[3.5] Undead Type Vs. Construct Type: Is There Really A Need For Both?

[Fax Celestis]

For comparison:
{table=head]Aspect | Undead | Construct
HD | d12 | d10 + HP based on size
BAB | 1/2 | 3/4
Saves | Good Will | All bad
Skills | 4+Int when intelligent | 2+Int when intelligent
Special | No Con score, does not heal except via negative energy | No Con score, does not heal except through repairs
Vision | Darkvision 60' | Low-light vision
Immunities | Mind-Affecting, poison, sleep , paralysis, stunning, disease, death, critical hits, nonlethal damage, ability drain, ability damage, energy drain, fatigue, massive damage, any effect that requires a Fortitude save, reincarnation | Mind-Affecting, poison, sleep , paralysis, stunning, disease, death, critical hits, nonlethal damage, ability drain, ability damage, energy drain, fatigue, massive damage, any effect that requires a Fortitude save, reincarnation
Special | Uses its Cha modifier for Concentration checks. | -
Proficient | Natural weapons, items in stat block | Natural weapons
Natural Function | Does not breathe, eat, sleep | Does not breathe, eat, sleep [/table]

The idea behind this is simple: can the undead type be boiled down to a subtype, with "manufactured undead" like Necrosis Carnexes being Construct (Undead)? "Natural" undead, like ghosts, would retain their original type: a vampire would become Humanoid (Human, Undead).

[Morty]

I guess it's not a bad idea. It would save some bookspace and help avoid confusion without depriving clerics and paladins of their precious Turn Undead. There's one question, however: would the Construct type change or would Undead subtype grant the traits that differentiate Undead and Construct by RAW?

[Fax Celestis]

I guess it's not a bad idea. It would save some bookspace and help avoid confusion without depriving clerics and paladins of their precious Turn Undead. There's one question, however: would the Construct type change or would Undead subtype grant the traits that differentiate Undead and Construct by RAW?

Some of it wouldn't change (like HD size); some of it would (like BAB and healing).

[Fenix_of_Doom]

I see your point, but you do run into problems with the undead=evil or at least created by evil concept as good character would now be unable to get a decent constructed guard.

[mostlyharmful]

You are aware that the types aren't the same in any of those catagories right? Not one that matters in play anyway? they are similar what with the not being alive and squishieness and all but they ARE different and the rules make them distinct enought for me to get them straight but then hey, I'm a guy that can keep all the different types core dragons in 3.5 seperate so maybe I'm abnormal what do I know which according to WotC makes me weird so meh maybe I'm just detail obsessed but maybe I have a point and maybe I don't need punctuation seeing as how its a great big authoritarian swiss anyway.....I may have slipped somewhat beyound my original point....:smallredface:

[Morty]

Some of it wouldn't change (like HD size); some of it would (like BAB and healing).

Hm. I see.


I see your point, but you do run into problems with the undead=evil or at least created by evil concept as good character would now be unable to get a decent constructed guard.

I don't think Fax's houserule involves changing constructs' alignment.

[Pronounceable]

A single "animated" type with undead, construct and elemental subtypes would be neater and tidier far as classifications go. Mechanical side of things is always fixable with some amount of work, so this is a good idea.

And undead=evil is just another of those stupid things included only for the flamewars it's gonna cause.

[Fax Celestis]

I see your point, but you do run into problems with the undead=evil or at least created by evil concept as good character would now be unable to get a decent constructed guard.

What? You've got it backwards. Construct remains a type. Undead becomes a subtype.


You are aware that the types aren't the same in any of those catagories right?

Uh, they share immunities, lack of Con scores, similar senses, similar HD and BAB...sure, they're not exact, but they're close.

[Jasdoif]

I don't even know why I remembered the older thread, but here it is (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52947).

Anyway, I'm curious how you're proposing to handle non-constructs having the undead subtype. At first I thought you were proposing to make all undead a subtype of Construct, which would simplify some type-specific options (like Favored Enemy) and thus free up abilities/feats/items for other purposes....But it's a lot more involved if you're making this subtype available to other types as well.

[Tacoma]

What we don't need is the Giant type. After all, a Giant is just a big Humanoid, and a Medium Giant is pretty much just a regular dude with bad teeth.

To preserve the various bonuses people have against giant-class creatures (a holdover from 1E/2E) I'd say in the description that the creature has Giant blood in the same way an Orc has Orc blood.

[Fenix_of_Doom]

What? You've got it backwards. Construct remains a type. Undead becomes a subtype.


I see that explains a lot.

[Fax Celestis]

I don't even know why I remembered the older thread, but here it is (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52947).

Anyway, I'm curious how you're proposing to handle non-constructs having the undead subtype. At first I thought you were proposing to make all undead a subtype of Construct, which would simplify some type-specific options (like Favored Enemy) and thus free up abilities/feats/items for other purposes....But it's a lot more involved if you're making this subtype available to other types as well.

In my estimation, it would allow a vampire to be affected by enlarge person, for instance: something that strangely doesn't work at the moment. It'd make the difference between a dragon skeleton and a humanoid skeleton more significant. And it'd allow for a divorce between "evil" and "undead".

[Jasdoif]

In my estimation, it would allow a vampire to be affected by enlarge person, for instance: something that strangely doesn't work at the moment. It'd make the difference between a dragon skeleton and a humanoid skeleton more significant. And it'd allow for a divorce between "evil" and "undead".I see....

So in your estimation, "undead" is best used as an identifier for the sake of the (myriad by now) special effects that target them specifically? OK, I can see that working. (That might even be the reason Undead was introduced as a separate type in the first place, to make it easier to track those kinds of effects.)

In that case, I would recommend trying to keep the changes innately imposed by the subtype simple. Perhaps as simple as: no Con score and racial hit dice become d12s. A lot of the immunities of the Undead type overlap with those resulting from having Con as a nonability, so you should get most of the stuff right there.

[monty]

In that case, I would recommend trying to keep the changes innately imposed by the subtype simple. Perhaps as simple as: no Con score and racial hit dice become d12s. A lot of the immunities of the Undead type overlap with those resulting from having Con as a nonability, so you should get most of the stuff right there.

I thought it was all hit dice, not just racial.

[Jasdoif]

I thought it was all hit dice, not just racial.Although a number of undead templates say that, it isn't actually part of the type itself. An undead creature advanced through levels would use that class's hit dice size in the absence of an explicit statement that all hit dice are d12s.

[Fax Celestis]

I see....

So in your estimation, "undead" is best used as an identifier for the sake of the (myriad by now) special effects that target them specifically? OK, I can see that working. (That might even be the reason Undead was introduced as a separate type in the first place, to make it easier to track those kinds of effects.)

In that case, I would recommend trying to keep the changes innately imposed by the subtype simple. Perhaps as simple as: no Con score and racial hit dice become d12s. A lot of the immunities of the Undead type overlap with those resulting from having Con as a nonability, so you should get most of the stuff right there.
Yeah. I mean, inexplicably developing darkvision as a result of rising from the dead doesn't necessarily need to happen--or really make sense, for that matter.

[AslanCross]

I do think undead makes more sense as a subtype than an actual type, but I'm still a bit iffy on calling a skeleton a construct. What about incorporeal undead like wraiths and shadows, though?

[Fax Celestis]

I do think undead makes more sense as a subtype than an actual type, but I'm still a bit iffy on calling a skeleton a construct. What about incorporeal undead like wraiths and shadows, though?

Monstrous Humanoid (Undead)? Outsider (Undead)? Elemental (Undead)?

[Aevylmar]

What I understood the situation with Darkvision was was that Undead didn't 'see' with their eyes, and the magic that allowed them to worked in darkness as well as light, and they figured that instead of spending time precisely detailing how necro-vision worked, they'd just give Undead darkvision and call it a day.

Coming back to the main topic, it looks like a good idea to me, though I have no idea how you'd do the details.

[RTGoodman]

I think 4E sorta beat you to the punch with this one, since Undead is, in 4E, just a subtype. Skeletons, for instance, aren't just Undead, their Natural Animates with the (Undead) subtype.

I think it would take some fiddlin' around with other types to make it work in 3.5 (like the aforementioned lack of a good place for Wraiths and incorporeal undead), but I think Undead (and Giant, as Tacoma points out) would work as subtypes.

[InaVegt]

I do think undead makes more sense as a subtype than an actual type, but I'm still a bit iffy on calling a skeleton a construct. What about incorporeal undead like wraiths and shadows, though?

If a Flesh Golem is a construct, then why isn't the skeleton?

[monty]

I do think undead makes more sense as a subtype than an actual type, but I'm still a bit iffy on calling a skeleton a construct. What about incorporeal undead like wraiths and shadows, though?

Then that would be Construct (Incorporeal, Undead). Still works.

[Prometheus]

It sure does make sense for Undead to be a subtype, since just about anything can be undead and most undead are about as living as constructs are.

The only problem I see is that if you have an animal or a humanoid that has an undead subtype, it will still have it's old HD. Granted it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to reroll anyway, but we get the sense that undead should be able to take a couple of more whacks. That brings us to the Constitution score. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense fluff-wise, but the only effect it has is to boost hp and Fortitude saves (most of which undead are immune to). The only thing that would be affected by pumping up Undead Constitution scores is Disintegrate, which we might put a special clause into for Undead subtypes, much like several cleric spells have.

[Fax Celestis]

It sure does make sense for Undead to be a subtype, since just about anything can be undead and most undead are about as living as constructs are.

The only problem I see is that if you have an animal or a humanoid that has an undead subtype, it will still have it's old HD. Granted it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to reroll anyway, but we get the sense that undead should be able to take a couple of more whacks. That brings us to the Constitution score. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense fluff-wise, but the only effect it has is to boost hp and Fortitude saves (most of which undead are immune to). The only thing that would be affected by pumping up Undead Constitution scores is Disintegrate, which we might put a special clause into for Undead subtypes, much like several cleric spells have.
Well, I could do what constructs have and have bonus HP based on size.

[Fizban]

There is one difference in their immunities: constructs are immune to necromancy effects in addition to the other undead immunities.

While I initially agree, the question of incorporeal undead swings it back. I can't think of any base type to apply undead to for those. Outsider implies extraplanar stuff, elementals are pretty much all tied to the elements first and anything else second, and construct doesn't seem quite right for a creature that is supposed to be a disembodied and tormented soul. I could definitely see making mindless undead a subtype of construct and creating a spirit type for the elementals and outsiders that are closer to spirits and then using that with incorporeal undead, but that's a lot of work for what is supposed to simplify things.

I'm not sure what the augmented subtype does exactly, but you could use something similar to stick Enlarge Person on vampires and such. The Tome of Necromancy project included undead subtypes for undead with brains and undead that wasn't quite dead, called Dark Minded and Unliving, which I would say are more important distinctions than undead/construct. Of course now that I think about that, adding living construct to undead could probably manage that.

I'd probably just leave it as is myself. I'd have more trouble remembering all the specific things they're immune to than remembering that they're pretty much all the same. For example: Ray of Sickness. Sickness with no save. Undead aren't immune to sickness, so even though they're just animated flesh, they can be given stomach distress. But wait, constructs are immune to necromancy, so they're immune to the ray, even though they could experience stomach distress if affected by a no-save non-necromancy spell. Blarg.

[Fax Celestis]

While I initially agree, the question of incorporeal undead swings it back. I can't think of any base type to apply undead to for those. Outsider implies extraplanar stuff, elementals are pretty much all tied to the elements first and anything else second, and construct doesn't seem quite right for a creature that is supposed to be a disembodied and tormented soul. I could definitely see making mindless undead a subtype of construct and creating a spirit type for the elementals and outsiders that are closer to spirits and then using that with incorporeal undead, but that's a lot of work for what is supposed to simplify things.

Well, that being said, ghosts have a weird attachment to the Ethereal plane, Shadows to the Plane of Shadow, etc. An Allip could be Outsider (Undead, Incorporeal) and hail from Limbo. I think for "natural" undead, Outsider is probably the best bet, specifying Extraplanar and Native when necessary.

...which brings me to an interesting idea about turning undead. Hm.

EDIT: OR ABERRATION. Aberrations are termed as "anything outside normal reality". I'd call an angry restless undead soul fitting within that.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

The Tome of Necromancy (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=632562) has work to a similar effect(post 6).

[Starbuck_II]

What I understood the situation with Darkvision was was that Undead didn't 'see' with their eyes, and the magic that allowed them to worked in darkness as well as light, and they figured that instead of spending time precisely detailing how necro-vision worked, they'd just give Undead darkvision and call it a day.

Coming back to the main topic, it looks like a good idea to me, though I have no idea how you'd do the details.

Except Glitterdust still blinds Undead (and Constructs). So they can't be all "magical sight"

[Aevylmar]

That's a good point, and (starting with the hypothesis that it was intended to be magic sight) there's several possible answers to it - I don't know which one Wizards of the Coast was using.

#1: 'Glitterdust? What's that?' Essentially, they hadn't considered the possibility that someone might try to blind a construct or undead (Not surprising - Everyone knows what they say about committees) and thus hadn't listed it.
#2: 'It's magic.' They figured that they might as well put it in for balance reasons, and not to clutter it up excessively. After all, there's only so much room in the book.
#3: 'Well, we should be fair.' They decided that adding even more immunities to constructs and undead was going over the top, so they didn't include blindness, deafness, or similar things.

It could be one of these, it could be all of these, it could be something I haven't thought of, or you could be right. I don't know.

[Thurbane]

Undead Type Vs. Construct Type: Is There Really A Need For Both?Yes, yes there is.

[Ganurath]

And it'd allow for a divorce between "evil" and "undead".So would removing the evil subtype from the reanimation spells, but Wee Jas knows that isn't going to happen because they're necromancy spells and necromancy always has to be evil, because it violates certain taboos other than the wantom destruction of evocation or the tyrannic oppression of enchantment. If you want to cast enlarge person on an undead that was a humanoid in life, run it by the DM. If you're the DM, make it an option! The suppression of one of the iconic elements of the necromantic art is just attacking a symptom of the flaws in the other schools of magic. Just create an Eyeball Type rule, where you can allow charm person to work on Ogres but not on Ettins, or not! Just eyeball it! That's how the rule works! Sure, your way is more elegant, but it's inflexible and is only a partial solution. It's less about addressing issues in the system and more about appeasement of the enemies of necromantic practice. Well, the Pelorites can go spoon a tombstone for all I care! From a DM's standpoint, the taboos against the undead could be a good thing, since it allows for a plot point for RP. Imagine, if you would, a schism within the followers of Wee Jas as a deviant sect has come up with the idea that using transmutation to animate dead is okay because it isn't necromancy, and the adventurers get hired to smack them around because commoners can't tell the difference. People may say they hate necromancy, but the real issue is that they recognize loved ones behind the rotting faces and groans for brains. Necromancy and undeath wouldn't have to deal with such prejudices if those novices in Nerull's cults wouldshow some respect for what they revere and toss a veil over the faces of their minions, but noooo. They have to go out of their way to perpetrate negative stereotypes about necromancers and undead. They're really doing themselves more harm than good, but I suppose that makes sense for those masochistic hermits. The followers of Wee Jas should really do something about them, but I suppose it'd be impossible for them to coordinate with the clerics of Pelor because they're not good enough, because apparently raising undead for strictly academic purposes is morally inferior to summoning demons to kill people you disagree with. Please, someone explain to me how one so specialized in arcane necromancy that they can channel negative energy cannot be good yet someone who consorts with demons and devils through deceit and unholy compacts cannot be evil. Demons and devils are evil physically manifest, undead are just spooky because that halfling hag thinks maggots are creepy. Nevermind the vices of the critic, the necromancer seeks answers to questions we're to scared to ask, off with their head! And they act as though undeath is all there is to necromancy! You think a spectral hand is just the ghost of one's hand projected out of body? That would render the flesh hand inert! In actuality, the spectral hand is actually a temporary sort of homoniculus formed of the offered blood, spread into an invisible mist and made tangible by the animating negative energy. Of course, all the commoners will hear are blah blah blah blood blah blah blah negative blah, so they'll assume that a spell that cannot do harm on its own must be meant to destroy the village somehow, because Pelor's temple doors are as open as the clergy's minds are closed. He's not even that great, just a true representation of human nature: Tries to be good, truly does, but always falters when it matters most. Sure, we'll heal the sick, but we'd rather see the world consumed by the demons our followers made deals with than stand alongside undead in opposition to the demons. Blatant hypocracy! I think the old Shadowspies had the right idea, just focus on a different angle: Instead of trying to wipe out all evil, wipe out all enemies of good. Of course, this suggestion is coming from a necromancer, so it must be evil, burn the heretic!

Ah, sorry, I tend to ramble when necromancy is involved. In summary, what you're proposing is just fixing what isn't broke, and eyeballing spell effects regarding how they impact the undead's living counterpart would be a more efficient and elegant solution to any perceived problems.

[potatocubed]

Well, that being said, ghosts have a weird attachment to the Ethereal plane, Shadows to the Plane of Shadow, etc. An Allip could be Outsider (Undead, Incorporeal) and hail from Limbo. I think for "natural" undead, Outsider is probably the best bet, specifying Extraplanar and Native when necessary.

See, I think here you're defeating your own point. An Outsider (Native, Incorporeal, Undead) is clunkier than the original Undead (Incorporeal). It's also subject to planar binding, which is the other problem with this method: the Undead type doesn't just act as a 'targeting help' for turn undead and the like, but it also makes sure that effects that specifically target other things - outsiders, constructs, etc. - don't include undead within their purview.

Sure, you could use Aberration as a base for incorporeal undead without too many weird blips, but then you're back to the original situation: one type for constructs and another for undead, except now you're just shoehorning undead in wherever they'll fit.

[monty]

So would removing the evil subtype from the reanimation spells, but Wee Jas knows that isn't going to happen because they're necromancy spells and necromancy always has to be evil, because it violates certain taboos other than the wantom destruction of evocation or the tyrannic oppression of enchantment. If you want to cast enlarge person on an undead that was a humanoid in life, run it by the DM. If you're the DM, make it an option! The suppression of one of the iconic elements of the necromantic art is just attacking a symptom of the flaws in the other schools of magic. Just create an Eyeball Type rule, where you can allow charm person to work on Ogres but not on Ettins, or not! Just eyeball it! That's how the rule works! Sure, your way is more elegant, but it's inflexible and is only a partial solution. It's less about addressing issues in the system and more about appeasement of the enemies of necromantic practice. Well, the Pelorites can go spoon a tombstone for all I care! From a DM's standpoint, the taboos against the undead could be a good thing, since it allows for a plot point for RP. Imagine, if you would, a schism within the followers of Wee Jas as a deviant sect has come up with the idea that using transmutation to animate dead is okay because it isn't necromancy, and the adventurers get hired to smack them around because commoners can't tell the difference. People may say they hate necromancy, but the real issue is that they recognize loved ones behind the rotting faces and groans for brains. Necromancy and undeath wouldn't have to deal with such prejudices if those novices in Nerull's cults wouldshow some respect for what they revere and toss a veil over the faces of their minions, but noooo. They have to go out of their way to perpetrate negative stereotypes about necromancers and undead. They're really doing themselves more harm than good, but I suppose that makes sense for those masochistic hermits. The followers of Wee Jas should really do something about them, but I suppose it'd be impossible for them to coordinate with the clerics of Pelor because they're not good enough, because apparently raising undead for strictly academic purposes is morally inferior to summoning demons to kill people you disagree with. Please, someone explain to me how one so specialized in arcane necromancy that they can channel negative energy cannot be good yet someone who consorts with demons and devils through deceit and unholy compacts cannot be evil. Demons and devils are evil physically manifest, undead are just spooky because that halfling hag thinks maggots are creepy. Nevermind the vices of the critic, the necromancer seeks answers to questions we're to scared to ask, off with their head! And they act as though undeath is all there is to necromancy! You think a spectral hand is just the ghost of one's hand projected out of body? That would render the flesh hand inert! In actuality, the spectral hand is actually a temporary sort of homoniculus formed of the offered blood, spread into an invisible mist and made tangible by the animating negative energy. Of course, all the commoners will hear are blah blah blah blood blah blah blah negative blah, so they'll assume that a spell that cannot do harm on its own must be meant to destroy the village somehow, because Pelor's temple doors are as open as the clergy's minds are closed. He's not even that great, just a true representation of human nature: Tries to be good, truly does, but always falters when it matters most. Sure, we'll heal the sick, but we'd rather see the world consumed by the demons our followers made deals with than stand alongside undead in opposition to the demons. Blatant hypocracy! I think the old Shadowspies had the right idea, just focus on a different angle: Instead of trying to wipe out all evil, wipe out all enemies of good. Of course, this suggestion is coming from a necromancer, so it must be evil, burn the heretic!

Ah, sorry, I tend to ramble when necromancy is involved. In summary, what you're proposing is just fixing what isn't broke, and eyeballing spell effects regarding how they impact the undead's living counterpart would be a more efficient and elegant solution to any perceived problems.

I realize that wasn't really a serious rant, but...Wall of Text hurts my eyes!

[Ganurath]

I realize that wasn't really a serious rant, but...Wall of Text hurts my eyes!In the context of what you meant, that rant actually was serious. If you want to see what I consider a serious rant, though, speak ill of half-orcs. If you dare. Conceal Spellcasting: Heightened Fear.

[monty]

In the context of what you meant, that rant actually was serious. If you want to see what I consider a serious rant, though, speak ill of half-orcs. If you dare. Conceal Spellcasting: Heightened Fear.

I'm sure the topic is serious, but you took it so far as to make it ridiculous, which is what led to the eye-bleeding wall in the first place.

[Fizban]

Well, that being said, ghosts have a weird attachment to the Ethereal plane, Shadows to the Plane of Shadow, etc. An Allip could be Outsider (Undead, Incorporeal) and hail from Limbo. I think for "natural" undead, Outsider is probably the best bet, specifying Extraplanar and Native when necessary.

...which brings me to an interesting idea about turning undead. Hm.

EDIT: OR ABERRATION. Aberrations are termed as "anything outside normal reality". I'd call an angry restless undead soul fitting within that.

I wouldn't say abberation, I've got those more tagged as either twisted experiments or Far Realm descendants. However, you've warmed me up to outsiders: if nothing else, they can all be from the negative energy plane. You should post the particulars of the subtype along with various types it would be applied to so we can see the changes it might make to existing undead. Skeletons and zombies might not change much, but others will, especially if they have a lot of HD.

[bosssmiley]

The Tome of Necromancy (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=632562) has work to a similar effect(post 6).

"Tome of Gears" (by the same guys) had a similar look over the Construct type.

I think the authors concluded the same thing in both instances: the Undead and Construct types as written are too general and all-encompassing to be any real use. I mean, a type is pretty b0rked when you need to add subtypes to remove inappropriate qualities (immunities, non-stats, etc.) from a creature of that type. :smallannoyed:

As to Fax's original question. I'd have to say mechanically: no, there is no need for a distinction. I mean, the how different exactly are the original Golem, Frankenstein's Monster and The Mummy? On which side of the Undead/Construct divide would D&D place WH40K Wraithguard (armoured battlesuits controlled by the spirits of the warrior dead)?

[Human Paragon 3]

I love the idea of making certain undead outsiders. That way you COULD perform a planar binding, or trap them in a magic circle, or actually perform an exorcism to get them to leave an area. Who'd of thunk it?

[Ganurath]

I love the idea of making certain undead outsiders. That way you COULD perform a planar binding, or trap them in a magic circle, or actually perform an exorcism to get them to leave an area. Who'd of thunk it?Occam's Razor presents the extraplanar subtype.

[Fax Celestis]

Yes, yes there is.

Clarification Needed.

[Jasdoif]

You know, thinking about types....Elemental is rather niche, isn't it? With some altered description (and perhaps name) behind it to allow for an expanded scope, could Allips work as Elemental(Incorporeal, Undead)?

[Fax Celestis]

You know, thinking about types....Elemental is rather niche, isn't it? With some altered description (and perhaps name) behind it to allow for an expanded scope, could Allips work as Elemental(Incorporeal, Undead)?

Ooh. Like, say, an "Avatar" type. Or maybe "Incarnation". Incarnation (Fire) for a Fire Elemental. Incarnation (Incorporeal, Undead) for Ghosts...

That has merit.

[Thurbane]

Clarification Needed.
My heart says... maybe... :smallbiggrin:

[Draz74]

Ooh. Like, say, an "Avatar" type. Or maybe "Incarnation". Incarnation (Fire) for a Fire Elemental. Incarnation (Incorporeal, Undead) for Ghosts...

That has merit.

You could go with "Spirit." Fire elemental: Spirit (fire, extraplanar). Wraith: Spirit (undead, incorporeal).

Optionally: Demon: Spirit (extraplanar, evil, chaos).

I wouldn't go that far, though, unless you're combining & streamlining other types too, like turning Aberrations into a subtype of Magical Beast or whatever.

Aboleth: Magical beast (aberrant)

[Roderick_BR]

So, a stone/metal statue animated by pure magic is the same as corpses animated by negative energy?

Why have different races like human, elf, and dwarf? They are almost the same, except for 2 or 3 traits each.

[Fax Celestis]

So, a stone/metal statue animated by pure magic is the same as corpses animated by negative energy?

Why have different races like human, elf, and dwarf? They are almost the same, except for 2 or 3 traits each.

Which is exactly why they're all of the Humanoid type with differing subtypes.

[chiasaur11]

"Tome of Gears" (by the same guys) had a similar look over the Construct type.

I think the authors concluded the same thing in both instances: the Undead and Construct types as written are too general and all-encompassing to be any real use. I mean, a type is pretty b0rked when you need to add subtypes to remove inappropriate qualities (immunities, non-stats, etc.) from a creature of that type. :smallannoyed:

As to Fax's original question. I'd have to say mechanically: no, there is no need for a distinction. I mean, the how different exactly are the original Golem, Frankenstein's Monster and The Mummy? On which side of the Undead/Construct divide would D&D place WH40K Wraithguard (armoured battlesuits controlled by the spirits of the warrior dead)?

Tome of Gears?

Google isn't finding anything, and I liked the previous stuff I've read from those guys...

You got a link?

[mikethepoor]

Relating to the original question, I do think there's a need for separate undead vs. construct types. The differences are enough to make them feel different in non-combat aspects, even if they are quite similar in combat. In a related vein, though, why do we have both the construct and ooze creature types?

[Fax Celestis]

Relating to the original question, I do think there's a need for separate undead vs. construct types. The differences are enough to make them feel different in non-combat aspects, even if they are quite similar in combat. In a related vein, though, why do we have both the construct and ooze creature types?

Well, let's be straight: I'm not saying make all Undead into Constructs: I'm saying make particular undead into Construct (Undead) types, others into their original base creatures with the Undead subtypes, and the leftovers into a new type: Incarnation (Undead).

Oozes are a conundrum on their own. I'm not really willing to change them, as they're the only type that handles shapeless/amorphous creatures.

[afroakuma]

Aberration covers more than a few of those, as well. And I'd definetely call a gelatinous cube an aberration... were it not an Ooze.

[Fax Celestis]

Aberration covers more than a few of those, as well. And I'd definetely call a gelatinous cube an aberration... were it not an Ooze.

Well, should Ooze be subtyped too, then?

[afroakuma]

I don't see much reason not to, off the top of my head.

[Fax Celestis]

So right now, we're looking at the following shortened list of types:
Aberration
Animal
Construct
Dragon
Fey
Humanoid
Incarnation
Magical Beast
Monstrous Humanoid
Outsider
Plant
Vermin

And the following new subtypes:
Ooze
Undead

And the following removed types:
Giant

I'm still kinda torn on Ooze as a subtype.

[Jasdoif]

I'm still kinda torn on Ooze as a subtype.I would leave it as a type. It has sufficient differences from the other types, both thematically and mechanically, to warrant it.

Mechanically I think Plant is the closest type, and I'm having extreme difficulty seeing a gelatinous cube as a vegetable creature.

[bosssmiley]

Tome of Gears?

Google isn't finding anything, and I liked the previous stuff I've read from those guys...

You got a link?

Ask and thou shall receive: pdf (http://turing.bard.edu/~mk561/frank_k_0.5.1.pdf) of the four finished tomes (Fiends, Necromancy, Dungeonomicon + War) plus the draft version of Tome of Gears.

As for simplifying types. I'm totally on board with Giants being Humanoids or Monstrous Humanoids (depending on your preferences). Are Fey and Outsider, Dragon and Magical Beast, and Vermin and Construct mechanically distinct enough to remain separate types though?

Functionally both pairings are nigh-identical:
Both Fey and Outsiders are magical intelligent creatures from 'elsewhere' with a basketful of inherent SLAs and resistances (in the case of the 3E Eladrin there's already major thematic overlap).
Dragons are just a particular type of magical beast. They only reason D&D privileges them with their own special type is because they're posterboys for the game.
Both Vermin and Construct are mindless, fearless, immune to pain, untrainable but programmable...

Possible schema:

Types: Aberration
Animal
Construct {includes Vermin}
Humanoid {includes Giant}
Incarnation
Magical Beast {includes Dragons}
Monstrous Humanoid
Outsider {includes Fey}
Ooze
Plant
Subtype: Undead {modified}
Removed types: Dragon
Fey
Giant
Vermin

[Philistine]

Is there really a need for an 'Incarnation' type? Classifying a Wraith as an 'Incarnation (Undead, Incorporeal)' doesn't sound like a big improvement over describing it as 'Humanoid (Undead, Incorporeal).' And since we already have incarnations of purest Good and Evil in the Outsider type, why not 'Outsider (Fire)' for Fire Elementals, rather than 'Incarnation (Elemental, Fire)'?

[chiasaur11]

Ask and thou shall receive: pdf (http://turing.bard.edu/~mk561/frank_k_0.5.1.pdf) of the four finished tomes (Fiends, Necromancy, Dungeonomicon + War) plus the draft version of Tome of Gears.

As for simplifying types. I'm totally on board with Giants being Humanoids or Monstrous Humanoids (depending on your preferences). Are Fey and Outsider, Dragon and Magical Beast, and Vermin and Construct mechanically distinct enough to remain separate types though?

Functionally both pairings are nigh-identical:
Both Fey and Outsiders are magical intelligent creatures from 'elsewhere' with a basketful of inherent SLAs and resistances (in the case of the 3E Eladrin there's already major thematic overlap).
Dragons are just a particular type of magical beast. They only reason D&D privileges them with their own special type is because they're posterboys for the game.
Both Vermin and Construct are mindless, fearless, immune to pain, untrainable but programmable...

Possible schema:

Types: Aberration
Animal
Construct {includes Vermin}
Humanoid {includes Giant}
Incarnation
Magical Beast {includes Dragons}
Monstrous Humanoid
Outsider {includes Fey}
Ooze
Plant
Subtype: Undead {modified}
Removed types: Dragon
Fey
Giant
Vermin

Thanks. I'll have to read over gears, it sounds like fun.

[Jasdoif]

Is there really a need for an 'Incarnation' type? Classifying a Wraith as an 'Incarnation (Undead, Incorporeal)' doesn't sound like a big improvement over describing it as 'Humanoid (Undead, Incorporeal).'The difference there, is that a wraith has little/no connection to being humanoid. To say nothing about the devourer. In my mind, at least, the Incarnation type is for creatures that are essentially patches of energy (or the essence of a plane) that have become autonomous entities.


And since we already have incarnations of purest Good and Evil in the Outsider type, why not 'Outsider (Fire)' for Fire Elementals, rather than 'Incarnation (Elemental, Fire)'?I don't think Elemental is worth a subtype; which is nice since "Incarnation (Fire)" isn't much more difficult than "Outsider (Fire)".

Anyway. While Elementals/Incarnations do have a lot in common with Outsiders thematically, the differences are rather significant. Again in my mind, an Outsider is a patch of energy (or the essence of a plane) that has been bound into a more conventional physical form, giving it greater capabilities than either Incarnations nor all but the greatest of the more mundane types.

Mechanically, there are a legion of differences. Outsiders as a type are subject to critical hits, flanking, poison, sleep, paralysis, stunning; get full BAB, base eight skill points per level, all good saves, need to breathe, automatically proficient with martial weapons....It's simply easier to keep them as a separate type.

[zaei]

How whacked out would it be to just toss the idea of Type and Subtype, and just promote Subtypes to Types? Then a creature's "type" is just a bag of identifiers that stack or overwrite in different ways.