Redefining creature types (musing)

[pawsplay]

The Native Outsider subtype would go away. Planetouched and such would be Monstrous Humanoids with the extraplanar subtype. After all, fiendish animals are Magical Beasts.

Hydras, wyverns, and such would be dragons. What's the point of an entry for Dragon, True, if there aren't any other sort of dragons? And how about letting the couatl join the club?

Athachs as monstrous humanoids.

Trolls as monstrous humanoids... or alternatively, as a Large fey. Think about it: they look weird, live in swamps, and have uncanny regeneration. In some Scandanavian languages, "troll" actually means magical. It also explains why they generate so many adepts despite being so generally stupid.

Some ideas that are less compelling but still interesting:

Goblins as fey. It would at least make them a little more than "small orcs," except for hobgolbins which are "orcs, but better, almost interchangeable with orogs." Their ridiculously high Stealth ability becomes part of their fey schtick.

Hags could be fey, too. Malificent, from Sleeping Beauty, is a different sort of "hag" that fits into this archetype.

I actually prefered the Basic D&D version of gargoyles, which had them as constructs.

 

[Drkfathr1]

I've been thinking a bit about creature types and subtypes myself lately. I definately think that I'll be re-working some of those on my own.

I was recently thinking about the Shadow, and how in OD&D it wasn't an undead creature. I'm debating on going back to that, since the difference between shadows and wraiths sometimes gets a bit muddled. It would also work a bit better with the fluff surrounding the Shadowdancer.

 

[freyar]

I sometimes think about this also, but I have to say that I don't particularly agree with your specific points (in a very friendly way, though ).

I like that there are separate native outsiders. Outsiders, native or not, exemplify some alignment or ideology or even element. It's sensible that some of them happen to be from the Material Plane. I can see what you're saying about planetouched maybe not being Outsiders, but I don't think you want them to be extraplanar. After all, then someone could banish them from the Material Plane! Also, there are some critters that really make the most sense as native Outsiders. Rakshasas, as presented in the CotCT AP are great examples.

Wyverns actually already are dragons in 3.5. And I expect they will be in Pathfinder, too, once the Bestiary runs out. Granted, there are only 3 non-true, non-template dragons in the 3.5 SRD, but there are quite a few in other references. Hydras are something that I could see switching, but they're a tough call. As for couatl's I think they're getting lumped with ghaeles and bralanis in Pathfinder (or maybe that's lillends?).

The rest of the ideas, definitely interesting. I'm not quite as big on fey as most people, I think, though.

 

[Nookie]

I always thought they dident need a giant type myself. as giants are just Realy big humanoids. They could just make a Subtype or something.

 

[pawsplay]

I like that there are separate native outsiders. Outsiders, native or not, exemplify some alignment or ideology or even element. It's sensible that some of them happen to be from the Material Plane. I can see what you're saying about planetouched maybe not being Outsiders, but I don't think you want them to be extraplanar. After all, then someone could banish them from the Material Plane! Also, there are some critters that really make the most sense as native Outsiders. Rakshasas, as presented in the CotCT AP are great examples.

Tieflings have no alignment subtype and the Native subtype strips away most immunities. The main consquence of being a Native Outsider is that (under 3.5) outsiders received proficiency with martial weapons. They are humanoid, have spell-like abilities, and unusual immunities... so, monstrous humanoids. Actually, you could argue they should be regular humanoids. They don't "exemplify some alignment or ideaology."

Assuming you don't want rakshasas to be true outsiders, couldn't they be monstrous humanoids, too? Hags and medusae are.

 

[Stormonu]

Personally, I'm for Monstrous Humanoids becoming Humanoids with the Monstrous subtype (since Monstrous Humanoids generally don't have subtypes themselves, why not make Monstrous the subtype?).

I also believe Giant should be a subtype of Humanoid. Having Giant at its own type only really has an effect that you can't Charm Person them or Enlarge them. This could simply be made an effect of the subtype, if it's even needed at all.

 

[freyar]

Tieflings have no alignment subtype and the Native subtype strips away most immunities. The main consquence of being a Native Outsider is that (under 3.5) outsiders received proficiency with martial weapons. They are humanoid, have spell-like abilities, and unusual immunities... so, monstrous humanoids. Actually, you could argue they should be regular humanoids. They don't "exemplify some alignment or ideaology."

Assuming you don't want rakshasas to be true outsiders, couldn't they be monstrous humanoids, too? Hags and medusae are.

Yeah, I agree that there's some wiggle room on whether planetouched should be Outsider (native) or Humanoid. (Just not extraplanar!) Of course, each monster is a matter of choice, but I don't think getting rid of the whole subtype is the best option. You could certainly go Monstrous Humanoid with rakshasas if you want, but, like I said, their presentation in Golarion (so far) makes more sense to me as Outsider (native). That's all.

These are always fun discussions, huh?