Why unique creature subtypes? (boggard, derro, tengu, etc.)


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


I was glancing through the Bestiary to learn more about the monstrous humanoids that are the favored enemy of my soon-to-be ranger, when I discovered that some humanoids are unique. The boggard is a humanoid (boggard), the derro is a humanoid (derro), the tengu is a humanoid (tengu), and no doubt there are others. So. Why?

It seems clear to me that the derro is a humanoid (fey), while the boggard and tengu are monstrous humanoids. However, I understand that there can be good game-design reasons for seemingly-odd choices. I don't expect mind reading; just a good hypothesis is enough, or if you disagree with their choice then I'd like to hear that too.


This bothers me too. Kinda limits Rangers, I think.
Derro used to be (dwarf).


A Human is humanoid (human), too, just as an Elf is humanoid (elf).

As for why the humanoid races tend to have unique subtypes, I imagine part of the reason is precisely the existence of abilities such as the Ranger's favored enemy and the Bane weapon quality. Since you're likely to encounter far more humanoids than any other creature type, especially early in a campaign, those abilities might be too good if you could choose the blanket "Humanoid" and have the ability work on all the varieties of humanoids.


The reason is actually probably more closely tied with the Bane property for weapons. Outsiders fall into dozens of categories too, for this reason. Grabbing a +1 humanoid bane weapon (+3 to hit, +2d6+1 damage) for the same price as a +2 weapon would be a no brainer in a humaoid heavy game (as most of mine are, for example). Also, it allows for other magical items to be limited for specific types of humanoids and still stay consistent with the rules.


Are wrote:

A Human is humanoid (human), too, just as an Elf is humanoid (elf).

As for why the humanoid races tend to have unique subtypes, I imagine part of the reason is precisely the existence of abilities such as the Ranger's favored enemy and the Bane weapon quality. Since you're likely to encounter far more humanoids than any other creature type, especially early in a campaign, those abilities might be too good if you could choose the blanket "Humanoid" and have the ability work on all the varieties of humanoids.

I agree, but Ive noticed that somethings that used to be subraces of a subtype, are now just a plain old subtype. IIRC (and I could be wrong) but for instance, in 3.5, Kobolds and Lizardmen were both humanoid (reptilian). Now they are seperate subtypes. Once again IIRC. away from books at the moment.

Edit-just to clarify. Im all for breaking Humanoid up intoo various subtypes, due to favored enemy bonuses and bane and whatnot. I just dont think it should go overboard.


TheWhiteknife wrote:


I agree, but Ive noticed that somethings that used to be subraces of a subtype, are now just a plain old subtype. IIRC (and I could be wrong) but for instance, in 3.5, Kobolds and Lizardmen were both humanoid (reptilian). Now they are seperate subtypes. Once again IIRC. away from books at the moment.

Both of those are still (reptilian).

The races SciVo mentioned above have undergone a change though. Both Derro and Tengu used to be Monstrous Humanoid. In those cases, I assume Paizo wanted them to be Humanoid instead of Monstrous Humanoid, and since humanoids have subtypes they gave them a unique one.


Are wrote:

A Human is humanoid (human), too, just as an Elf is humanoid (elf).

As for why the humanoid races tend to have unique subtypes, I imagine part of the reason is precisely the existence of abilities such as the Ranger's favored enemy and the Bane weapon quality. Since you're likely to encounter far more humanoids than any other creature type, especially early in a campaign, those abilities might be too good if you could choose the blanket "Humanoid" and have the ability work on all the varieties of humanoids.

To clarify, I'm not asking why there are subtypes of humanoid, just why some of them are unique. That's a good point about the subtypes of the core races; however, it raises interesting questions about what makes those three Bestiary races so important, compared to all of the other fey or monstrous humanoids out there.


SciVo wrote:
Are wrote:

A Human is humanoid (human), too, just as an Elf is humanoid (elf).

As for why the humanoid races tend to have unique subtypes, I imagine part of the reason is precisely the existence of abilities such as the Ranger's favored enemy and the Bane weapon quality. Since you're likely to encounter far more humanoids than any other creature type, especially early in a campaign, those abilities might be too good if you could choose the blanket "Humanoid" and have the ability work on all the varieties of humanoids.

To clarify, I'm not asking why there are subtypes of humanoid, just why some of them are unique. That's a good point about the subtypes of the core races; however, it raises interesting questions about what makes those three Bestiary races so important, compared to all of the other fey or monstrous humanoids out there.

I'm not too knowledgeable on how things work in Golarion, but in the world I play in, all three of those you mentioned (as well as the kobolds and lizardfolk) have their own nations. We sort of have a general rule that all humanoids develop cogent societies and work together with each other and have national drives and desires. Monstrous humanoids (in our world) generally don't. They may form tribes or bands, but never long-term established governments.


SciVo wrote:
To clarify, I'm not asking why there are subtypes of humanoid, just why some of them are unique. That's a good point about the subtypes of the core races; however, it raises interesting questions about what makes those three Bestiary races so important, compared to all of the other fey or monstrous humanoids out there.

Only the Humanoid type and the Outsider type have subtypes. So that's why Fey and Monstrous Humanoids don't have them.

Why many of those subtypes are unique is a good question. I assume it's because the designers didn't feel that they fit into any of the existing subtypes.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Humanoids and Outsiders have so many subtypes because those two monster categories are REALLY broad.

With humanoids, you can particularly have enemies of this type from 1st level all the way to 20th, since these guys often have class levels.

Bane weapons and ranger favored enemy abilities would simply be too good if they could take one monster type like Humanoid or Outsider and cover SOOOOO many creatures.

We try to limit the creation of new humanoid subtypes though, but sometimes there are humanoid races that just don't fit in anywhere else.

And even with what might feel like a narrow group... in the right campaign, ANY humanoid subtype can be a great choice. Just look at "humanoid (gnoll)" for Legacy of Fire for example...


Mauril wrote:
I'm not too knowledgeable on how things work in Golarion, but in the world I play in, all three of those you mentioned (as well as the kobolds and lizardfolk) have their own nations. We sort of have a general rule that all humanoids develop cogent societies and work together with each other and have national drives and desires. Monstrous humanoids (in our world) generally don't. They may form tribes or bands, but never long-term established governments.

Okay! A bit idiosyncratic to your campaign but still a good answer, thank you.

Are wrote:
Why many of those subtypes are unique is a good question. I assume it's because the designers didn't feel that they fit into any of the existing subtypes.

I'm glad that it's a good question, but I'm looking for explanations why those races didn't fit into one of the other subtypes (such as fey or monstrous).

James Jacobs wrote:

Humanoids and Outsiders have so many subtypes because those two monster categories are REALLY broad.

With humanoids, you can particularly have enemies of this type from 1st level all the way to 20th, since these guys often have class levels.

Bane weapons and ranger favored enemy abilities would simply be too good if they could take one monster type like Humanoid or Outsider and cover SOOOOO many creatures.

We try to limit the creation of new humanoid subtypes though, but sometimes there are humanoid races that just don't fit in anywhere else.

And even with what might feel like a narrow group... in the right campaign, ANY humanoid subtype can be a great choice. Just look at "humanoid (gnoll)" for Legacy of Fire for example...

I'm astonished and gratified to get an official personal response like that! (Seriously, I'm still blinking with disbelief.) However, I can't help but notice the lack of specificity, with regard to the three that I mentioned. On the other (other) hand, I can sympathize with wanting to leave the most possible room for future developments. Also, I'm impressed that you had such a ready example of exactly what I was talking about, in the gnolls. So, I'll take it. Thanks! :)


James Jacobs wrote:

Humanoids and Outsiders have so many subtypes because those two monster categories are REALLY broad.

With humanoids, you can particularly have enemies of this type from 1st level all the way to 20th, since these guys often have class levels.

Bane weapons and ranger favored enemy abilities would simply be too good if they could take one monster type like Humanoid or Outsider and cover SOOOOO many creatures.

We try to limit the creation of new humanoid subtypes though, but sometimes there are humanoid races that just don't fit in anywhere else.

And even with what might feel like a narrow group... in the right campaign, ANY humanoid subtype can be a great choice. Just look at "humanoid (gnoll)" for Legacy of Fire for example...

I understand that the design choice was to prevent player power creep. However, I don't think that creating a thousand and one humanoid and outsider types was the way to go about preventing that. The problem I have with the current system is that it assumes that a +2 bonus to damage is just as useful, just as relevant, and just as powerful against goblinoids as it is against constructs. But that isn't the case.

What I propose is to do away with minor attack and damage bonuses that have little impact on game play and, quite frankly, aren't that interesting. Instead, each favored enemy gives you something relevant to fighting creatures of the chosen type. For instance, favored enemy ooze could remove its immunity to critical hits or grant acid resistance, while favored enemy fey could grant you bonuses on saving throws against mind-affecting effects.

These abilities would have to start small and begin to scale each time you reselected a new favored enemy, becoming exponentially better over time. The best way (that I can see) to do it, is to create 5 tiers of abilities per creature type. Going back to my ooze example, as the ranger gets an additional favored enemy he gets the option to increase the tier of one that he already has (or even the one he just selected). As he continues to increase favored enemy ooze his gear becomes immune to acid or maybe he gets freedom of movement for 1 round when creatures try to engulf him. It doesn't matter really, as long is the granted abilities are designed with that specific creature type in mind. These bonuses would obviously make him better at killing oozes, but he could still get some use out of it when he encounters something that relies on acid attacks or tries to engulf him. His experience with oozes has also left him better prepared to handle similar attacks.

This would make selecting a favored enemy a more interesting and meaningful choice, as well as removing the need entirely for humanoid (worthless), humanoid (horrible choice), humanoid (waste of a favored enemy), humanoid (nothing to see here), and humanoid (don't bother to select me).


James Jacobs wrote:

Humanoids and Outsiders have so many subtypes because those two monster categories are REALLY broad.

With humanoids, you can particularly have enemies of this type from 1st level all the way to 20th, since these guys often have class levels.

Bane weapons and ranger favored enemy abilities would simply be too good if they could take one monster type like Humanoid or Outsider and cover SOOOOO many creatures.

We try to limit the creation of new humanoid subtypes though, but sometimes there are humanoid races that just don't fit in anywhere else.

And even with what might feel like a narrow group... in the right campaign, ANY humanoid subtype can be a great choice. Just look at "humanoid (gnoll)" for Legacy of Fire for example...

What seems strange to me is that Humanoid (Humans) and Humanoid (Dwarves) are a separate category, yet ALL Evil Outsiders fall into one group. It seems kinda odd that two fairly similar creatures (such as most PC races who all have almost the same anatomy) are separate, yet both Devils and Demons are the same, who can be different as a Tarrasque is different from a Mite. And of course, they're not the only evil outsiders, there's Daemons, Qlippoths, etc...

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Toadkiller Dog wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

Humanoids and Outsiders have so many subtypes because those two monster categories are REALLY broad.

With humanoids, you can particularly have enemies of this type from 1st level all the way to 20th, since these guys often have class levels.

Bane weapons and ranger favored enemy abilities would simply be too good if they could take one monster type like Humanoid or Outsider and cover SOOOOO many creatures.

We try to limit the creation of new humanoid subtypes though, but sometimes there are humanoid races that just don't fit in anywhere else.

And even with what might feel like a narrow group... in the right campaign, ANY humanoid subtype can be a great choice. Just look at "humanoid (gnoll)" for Legacy of Fire for example...

What seems strange to me is that Humanoid (Humans) and Humanoid (Dwarves) are a separate category, yet ALL Evil Outsiders fall into one group. It seems kinda odd that two fairly similar creatures (such as most PC races who all have almost the same anatomy) are separate, yet both Devils and Demons are the same, who can be different as a Tarrasque is different from a Mite. And of course, they're not the only evil outsiders, there's Daemons, Qlippoths, etc...

Huh?

Humans - Humanoid (human)
Dwarf - Humanoid (dwarf)
Devil - outsider (devil, evil, extraplanar, lawful)
Demon - outsider (chaotic, demon, evil, extraplanar)

There's plenty of subtype differences.


What my friend, the amphibian slaying canine, meant to say is that you can take evil outsiders as your favoured enemy, which implies your superior knowledge of their anatomy, behaviour etc. and apply that bonus to devils, demons, daemons, qlippoth, howlers etc. In my opinion, the differences between a demon and a devil are much, much greater then that between a human and a dwarf. Humans and dwarves have lungs, kidneys, two eyes, two legs. On the other hand, take the glabrezu demon and lemure devil. How can the favoured enemy bonus, in any way, apply to both those creatures?

Dark Archive

The favored enemy options, for the most part, seem to be more about rarity / commonality for game balance (so that no specific FE is a must-take or totally worthless) than about what training would logically apply towards.

FE - demihumans (elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, half elves, half orcs) might be too generous a FE option, while FE - qlippoth would be friggin' useless in nine campaigns out of ten, or 99 encounters out of 100.

Apparently, all 'evil outsiders' have an 'evil gland' somewhere that the Ranger is trained to punch (ow! he kicked me right in my evil! that's not nice!), or always lead with their left hand (tentacle, whatever), or something. :)

Meanwhile, dwarven kidneys and livers are located somewhere other than human kidneys and livers, halfling kidneys and livers or elven kidneys and livers (and, one suspects, are far more efficient!).

I'd prefer 'reptilian' or 'avian' types, rather than overly specific 'lizardfolk', 'kobold' or 'tengu,' to widen the range for later use (so that someone who had FE 'tengu' would instead have FE 'avian humanoid' and be equally brutal against those darned dire corbies, or the birdmen of Cheliax, or any kenku or raptorans or aarakocra or al karak elam or avariel or psittae that flutter into the setting).

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Autarch wrote:
What my friend, the amphibian slaying canine, meant to say is that you can take evil outsiders as your favoured enemy, which implies your superior knowledge of their anatomy, behaviour etc. and apply that bonus to devils, demons, daemons, qlippoth, howlers etc. In my opinion, the differences between a demon and a devil are much, much greater then that between a human and a dwarf. Humans and dwarves have lungs, kidneys, two eyes, two legs. On the other hand, take the glabrezu demon and lemure devil. How can the favoured enemy bonus, in any way, apply to both those creatures?

To play devil's advocate--evil outsiders have certain universal traits--many of them are best hurt by good aligned weapons, for example. Most have DR and SR and can summon lesser beings of their own sub-subtype.

I do agree with y'all though because there are SO MANY evil outsiders, especially if you throw the Bestiary II into the mix, it starts to look a bit odd because there are a lot of differences, and indeed, if you've dedicated your life to slaying the infernal creatures who destroyed your father's castle, why you would know anything about a qlippoth, which you'd never even seen before.

Humans and dwarves do both have, indeed, humanoid anatomy, but I would say that really knowing how to fight one versus the other would be different in terms of tactics--dwarves' sturdiness and size requires a different tack than dealing with human versatility.

Also, at least with dwarves, duergar are also included in the subtype, so they aren't a "single creature" subtype. (But then I'd probably still throw derro back into their subtype as well (or into gnome, maybe).

Humans are a single creature subtype, but they are so numerous, it's a useful favored enemy. Especially because the favored enemy bonus applies to Perception and Bluff... so is useful even in haggling with NPCs and the like.

Favored Enemy Boggard isn't likely to get you very far, which I think gets to the OP's point. And of course you don't have to take it, but... even Favored Enemy Gnoll will likely come to be repeatedly useful in the right area/campaign.

I suppose a GM could create a humanoid "other" subtype and throw all the misc humanoids into one.

Dark Archive

DeathQuaker wrote:
Favored Enemy Boggard isn't likely to get you very far, which I think gets to the OP's point.

Yeah, making a 'humanoid - amphibian' would at least expand it to include grippli or sivs or firenewts or whatever other frog/salamander folk exist in the setting (and, even then, that's pretty slim pickins, compared to FE - humans or FE - undead!).


Set wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:
Favored Enemy Boggard isn't likely to get you very far, which I think gets to the OP's point.

Yeah, making a 'humanoid - amphibian' would at least expand it to include grippli or sivs or firenewts or whatever other frog/salamander folk exist in the setting (and, even then, that's pretty slim pickins, compared to FE - humans or FE - undead!).

Or better yet, just use the pre-existing "humanoid (aquatic)" or perhaps "humanoid (boggard, aquatic)".


hogarth wrote:
Or better yet, just use the pre-existing "humanoid (aquatic)" or perhaps "humanoid (boggard, aquatic)".

The (aquatic) subtype has specific rules associated with it though. If the creature isn't supposed to have those features, you can't use it as its subtype.


Quote:
Humans and dwarves do both have, indeed, humanoid anatomy, but I would say that really knowing how to fight one versus the other would be different in terms of tactics--dwarves' sturdiness and size requires a different tack than dealing with human versatility.

I'm not saying that Favored Enemy (Humanoid) should apply to both Humans and Dwarves. That distinction is clear. I'm just saying that every type of evil outsider should fall into its own, separate category of Favored Enemy. Because, as you say, a chaotic demon will have a different tactical approach to combat, as opposed to a strictly lawful devil.

So, there should be Favored Enemy (Evil Outsider, Devil), Favored Enemy (Evil Outsiders, Demon), etc.


Are wrote:
hogarth wrote:
Or better yet, just use the pre-existing "humanoid (aquatic)" or perhaps "humanoid (boggard, aquatic)".

The (aquatic) subtype has specific rules associated with it though. If the creature isn't supposed to have those features, you can't use it as its subtype.

Good point; boggards aren't amphibious. They can just hold their breath for a long time.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Toadkiller Dog wrote:
Quote:
Humans and dwarves do both have, indeed, humanoid anatomy, but I would say that really knowing how to fight one versus the other would be different in terms of tactics--dwarves' sturdiness and size requires a different tack than dealing with human versatility.

I'm not saying that Favored Enemy (Humanoid) should apply to both Humans and Dwarves. That distinction is clear. I'm just saying that every type of evil outsider should fall into its own, separate category of Favored Enemy. Because, as you say, a chaotic demon will have a different tactical approach to combat, as opposed to a strictly lawful devil.

So, there should be Favored Enemy (Evil Outsider, Devil), Favored Enemy (Evil Outsiders, Demon), etc.

Let me first repost the relevant part of my post that you edited out:

DeathQuaker wrote:
To play devil's advocate--evil outsiders have certain universal traits--many of them are best hurt by good aligned weapons, for example. Most have DR and SR and can summon lesser beings of their own sub-subtype.

1. I was playing devil's advocate (or Evil Outsider's advocate). I actually more or less agree with you.

2. The point I was trying to make was that all evil outsiders despite varied appearances need very similar tactics to defeat them: find a way to bypass their DR, don't let them get their SLAs off, remember they can summon, etc. (Whereas how you fight a typical human spellcaster vs. a typical dwarven berserker would be VERY different.) The tactics still differ widely beyond that which is where the argument breaks down, but again, see #1.

Are wrote:
hogarth wrote:
Or better yet, just use the pre-existing "humanoid (aquatic)" or perhaps "humanoid (boggard, aquatic)".

The (aquatic) subtype has specific rules associated with it though. If the creature isn't supposed to have those features, you can't use it as its subtype.

I'd almost just be inclined to rewrite the boggard into a monstrous humanoid (it is a very bestial humanoid after all). This upgrades its HD I think but doesn't change a lot else.


My inclination is to say that whenever you take humanoid as a favored enemy, you get to choose two or three subtypes, and you could apply the boost to any two-or-three subtypes you have. So it'd look kindof like this:

1st: Humanoid (human, elf) +2
5th: Humanoid (human, elf) +4, Undead +2
10th: Humanoid (human, elf) +4, Humanoid (dwarf, goblin) +2, Undead +4
15th: Humanoid (human) +6, Humanoid (elf, dwarf) +4, Humanoid (goblin) +2, Undead +4, Construct +2

Obviously, it's a house rule, but I think that might make the humanoid type as a favored enemy more worthwhile.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Maybe the humanoid sub-types should have been standardized either by geography (humanoid (forest), humanoid (underground), humanoid (urban), humanoid (mountain), humanoid (swamp)), or limited to different types (humanoid (bearded) for dwarves and gnomes), humanoid (pointy eared) for elves and halflings, humanoid (tusked) for orcs, half-orcs, pigfolk, etc., humanoid (canid) for gnolls and flinds and foxfolk, humanoid (avian) for tengu and garuda, humanoid (reptilian) for kobolds and lizardfolk, etc. etc.).


I actually think it is fine as is, hating on all humanoids is too powerful, hating on humanoids because they have beards, tusks, pointy ears or green skins is too racist.

If you really want to go on the humanoids hunting path you could make an archetype for it (manhunter/manslayer) that gets multiple humanoid FE, but can only select humanoid as FE.

OR

You can treat them to be separate FE as per default, but stack the bonus higher for every humanoid FE you have. Get an additional +1 for every additional FE humanoid or something.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

I think it's fine as it is as well. Adopting a terrain model is way too confusing.

GMs should be working with players of ranger characters anyway to let them know if a particular choice for favored enemy is a good one or not—we do that with ALL of our Adventure Path player's guides. If a player wants to take humanoid (boggard) as his favored enemy, and the GM knows that the campaign won't have a single boggard in it, he should warn the player of that fact. If he DOESN'T want to, then he should go out of his way to change things so that boggards sometimes show up for the ranger to fight.


James Jacobs wrote:
GMs should be working with players of ranger characters anyway to let them know if a particular choice for favored enemy is a good one or not—we do that with ALL of our Adventure Path player's guides. If a player wants to take humanoid (boggard) as his favored enemy, and the GM knows that the campaign won't have a single boggard in it, he should warn the player of that fact. If he DOESN'T want to, then he should go out of his way to change things so that boggards sometimes show up for the ranger to fight.

+infinity.

Fey weren't "scheduled" to be a central enemy in my current campaign. When the ranger in the party took FE (fey), that changed. Fey enemies are now major movers-and-shakers.


I took favored enemy based on waht I was hunting animals before the adventure in 1st level so that was my favored enemy story wise it makes sense after hunting animals.

I see a problem with terrain based favored enemy is makes rangers get it too often in campaigns that do not change campaigns. If I want to play a campaign saving a town from other humanoids in a large desert oh guess waht I get favored enemy agaianst all those enemies. Also what about humanoid urban for an urban campaign. Oh there are plains around the city I get favored enemy agianst all humanoids naturally living here.


Ive learned something today. Dont post without knowing what Im talking about. Now I know and knowings half the battle.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

TheWhiteknife wrote:
Ive learned something today. Dont post without knowing what Im talking about. Now I know and knowings half the battle.

The other half is stabbing a pirate, as I learned from my Serpent's Skull game.


James Jacobs wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
Ive learned something today. Dont post without knowing what Im talking about. Now I know and knowings half the battle.
The other half is stabbing a pirate, as I learned from my Serpent's Skull game.

+1

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

It just seems a little silly that training to fight an orc won't help fighting a hobgoblin, but training to fight a stirge will help fighting a purple worm.

There's gotta be some kind of middle ground, design-wise.

I just can't figure it out.

Shadow Lodge

Un/ fortunately, rules don't have to be logical, they just should be fair. I've played games with hoards of hobgoblins and orcs, but rarely met stirges and never met a purple worm (my d&d miniature awaits the day!)


It works just fine as-is.
If anything, Gnomes should count as Humanoids AND Fey,
and ditch the Gnome-specific language that they have but no other types of Fey have seemed to develop for some reason..


Remco Sommeling wrote:

I actually think it is fine as is, hating on all humanoids is too powerful, hating on humanoids because they have beards, tusks, pointy ears or green skins is too racist.

If you really want to go on the humanoids hunting path you could make an archetype for it (manhunter/manslayer) that gets multiple humanoid FE, but can only select humanoid as FE.

Favored enemy doesn't imply hatred. It's knowing how to fight them. Does training any martial art discipline mean you hate every single human?


WPharolin wrote:

I understand that the design choice was to prevent player power creep. However, I don't think that creating a thousand and one humanoid and outsider types was the way to go about preventing that. The problem I have with the current system is that it assumes that a +2 bonus to damage is just as useful, just as relevant, and just as powerful against goblinoids as it is against constructs. But that isn't the case.

What I propose is to do away with minor attack and damage bonuses that have little impact on game play and, quite frankly, aren't that interesting. Instead, each favored enemy gives you something relevant to fighting creatures of the chosen type. For instance, favored enemy ooze could remove its immunity to critical hits or grant acid resistance, while favored enemy fey could grant you bonuses on saving throws against mind-affecting effects.

These abilities would have to start small and begin to scale each time you reselected a new favored enemy, becoming exponentially better over time. The best way (that I can see) to do it, is to create 5 tiers of abilities per creature type. Going back to my ooze example, as the ranger gets an additional favored enemy he gets the option to increase the tier of one that he already has (or even the one he just selected). As he continues to increase favored enemy ooze his gear becomes immune to acid or maybe he gets freedom of movement for 1 round when creatures try to engulf him. It doesn't matter really, as long is the granted abilities are designed with that specific creature type in mind. These bonuses would obviously make him better at killing oozes, but he could still get some use out of it when he encounters something that relies on acid attacks or tries to engulf him. His experience with oozes has also left him better prepared to handle similar attacks.

This would make selecting a favored enemy a more interesting and meaningful choice, as well as removing the need entirely for humanoid (worthless), humanoid (horrible choice), humanoid (waste of a favored enemy), humanoid (nothing to see here), and humanoid (don't bother to select me).

That sounds like a really great idea, but one that could only work in a home game. I'm actually working on a character for PFS play, that I hope to start as a ranger and then multiclass to a waves oracle. If I try to put myself in the GM's shoes, your otherwise-reasonable proposition would just be too complicated for a bunch of strangers sitting down for a few hours together. However, if I were GMing my own campaign, then I would absolutely work with a player to hammer out something like that.

Set wrote:
I'd prefer 'reptilian' or 'avian' types, rather than overly specific 'lizardfolk', 'kobold' or 'tengu,' to widen the range for later use (so that someone who had FE 'tengu' would instead have FE 'avian humanoid' and be equally brutal against those darned dire corbies, or the birdmen of Cheliax, or any kenku or raptorans or aarakocra or al karak elam or avariel or psittae that flutter into the setting)

FWIW, lizardfolk and kobolds are humanoid (reptilian) in PFRPG. However, IMO, that just reinforces the point about how sensible it would be for tengu to be something else. I'd been thinking monstrous humanoid, but humanoid (avian) works for me too, and perhaps makes more sense with them not being as bestial as some of the others; I mean, the Bestiary even has rules for making Tengu characters, and that has to count for something.

DeathQuaker wrote:

Also, at least with dwarves, duergar are also included in the subtype, so they aren't a "single creature" subtype. (But then I'd probably still throw derro back into their subtype as well (or into gnome, maybe).

Humans are a single creature subtype, but they are so numerous, it's a useful favored enemy. Especially because the favored enemy bonus applies to Perception and Bluff... so is useful even in haggling with NPCs and the like.

Favored Enemy Boggard isn't likely to get you very far, which I think gets to the OP's point. And of course you don't have to take it, but... even Favored Enemy Gnoll will likely come to be repeatedly useful in the right area/campaign.

I suppose a GM could create a humanoid "other" subtype and throw all the misc humanoids into one.

From their backstory, to me, derro seem more likely to be fey. And, that was pretty much my point, about how hard it was to imagine "humanoid (boggard)" ever being a sensible choice for a FE.

DeathQuaker wrote:
Are wrote:
hogarth wrote:
Or better yet, just use the pre-existing "humanoid (aquatic)" or perhaps "humanoid (boggard, aquatic)".

The (aquatic) subtype has specific rules associated with it though. If the creature isn't supposed to have those features, you can't use it as its subtype.

I'd almost just be inclined to rewrite the boggard into a monstrous humanoid (it is a very bestial humanoid after all). This upgrades its HD I think but doesn't change a lot else.

Both very good points, about the specific rules for (aquatic) and (monstrous humanoid) critters. I hadn't really thought about it, and now I'll have to.


Yar!

Re-fluffing Derro to what they were in 2e, you could easily make them Humanoid - dwarf, just as the Duergar are humanoid - dwarf, and just as Drow are humanoid - elf. Their current description makes me believe that they are too unique to be lumped into a larger grouping. The thing with Boggards and Tengu seem to be that, well, there really isn't anything else like them as well. IMHO.

However, I will agree with those who say things are fine as they are. And there is plenty of DM wiggle room for house rules and expansions as well.

...for example, I'm in a campaign ATM where we've added "treerazor" to the list of FE and Bane options, being an elven specific foe that encompasses a small yet varied niche but still benefits from knowing how to fight Treerazor and his minions - there is even a trait in Elves of Golarion that gives bonuses against this niche group, which specifically is: demons (smaller group than evil outsider), evil fey (very small group), evil plants (even smaller group), and evil animals (almost non-existent group).

James Jacobs wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
Ive learned something today. Dont post without knowing what Im talking about. Now I know and knowings half the battle.
The other half is stabbing a pirate, as I learned from my Serpent's Skull game.

AAAARRRGH!!!!!!!!!

TheWhiteknife wrote:
+1

*dies*

x_x

Shadow Lodge

James Jacobs wrote:
If he DOESN'T want to, then he should go out of his way to change things so that boggards sometimes show up for the ranger to fight.

Does anyone else picture a campaign taking place in the middle of the desert, where the players are subject to countless random boggard attacks/ambushes? One where the ranger player contantly says: "It's a good thing that I chose boggards as my favored enemy. This desert is infested with them! They never really seem to have anything to do with the plot of the campaign, though..."


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Back when I started tightening up the numerous races in my world, I tweaked the FE problem to make certain races more/less vulnerable as part of their 'package' of racial stats and traits. This included Dragonoid, which includes all humanoid and monstrous humanoids with draconic influence, and ties all together in the FE mechanic. Dragonoids are an advanced FE and not allowed as a first choice.

Goblinoids are rife in my game, and a solid choice for the initial FE. Ranging from Tiny to Large and the next to last session saw a down and dirty tunnel crawl against some CR6 gobbos that had DR 20 against fire. Yet the sheer numbers are familiarity of the race renders them more vulnerable to even the begining Ranger.

Kobolds are both Reptilioids (humanoid reptiles) and Dragonoids (humanoid dragon wannabes), and are vulnerable to each FE. Drakonemen (draconic monsterous humanoids) are Dragonoids only.

My game's version of Tengu are Aberrations, and that FE can only be taken by others of that race (heavy infighting and fratricide).

ALL Dwarves count as Dwarves, be they Fey or other. All Elves, etc. I think that's standard though...

I do allow/require some FE to only be taken at higher levels (see above), including Fire (etc.) and Outsider (also etc.), but am way too free in letting Rangers swap FE out. On the 'Fire' note, the FE: Giants refers to a member of several 'Ancient' races, most of which are not really all that big. Trolls and Ogres get their own FEs and Fire Giants are Fire beings, not falling under 'FE: Giant'.

These are from a 35 yo game and reflect over 40 y of tweaking, soo...

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why unique creature subtypes? (boggard, derro, tengu, etc.) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.