Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Steinhauser" data-source="post: 5033848" data-attributes="member: 86705">I wholeheartedly agree; I think I remember reading a Monte Cook article about this once.Case-by-case ruling is the best it's going to be with the current system. There's still going to be a theoretical animal that is on the cusp of animal and vermin and will defy D&D "taxonomy." I guess it really doesn't seem like a problem if you're not an extreme purist, though.Actually reading the SRD description of the Aquatic subtype, it states, "An aquatic creature can breathe underwater. It cannot also breathe air unless it has the amphibious special quality." So I suppose "lives in and around water" is already too broad for the subtype - it must actually be able to breathe underwater too. Still, that's quite cut-and-dry.Once, but I was quite young, and neither grasped nor retained most of it.It's true, according to the list of types and subtypes, there is nothing to preclude centaurs from being humanoids. Except, I suppose, its lack of a subtype. The same goes for minotaurs. (They were humanoid in that campaign setting where they were a standard race. Was it Dragonlance?) In my opinion the monstrous humanoid and giant types are both similar to the vermin type - redundant, and could easily be subtyped.</blockquote>