Pathfinder 1E Removing the outsider type?

VelvetViolet

Adventurer
Combing through the bestiaries, there are 41 native outsiders, 37 extraplanar non-outsiders, and a whopping 239 extraplanar outsiders. In a similar vein to D&D 5e, I wanted to get rid of the outsider type because it's essentially synonymous with the extraplanar subtype; some outsiders are better suited for other types, such as aasimar and tieflings becoming humanoids with the planetouched subtype or tenebrous worms and gloomwings becoming magical beasts. 5e accomplishes this by generally folding them into the categories of aberration, celestial, construct, elemental, fey or fiend. This isn't as easy to apply to PF because of the way types are handled as classes and targets. Now, I'm not actually going so far as to recalculate statistics because of the sheer effort involved (except in some cases for removing the outsider traits about body-soul duality and need to eat/sleep), but I was wondering if anyone had advice for how to replace the outsider tag?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I agree with the words of 'outsider' and 'extraplanar' being synonymous, but I think in function they are different.

Outsiders always seemed to be more infused with the energy/life/spirit/essence of a plane.

Extraplanar, imo, was just a way to describe a critter/humanoid form another plain that was essentially like that of the prime material ... just that it lived else where. Now, elsewhere may include some pretty significant changes and abilities, but overall its just a way of saying "you're not in Kansas anymore".

Alien might be a better synonym than outsider.

[edit] ... and you pick this up whenever you travel, it's almost like having your passport stamped on your forehead. It doesn't seem to do much, other than make you susceptible to certain spells.
 

The problem is a legacy issue. In 3.0, everything not from the Material Plane was an outsider or elemental unless it was a native outsider. In 3.5, the extraplanar subtype was added to open the possibility for extraplanar creatures of other types. Unfortunately, it wasn't used as extensively as it could have due to legacy compatibility. Pathfinder retained it. In Planescape, on the other hand, it was quite common for humanoids and animals and so on to naturally inhabit the outer planes (though the type system in 3E didn't exist then: the only "types" in 2e were animals, persons, monsters, plants, constructs, undead and extraplanar, which could and did overlap); in the 3e Manual of the Planes this lead to oddities like Bauriars no longer needing to eat or sleep and unable to be raised despite the opposite being true in 2e.

There isn't a compelling reason for every creature native to the inner or outer planes to be outsiders. I can understand using the outsider type for immortal beings like genies and demons, but not to the loads and loads of other creatures it is applied to. A dozen different animalistic outsiders in the bestiaries have identical paragraphs repeating that they have no need to eat but enjoy hunting prey as their main form of recreation. Outsiders are defined by lacking body-soul duality: they are physically embodied souls. Fiends are literally made of evil, and elementals are literally made of their element. That doesn't need to be true for every creature from the outer planes any more than it is for fiendish and celestial animals.

Because of the legacy issues, the native subtype has lead to certain problems. The kami subtype from the bestiaries is a native outsider, but unlike other native outsiders they do not need to eat, drink or breathe; it doesn't really make much sense for them to have body-soul duality either. Tritons and Planetouched, as native outsiders, are immune to charm person and dominate person even though they were vulnerable in 2e. The Aoandon, an extraplanar outsider, is explicitly the restless soul of an angry dead woman and would be more appropriate as an incorporeal undead. The Manitou, a native outsider like the kami, is explicitly a nature spirit and thus more appropriate as a fey. The Wendigo is also a native outsider and nature spirit like the kami and manitou, and problematic for the same reasons. (Aside, the 3.5 book Relics & Rituals Excalibur introduces two new types: spirit and manifestation, respectively incorporeal elemental/fey-like nature spirits and physically manifested emotional resonance; the Book of Hell introduces the biomechanoid type, which is just copy-pasted construct type except with the need for fuel).

I think a lot of the confusion could have been avoided if the outsider type was replaced with "immortal," "eternal," "spirit," or similarly less confusing terminology. As embodied souls, immortals draw their sustenance from the life-force in the air and have no maximum lifespan. The native subtype would be unnecessary in this instance.

There is also the larger problem of creature types being bolted to HD/BAB/skill packages leading to problems like certain creature being shoehorned into inappropriate types just because of the package (e.g. half-human/half-animal creatures being various aberrations, magical beasts, monstrous humanoids, humanoids, etc) and fey and undead being crappy at combat. PCs are usually humanoids but don't all use the same HD type, so creature types shouldn't be treated like classes either. Monsters need to have a set of roles that define their HD and skills, so that monsters can be more customizable without being shoehorned into specific types due to game mechanics.
 

AH! just deleted reply ... sigh.

anyway, you probably have the reply at the ready.

You've covered creatures that would keep the outsider type (I say keep the word, it does fit).

Which outsiders do you think should drop the outsider type and simply keep the extrapanar subtype. Half-celestial/fiend should keep the outsider type. I would think animal/magical beast + extraplanar would cover a lot of ground too.
 

Go outside, it's extraordinary!

Not that I disagree with you ... but it seems like that some of what you said is already done.

I'm only checking the Bestiary 1 (it's what I have in hard cover and PRD has the creatures by type listing as well) ... but the only actual outsiders are what you have described.

If you have a hobgoblin from another plane of existence, strapping the extra-planar label on it shouldn't be an issue.

I think if we could boil this issue down to it's base, you just want a name change because outsider and extra-planar are to similar for your tastes ... and the amount of critters that are extra-planar way outnumber the outsiders.

that to simple though?

If you have a mountain lion hunting in the forests of Arborea (is that one of them?) and it has the celestial template, that doesn't mean it's necessarily good and/or willing to be a friend of the party ... that halfling is still the perfect size for dinner. That mountain lion still isn't an outsider, it's just an extra-planar big cat.

I'm going to go look at the other bestiaries on line and see if I can't find an example of an overdone outsider.
 
Last edited:

Achaierai ... lol, 1st critter of 2nd bestiary. I could totally see this thing as being a magical beast with the extra-planar (when on a different plane).

Chaos beast: possibly make it an abberation

Crysmal: it's an elemental, stays outsider.

Ok, w/o the hard copies this project would be a nightmare--maybe not that bad--

But, I see your point too (again).

There's a project to be done in the monster/homebrew sections. Reskinning some of the critters in PF so they're not outsiders, but simply extra-planar (again when not on their homeplane).

You also give, imo, an fair argument for adding more to the summon planar ally spell. What if your ally isn't an angle or demon ... it's Bob the Hobgoblin, a 7th level fighter from plane XYZ. He's extra-planar, and subject to certain spells, but totally a regular dude ... if somewhat smelly (or is that the bugbears, or just all of them?)
 

Yeah. It's always been weird to me how there are about ten types on the material plane, but (with few exceptions) only one or two types on every other plane. Also, The line between the types is blurry (examples: http://d-infinity.net/blog/derek-holland/fantasy-biology-magical-beast-type ). The fey type was redeemed for me by the Complete Guide to Fey, which laid out how their biology and souls were fundamentally different from other living creatures while retaining the same game mechanics. I'd like something similar for aberrations: why is a naga (or whatever) an aberration instead of a fey or magical beast as far as fluff is concerned?
 

I think aberration vs Monstrous humanoid and magical beast is a matter of how alien you want the critter to be. I did a conversion for a Sathar from Star Frontiers ... for me it was totally an aberration instead of a Monstrous humanoid.

(also helped they did a 3.x conversion for SF too)
 

Nagas are human-faced snakes. There are a dozen other monsters that are human heads or torsos on animal lower bodies. The metagame reason is their combat ability and skills. The fluff reason needs to be more substantial and explain why hybrid beasts like chimeras and owlbears and lamias are not aberrations.

I was thinking that perhaps aberrations are composed of protoplasm and various toxic alchemical elements, transmitting their thoughts and impulses through magnetic fluid and orgones... even manifest psionics this way. They have no DNA, no cellular structure, no relation to conventional science, no ability to exist on their own... yet they do.

That is what defines an aberration to me. Taking discredited science, pseudoscience, occult science and medieval alchemy as physical truth.
 

PRD stuff:
An aberration has a bizarre anatomy, strange abilities, an alien mindset, or any combination of the three. An aberration has the following features.

Magical beasts are similar to animals but can have Intelligence scores higher than 2 (in which case the magical beast knows at least one language, but can't necessarily speak). Magical beasts usually have supernatural or extraordinary abilities, but are sometimes merely bizarre in appearance or habits.


It's all up to you. I bet there's plenty of ways to justify critters either way ... bizarre is what you want it to be.

Owlbears and Chimera are magical beasts, they're put together using magical transmogrifiers (Calvin and Hobbes).

Naga are aberrations, they're an intelligent and wholly odd and alien species.

... yeah, those lines are fine.

Good luck on fine tuning.
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Top