Results 1 to 20 of 20
Thread: Messing Around With Types [3.5]
-
2009-09-27, 11:52 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Location
- Avatar by Kymme
- Gender
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. Finally, all darkvision works in magical darkness as well, since it is so less common, and it makes sense.
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.Last edited by Baron Corm; 2014-09-13 at 09:43 AM.
-
2009-09-27, 12:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2007
- Location
- Northeast USA
- Gender
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.
-
2009-09-27, 02:04 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- Germany
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.We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on very tall tower of other dwarves.
Spriggan's Den Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying
-
2009-09-27, 02:28 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Location
- Avatar by Kymme
- Gender
Re: Messing Around With Types [3.5]
-
2009-09-27, 02:35 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Location
- The Final Chapter
- Gender
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.
-
2012-05-29, 02:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Location
- San Antonio, Texas
- Gender
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.
*Picard management tip: Debate honestly. The goal is to arrive at the truth, not at your preconception.
*Mutant Dawn for Savage Worlds!
*The One Deck Engine: Gaming on a budget
Written by Me on DriveThru RPG
There are almost 400,000 threads on this site. If you need me to address a thread as a moderator, include a link.
-
2012-05-30, 02:06 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Gender
Re: Messing Around With Types [3.5]
Hmm, interesting to see this.
I suppose these makes sense, really.
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 ).
Maybe belt-and-suspenders logic? I suspect 3.5's type system wasn't put together very rigorously.
Now this, I really like.
These are all fairly intuitive, although it might be interesting to know why immunity to ability damage was granted in the first place....
Perhaps it's the whole "Dungeons" thing.
It occurs to me that (greater) restoration could be used to inflict positive levels on undead.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
-
2012-06-05, 08:34 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
- Location
- WOTC ≱ my opinion
Re: Messing Around With Types [3.5]
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.
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.
- 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.
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.
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!
-
2012-06-05, 10:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Location
- Avatar by Kymme
- Gender
Re: Messing Around With Types [3.5]
Thanks for the feedback, both of you.
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.
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.
You're entitled to that. It's almost the same solution to the problem.
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.
"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."
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.
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.
-
2012-06-06, 08:12 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
- Location
- WOTC ≱ my opinion
Re: Messing Around With Types [3.5]
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.
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!
-
2012-06-06, 09:13 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Location
- The US of A
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.
-
2012-06-06, 04:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Location
- Avatar by Kymme
- Gender
Re: Messing Around With Types [3.5]
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.
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.
True that.
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.
This is quite interesting, but might make D&D feel a little too much like Rock, Paper, Scissors. Another thing to think about.
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.
Thanks for the thoughts.
-
2012-06-07, 06:52 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2011
- Location
- Here
- Gender
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.
I can't think of any substance that would be harmless to a human but lethal to a construct.Last edited by Phosphate; 2012-06-07 at 06:59 AM.
-
2012-06-07, 10:13 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Gender
Re: Messing Around With Types [3.5]
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.)
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
-
2012-07-26, 04:09 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2011
- Location
- Here
- Gender
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.
-
2012-07-26, 07:09 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
- Gender
Re: Messing Around With Types [3.5]
Open the lid and snatch a homebrewed treat from Cookie's Jar
Ponytar by Dirtytabs
Originally Posted by DudeWhyAreAllTheNamesTaken(Imgur)
-
2012-07-26, 08:26 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
Re: Messing Around With Types [3.5]
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.
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.
-
2012-07-27, 03:33 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2011
- Location
- Here
- Gender
Re: Messing Around With Types [3.5]
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.
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.
-
2012-07-27, 05:36 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
- Gender
Re: Messing Around With Types [3.5]
Open the lid and snatch a homebrewed treat from Cookie's Jar
Ponytar by Dirtytabs
Originally Posted by DudeWhyAreAllTheNamesTaken(Imgur)
-
2012-07-27, 06:54 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2011
- Location
- Here
- Gender
Re: Messing Around With Types [3.5]
Last edited by Phosphate; 2012-07-27 at 06:55 AM.