|
I don't know if this is the right subforum for this, but Jason, are you looking at monster types and subtypes for PFRPG? I'd hope they could be fixed to make some sort of sense.
Athachs, which are three-armed giants, are Aberrations.
Ettins, which are two-headed giants, are Giants.
Minotaurs, which are giants with bull-heads, are Monstrous Humanoids.
What exactly is the determining factor here?
More examples of type-madness:
Dragon Turtles are Dragons.
Dragonnes are Magical Beasts.
Both are reptilian creatures, usually winged, with magical or unusual abilities.
Medusae have scales and serpentine hair. They're Monstrous Humanoids.
Merfolk have scales and fish tails. They're Humanoids.
Lizardfolk are effectively bipedal lizards. They're Humanoids with the Reptilian sub-type.
I think my point is made. If we're going to have types at all, can we either apply them consistently based on the type description, or change the types to match how they're actually meant to be used? If Athachs are aberrations just so they have different saves and skills than Ettins, let's stop talking about alien physiologies and start talking about their mechanical role.
The way it was described to me was that Monstrous Humanoids were more than just "animal like" or amalgum anatomies, they most likely had some kind of Magical (spell-like or supernatural) nature as well.
Medusa can petrify with their Gaze. Gargoyles have damage reduction and can freeze to look like a statue. Most have either magical abilities or immunities or outright spell resistance.
About the only Monstrous Humanoid that doesn't make sense as one completely is the Centaur, and that might be just to give them Darkvision (which I can do without). 4 legs really doesn't give me a push towards Monstrous when a Gnoll has a Wold or Hyena head and is considered type Humanoid.
So basically Monstrous Humanoid = Somehow magical in nature. Hence lizardfolk, merfolk and whatnot being humanoid.
Regarding Ettin...
They are a corner case for Giant vs Aberration. I think it was mainly done because they were considered "more Giant than strange thing from planet X". Athatch with an arm out of it's chest is squicky enough to be an Aberration. Maybe "the man with two heads" has been done enough to not be horrifying anymore?
I'd be fine making them aberrations anyways.. they don't even speak a full language, it's not like they have a societal issue being changed in type.
As for Dragon Turtles vs Dragonnes...
If something has a Breath Weapon, it is likely a Dragon. That would be the biggest difference between the two. However the Pseudodragon and Wyvern don't, so who knows.
This one is odd. A dragon can have different looks in history, there's turtle looks, serpent looks, and western winged look. It can't be level of intelligence because Wyverns are as dumb as Dragonnes. A case can be made that a young Dragon is growing into his intelligence, and thus isn't considered "standard" for his race, much like a 3 year old Human might not have grown into all of his intelligence yet. A baby dragon is still a dangerous encounter though, hence the stat block.
I'd be willing to put Wyvern into Magical Beast and say "all dragons are lizard-like with humanoid level Intelligence, and potentially Breathe Weapon".
|
|
The way it was described to me was that Monstrous Humanoids were more than just "animal like" or amalgum anatomies, they most likely had some kind of Magical (spell-like or supernatural) nature as well. Most have either magical abilities or immunities or outright spell resistance.
That's all well and good, except:
Monstrous humanoids are similar to humanoids, but with monstrous or animalistic features. They often have magical abilities as well.
Emphasis mine. Magical abilities are not diagnostic for Monstrous Humanoids. Many do, but not all. The diagnostic feature for Monstrous Humanoids is being a chimera of humanoid and bestial features.
By the rules as written Centaurs, Gnolls, Locathah, and Lizardmen should all be Monstrous Humanoids.Regarding Ettin...
To be frank, I don't care if they change Athachs to being giants, or Ettins to being aberrations. I'm just certain they should be the same Type.
As for Dragon Turtles vs Dragonnes...
If something has a Breath Weapon, it is likely a Dragon. That would be the biggest difference between the two. However the Pseudodragon and Wyvern don't, so who knows.
That's what makes it tricky. Breath Weapons are not diagnostic for Dragons; neither in the rules or in common sense. Breath Weapons do fall under "magical or unusual abilities" as per the SRD entry for that Type, but so does the Dragonne's roar. Based on the article in Pathfinder #4, Dragonnes should absolutely and unequivocally be dragons in the currently hypothetical PFRPG Monster Manual.
What we've seen is that writers have been lazy about Types, giving monsters Types based on what saves they want the monster to have, or if they want it to have Darkvision vs Low-Light vision, rather than giving, say, Athachs a Darkvision racial ability. Ankhegs are clearly vermin, but were given a 1 Intelligence so they could quality for Magical Beast and all the extra skill points that provides.
PFRPG is dedicated to fixing the problems with 3.5 without throwing everything out; Types are a good example of that.
I know what you mean. I also tried to rework the creature types. I know this won't be BWC, but as they are now, they don't make that much sense.
As I said, my post and probably this thread is purely theoretic and won't make it into PF.
So back to my ideas:
- Humanoids (Head, Torso, 2 arms, 2 legs, sentient, establishing societies)
-- Monstros Humanoids (more feral with animal features like wings instead of arms, or a snakes tail instead of legs, etc.)
-- Giants (Humanoids tending to enormous size, mostly loners)
- Animals (non-magical beasts, non/semi-sentient)
-- Vermin (... well don't know yet)
- Magical Beasts (Animals with magical abilities and/or higher intelligence)
-- Dragons (The pinacle of evolution, highly magical, highly intelligent, mostly loners)
- Constructs (mechanical machines, fueled through magic or technology)
-- Awaken (sentient constructs, free-minded)
- Outsider (Natives to the outer planes, like angels, demons and devils)
-- Fey (Outsiders with bond to the plane of true nature)
-- Elementals (Outsiders consisting of one of the true elements)
Those are the basic Types.
There will be several general subtypes like:
- Undead (Any creature revived through negative energy get's the undead subtype)
- Chaos, Evil, Good, Law (Any creature, mostly outsiders, with strong connection to the specific alignement)
This is the basics, sofar.
KR, DD
In all honesty, I don't mind changing the one creature that doesn't fit (Centaurs) and making the Monstrous type require some form of magical ability. This would be similar to Animal vs Magical Beast.
They really did play fast and loose with the type rules. I have a feeling they really put things in certain types because they wanted them to have specific things tied to their HD, and they vaguely fit the model.
Humanoids have "few or no supernatural or extraordinary abilities" and "most can speak and usually have well-developed societies".
However, they also only have 3/4 BAB, only a good Reflex save, and no Darkvision.
If they wanted their Centaur to have full BAB, a good Reflex AND Will save, and have Darkvision, they made them Monstrous instead.
I'm guessing Gargoyles, Hags and Medusa don't have well developed societies either. It really feels like they just decided to pick and choose what fit best and ran with it, instead of letting the Type lock them into anything in particular.
More examples of type-madness:
Dragon Turtles are Dragons.
Dragonnes are Magical Beasts.Both are reptilian creatures, usually winged, with magical or unusual abilities.
WotC had a chance to alleviate this when it introduced the dragonblooded subtype in Dragon Magic and applied it to kobolds but not to dragonnes (even though both have draconic ancestry). I'd say as a workaround use a similar subtype for dragon-descended monsters that don't even qualify as lesser dragons.