curious. "Just 'cause" is valid here, of course, as is "taste", but I want to know what about it off-puts: it suits me really well.
With one caveat: Anything summoned, from anywhere, should be marked as such, of course.
Similar Threads
