|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone see any problems with changing the vermin type to a subtype of the animal type?
-Poor Reflex saves.
-Mindless: No Intelligence score, and immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms). A mindless creature gains no skill points or feats. Vermin have no class skills. A vermin-like creature with an Intelligence score can gain skill points and feats as normal.
-Darkvision 60 feet. This replaces low-light vision.
I can definitely see where you're going with that, and it makes a lot of sense.
However, it might not actually change too much, since most of the effects that target animals are mind-affecting (calm, charm, hold, dominate, even wild empathy probably). Animal Growth on a giant vermin would be scary.
That said.. if it doesn't change much, not that much reason *not* to do it.
Why would you do this?
|
I don't really see the rationale behind this, but probably for a very different reason than Sean. It doesn't really do anything, other than nest vermin under animal, while retaining all the qualities of the Vermin Type, which seems like rearranging deck chairs to me.
(Although the idea of it allowing Animal Growth to affect bugs, and replacing the 'Giant Insect' spell of 1st edition, is a neat one.)
Ideally, there should be no Vermin type or subtype at all. Bugs are Animals, after all. (They aren't minerals or vegetables, right, nor fungus or monera, for the truly detail-oriented?)
Ditching the 'Beast' type, that encompassed dinosaurs, breathed new (and scary) life into the Druid. Ditching the Vermin type, which encompasses 'icky things,' would be a logical progression of that logic, IMO.
'Vermin' certainly aren't mindless, being both trainable in real life, and trainable in-game (by drow, duergar, the clergy of Calistria, etc.), and since 3.0 made the somewhat dubious decision to make them 'mindless,' there have been a plethora of feats and special exceptions made, for Druids to take them as companions, or for people to affect them with Handle Animal, or with mind-affecting spells (or bardic inspiration), or for various races / classes to be able to train them for use as mounts, etc.
The whole Vermin-as-Type thing just gets in the way, as demonstrated by the abundance of rules that had to be invented to get around it.
Throw out the Type, make 'bugs' Animals with an Int score of 1, and the silly exceptions that are then required to get around the restrictions of that type can also be thrown out. Illusionists, Enchanters, Necromancers and Bards smile, because they can now fascinate moths with pretty patterns of light, and scare cockroaches with fear spells, and fill hornets with rage, and all that other stuff that the rest of us can do without magic... :)
Stuff about bugs
I second everything Set said. Already house-ruled it in my homebrew, as a matter of fact. I haven't taken the time to stat up giant bug animal companions yet, but it'll be fun!
I could rather see humanoid as an animal subtype than vermin.
But I also think a lot of animals should not be of the same monster type as what most animals are. Basically I'm talking about any invertebrates that currently have the animal type. They are just too far off of what most other animals are.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry to necro this, but how problematic would it be to have a template that could be applied to a specific vermin, (My current mental example is the Giant Bee), that would both change it's type to vermin, and remove the mindless trait?
The intent is to produce something you can interact with via the Handle Animal skill, and train them with as little magical force as I can manage to get away with. That said, one spell at the start to apply the template to a breeding population would work for my needs.
The game's been crawling with (ha ha, I made a bug pun) examples of trainable bugs since 1st edition came up with steeder-riding duergar and drow training giant spiders. Game designers from Gary Gygax to Monte Cook (who had people riding trained Spider-Eaters in Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil) have blithely ignored the notion that insects and athropods are 'mindless,' so you'd be in fine company to do likewise. Even in Pathfinder, we've got giant wasps trained by Calistrian clergy.
If you feel the need to make a sub-template of 'vermin' that are trainable, some sort of 'awakened' vermin that have an Int score of 1 and get scared, angry, etc. like real insects, that's one way to go, but, really, there's no reason why anything capable of doing math and performing craft skills shouldn't just have an Int score (albeit a low one) anyway.
Since this sort of 'Awaken Vermin' would be much, much less of a species-changing event than the standard Awaken spell, which adds HD and boosts Int to humanoid levels, you could probably justify it being significantly lower level (and cheaper to cast), although making it a trait that breeds true might bump that casting level up again...
A spell that affected a single vermin (or swarm, creating a 'hive mind'), and gave it an Int score of 1 (and did *NOT* give it a bunch of other extraneous random crap, like 3.X's Awaken granting the magical beast type, darkvision, extra HD, a better BAB, a free language, extra Charisma, etc.) would probably be fine around 2nd level. One that affected the offspring of the affected vermin should probably bounce back up to level 4 or 5.
Having such a spell be retroactively backfitted to Drow who worship Mazmezz, Calistrian clergy, etc. or any other races or cultures that are known to tame vermin in whatever setting you are using, would make sense. Perhaps the spell was first a gift from those divine patrons, or perhaps it was once a Formian / Aspis / Thri-Kreen / Xixchil / Phraint / Aranea secret that they used to domesticate lesser 'bug' races for their own use.
Alternately, since there's a (IMO, ludicrous) precedent for druids using HD progression to up their Animal Companion's Int scores to 3+, the same 'logic' should apply to monstrous vermin. Breed the creature for size until it reaches the next HD divisible by 4, and have it spend it's bonus Ability Score on an Int of 1. It's silly, but, hey, the rules already are funky on this topic, might as well bend them to the screaming point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread hit a nerve for me; it makes me want to do the same. Especially since I'm playing in a Drow campaign right now, and one of the group is using a spider as an animal companion (the priestess; we made up a Spider domain based on the Animal domain).
Heck, I'd get rid of the mindless thing and, if there is insistence on the concept of mindless, replace it with a trait like...
Alien Mind: The mind of vermin functions completely different from that of any playable species or race. As such, they gain a +8 racial bonus against mind affects. Vermin roll a saving throw against all mind affects, including those which are beneficial. If the mind affect has no listed saving throw, such as a Bard's Inspire Courage, treat the save DC as a spell-like ability (10 +1/2HD +Charisma bonus). Vermin are also harder to train (-4 penalty on Handle Animal checks).
I would argue that the two types should be kept separate, as there are very few exceptions to the general creature type separations. Generally, "animals" are vertebrates, while "vermin" are invertebrates. The only exceptions to this scheme are octopi, squids, and the like, which are classified as animals despite being invertebrates (probably because they are a bit smarter than other invertebrates -- they have animal level intelligence rather than being mindless like other invertebrates).
So my proposal would be to reclassify these soft-skinned mollusks as vermin that are not mindless -- then all of the animals and vermin would be in the right categories.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Vermin are inarguably my favorite critter. And I can see both arguements. But a few questions:
1) Would animals be broken up into other subtypes? What would they be? Invertebrates/Vertabrates?
2) If there are subtypes for animals, would a ranger have to select the subtype as a favored enemy instead of animal? I could see a reduced number of them being chosen as favored enemies. Who selects animal or vermin anyways? I have only seen either selected in one-shots where the focus was known to be on them.
3) I would like to see the expanded options for spells, abilities, and etc being able to affect vermin. What would need to be changed for balance?
Alien Mind: The mind of vermin functions completely different from that of any playable species or race. As such, they gain a +8 racial bonus against mind affects. Vermin roll a saving throw against all mind affects, including those which are beneficial. If the mind affect has no listed saving throw, such as a Bard's Inspire Courage, treat the save DC as a spell-like ability (10 +1/2HD +Charisma bonus). Vermin are also harder to train (-4 penalty on Handle Animal checks).
I like and declaring this idea stolen, but not for just vermin. YOINK!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heck, I'd get rid of the mindless thing and, if there is insistence on the concept of mindless, replace it with a trait like...
Alien Mind: The mind of vermin functions completely different from that of any playable species or race. As such, they gain a +8 racial bonus against mind affects. Vermin roll a saving throw against all mind affects, including those which are beneficial. If the mind affect has no listed saving throw, such as a Bard's Inspire Courage, treat the save DC as a spell-like ability (10 +1/2HD +Charisma bonus). Vermin are also harder to train (-4 penalty on Handle Animal checks).
Dropping that to +4 vs. mind-affecting effects (and a -2 penalty to Handle Animal checks) would even be viable.
I'm not a fan of 'immune to X' in general being handed out as liberally as it is, as it tends to be 'all or nothing.' I'd rather that constructs and undead, for instance, both of whom *can* be commanded and controlled, and understand languages, and follow fairly complex instructions, not be considered 'mindless' for the purposes of hosing bards and enchantment/illusion specialists, while very much not mindless for any other purpose.
Same with fire creatures being 100% immune to fire, for that matter. Does a fire elemental *really* need to be totally immune to anything up to and including the heat of an exploding star? I'm 100% a 'meat elemental,' and I'm not at all invulnerable to 'meat,' whether it be a frozen turkey to the side of the head, or a shark attack.
Too many 'all or nothing' effects, and, IMO, too many (like the mindless trait) are handed out too cheaply to creatures that don't deserve that sort of thing.
And any rule that ends up requiring new rules just to get around it (like energy substitution or 'searing spell' or 'half fire damage / half divine damage' or 'special class ability to train vermin' or the mites 'vermin empathy' or 'turn/command undead' or a whole new spell that does exactly what another spell does, but this one affects vermin / undead / constructs) is, IMO, a bad rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like it -- most vermin should really be Int 1 animals, maybe with the [vermin] subtype, and just give them a line "Immunities mind-affecting" in the stat block. That said, a lot of them should really have tremorsense or something as well.
Regarding other animal subtypes, it would be nice to see lizards and snakes described as "animal (reptilian)," much as kobolds get the "reptilian" tag.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It might have something to do with ranger favored enemies, the Animal subtype is a rare encounter in a lot of games, and if you had to further worry about specific subtypes it would become a totally useless selection.
Just spell out under the favored enemy ability that you get "Animal" as opposed to only a specific subtype. That would then include animals (of all subtypes) + current vermin, making it a more useful option.
|
|
It might have something to do with ranger favored enemies, the Animal subtype is a rare encounter in a lot of games, and if you had to further worry about specific subtypes it would become a totally useless selection.
Doesn't have to be. You can divide the favored enemies up in all sorts of ways. Humanoids might be very precisely broken up by subtype, but Outsiders is broken up by alignment, instead of subtype, so that you don't have to choose 'Favored Enemy: Qlippoth' or 'Favored Enemy: Divs,' you can just take 'Favored Enemy: Evil Outsider' and affect daemons, devils, demons, qlippoth, divs, rakshasa, efreeti, etc. with that single choice.
There's precedent for affecting an entire type (like Magical Beast or Aberration, many of whom have literally *nothing* to do with each other) with a single choice, so Animal wouldn't have to be any different, even if it had some subtypes (like 'vermin' or 'dinosaur' or 'reptilian').
|
Heck, I'd get rid of the mindless thing and, if there is insistence on the concept of mindless, replace it with a trait like...
Alien Mind: The mind of vermin functions completely different from that of any playable species or race. As such, they gain a +8 racial bonus against mind affects. Vermin roll a saving throw against all mind affects, including those which are beneficial. If the mind affect has no listed saving throw, such as a Bard's Inspire Courage, treat the save DC as a spell-like ability (10 +1/2HD +Charisma bonus). Vermin are also harder to train (-4 penalty on Handle Animal checks).
Dropping that to +4 vs. mind-affecting effects (and a -2 penalty to Handle Animal checks) would even be viable.
I'm not a fan of 'immune to X' in general being handed out as liberally as it is, as it tends to be 'all or nothing.' I'd rather that constructs and undead, for instance, both of whom *can* be commanded and controlled, and understand languages, and follow fairly complex instructions, not be considered 'mindless' for the purposes of hosing bards and enchantment/illusion specialists, while very much not mindless for any other purpose.
Same with fire creatures being 100% immune to fire, for that matter. Does a fire elemental *really* need to be totally immune to anything up to and including the heat of an exploding star? I'm 100% a 'meat elemental,' and I'm not at all invulnerable to 'meat,' whether it be a frozen turkey to the side of the head, or a shark attack.
Too many 'all or nothing' effects, and, IMO, too many (like the mindless trait) are handed out too cheaply to creatures that don't deserve that sort of thing.
And any rule that ends up requiring new rules just to get around it (like energy substitution or 'searing spell' or 'half fire damage / half divine damage' or 'special class ability to train vermin' or the mites 'vermin empathy' or 'turn/command undead' or a whole new spell that does exactly what another spell does, but this one...
I've had a similar rant to this, myself. I am also in the camp that dislikes heavy all-or-nothing effects. In some (very rare) cases, they're justified. For example: I'm fine with a mindless construct being immune to mind-affecting, because they're essentially an object. Constructs with int scores might even be slightly resistant due to the odd nature of their mind.
All-or-nothing design elements almost always lead to an arms race of other all-or-nothing elements. Magic missile always hits, so therefor shield always blocks it. Some creatures are immune to fire, so this spell is half divine to bypass it. You also list some good examples.
Saving throw bonuses, attack rolls, energy resistances and other such properties all exist for a reason. If you really want the creature to be special, make it so that a natural 1 is not an auto-fail for that type of save, or that the energy resistance scales with HD, or that the attack ignores concealment (but still requires a roll), etc. If someone can try something and you can say "no" without even thinking about looking at the sheet, it better be because an actual number is involved somewhere and it just happens to be really high.
In the end, I suppose the main reason this bugs me is because I don't like saying "no". Any time you flat out say "no" to a character, without even allowing a roll, you're basically telling them "that doesn't even make sense, why would you try that?!" I would prefer to reserve this for the obvious cases, like trying to seduce a door. (Assuming the door isn't a mimic or some-such, of course.)