Creature Types

[GnomeWorks]

I like creature types. They seem to be a useful way to categorize creatures and interact with mechanics in various interesting ways (charm person only affects humanoids, rangers hunt specific critter types, etc).

However, I get the sense that 3.5 D&D went a little too far with how much influence the creature type has on a monster.

Creature types should probably carry some amount of mechanical information with them; if its just a label, that seems less than useful. So a monster's type should tell you at least a little bit about it, and interact with some mechanics in some way, otherwise it doesn't seem worth the word count to include it.

Is there a good approach to this concept? How do you make a reasonable list of creature types?

[Laertes]

A multilayered inheritance structure might be a good idea.

[erik]

I would consolidate HD/BAB/Feat/Skill progressions (give em all +1 BAB/HD, d8 HD, and 1 feat at 1 HD +1 feat per 3 HD, 4 skills + int mod at 4 ranks +1 per HD).

That way you take out of the stupid cruft and can focus on what makes creature types special.

Special Traits they all get, a skill list (mostly to restrict lists for stupid creatures, and open lists for others), and what saves are good/bad.

[Kaelik]

I would consolidate HD/BAB/Feat/Skill progressions (give em all +1 BAB/HD, d8 HD, and 1 feat at 1 HD +1 feat per 3 HD, 4 skills + int mod at 4 ranks +1 per HD).

That way you take out of the stupid cruft and can focus on what makes creature types special.

Special Traits they all get, a skill list (mostly to restrict lists for stupid creatures, and open lists for others), and what saves are good/bad.

I really don't see anything wrong with having Dragons have a d12 HD instead of having the ability "Extra tuff: Dragons have +2HP per level."

The same for skills and feats. Especially feats. If you think all monsters should have the same feats, you are retarded. If you mean something else... wtf do you mean?

Obviously monsters should all be designed for HD=CR, so they probably should have the same BAB progression except fey, since most monsters do attack people. But there is no benefit to arbitrarily giving all monsters the same HP track and then abilities that modify HP. Or giving animals the same number of skills as outsiders and humanoids.

[erik]

Dragons have greater Constitution, they get more HP.
I meant they should have the same rate of feat acquisition, just like I said.

If you want Fey to have shittier attack prowess give them less HD or lower stats.

Animals would not get the same number of skills because they have 2 int instead of 10.

[Kaelik]

Dragons have greater Constitution, they get more HP.
I meant they should have the same rate of feat acquisition, just like I said.

Yes... if only there were some precedence for having certain things have more HP without having a higher constitution you would be an idiot. Oh wait.

You don't get to dismiss the idea of creatures with the same con score having different HP in a game with Barbarians and Wizards on a whim. You have not presented a convincing justification for why Fey and Dragons should have the same issue.

If you want Fey to have shittier attack prowess give them less HD or lower stats.

Are you specifically rejecting HD=CR? Why the fuck should Fey have the same BAB as animals at a given CR? Fey should be using SLAs and supernatural abilities, not punching people in the face.

Animals would not get the same number of skills because they have 2 int instead of 10.

And that is the problem. Animals get a blanket -4 or 5 to skills. So any number less than 6 gives them one skill point half the time. Many things skills show should not more difficult for animals. Listen, Search, Spot, Hide, MS, Jump, Tumble, ect.

You very clearly picked step 1: EVERYTHING MUST HAVE SAME PROGRESSION NO MATTER WHAT and are now trying to tie yourself in knots explaining how you can fiddle with all the other numbers to make all the different kinds of monsters. First off, you can't. But second off, even when you get to the part where you start giving people untyped minuses to saving throws to get the monster you want, why the fuck should we? What good is being accomplished by refusing to create and distinctions at all between the [Fey] and [Animal] type. If both types are identical, then why not fucking just delete all types from the game and make [Plant/Undead/Construct] optional riders on to creatures.

[erik]

Really? Are you just trying to be contrary because you cannot help yourself? Half your complaints already apply to things as they stand with or without my suggested changes.

I am not specifically rejecting HD=CR. I hadn't mentioned it, nor had anyone else. If that's the goal then you have a lot more restructuring to do than my change would call for. Shaving 10-15 HD off dragons to get them to meet their CR is going to affect their HP a lot more than knocking down their HD type a couple pegs. Whatever complaints you have leviied against my suggestion can be doubled against your own.

I don't even

For example the stupidity of half-BAB progression and fucked up HD for undead just so that they need more HD to meet their CR is the epitome of starting at the wrong destination and having to meander to get where you should have been to begin with.

You're looking at it backwards. Do monster HD really need to be differentiated like classes? What does that gain us?

I effectively changed nothing on animals as related to skills. They have always gotten 1 skill rank per HD in 3e. Your skill complaint is invalid.

Okay, fey have multiple problems.

As things stand, Fey and Animal types would still have their slightly different traits. And by not caring about cruft you can focus more on those. As things stand their differences are pretty uninspiring.

In the SRD there are grand total of 6 different fey spanning CR 1 to 7. As written they don't even need a whole creature type dedicated just to them to differentiate that they get lowlight vision unlike monstrous humanoids who get dark vision. If they're going to be worth differentiating then I would rather give them more unique traits and not care about the BAB/HD crapola. It's not like it is a seismic shift if a Nymph had a 3-4 more BAB. You are in most cases quibbling over a difference of 1-2 BAB for fey. I could not possibly care less.

I did not advocate trying to make all creature types identical. I said to standardize the HD and shift the focus to make traits special (something that is lacking in many 3e creature types).

Give fey a cold iron vulnerability as a trait. Give them speak with animals at will as a trait. That kind of shit. And don't get hung up on HD as class dice.

Making HD=CR is interesting, but that's a way huger change that demands a lot more questions than the minor tweaking of standardizing HD.

You very clearly picked step 1: I MUST DISAGREE and are now tying yourself in knots trying to do so.

[OgreBattle]

How do you make a reasonable list of creature types?

Magic: the Gathering has an array of creature types, with certain creature types having certain tendencies or benefiting from certain buffs, but the creature type itself isn't a rule. Like an Elephant often has Trample, but trample is a rule separate from being an elephant and a wyrm can have trample too.

I figure creature type can be like that, it's a label for grouping certain monsters that mostly share common traits but doesn't have a mechanical function outside of providing you with elephantbane weapons and rangers that specialize in ivory poaching.

Seriously a dragon can be a beautiful woman you sleep with as well as a giant turtle monster, and a demon can be a beautiful woman you sleep with as well as a giant crab monster.

[Kaelik]

WTF? So your plan is:

1) Step 1, rewrite every monster in the MM.
2) Step 2, gain literally nothing from this because there is literally zero actual benefit to having all creature types with the same HD.
3) Step 3, give massive HP boosts to undead and arbitrary -20 untyped penalties to attack, because undead are supposed to have d8HD and full BAB.
4) Step 4, still no benefit has been articulated, but aren't you glad that now absolutely everything has to be rebalanced for no reason?

I mean, I just assumed that this was part of a plan to create a sensible monster system, but if the actual goal is to not rewrite the monster manual at all, and just give undead huge hp penalties and attack bonuses for literally no reason at all because you still haven't even articulated an actual fucking benefit or goal of any kind, then that is even weirder.

[erik]

Aaaaand rolling HD for HP is a bad joke anyway. No good comes of it. I amend my suggestion of universal D8 HD to 5 HP per HD + Con Modifier.

I honestly do think having a trait like "Extra Tuff: All X creatures get +2 HP per HD" is more interesting than changing die types. A point of preference.

Most creatures types don't need different HD types, but if we have to polish dragon cock then I would prefer to do it the way mentioned above ('extra tuff'). I think most HP variations may be accomplished via Constitution modifier, but if necessary, mostly for dragons or giants, I am not vehemently opposed to giving them more HP per HD. I'd rather make it a special trait for a couple creature types rather than something that gets flagged on every single creature type.

Yes, my intent was aimed at a rebalancing and rewriting of creatures. The original post was nonspecific as to whether this was just a rebranding vs. theory on what would have been a better way to have designed the creature types from scratch. I took it as the latter. The benefit is that you have consistent expectations of what a creature should be hitting at for its HD irrespective of type. Creature type should be focused on traits rather than raw stats.

As 3e was written creature type is 80% base combat stats and 20% special traits. That's lame design.


Ahem. And one fucking thing before I go to sleep. This may merit its own thread. Why is the BAB progression differential of classes a holy grail?

It's part of the fucking problem. Things would be way better if all the classes got the same BAB progression and certain classes just got a static bump to attack instead. Fightanmans have +6 class bonus to attack. Ta-da. The RNG will continue to diverge as stats boosters are allocated differently or special abilities/feats are acquired, but there's nothing intrinsic to me that says classes need to keep diverging as they progress.

[Red_Rob]

I like creature types. They seem to be a useful way to categorize creatures and interact with mechanics in various interesting ways (charm person only affects humanoids, rangers hunt specific critter types, etc).

However, I get the sense that 3.5 D&D went a little too far with how much influence the creature type has on a monster.

I don't think it went far enough. Monster types are effectively classes for monsters, and no-one complains that Barbarians and Wizards are too different.

It makes sense to me that if monster types are going to allocate things like Hit Points and Attack Bonus that they should be grouped more like classes, according to expected combat role, than the racial profiling method in 3e. So you go the 4e route of splitting monster types into Tank / Burst Damage / Ranged Specialist and allocate stats that make sense rather than allocating all Abberations a D10 hit die. Now, 4e had some fairly wonky role definitions, but I'm pretty sure you could come up with some actually useful delineations that would cover 90% of things you want a monster to do.

Creature types should probably carry some amount of mechanical information with them; if its just a label, that seems less than useful.

Keywording can be a valuable design tool, even if the Keyword has no associated rules text. Simple having "Animal" attached to a creature can allow a whole raft of interactions with other abilities and classes. This can make an Animal Burst Damage monster feel different to a Humanoid Burst Damage at the same level.

[tussock]

Why is the BAB progression differential of classes a holy grail?

I know it's super important to people that Fighters not only don't get nice things, but also can't have anything that other classes don't also get, but could people here not do this?

4e press told us it was a bad thing for Fighter attacks to get relatively better as they level up, but they were wrong. It's good for martial classes if their attacks get relatively better because the other classes skills and spells are getting relatively better at the same time. M'kay? Attacks and the things which hang of them are a big deal for grunts.

Fightanmans have +6 class bonus to attack. Ta-da.

I notice Fightanmans is now a 1 level class.

---

On monster types. They should really just use (mostly NPC) classes and standard multi-classing rules. Ogre-Magi can be Giant/Adepts, Dragons can be Dragon/Sorcerers. Should a Human Sorcerer grab the right feat, they can just multiclass into Dragon, because it's just a class and it works, like Darksun 2e only sane.

But then, as others have noted, re-writing the Monster Manual so it does much the same thing it already does but in a more elegant way is an impossibly large and completely thankless job.

[GnomeWorks]

I get the sense that I should have clarified my intent a bit, given the tangent upthread.

I am not looking to mess with anything in 3.5. I'm working on a game, and like the concept behind creature types, but am not entirely certain how to go about using them and their best uses.

At the moment, I'm looking at the notion of using creature type and role (as in 4e) combined in some manner to help define creatures, giving other mechanics something to latch onto.

Monster types are effectively classes for monsters, and no-one complains that Barbarians and Wizards are too different.

Do they have to be as such, though? That's kind of my question. In 3.5 they function similarly to classes, but I am curious if there is another approach to take to them, if they can serve a different - but still useful - function.

Keywording can be a valuable design tool, even if the Keyword has no associated rules text.

Oh yes, I'm well aware that simply keywording things can be useful. At the same time, though, I feel like if a keyword can have more useful mechanical information - if it can tell you something, or do more than be something other mechanics latch onto - then it probably should. Otherwise it starts to feel like labeling for the sake of labeling.

But then, as others have noted, re-writing the Monster Manual so it does much the same thing it already does but in a more elegant way is an impossibly large and completely thankless job.

Which is a fair assessment; creature types in 3.5 are pretty well-ingrained in the system.

So starting from the ground up, would there be a better way to do it? A more interesting way? It's been pointed out several times now that types are basically just monster classes; is that the best way to handle them, or can they hold different information that would be useful in other ways?

[TiaC]

They are good as tags for things like Turn Undead.

[schpeelah]

I am not looking to mess with anything in 3.5. I'm working on a game, and like the concept behind creature types, but am not entirely certain how to go about using them and their best uses.

But what is the concept of creature types to you? Third edition doesn't have one unified concept. If Dragon and Giant are types, then a human's type should be Ape. Almost anything can have an Undead or Outsider version which doesn't work for a system where a creature only has one type. You need to choose what kind of types you have before we know what creature type is even supposed to mean.

[radthemad4]

Incidentally, Koumei created a whole bunch of subtypes for Pokemon in d20. If you're fond of super effective/not very effective mechanics, you could try something like this.