Quote from: Brad;1123565Except that's not always the case.

Under what conditions is it not the case? And when it isn't the case, what definition does apply?

My thanks for your patience in bearing with me on this, by the way; I don't mean to be obsessive on this -- well, I suppose I do, a little, as I do have more than a bit of what used to be called Aspergian-ness in my character -- but if there are conditions under which the definition of "strike zone" can vary, then it seems to me those are just further elaborations on/extensions of the rules, not places where judgement fills in for the rules.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1123534

Quote from: Bren;1123532Table to table consistency is predominantly a benefit for some type of organized play. Outside of that, I prefer  having table to table variety. How does your PC know, with absolute precision, whether a hydra is or is not related to a dragon? And I like the notion that the druid can try to turn into any of the creatures you named, but they don't know for certain what will happen (with potentially dangerous consequences for a bad roll on a bad guess). If they want predictability they should stick to truly mundane animals like a stag, boar, or wolf just like Gwydion did in the legends that are the original source material for that particular druid ability.

Because D&D is the only source that states the hydra isn't a dragon?

Is it really the only source? (That's a question, not a dig. Did the Greeks even have a taxonomy of mythic monsters? That seems more of a Medieval Scholastic kind of mindset.) In any case, what D&D does or doesn't state is fairly irrelevant to my setting preferences.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1123534How do you even define a dragon? By a list of criteria? Arbitrarily? Why do you define a dragon that way? (See my section at the bottom of this post for my analysis.)

Somewhat arbitrarily I'd say, though influenced by whatever source material inspires the setting. So if I'm playing Pendragon "wyrms" which are wingless would be related to dragons which are winged. And all faeries are related even though they may appear very different, e.g. a Spriggan or Red Cap and an Elf. Whereas in something inspired by Tolkien or Poul Anderson's The Broken Sword, the former two creatures don't seem to exist.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1123534

Quote from: BrenAnd I like the notion that the druid can try to turn into any of the creatures you named, but they don't know for certain what will happen (with potentially dangerous consequences for a bad roll on a bad guess). If they want predictability they should stick to truly mundane animals like a stag, boar, or wolf just like Gwydion did in the legends that are the original source material for that particular druid ability.

Why do you even want to limit druids from assuming the forms of animals that don't exist in reality (or whatever the distinction is supposed to be)? Is it a matter of game balance? Do you feel like being arbitrary? I have no problem if you want to be arbitrary, but in many cases I feel people are arbitrary without realizing or acknowledging their unconscious biases.

I alluded to one of my reasons -- it better fits the inspiring source material e.g. the Mabinogian. That's abetted by game balance in avoiding creatures with special abilities like pretrification and augmented by it being more aesthetically pleasing to me for druids not to turn into winged horse, basilisks, or whatever. I'd also note that I absolutely loath the medieval definitions and lists of creatures and their traits. So anything relying on that is an instant non-starter for me.

QuoteAs I said before, I think a toolkit for building a wildshape is better than the current rule which is just begging to be abused by munchkins.

A toolkit might be OK, but it sounds like most point-buy game systems, i.e. more work than I'd want to implement. So I'd have to see what that tool kit looked like and how complicated it was to use. One reason I prefer mundane animals is it avoids the need to figure out some sort of weighting or valuation for unusually or magical abilities vs. simple number of hit points and number of attacks.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1123537In some ways, but IF you want to talk to other people who play games about their experiences, having a common reference makes sense.  If someone says, "yeah, we defeated the Tomb of Horrors with no casualties the first time through - our druid turned into a Beholder and that solved a lot of problems", that's going to imply a very different type of table environment than most.

I can see how comparisons would matter to some folks. It's what's behind the desire for organized play to have these strict defintions. That's something that is of negligible value to me. I don't run many published adventures. I haven't played many published adventures. And, to my recollection, I've never had such a discussion with other players. I have occasionally (but very rarely) chatted with other GMs about how their players faired in some repeatedly used scenario or adventure. In the latter case, as GMs, we already shared a common reference in the scenario itself.

Quote from: Slipshot762;1123539to my eye taxonomic classification with rules impact first appeared in earnest in 3e. Before this there was a much looser definition of rules regarding what it means to be undead for example. I dislike the classification, if you have a sword that does extra holy damage to demons or undead the dm should let that apply as he sees fit on a case by case basis rather than have his hands tied by players arguing that a given creature has such and such type descriptors and so should / shouldn't be affected.

I find myself in complete agreement with this sentiment.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1123543Now that said, RPGs are not baseball, so the places where GMs have to make judgement calls are certainly more numerous. But the thesis that a clear, explicit and simple-to-evaluate rule is desireable as a way of reducing the necessity of such calls seems to me like a good idea.

The problem is that unlike the computer, the human being doesn't have a perfect recall of the rules and as the rules become more and more lengthy that recall is likely to become more, rather than less, problematic. Looking up the rules takes time. And given the lamentable state of the 5E indices, it usually takes more time than it ought.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1123569I certainly think that if you're going to have a generic cleric class, and use the same class for the 'god of death', the 'god of industry' and the 'god of good' that it makes sense to allow turn/rebuke to work differently between them.  Picking the 'anathema' helps make the gods more interesting.

Which would make the generic class less generic. Something I would agree is a good thing to do, though I'd go farther and eliminate altogether or at least significantly pare down any generic clerical spell list altogether.

I haven't read every single post in this thread, but my thoughts based on what I have read:

Assigning every single creature to one of a set of descriptors, force fitting if necessary probably is bad.

Having a set of descriptors tied to some specific game mechanics (like AD&D's "giant class" or what is affected by charm/hold person, or whatever) is useful so long as that is the only purpose of the descriptor as just a shorthand for "this creature is affected by this mechanic". Now with this, OD&D and AD&D never tried to define a dragon descriptor, so a GM would be free to allow dragon slayer to work against anything the GM thought of as a dragon, or the GM could decide it only works against the creatures listed in the Monster Manual (and subsequent books) as Dragon, xyz.

Any descriptor system should also allow for the possibility that a creature might have more than one descriptor.

But these descriptors sure beat trying to list all the creatures with the effects (and then having to update the description of those effects for creatures introduced in other publications than the effect).

On the other hand, too many different descriptors of this type could become overwhelming.

Ideally mechanical effects can be described in a way that makes it easy to determine if they affect a particular creature or not, but it's not always easy.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1123534The definition for [Beast] doesn't specify that it is mundane only.

Except that, you know, with the exception of the stirge, 99% of the Beasts in 5e ARE normal animals, or oversized normal animals, or prehistoric animals.

Try again please because your argument fails miserably.

My system broke taxonomy (such that it is) into three categories; size, origin and body-plan.

Size is pretty obvious; how much space it occupies, it's reach, how small an area it can squeeze through, etc.

Origin relates specifically to the cosmology and is the only element that has any effect that might not be intuitive; ex. using a spell that affects natural creatures would NOT affect a dragon because it's origin is primal, but would affect both a wyvern and a human because they're both creatures native to the natural world while dragons are native to the primordial realms. My origins are abyssal, astral, natural, primal and shadow.

Body-plan is just how the creature is laid out;

- Beasts lack the ability to perform fine manipulate (i.e. they could open a simple latch or carry something in their mouth, but couldn't pick a lock or wield a sword. They also have generally non-human locomotion; four-legged, wings, flippers and tail fins, etc. Dragons, wyverns, birds and snakes are all beasts.

- Hybrids can perform fine manipulation, but use non-human locomotion (a mermaid, centaur and some versions of harpies are three examples... as would most apes and monkeys).

- Humanoids have both fine manipulation and normal human locomotion. They are the default for interacting with the game rules, all the other body-plans have special rules that change those in some way.

- Swarms are either groups of small creatures not worth statting individually (ex. A swarm of rats) or beings with generally amorphous forms (oozes, smoke demons). Regardless they can fit through any space a constituent part could and, if they have anything above animal intellect can perform fine manipulation using their constituent parts.

Thus, a wyvern is a large natural beast, as is a brown bear or lion. An ogre is a large natural humanoid while giants are large to huge primal humanoids with elemental affinities.

Unrelated to those are the effects of having certain "null" attributes. Null Strength means they can't physically interact with anything (ex. a ghost). Null Endurance means they don't get tired or need to eat or breathe, but also can't recover from damage without a special ability (ex. constructs, undead), Null Reflexes mean it can't move on it's own (a giant mushroom that attacks with toxic spores), Null Intellect has only animal instincts. Null Presence means the creature follows all instructions given to it to the letter (including previous instructions to ignore later instructions) as they completely lack a will of their own. A creature with a null attribute also can't use any ability or action that requires that attribute.

Null Wits is theoretically possible, but would essentially mean the creature was completely insensate and incapable of taking any action... basically an object (literally the only time it comes up in the rules is for effects like petrify which make every attribute null for the duration).

Thus, in addition to origin, one of the main distinctions between a wyvern and a dragon is that the wyvern has a null intellect and is basically as smart as a wolf or other apex predator while dragons have intellects that range from stupid human to inhumanly smart and cunning depending on the individual.

All undead are generally medium shadow humanoids with null Endurance (and special abilities to recover, such as by feeding on the living or resting in darkness), but wraiths have null Strength, mindless dead have null Intellect, while wights have both Strength and Intellect (it should also be noted that every other type of undead is just a specialized version of these; a skeleton is just a mindless dead with no rotting flesh remaining, a ghoul is a wight who assumes a human's form by feeding on their flesh, a lich is a wight spellcaster, etc.).

So there's my preferred taxonomy system. It's only real concerns are rule interactions, but it's still descriptive enough that just hearing the combination of keywords presents at least an outline of what the creature is.

Quote from: Omega;1123583Except that, you know, with the exception of the stirge, 99% of the Beasts in 5e ARE normal animals, or oversized normal animals, or prehistoric animals.

Try again please because your argument fails miserably.

Flying snakes, tressym, and cranium rats are [beast].

Quote from: ffilz;1123578I haven't read every single post in this thread, but my thoughts based on what I have read:

Assigning every single creature to one of a set of descriptors, force fitting if necessary probably is bad.

Having a set of descriptors tied to some specific game mechanics (like AD&D's "giant class" or what is affected by charm/hold person, or whatever) is useful so long as that is the only purpose of the descriptor as just a shorthand for "this creature is affected by this mechanic". Now with this, OD&D and AD&D never tried to define a dragon descriptor, so a GM would be free to allow dragon slayer to work against anything the GM thought of as a dragon, or the GM could decide it only works against the creatures listed in the Monster Manual (and subsequent books) as Dragon, xyz.

Any descriptor system should also allow for the possibility that a creature might have more than one descriptor.

But these descriptors sure beat trying to list all the creatures with the effects (and then having to update the description of those effects for creatures introduced in other publications than the effect).

On the other hand, too many different descriptors of this type could become overwhelming.

Ideally mechanical effects can be described in a way that makes it easy to determine if they affect a particular creature or not, but it's not always easy.

It seems fairly easy if you stop and think about why the effect makes such a distinction.

Rangers have favored enemies because they study the anatomy, tactics, etc of their favored enemy.

Charm person only affects "people" (whatever those are supposed to be) because... honestly I can't think of a good reason. Why does it make that distinction? If you're using magic anyway, then you should be able to charm anything. Why shouldn't you? It's basically the same as getting an impossibly good result on a social roll and causing the target to perceive you as a dear friend. Logically that should be able to work on anything capable of being able to perceive something else as a dear friend.

This is why I prefer syntactic magic systems a la Ars Magica. They're inherently more sensible than arbitrary spell lists.

So are we complaining that there are some creatures that get categorised in a way that we do not agree?

If so then that seems like a reasonable complaint and on the other hand designers mostly do their best with what they have.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1123534Why do you even want to limit druids from assuming the forms of animals that don't exist in reality (or whatever the distinction is supposed to be)? Is it a matter of game balance? Do you feel like being arbitrary? I have no problem if you want to be arbitrary, but in many cases I feel people are arbitrary without realizing or acknowledging their unconscious biases.

I think you are too quick to assume that someone who doesn't share your preferences is arbitrary.  There are multiple ways to approach pattern matching, some of which will seem arbitrary to others without the frame of reference to appreciate them.  And for that matter, even using a particular frame of reference is itself somewhat tied to personal preferences.  

As just one example, there are multiple frames of reference that acknowledge aesthetic and even poetical considerations for creatures that would find your approach rather sterile.  They aren't necessarily arbitrary frames.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1123534Why would a basilisk be unnatural? You can make one by incubating a chicken egg with a snake IIRC.

.
Well ... a basilisk would be created by a snake (or, more commonly a toad) incubating a rooster egg. So, pretty unnatural, but probably not on par with anything Lovecraftian, as you say.

Now a cockatrice, that would be a rooster sitting on a toad (or snake) egg, so perhaps only slightly "unnatural".

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1123451The problem with the 5e taxonomy mechanic is -

AD&D1e does not have this problem.

Rather than getting an edition which has problems and trying to fix them, go to an edition which doesn't have these problems.

Not playing 5e does solve all of 5e's problems!

As for taxonomy, I can see the game value IF its properly implemented across the game line. Obviously, this hasn't been the case for 5e. But if done properly, it makes it easier to DMs to determine magic effects and lean on the RAW when players complain.

Of course, there's also common sense and the Viking hat. If something in the books doesn't work for YOUR campaign, change it because you are the DM. RAW doesn't matter. Your campaign matters.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1123600I think you are too quick to assume that someone who doesn't share your preferences is arbitrary.  There are multiple ways to approach pattern matching, some of which will seem arbitrary to others without the frame of reference to appreciate them.  And for that matter, even using a particular frame of reference is itself somewhat tied to personal preferences.  

As just one example, there are multiple frames of reference that acknowledge aesthetic and even poetical considerations for creatures that would find your approach rather sterile.  They aren't necessarily arbitrary frames.

What are those frames of reference, then? What line of reasoning do they use and how is it not arbitrary?

From an aesthetic perspective, D&Disms feel sterile to me compared to medieval authentic.

Quote from: Zalman;1123684.
Well ... a basilisk would be created by a snake (or, more commonly a toad) incubating a rooster egg. So, pretty unnatural, but probably not on par with anything Lovecraftian, as you say.

Now a cockatrice, that would be a rooster sitting on a toad (or snake) egg, so perhaps only slightly "unnatural".

How is that unnatural? It looks like a perfectly natural case of spontaneous generation. The cultures who invented the basilisk believed that grain spontaneously turned into mice, meat spontaneously turned into flies, and the drippings of a hanged man spontaneously grew into mandrake roots.

Quote from: Bren;1123574Is it really the only source? (That's a question, not a dig. Did the Greeks even have a taxonomy of mythic monsters? That seems more of a Medieval Scholastic kind of mindset.) In any case, what D&D does or doesn't state is fairly irrelevant to my setting preferences.

D&D is the only source I found that specifically states the hydra is not a dragon. Other sources either make no distinction whatsoever or state the hydra is a dragon.

Quote from: Bren;1123574Somewhat arbitrarily I'd say, though influenced by whatever source material inspires the setting. So if I'm playing Pendragon "wyrms" which are wingless would be related to dragons which are winged. And all faeries are related even though they may appear very different, e.g. a Spriggan or Red Cap and an Elf. Whereas in something inspired by Tolkien or Poul Anderson's The Broken Sword, the former two creatures don't seem to exist.

Fair enough. If I use any kind of taxonomy scheme, then I like to use one which feels intuitive. If a dragon is a lizard that has properties lizards don't normally have, then I don't arbitrarily say that X lizard with Y special properties is not a dragon.

This kind of consistent logic is especially important in a fantasy setting that isn't beholden to real world phylogeny or operates on creationism. If you can arbitrarily create hybrids or transform people into animals, then what is responsible for defining why animals exist and in the ways that they do?

Quote from: Chris24601;1123584So there's my preferred taxonomy system. It's only real concerns are rule interactions, but it's still descriptive enough that just hearing the combination of keywords presents at least an outline of what the creature is.

Fair enough. I once tried my hand at similar models in the past.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1123571Under what conditions is it not the case? And when it isn't the case, what definition does apply?

My thanks for your patience in bearing with me on this, by the way; I don't mean to be obsessive on this -- well, I suppose I do, a little, as I do have more than a bit of what used to be called Aspergian-ness in my character -- but if there are conditions under which the definition of "strike zone" can vary, then it seems to me those are just further elaborations on/extensions of the rules, not places where judgement fills in for the rules.

Well the strike zone varies based upon what constitutes the understand of how baseball is played, and not all those rules are on paper. If a pitcher throws at your head because you're crowding the plate, that's an unwritten rule that ball players know. If you get hit by a pitch because your last at bat you hit a three run homer, take your base and just suck it up. Just like you don't go cleats out when sliding into home unless you want the catcher to smash your skull. Technically not against the rules, but it's certainly not baseball.

So basically, the way the game is played can differ from what the rules actually state. You're asking a very specific question about the objectivity of a sport that has extensive rules for everything, yet is played according to some sort of code learned from an early age. I really cannot answer your question directly, unfortunately.