Creature Types/Subtypes & Classification

[Roman]

Do you like the current creature type/subtype classifications in D&D/d20 system? Would you change anything - perhaps change characteristics of some types, or merge some types, or create some new types, or rearragne creatures accross types, or something else entirely?

I think the current system is not too bad. That said, I would advocate rearranging some creatures between humanoid and monstrous humanoid types in order to achieve greater consistency and a clearer dividing line between the two. Also, I would favour the return of the Beast type for non-magical mythical creatures that are not animals and also perhaps for extinct animals. Back to humanoids, eliminating the Giant type also bears consideration, since Giants are basically large and bigger humanoids. Apart from this, although I have not thought about the implementation, I think I would split the Abberation type into several types, since now it seems to be too diverse and sort of a catch all category for creatures that did not fit elsewhere.

What would you change about the creature classification system?
Does the current classification/type/subtype system work well for all your monsters and creatures?
What, if any, new types or subtypes would you create?

 

[Telperion]

I think the current system is not too bad.

Also, I would favour the return of the Beast type for non-magical mythical creatures that are not animals and also perhaps for extinct animals.

I don't really see such a big difference between animals and beasts to warrant this sort of change. If you want a mythical, non-magical, beast then you can take an animal and give it more HD, templates and so forth. No need to start dividing creatures into mythical / special beasts that are basically just slightly tougher animals.

Back to humanoids, eliminating the Giant type also bears consideration, since Giants are basically large and bigger humanoids.

Again I would have to disagree. I see giants as a significantly different type of creature from humanoids. Although they appear to be simply larger versions of regular humanoids the power boost they get is so dramatic when compared to humanoids that their HD just doesn't justify them. Therefore I see it as a logical means of separating a group of creatures that are significantly different from humanoids, although their outward appearance may not be so.

Apart from this, although I have not thought about the implementation, I think I would split the Abberation type into several types, since now it seems to be too diverse and sort of a catch all category for creatures that did not fit elsewhere.

Here I agree with your somewhat. The aberration type gets everything that isn't undead and can't be easily placed in another type. Therefore it might be more useful to have several subgroups that would have slightly different basic stats / saves / BAB, etc. That's what the Type system is all about, after all: gathering similarly attributed creatures under a single name that somehow describes them all.

What would you change about the creature classification system?
Does the current classification/type/subtype system work well for all your monsters and creatures?
What, if any, new types or subtypes would you create?

I don't like dragons or their kin. They are just too powerful and fairly poor as far as fluff goes. Okay, I could probably fix the fluff by reading Dragonomicon, but I don't feel like spending a whole lot of money into a book that I'll probably never use.

...but...the crowds need a death dealing combat machine that can withstand huge amounts of damage, crush its opponents with multiple attacks and whip out magic with the best of them. Dragons do those things just fine, if you need that sort of monsters. I certainly don't.

 

[Knight Otu]

Do you like the current creature type/subtype classifications in D&D/d20 system?

Yes, but...

Would you change anything - perhaps change characteristics of some types, or merge some types, or create some new types, or rearragne creatures accross types, or something else entirely?

I'd change a lot of details.

1. Drop the Giant type, and rearrange the creatures among fitting types. Giant may become a kind subtype (see below).
2. Rename the Outsider type to Entity. This name seems to fit the concept of the type better.
3. Give better guidelines for differenciating Humanoids and Monstrous Humanoids, propably along the lines of several (3+) natural attacks, presence of supernatural abilities, not quite humanoid body shape (tauric, six-limbed [such as wings and arms], ...), many special abilities, ability scores beyond a certain boundary...
4. You know how humanoids have a humanoid subtype? I'd expand that to pretty much all creature types, as seperate kind subtypes, with the possibility of subkinds. Demon would be a kind, Demon-Tanar'ri a subkind. Horses, unicorns and nightmares would all be Equines. That sort of thing.
5. Undead would get (at least) Positive and Negative subtypes to note what powers them (and consequently, deathless would become undead).
6. I can't help but think that the Living subtype might be interesting for Vampires and similar Undead.

Possibly a few more things.
I wouldn't favor the return of Beasts, as they are in a similar situations as Giants.

 

[shilsen]

I can see ways in which the current classifications could be improved, but it's not something that I find worth spending any time on. It ain't broke, so...

 

[Voadam]

It annoys me that undead, constructs, oozes, and plants are immune to mind-affecting abilities whether they are mindless or not. Mindless things are already unaffected by mind-affecting things, extending that to the type is duplicative and leads to situtations where it seems wrong. A treant should be able to be contacted with telepathy and charmed with charm monster.

Reptilian subtype should not just be for humanoids.

I like the idea of more animal subtypes that apply to many creatures: arachnid, reptilian, avian, equine, etc. A horse affecting thing should affect centaurs too, a bird one should affect harpies.

I could get behind a predator/herbivore differentiation for animals, but not all that neccessary.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi all!

I agree with most of the previously mentioned points. I think ideas that can logically simplify the existing rules is beneficial.

- Giants should be integrated into Humanoid.
- Dragons should be integrated into Magical Beast.

I would also consider a new type; 'Spirit' which could perhaps encompass Fey and Outsiders.

 

[Pants]

Yes, but...

1. Undead would get (at least) Positive and Negative subtypes to note what powers them (and consequently, deathless would become undead).

Totally agree with.
Everything else works fine.

 

[Roman]

Interesting... so for those who would like to split the abberation type into several types - what types would you split the abberation type into?

 

[Li Shenron]

Do you like the current creature type/subtype classifications in D&D/d20 system? Would you change anything - perhaps change characteristics of some types, or merge some types, or create some new types, or rearragne creatures accross types, or something else entirely?

I think it's very good to have this sort of categorization, because it makes the DM's job easier to remember many traits common to all creatures of a type. It obviously shouldn't become a restriction, but I don't think that it's much of a problem to have to use the same HD for the entire group for example. Also I like how each group associates creatures by different way of being "alive": undead, elementals, outsiders are a different kind of "life" at any account.

For just a sake of aesthetics, it could be nicer if we had a tree-like grouping of types, similar to systematics in biology. I could picture Giant being a subtype of Humanoid or Monstrous Humanoid, and Dragon being a subtype of Magical Beast for example, but gamewise there would probably be little benefits (if any).

So, as long as the DM is not forbidden to override specific type features when designing his own monsters, I think the current system is good enough.

 

[Gez]

Yes, but...

I'd change a lot of details.

1. Drop the Giant type, and rearrange the creatures among fitting types. Giant may become a kind subtype (see below).
2. Rename the Outsider type to Entity. This name seems to fit the concept of the type better.
3. Give better guidelines for differenciating Humanoids and Monstrous Humanoids, propably along the lines of several (3+) natural attacks, presence of supernatural abilities, not quite humanoid body shape (tauric, six-limbed [such as wings and arms], ...), many special abilities, ability scores beyond a certain boundary...
4. You know how humanoids have a humanoid subtype? I'd expand that to pretty much all creature types, as seperate kind subtypes, with the possibility of subkinds. Demon would be a kind, Demon-Tanar'ri a subkind. Horses, unicorns and nightmares would all be Equines. That sort of thing.
5. Undead would get (at least) Positive and Negative subtypes to note what powers them (and consequently, deathless would become undead).
6. I can't help but think that the Living subtype might be interesting for Vampires and similar Undead.

Possibly a few more things.
I wouldn't favor the return of Beasts, as they are in a similar situations as Giants.

It's more or less my own opinion. Although I am rather tempted to divide animal into two categories (predators with a full HD BAB and non-predator (game? prey?) for the others, like cows or nightingale, with a 3/4 BAB); and to suppress the "Monstrous Humanoid" category (the existing monstrous humanoids would be fit into humanoid, aberration, or magical beast, depending on their exact nature).