Results 1 to 20 of 20
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Baron Corm's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Avatar by Kymme
    Gender
    Male

    Default Messing Around With Types [3.5]

    I'm thinking about implementing a new houserule that would strip most types of most of their basic immunities. I'm just wondering if this would make fights against them less special, frightening, or interesting. Anything listed below could be changed for a specific creature within that type.

    - No types are immune to mind-affecting. Oozes and vermin could still list it because the majority of them are mindless.

    - No types are immune to stunning. If the thing which stuns also affects the mind, the ability should be listed as mind-affecting. If not, there's no reason a creature type should be immune to it.

    - No types are immune to poison or disease. The DM must simply use sense to decide if a certain poison meant for one creature would also work on another or not. There could be poisons or diseases which are construct-specific, for example.

    - Creatures that do not sleep are immune to the sleep spell. This doesn't have to be stated. Just something that bothers me :P. They don't mention that creatures that don't breathe are immune to drown and so on...

    - No types are immune to paralysis. I have no idea why certain types get this.

    - Every type has a Constitution score. For undead, this represents how strong the negative energy is that binds them together. For constructs, it represents how well-built they are. Constructs no longer get bonus hit points for size, and constructs and undead are no longer immune to effects that require Fortitude saves.

    - No types are immune to polymorph. Why all plants are immune to shapeshifting magic is beyond me...

    - Every type is subject to critical hits, except oozes and elementals.

    - Every type is subject to flanking, except oozes.

    - No types are immune to ability damage, unless they don't have that ability score (mostly due to mindlessness and/or incorporeality).

    - Darkvision is not automatically granted to any race except undead. This thing is thrown around to just about every creature. Its range is also increased to normal sight range, because what the heck, it's not a flashlight.


    So, for reference, here is the new undead:

    - Darkvision.
    - Immunity to death effects.
    - Hurt by positive levels and like negative levels
    - Immune to fatigue and exhaustion.
    - Hurt by positive energy and healed by negative energy
    - Not at risk of death from massive damage, but destroyed at 0 hp.
    - Blah blah resurrection works differently.
    - Proficient with stuff.
    - Do not breathe, eat, or sleep.


    Some side-effects of this houserule:

    - Rogues are less frustrated.
    - Anyone using any of those things are less frustrated.
    - Players are less scared of undead and constructs, though these two types tend to have other special abilities which keep them unique and interesting.
    - Elementals and oozes are scarier and more special.
    - Undead and constructs could be made more easily into player races. The only real benefit the new undead type has is immunity to fatigue. There are plenty of undead-to-death effects, and I'm sure you could easily make a spell for positive energy drain or whatever you call it. The idea of positive levels exists, it's just that no one uses them.
    - Many monsters are weaker.
    - Most undead and constructs will have more hit points. Some scrawny ones will have less.
    - A lot of bookkeeping and clutter is taken out.
    - Things are more realistic, or verisimilitudistic, if you prefer.


    Please let me know what you think.

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    The Neoclassic's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Messing Around With Types [3.5]

    Interesting! I'm not sure if all the changes increase verisimilitude, but they certainly will be less frustrating for PCs (at minimal flavor cost).

    I like the idea of, say, construct specific diseases. I'd imagine they'd vary by type too. I can see flesh golems as being vulnerable many of the same diseases that harm humanoids; such diseases can infect and destroy their flesh just like a human's. Of course, if one's putting all that money into making a flesh golem, it makes sense to make them immune to tentanus and gangrene while you're at it, lest your creation lose limbs over rusty nails or paltry other injuries. A special strain of a metal-corroding disease could be cool, harming animated objects, golems, and the like. Perhaps it's attracted to any sort of metal with a magic aura, posing a threat to magical swords and such too. Anyway, perhaps just note for every disease which sorts of creatures it can affect and which it wouldn't work against. Same for poison, I suppose.

    Giving everything a Constitution score is nifty too.

    Actually, looking through these more, I may implement a few of these changes in my setting (if you don't mind of course). Some are pretty nifty and would potentially make the game a lot more fun.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Yora's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Germany

    Default Re: Messing Around With Types [3.5]

    I'd say yes, this would make many creatures quite boring. You wouldn't need special tactics to defeat them, making all monsters much more similar. The differences between them would be purely optical.
    I guess people might have different views about certain aspects of certain creatures, but I would not take this aspect from the game completely. If you don't want to make it difficult for rogues, don't use undead. If you want rogues to be able to backstab zombies and use illusions to lure them into traps, make them some kind of brain damage infected instead of walking corpses.
    Spriggan's Den - Thoughts on RPGs and some of my personal creations.
    Ancient Lands - PF/d20 Sword & Sorcery campaign setting

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Baron Corm's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Avatar by Kymme
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Messing Around With Types [3.5]

    Quote Originally Posted by Yora View Post
    I'd say yes, this would make many creatures quite boring. You wouldn't need special tactics to defeat them, making all monsters much more similar. The differences between them would be purely optical.
    Well I wouldn't go that far. A beholder and a human have a lot more differences than their appearance, and their types aren't very different at all. Your opinion is noted though, that's why I posted this up. Still looking for more.

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Zeta Kai's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    The Final Chapter
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Messing Around With Types [3.5]

    I like these changes, & they make a lot of sense. I think non-abilities are kinda annoying & difficult to implement properly. They were a good idea in theory, but I think in practice, they are more trouble than they are worth. Constructs get HP by size, but Undead are screwed without a lot of Hit Dice, which throws off balance with their BAB, saving throws, feats, skills, etc. Nice job, Corm. Kudos unto thee. I think I may implement some of this stuff in my endless list of house rules.

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Superhero in the Playground Moderator
     
    Mark Hall's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Messing Around With Types [3.5]

    The Mod Wonder: Reopened at creator request.
    The Cranky Gamer
    *It isn't realism, it's verisimilitude; the appearance of truth within the framework of the game.
    *Keep faith, trust to love. Fight with honor, but fight to win. -Wonder Woman, The Circle (Gail Simone)
    *Picard management tip: Debate honestly. The goal is to arrive at the truth, not at your preconception.
    *The One Deck Engine: Gaming on a budget from a convenience store.
    Avatar is from Thunt's Goblins!
    HackMaster Basic: A Free Game

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Titan in the Playground
     
    TuggyNE's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Pondering turns of phrase
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Messing Around With Types [3.5]

    Hmm, interesting to see this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Baron Corm View Post
    - No types are immune to mind-affecting. Oozes and vermin could still list it because the majority of them are mindless.

    - No types are immune to stunning. If the thing which stuns also affects the mind, the ability should be listed as mind-affecting. If not, there's no reason a creature type should be immune to it.
    I suppose these makes sense, really.

    Quote Originally Posted by Baron Corm View Post
    - No types are immune to poison or disease. The DM must simply use sense to decide if a certain poison meant for one creature would also work on another or not. There could be poisons or diseases which are construct-specific, for example.
    Here it might be good to include some suggested poisons and diseases, or at least reference the BoED ones (whether to condemn or praise them, I am not sure ).

    Quote Originally Posted by Baron Corm View Post
    - Creatures that do not sleep are immune to the sleep spell. This doesn't have to be stated. Just something that bothers me :P. They don't mention that creatures that don't breathe are immune to drown and so on...

    - No types are immune to paralysis. I have no idea why certain types get this.
    Maybe belt-and-suspenders logic? I suspect 3.5's type system wasn't put together very rigorously.

    Quote Originally Posted by Baron Corm View Post
    - Every type has a Constitution score. For undead, this represents how strong the negative energy is that binds them together. For constructs, it represents how well-built they are. Constructs no longer get bonus hit points for size, and constructs and undead are no longer immune to effects that require Fortitude saves.
    Now this, I really like.

    Quote Originally Posted by Baron Corm View Post
    - No types are immune to polymorph. Why all plants are immune to shapeshifting magic is beyond me...

    - Every type is subject to critical hits, except oozes and elementals.

    - Every type is subject to flanking, except oozes.

    - No types are immune to ability damage, unless they don't have that ability score (mostly due to mindlessness and/or incorporeality).
    These are all fairly intuitive, although it might be interesting to know why immunity to ability damage was granted in the first place....

    Quote Originally Posted by Baron Corm View Post
    - Darkvision is not automatically granted to any race except undead. This thing is thrown around to just about every creature.
    Perhaps it's the whole "Dungeons" thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Baron Corm View Post
    - Undead and constructs could be made more easily into player races. The only real benefit the new undead type has is immunity to fatigue. There are plenty of undead-to-death effects, and I'm sure you could easily make a spell for positive energy drain or whatever you call it. The idea of positive levels exists, it's just that no one uses them.
    It occurs to me that (greater) restoration could be used to inflict positive levels on undead.
    Quote Originally Posted by Water_Bear View Post
    That's RAW for you; 100% Rules-Legal, 110% silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    "Common sense" and "RAW" are not exactly on speaking terms
    Projects: Homebrew, Gentlemen's Agreement, DMPCs, Forbidden Knowledge safety, and Top Ten Worst. Also, Quotes and RACSD are good.

    Anyone knows blue is for sarcas'ing in · "Take 10 SAN damage from Dark Orchid" · Use of gray may indicate nitpicking · Green is sincerity

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Mulletmanalive's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    WOTC ≱ my opinion

    Default Re: Messing Around With Types [3.5]

    Quote Originally Posted by Baron Corm View Post
    I'm thinking about implementing a new houserule that would strip most types of most of their basic immunities. I'm just wondering if this would make fights against them less special, frightening, or interesting. Anything listed below could be changed for a specific creature within that type.
    okay, lets have a look...
    - No types are immune to mind-affecting. Oozes and vermin could still list it because the majority of them are mindless.
    While i suppose that it makes sense for this not to be integral, I personally can't see the logic of the idea that a generic mind effecting spell should be able to affect tattered fragments of soul [undead], magical matrices [constructs] and decentralised thinking mechanisms [plants and oozes].

    If you were to actually implement this, it would probably be necessary to look carefully at what types any given Charm or Compulsion spell can affect.
    - No types are immune to stunning. If the thing which stuns also affects the mind, the ability should be listed as mind-affecting. If not, there's no reason a creature type should be immune to it.
    again, oozes should probably be immune to this as there's nothing to punch to stun them in the first place. Assume oozes are generally the special case though. I'd probably end up making most undead and magical constructs immune to this anyway...
    - No types are immune to poison or disease. The DM must simply use sense to decide if a certain poison meant for one creature would also work on another or not. There could be poisons or diseases which are construct-specific, for example.
    I disagree. It's far more efficient to simply grant those immunities where they make sense and then allow individual poisons/diseases to ignore said immunities [specific rules always trump general rules]. You could use the nomenclature Virulent (Constructs, Undead) etc. Though that sounds more like an ongoing acid effect.
    - Creatures that do not sleep are immune to the sleep spell. This doesn't have to be stated. Just something that bothers me :P. They don't mention that creatures that don't breathe are immune to drown and so on...
    Yes, that follows.
    - No types are immune to paralysis. I have no idea why certain types get this.
    Paralysis should probably be covered easily by other immunities [generally poison or mind-effecting]
    - Every type has a Constitution score. For undead, this represents how strong the negative energy is that binds them together. For constructs, it represents how well-built they are. Constructs no longer get bonus hit points for size, and constructs and undead are no longer immune to effects that require Fortitude saves.
    Yeah, I use this already. I actually can't think of any cases where the immunity to fortitude saves wouldn't simply come under the immunity to poison, disease and system shock anyway, as most other effects work on objects anyway.
    - No types are immune to polymorph. Why all plants are immune to shapeshifting magic is beyond me...
    That's fine. It was probably some kind of balance consideration, not that i follow it.
    - Every type is subject to critical hits, except oozes and elementals.
    Why elementals? I've always clung to the 2e assertion that elementals have circulatory systems and sorta-kinda organs.
    - Every type is subject to flanking, except oozes.
    I'd not put this as a type trait at all. Even some oozes have finite sensory systems, making them vulnerable to flanking.
    - No types are immune to ability damage, unless they don't have that ability score (mostly due to mindlessness and/or incorporeality).
    Again, would be covered by immunity to poison/disease anyway, though i struggle to imagine a construct being taken down by a wraith...
    - Darkvision is not automatically granted to any race except undead. This thing is thrown around to just about every creature.
    Fair enough. Why undead? Again, probably shouldn't be a type trait as some undead still use eyeballs.

    So, for reference, here is the new undead:

    - Darkvision.
    - Immunity to death effects.
    - Hurt by positive levels and like negative levels
    - Immune to fatigue and exhaustion.
    - Hurt by positive energy and healed by negative energy
    - Not at risk of death from massive damage, but destroyed at 0 hp.
    - Blah blah resurrection works differently.
    - Proficient with stuff.
    - Do not breathe, eat, or sleep.


    Some side-effects of this houserule:

    - Rogues are less frustrated.
    - Anyone using any of those things are less frustrated.
    - Players are less scared of undead and constructs, though these two types tend to have other special abilities which keep them unique and interesting.
    - Elementals and oozes are scarier and more special.
    - Undead and constructs could be made more easily into player races. The only real benefit the new undead type has is immunity to fatigue. There are plenty of undead-to-death effects, and I'm sure you could easily make a spell for positive energy drain or whatever you call it. The idea of positive levels exists, it's just that no one uses them.
    - Many monsters are weaker.
    - Most undead and constructs will have more hit points. Some scrawny ones will have less.
    - A lot of bookkeeping and clutter is taken out.
    - Things are more realistic, or verisimilitudistic, if you prefer.


    Please let me know what you think.
    I think, as previously mentioned, some immunities should probably remain as defaults and then just come up with a shorthand [a la Pathfinder] to show that poisons or diseases specifically CAN affect creatures that they shouldn't be able to.

    Some traits shouldn't be attached to types at all, specifically Flanking immunity, Darkvision, Polymorph Immunity and Critical Immunity.

    Aside from the additions to the rogue and crit-fishers [and i suppose, monks, technically], most of these only really affect spellcasters and generally improve their ability to end combats in one round. Not something I'd be aiming for, but that's your call.
    Mine is not so much a Peter Pan Complex as a Peter Pan Doom Fortress and Underground LairTM!
    Fae-o-matic Want a fae from folklore stated? Give me the lore and I'll do it for you!
    Le Cirque Funeste Evil Fairy Circus! Ray Bradbury, refined down to snortable powder!

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Baron Corm's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Avatar by Kymme
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Messing Around With Types [3.5]

    Thanks for the feedback, both of you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletmanalive View Post
    While i suppose that it makes sense for this not to be integral, I personally can't see the logic of the idea that a generic mind effecting spell should be able to affect tattered fragments of soul [undead], magical matrices [constructs] and decentralised thinking mechanisms [plants and oozes].
    If they aren't mindless, they have a mind, therefore can be affected by things that affect the mind. If their mind is really just a "magical matrix" that functions exactly as a mind, enabling the creature to think and feel as any other creature with a mind, then spells that affect the mind shouldn't see a difference. That's my logic anyway. Your point of view here isn't actually something I had considered, and I guess it's what the writers were thinking. I'm gonna have to still disagree with it though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletmanalive View Post
    again, oozes should probably be immune to this as there's nothing to punch to stun them in the first place. Assume oozes are generally the special case though. I'd probably end up making most undead and magical constructs immune to this anyway...
    This one is tough because stuns are delivered in different ways. Many are mind-affecting, and so wouldn't affect most oozes. Additionally, an effect such as Stunning Fist specifies that it doesn't work against creatures immune to critical hits, which was your issue. Now, if there is a stun that doesn't affect the mind, and isn't reliant on hitting a body part, there's no reason the ooze shouldn't be stunned. Similar principle to paralysis.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletmanalive View Post
    I disagree. It's far more efficient to simply grant those immunities where they make sense and then allow individual poisons/diseases to ignore said immunities [specific rules always trump general rules]. You could use the nomenclature Virulent (Constructs, Undead) etc. Though that sounds more like an ongoing acid effect.
    You're entitled to that. It's almost the same solution to the problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletmanalive View Post
    Why elementals? I've always clung to the 2e assertion that elementals have circulatory systems and sorta-kinda organs.
    All I looked at for this was the SRD where it says, "An elemental is a being composed of one of the four classical elements: air, earth, fire, or water." To me, that means an elemental of a certain kind is a solid brick of that element. This might be differently said in the actual books, and if so, they shouldn't be immune to criticals. I'll have to check out some more 3.5 sources.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletmanalive View Post
    I'd not put this as a type trait at all. Even some oozes have finite sensory systems, making them vulnerable to flanking.
    "An ooze’s entire body is a primitive sensory organ that can ascertain prey by scent and vibration within 60 feet."

    To me, that sounded a lot like the "All-Around Vision" trait that some creatures have which makes them unable to be flanked. Oozes are "looking" in all directions at all times with their blindsight, so I think it's even better. That's my interpretation of it, at least.

    For reference: "A xorn’s symmetrically placed eyes allow it to look in any direction, providing a +4 racial bonus on Spot and Search checks. A xorn can’t be flanked."

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletmanalive View Post
    Fair enough. Why undead? Again, probably shouldn't be a type trait as some undead still use eyeballs.
    This could just be from my personal interpretation of undead as night stalkers. It's similar to the way that the Devil subtype gives the ability to see even through deeper darkness - really evil things just prefer the dark. All undead are negative energy beings, so it made sense to me to be a type trait. I could see some arguments for taking it out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletmanalive View Post
    Aside from the additions to the rogue and crit-fishers [and i suppose, monks, technically], most of these only really affect spellcasters and generally improve their ability to end combats in one round. Not something I'd be aiming for, but that's your call.
    It was more of a realism and bookkeeping fix than a balance fix. Things like plants being immune to polymorph especially just bothered me. The other big plus for me is being able to make LA +0 races of any type.

    But as far as balance is concerned, immunities are ALWAYS a bad way to do it. You don't want to make your wizard useless any more than you want to make your rogue or fighter useless, it just isn't fun. You can increase the saves of your monsters, increase the number of them, give them better tactics, or just flat-out ban some problem spells, sure. But I don't think sending undead instead of humanoids against an enchantment specialist just to take them down a notch was ever a good idea.

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Mulletmanalive's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    WOTC ≱ my opinion

    Default Re: Messing Around With Types [3.5]

    Quote Originally Posted by Baron Corm View Post
    You're entitled to that. It's almost the same solution to the problem.
    Really isn't; your suggestion has the GM making on the fly decisions and probably either having to compile lists or end up making mistakes and allowing Stench Fever to affect big hunks of iron and the like.

    While it's heartwarming to see control being put into the GM's hands again, I can't see why forcing pointless decisions like this helps the game any.

    But as far as balance is concerned, immunities are ALWAYS a bad way to do it. You don't want to make your wizard useless any more than you want to make your rogue or fighter useless, it just isn't fun. You can increase the saves of your monsters, increase the number of them, give them better tactics, or just flat-out ban some problem spells, sure. But I don't think sending undead instead of humanoids against an enchantment specialist just to take them down a notch was ever a good idea.
    That's a flawed argument. It's very hard to make a Wizard useless by any stretch of the imagination, at least more than temporarily.

    I don't actually agree at all that immunities are always bad. They generally only punish builds that have no other options; when this happens to me, if i'm optimising, i find this humbling, as long as it's not overdone.

    I do, however, agree that immunities probably shouldn't be placed on the creature types [save my previous thoughts on diseases and poisons], as that just means that you could inadvertently invalidate certain builds entirely by theming your adventure, which IS bad design.

    Not really adding anything new, just felt that I should try to explain my opinions a little better.
    Mine is not so much a Peter Pan Complex as a Peter Pan Doom Fortress and Underground LairTM!
    Fae-o-matic Want a fae from folklore stated? Give me the lore and I'll do it for you!
    Le Cirque Funeste Evil Fairy Circus! Ray Bradbury, refined down to snortable powder!

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Deepbluediver's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The US of A

    Default Re: Messing Around With Types [3.5]

    I like a lot of the suggestions you have here, particularly giving constructs and undead a constitution score, and making fewer types immune to critical hits.
    With that in mind, I also think there are a few things that you could leave in place, because they make logical sense, or because they can make for a more interesting encounter.

    For example, I would leave constructs immune to poison (poisons need some TLC, but that's for a different post) because they have neither a respiratory or circulatory system for the poison to act against. If you had an oil or magic potion that affected a construct, the method through which it did so would probably be so different that it wouldn't fit the standard definition of poison.
    I would make similar arguments for their immunity to disease, but I would probably have it only be an immunity to NON-magical diseases.

    Another way of making a race more interesting is to balance some of it's immunities with vulnerabilities. For example, the oozes retain many of their defensive traits because they lack discernible anatomy, but such a creature would probably be MORE vulnerable to posion, because of the lack of seperation between organ systems.

    One more thing that I want to talk about is darkvision; I have no problem with it being handed out to creatures who might reasonably be expected to have a regular need for it, but in most cases it should then be balanced with light-blindness. Same for low-light vision and light-sensitivity.
    Alternatively, gives some types (like vermin) other enhanced senses such as sensing vibrations or body-heat, improved hearing (with a vulnerability to sonic damage, of course), ecolocation, etc.
    This is one of those things that should be handled on a case-by-case basis.


    In summary: I think that some racial immunities or resistances can make encounters more interesting, but I agree that they should be given out far more sparingly.
    "A man is known by the company he organizes." -Ambrose Bierce

    Homebrew Extended Signature!

    Progress in my Core rebalance project: 9 of 11 classes complete
    Druid, Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Ranger, Wizard, Sorcerer, Monk & Paladin

    Magic Fix: spell rewrites paused; rules under revision


    Non-core stuff I want to take a crack at rewriting: Healer, Warlock, Ninja, Samurai, Artificer, Soulborn Incarnum, psionics, bloodlines, and the item-crafting system

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Baron Corm's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Avatar by Kymme
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Messing Around With Types [3.5]

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletmanalive View Post
    Really isn't; your suggestion has the GM making on the fly decisions and probably either having to compile lists or end up making mistakes and allowing Stench Fever to affect big hunks of iron and the like.

    While it's heartwarming to see control being put into the GM's hands again, I can't see why forcing pointless decisions like this helps the game any.
    I said that there would be construct-specific diseases. Every single disease currently listed would not work on nonliving creatures. There's no on-the-fly decision there. There would just be a separate list, made specifically for constructs, that wouldn't work on humanoids. Instead of blinding sickness and slimy doom, rock sickness and rusty doom. Those won't be confused.

    The only effort involved is in making the new lists in the first place, which isn't too bad and could be kinda fun. I might get around to it eventually.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletmanalive View Post
    That's a flawed argument. It's very hard to make a Wizard useless by any stretch of the imagination, at least more than temporarily.

    I don't actually agree at all that immunities are always bad. They generally only punish builds that have no other options; when this happens to me, if i'm optimising, i find this humbling, as long as it's not overdone.
    The most optimized wizard I know of can become ruler of the universe at level 1. Still, not really the point. Most non-TO builds are stopped by a few immunities, and I'd rather balance with them in mind than Batman or Pun-Pun.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletmanalive View Post
    I do, however, agree that immunities probably shouldn't be placed on the creature types [save my previous thoughts on diseases and poisons], as that just means that you could inadvertently invalidate certain builds entirely by theming your adventure, which IS bad design.
    True that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletmanalive View Post
    Not really adding anything new, just felt that I should try to explain my opinions a little better.


    Quote Originally Posted by Deepbluediver View Post
    For example, I would leave constructs immune to poison (poisons need some TLC, but that's for a different post) because they have neither a respiratory or circulatory system for the poison to act against. If you had an oil or magic potion that affected a construct, the method through which it did so would probably be so different that it wouldn't fit the standard definition of poison.
    I would make similar arguments for their immunity to disease, but I would probably have it only be an immunity to NON-magical diseases.
    I guess this is the biggest issue people are having. I admit it is a bit of a flavor stretch. Perhaps it would be easiest to say they are immune to poisons and diseases, and living races are immune to "oils and viruses" or similar. That looks like it would be adding more to the bookkeeping side of things, in that it adds a necessary line to almost every creature's stat block, but would clarify it more, and keep constructs and undead as easy LA +0s. Maybe making it inherently part of being "living" or "unliving" would allow people to leave it out. I'll have to think about it.

    But yeah, poisons aren't very well done in general and could use a total overhaul that's beyond the scope of this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deepbluediver View Post
    Another way of making a race more interesting is to balance some of it's immunities with vulnerabilities. For example, the oozes retain many of their defensive traits because they lack discernible anatomy, but such a creature would probably be MORE vulnerable to posion, because of the lack of seperation between organ systems.
    This is quite interesting, but might make D&D feel a little too much like Rock, Paper, Scissors. Another thing to think about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deepbluediver View Post
    One more thing that I want to talk about is darkvision; I have no problem with it being handed out to creatures who might reasonably be expected to have a regular need for it, but in most cases it should then be balanced with light-blindness. Same for low-light vision and light-sensitivity.
    Alternatively, gives some types (like vermin) other enhanced senses such as sensing vibrations or body-heat, improved hearing (with a vulnerability to sonic damage, of course), ecolocation, etc.
    This is one of those things that should be handled on a case-by-case basis.
    Some of this is in already. Bats have blindsense, which although it doesn't say, is based on echolocation, and if the bat is deafened, it loses it. You have to go to the entry for blindsense itself to discover that. Common sense says if it's silenced, it loses the blindsense too, though that doesn't seem to be mentioned.

    Overall, I'm in favor of keeping certain things like light-sensitivity, and even low-light vision itself out of the game, because they give such small bonuses that just serve to clutter up stat blocks. Darkvision and light blindness together makes sense to me, though any player race or encountered monster would need the equivalent of Amphibious to play with everyone else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deepbluediver View Post
    In summary: I think that some racial immunities or resistances can make encounters more interesting, but I agree that they should be given out far more sparingly.
    Thanks for the thoughts.

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    RogueGuy

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Here
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Messing Around With Types [3.5]

    I disagree that constructs should have constitution. There already is something they have that represents that they are well-built, it's hardness. And giving them more hit points based on size again makes perfect sense, because there's more construct to destroy.

    Pretty fine with everything else tho.

    Quote Originally Posted by Baron Corm View Post
    I admit it is a bit of a flavor stretch. Perhaps it would be easiest to say they are immune to poisons and diseases, and living races are immune to "oils and viruses" or similar.
    I can't think of any substance that would be harmless to a human but lethal to a construct.

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Titan in the Playground
     
    TuggyNE's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Pondering turns of phrase
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Messing Around With Types [3.5]

    Quote Originally Posted by Phosphate View Post
    I disagree that constructs should have constitution. There already is something they have that represents that they are well-built, it's hardness. And giving them more hit points based on size again makes perfect sense, because there's more construct to destroy.
    Most constructs do not have any hardness (animated objects are an exception). Bonus HP from size are a more-or-less acceptable substitute for Con, but are inconsistent; why doesn't a giant get extra HP from size, for example? (Because he already gets extra HP from Con, of course.)
    Quote Originally Posted by Water_Bear View Post
    That's RAW for you; 100% Rules-Legal, 110% silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    "Common sense" and "RAW" are not exactly on speaking terms
    Projects: Homebrew, Gentlemen's Agreement, DMPCs, Forbidden Knowledge safety, and Top Ten Worst. Also, Quotes and RACSD are good.

    Anyone knows blue is for sarcas'ing in · "Take 10 SAN damage from Dark Orchid" · Use of gray may indicate nitpicking · Green is sincerity

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    RogueGuy

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Here
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Messing Around With Types [3.5]

    Because his heart is just as easy to puncture. And yes, larger creatures tend to have larger con anyway.

    As for the hardness aspect, I know most constructs don't have it, but think they should.

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Sgt. Cookie's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Messing Around With Types [3.5]

    Quote Originally Posted by Phosphate View Post
    I can't think of any substance that would be harmless to a human but lethal to a construct.
    Rust monster slime?


    On the rules, I like them all, really.

    The critical hits one makes a lot of sense, I think. Something I (from now on) will add to all campaigns I run.
    Open the lid and snatch a homebrewed treat from Cookie's Jar

    Ponytar by Dirtytabs

    Like the look of the Prestige Bard/Paladin/Ranger, but don't know how best to use them? There's a guide for that.

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2012

    Default Re: Messing Around With Types [3.5]

    Quote Originally Posted by Baron Corm View Post
    I guess this is the biggest issue people are having. I admit it is a bit of a flavor stretch. Perhaps it would be easiest to say they are immune to poisons and diseases, and living races are immune to "oils and viruses" or similar.
    But, a virus can only harm a living cell. It really can't harm anything that isn't living, so anything virus-based should only affect livings (the opposite make no sense).

    As Phosphate said, there aren't that much things harmless to humans but lethal to constructs. Maybe some bacteria will affect an undead more easily than a living creature (something like DC 15+ against DC 5).

    As for the hardness aspect, I know most constructs don't have it, but think they should.
    They have Damage Reduction countered by adamantium, which is roughly the same thing on another name. The few golems with a DR higher than 20 also have a second DR to my knowledge, and aren't core.

    Personnally, I think immunities granted by types should only be removed from case-by-case. Ghouls, for example, have a straight mind, by not an allip.
    Last edited by Network; 2012-07-26 at 08:29 PM.

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    RogueGuy

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Here
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Messing Around With Types [3.5]

    Quote Originally Posted by Sgt. Cookie View Post
    Rust monster slime?
    Wear a rusty collar round your neck. Or a rusty chainmail shirt. Or a rusty wristwatch. Or DRINK rust. I dare you. I double dare you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Network View Post
    As Phosphate said, there aren't that much things harmless to humans but lethal to constructs. Maybe some bacteria will affect an undead more easily than a living creature (something like DC 15+ against DC 5).
    Technically speaking ALL bacterias should be stronger against undead that aren't 100% bone because...there's no immune system to fight them off, right? Well I guess one could make an exception for viruses and bacterias that target the nervous system (of non-vampires), but e'rething else is free game.

    They have Damage Reduction countered by adamantium, which is roughly the same thing on another name. The few golems with a DR higher than 20 also have a second DR to my knowledge, and aren't core.
    Why give it another name? That golem has an outer shell three times as thick as my plate armor. Why does my armor have hardness, and he doesn't? This never made sense to me.

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Sgt. Cookie's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Messing Around With Types [3.5]

    Quote Originally Posted by Phosphate View Post
    Wear a rusty collar round your neck. Or a rusty chainmail shirt. Or a rusty wristwatch. Or DRINK rust. I dare you. I double dare you.
    Yes, rust is bad for people. But Rust Monster Slime (Or whatever it is) is harmless to flesh.
    Open the lid and snatch a homebrewed treat from Cookie's Jar

    Ponytar by Dirtytabs

    Like the look of the Prestige Bard/Paladin/Ranger, but don't know how best to use them? There's a guide for that.

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    RogueGuy

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Here
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Messing Around With Types [3.5]

    Quote Originally Posted by Sgt. Cookie View Post
    Yes, rust is bad for people. But Rust Monster Slime (Or whatever it is) is harmless to flesh.
    It shouldn't be. If an oxidant is strong enough to produce rusting right before your eyes, in real time, it is acidic enough to eat through skin.

    I'm not saying game systems should be totes realistic, but this is actually perfectly sane and implementable.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •