I have talked about his topic in the past. My current desire to rekindle it was sparked after I skimmed the 5e release of Scarred Lands Creature Collection and noticed that a number of monsters have seemingly arbitrary types. For example, the flay beast is [beast] and the blood reaper is [aberration] even though both are giant aggressive praying mantises created by the same titan.
The problem with the 5e taxonomy mechanic is that it is hierarchical when it does not need to be. The definitions of several types are vague, inconsistently applied, and often arbitrary. In some cases one may be unable to determine the most appropriate type for a monster: it could fit into multiple types, is more appropriate with multiple types, or the monster's concept may not fit into any of the types given in the rulebook. This is a problem because the taxonomy mechanic is relevant for any effects that specify a target's type, such as healing, enchantment, and summoning spells, or the ranger's favored enemy.
By comparison, 13th Age, FantasyCraft, and Pathfinder 2, among others, dispensed with hierarchical taxonomy mechanics. Under their mechanics, a monster may have as many types as appropriate to its concept.
For example, monsters like the chimera and hydra are typed as [monstrosity] when real world academic sources (http://www.blackdrago.com/types.htm) clearly refer to them as dragons.
D&D takes most of its monsters from Indo-European mythology but its taxonomy mechanic is hardly appropriate for them. Mazes & Minotaurs (Greek myth setting) limits its taxonomy to animates, beasts, folks, monsters, and spirits. Trudvang (Scandinavian myth setting) limits its taxonomy to beasts, beings of the mist, creatures of nature, dragons/wurms, jotuns/tursirs, and trolls.
I question the need for a taxonomy mechanic at all. How necessary is it, really? What is the purpose of having it? Are there more intuitive ways to implement it? Why does it exist in-universe as part of the laws of physics/magic/study?
If anybody could help me out with this, I would really appreciate it.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1123451I question the need for a taxonomy mechanic at all. How necessary is it, really? What is the purpose of having it? Are there more intuitive ways to implement it? Why does it exist in-universe as part of the laws of physics/magic/study?
If anybody could help me out with this, I would really appreciate it.
As I understand it, it's basically there to handle type-specific abilities once the game goes beyond a small fixed list of monsters--what's undead and thus can be turned, what can be charmed by
charm person, what counts as a 'giant-class' enemy for OD&D/1E rangers, etc.
Open-ended descriptors a la BECMI and other games do seem to do the same work without forcing the "this creature must be A OR B OR C" problem.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1123452As I understand it, it's basically there to handle type-specific abilities once the game goes beyond a small fixed list of monsters--what's undead and thus can be turned, what can be charmed by charm person, what counts as a 'giant-class' enemy for OD&D/1E rangers, etc.
Open-ended descriptors a la BECMI and other games do seem to do the same work without forcing the "this creature must be A OR B OR C" problem.
Yeah, I think this is accurate. I first saw this in full-blown implementation in D&D 3rd due to the necessity of categorizing all the monsters to "make it easier..." for the DM to determine what spell/effect affected what. AD&D had ye olde ranger vs. "giant-class" and Charm Person, but both of those had a definitive list spelled out for the DM; the classification wasn't blanketed over every single monster. Obviously I think the original way is easier because you don't end up shoehorning monsters into those arbitrary divisions. Like wtf are dragons? They're dragons, the end. They might have a list of rules about things that apply directly to them, which makes it seem MORE difficult than just the basic "magical beast" (or whatever) descriptor, but you shouldn't be running a dragon as a DM without knowing what you're doing with it in the first place or at least have a good understanding of the rules. System mastery sort of went out the window as time has moved on, and don't even talk about the DM making decisions about how things work in his world...
Just more ranting about how RPGs actually keep getting more convoluted and hard to understand because designers try to implement things to make it easier for idiots to run games. Like I cannot even imagine trying to run Pathfinder, and I ran D&D 3.5. Pathfinder just looks even more complex, and I hard a hard enough time trying to remember the myriad of rules for crap like what monsters were affected my sonic damage, what spells would affect undead, whatever. Just a lot of overly complex nonsense.
Quote from: Brad;1123475Just more ranting about how RPGs actually keep getting more convoluted and hard to understand because designers try to implement things to make it easier for idiots to run games. Like I cannot even imagine trying to run Pathfinder, and I ran D&D 3.5. Pathfinder just looks even more complex, and I hard a hard enough time trying to remember the myriad of rules for crap like what monsters were affected my sonic damage, what spells would affect undead, whatever. Just a lot of overly complex nonsense.
I think at least as much (probably more) of the motivation is an attempt to standardize rules and eliminate interpretation to facilitate tournament, convention, and organizational play.
Quote from: Bren;1123486I think at least as much (probably more) of the motivation is an attempt to standardize rules and eliminate interpretation to facilitate tournament, convention, and organizational play.
Not debating that at all; pretty sure it started with RPGA and kept going to whatever it's called now...Adventurer's League? But AD&D claimed to do this and it still required a fair referee. D&D 3.X and beyond can be run with someone who blindly follows the rules. I liken it the having an umpire in baseball vs. using a camera/computer. No matter how sophisticated the technology gets, until it understands the spirit of what constitutes a strike, the computer will never be as good as the umpire.
Quote from: Brad;1123475Ybut both of those had a definitive list spelled out for the DM;
That ceases to work the moment a new monster is released that wasn't included in the list. Does its creation subsequent to the material mean that it should be included, or should be excluded? Are you going to compare publishing dates to determine, and then do further research? Seems like a waste of table time.
There are some abilities (like
talk to animals) that you want to know, every time you meet a creature, if you could use it. Technically, we're
all animals but the intent of the spell is to talk to (relatively) unintelligent animals like horses and cows, not orcs and dragons. Since the spell only works on a small subset of all monsters, all monsters,
present or future need a place where you can hang a tag identifying whether
speak with animals works or does not work. Trying to put example creatures in the spell without a definitive list is still going to end up being confusing. Is a gorgon really just a big cow that turns people to stone, or is it a totally different kind of monster that doesn't communicate through moos? If you meet an Evee or a Pickachu, (or a shocker lizard), should that spell apply?
Trying to reduce the text bloat by using a single word entry (like UNDEAD) to make it clear how it interacts with a whole slew of rules like drowning, having a heart ripped out, decapitation, turning, magical healing, etc, is much more efficient than trying to put those type of special rules in a text description.
I do think that having multiple types is a good thing. If you have a half-dragon/half-merman there's no problem giving it the dragon type/humanoid type/water subtype/fire subtype. That's potentially a little complicated, but much less so than trying to explain how that type of creature interacts with all the existing rules as well as spells that haven't been written yet.
Quote from: Brad;1123475Yeah, I think this is accurate. I first saw this in full-blown implementation in D&D 3rd due to the necessity of categorizing all the monsters to "make it easier..." for the DM to determine what spell/effect affected what. AD&D had ye olde ranger vs. "giant-class" and Charm Person, but both of those had a definitive list spelled out for the DM; the classification wasn't blanketed over every single monster. Obviously I think the original way is easier because you don't end up shoehorning monsters into those arbitrary divisions. .
The problem with that is the list had to be updated for every monster book. By listing the monster type in the monster stats, you don't have to do that.
I think it can be used well. Its just that it seems more often these tags get applied willy-nilly.
5e D&D is a good example.
A Stirge is rated as a Beast. You know, a mundane animal.
While a Dire Wolf or Worg is not. Despite being more mundane than the stirge.
And trying to shoehorn square creatures into round holes.
The main problems are the hierarchy and then using the labels for different purposes within the same tags. D&D tries to have it both ways, using the tags both as an exclusionary group mechanism and as a way of organization.
If it were me, and I was going to "fix" the 5E implementation, I'd drop the explicit organization entirely, keeping only the exclusionary groups. Then let the GM infer whatever organization they wanted from the resulting labels. Do that, and you can easily have multiple tags on monsters, or not, as it suits you. Then if you want to make a hydra a monstrosity and a dragon, that's fine. If you prefer monstrosity and beast, that works too. Nothing wrong with just one of them, either. Depends on the setting.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1123505That ceases to work the moment a new monster is released that wasn't included in the list. Does its creation subsequent to the material mean that it should be included, or should be excluded? Are you going to compare publishing dates to determine, and then do further research? Seems like a waste of table time.
Quote from: JeremyR;1123509The problem with that is the list had to be updated for every monster book. By listing the monster type in the monster stats, you don't have to do that.
Like, what? The only person who needs to know if it'll be affected or not is the DM, unless it makes sense for the player to know (DM tells the ranger player xvarts count as goblinoids for his damage bonus). You guys are making it sound like it's an insanely ridiculous chore to have to update a list somewhere because five years later someone made up a couple new monsters.
I'll concede that there's merit to "monster type" in theory, but in practice...
It's clumsy when you get to edge cases, which seem to be ubiquitous in D&D. Half the fucking monsters in the 5th edition MM seem to be put into categories that are questionable. For instance, ankheg is a large monstrosity, but so is a basilisk. Per the text, it's a "catch-all category". Why is a giant spider just a beast instead of a monstrosity? An ankheg could arguably be just as natural a creature as a giant spider because there's nothing particularly crazy about an animal that spits acid (ants?). It's just really big. But so is the spider. A fucking basilisk turns people to stone by looking at them. That is definitely UN-natural, so why aren't they aberrations like beholders instead of monstrosities? Why are pegasuses (pegasi?) celestials instead of some sort of magical beast? MY MIND IS BOGGLED!
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1123522The main problems are the hierarchy and then using the labels for different purposes within the same tags. D&D tries to have it both ways, using the tags both as an exclusionary group mechanism and as a way of organization.
If it were me, and I was going to "fix" the 5E implementation, I'd drop the explicit organization entirely, keeping only the exclusionary groups. Then let the GM infer whatever organization they wanted from the resulting labels. Do that, and you can easily have multiple tags on monsters, or not, as it suits you. Then if you want to make a hydra a monstrosity and a dragon, that's fine. If you prefer monstrosity and beast, that works too. Nothing wrong with just one of them, either. Depends on the setting.
I agree with you. Not EVERY monster needs a label, and in fact it's mostly irrelevant except to know what sort of stuff Turn Undead works on and if an Orb of Dragonkind will work on a hydra. In both cases, the DM is the ultimate authority, anyway, and in the hydra case it could depend entirely on how the DM envisions hydras in his game. In the Palladium FRP, they're somewhat intelligent (although still pretty dumb); I always liked that and made hydras the offspring of Tiamat that she spawned when she was drunk or something. So the Orb would work. If you're going with the Hercules hydra, then it probably wouldn't.
Quote from: Brad;1123525In both cases, the DM is the ultimate authority, anyway, and in the hydra case it could depend entirely on how the DM envisions hydras in his game.
I can always decide that Hydras are or are not dragons in my game, but I don't want to HAVE to. The whole point of using a published set of rules is that I don't HAVE to make hundreds of decisions balancing consistency, the
intent of the rules, the
challenge of the game, and the
fun of the players.
If the players want to use an
orb of dragonkind on a hydra, that might be a clever play, but it also might leave me short of prepared material. Am I really being completely unbiased when I say 'no, that doesn't work'?
Applying the rules
as written shields me from accusations of favoritism or antagonism. If I say 'hydras are not dragons, it doesn't work' and the rules back me up, there's no chance that the players are going to feel like I'm being unnecessarily limiting on their creativity. Alternatively, if it doesn't say and I say it does work, some players might feel I'm pulling my punches and making things TOO easy.
I can ALWAYS change the rules, no matter what, so not having a rule that comes up is NOT a defense of the quality of the rules.
There are a lot of questions about type that the DM may not want to have to answer on a case-by-case basis, and there is CERTAINLY a chance for unintended consequences if they do. What creatures should a druid be able to turn into? Should they be able to turn into a pegasus, a giant spider, an ankheg, a beholder? Using type lets you answer that question consistently from table to table, and if you decide differently for whatever reason, it's clear you're using a variant rule. There's value in that.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1123531What creatures should a druid be able to turn into? Should they be able to turn into a pegasus, a giant spider, an ankheg, a beholder? Using type lets you answer that question consistently from table to table, and if you decide differently for whatever reason, it's clear you're using a variant rule. There's value in that.
Table 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.
Quote from: Brad;1123475Like wtf are dragons? They're dragons, the end.
The problem is that the distinction between dragons and any other reptiles isn't intuitive, especially once you start getting into comparative mythology. I only ever found the one easily understood explanation of what a dragon is (http://www.blackdrago.com/whydrgn.htm), and medieval bestiaries list dragons as a type of serpent (http://bestiary.ca/beasts/beast262.htm) rather than a separate category. Even the word "dragon" is derived from the Ancient Greek word for
snake.
It strikes me as arbitrarily and more than a bit silly that, for example, an
arrow of dragon slaying deals extra damage against dragon turtles and wyverns but not against snakes, flying snakes, lizards, crocodiles, turtles, hydras, etc. I don't think the ancient cultures who invented the stories of dragons would have made such a distinction.
Quote from: Brad;1123475I cannot even imagine trying to run Pathfinder
Me neither.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1123505There are some abilities (like talk to animals) that you want to know, every time you meet a creature, if you could use it. Technically, we're all animals but the intent of the spell is to talk to (relatively) unintelligent animals like horses and cows, not orcs and dragons. Since the spell only works on a small subset of all monsters, all monsters, present or future need a place where you can hang a tag identifying whether speak with animals works or does not work. Trying to put example creatures in the spell without a definitive list is still going to end up being confusing. Is a gorgon really just a big cow that turns people to stone, or is it a totally different kind of monster that doesn't communicate through moos? If you meet an Evee or a Pickachu, (or a shocker lizard), should that spell apply?
The idea of talking to animals comes from myths and fairytales that made very different assumptions about the world than D&D. Talking to animals was a skill like any other language, not a spell that arbitrarily lasted for five minutes. Animals didn't have fixed low intelligence but were described talking as eloquently as human beings even among themselves, because humans instinctively anthropomorphize things that way. You can see this in more recent fiction about talking animals, like
Babe,
Charlotte's Web, and
The Wild Thornberrys.
D&D trying to depict animal intelligence based on what they read in Wikipedia is needlessly complicated for what is supposed to be a game about fantasy. Real life understanding of animal cognition is rudimentary at best and the arbitrarily realism in D&D is both unrealistic (as we really have no idea what such communication would be even if it was hypothetically possible, which it isn't) and undesirable (as it is an unnecessarily convolution to a game meant to be played for fun).
Here's a much simpler take on it: animals have languages of their own. Every species has its own language and may speak to other species in an animal
lingua franca. If you learn an animal language, such as by being a beastmaster or a princess or eating part of a dragon's heart, then you may talk to any animal that knows that language.
Or whatever.
Quote from: Omega;1123517I think it can be used well. Its just that it seems more often these tags get applied willy-nilly.
5e D&D is a good example.
A Stirge is rated as a Beast. You know, a mundane animal.
While a Dire Wolf or Worg is not. Despite being more mundane than the stirge.
And trying to shoehorn square creatures into round holes.
The definition for [Beast] doesn't specify that it is mundane only. In fact, "mundane" is an arbitrary quality. For that matter, the definitions rely on having a modern Western education so that you know what an "ecology" is when medieval scholars had no concept of it. Medieval scholars thought wolves were literally demons from hell and that there were no consequences whatsoever for exterminating them, when nowadays we know that wolves are necessary to keep deer from overpopulating. Medieval scholars had ideas about everything (http://bestiary.ca/) that we consider laughable now.
The stirge, dire wolf, and worg never existed in reality. (The real life dire wolf is nothing like the D&D monster.) Why would any of them be typed as [Beast] or not? Because some of them are arbitrarily "mundane" by your personal standards? How do you define "mundane" and determine what does and doesn't qualify? Why is that distinction on the same level as distinguishing construct, living, and undead? Why would that be baked into the in-universe laws of physics so thoroughly that it applies in the way that the game rules say so?
The centaur and griffon are typed as [Monstrosity] when in Greek myth they were considered perfectly natural and not monstrous in the least. Centaurs were considered human beings, not just literally because they were half-human but socially too since they were invited to weddings. Griffons were natural predators who lined their nests with precious metals, laid eggs with agate shells, had feathers than could cure blindness, etc.
The Snaiad aliens (https://canopy.uc.edu/bbcswebdav/users/gibsonic/Snaiad/snduterus.html) don't exist in reality, but they are written as though they could exist in reality. They operate under real physics and biology without any magic whatsoever. Would they be typed as [Beast] or not?
The game's taxonomy is annoyingly arbitrary in that regard because it not only operates on a variation of the appeal to nature fallacy but can't even decide what is and isn't natural in the first place much less keep itself consistent.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1123522The main problems are the hierarchy and then using the labels for different purposes within the same tags. D&D tries to have it both ways, using the tags both as an exclusionary group mechanism and as a way of organization.
If it were me, and I was going to "fix" the 5E implementation, I'd drop the explicit organization entirely, keeping only the exclusionary groups. Then let the GM infer whatever organization they wanted from the resulting labels. Do that, and you can easily have multiple tags on monsters, or not, as it suits you. Then if you want to make a hydra a monstrosity and a dragon, that's fine. If you prefer monstrosity and beast, that works too. Nothing wrong with just one of them, either. Depends on the setting.
I prefer using a taxonomy mechanic that feels intuitive for most people, rather than operating on arbitrary game logic that only make a twisted sort of sense to people who have internalized D&D lore.
What if I wanted a non-arbitrary and intuitive way to decide whether something is a dragon or not? Well, the simplest option is to use a list of traits that dragons typically have (http://www.blackdrago.com/whydrgn.htm). A hydra would be a dragon, not just because Greek myth lists it as one (https://www.theoi.com/greek-mythology/dragons.html), but because it fits multiple dragon criteria.
I dislike using the supernatural/natural distinction because it starts breaking down when applied to fantasy settings where the supernatural may be commonplace, or even medieval bestiaries where plenty of natural creatures had properties that seem supernatural to us now (e.g. the bezoar coming from the stomach of an ordinary goat and curing most diseases/poisons). At best I could replace it with "exemplary", e.g. depicting dragons as the exemplars of amphibians, reptiles, and birds who can do the same things but simply better in every way. E.g. a snake can spit venom or a frog can have toxic skin, but a dragon can exude a miasma that poisons the land around it.
Quote from: Brad;1123525It's clumsy when you get to edge cases, which seem to be ubiquitous in D&D. Half the fucking monsters in the 5th edition MM seem to be put into categories that are questionable. For instance, ankheg is a large monstrosity, but so is a basilisk. Per the text, it's a "catch-all category". Why is a giant spider just a beast instead of a monstrosity? An ankheg could arguably be just as natural a creature as a giant spider because there's nothing particularly crazy about an animal that spits acid (ants?). It's just really big. But so is the spider. A fucking basilisk turns people to stone by looking at them. That is definitely UN-natural, so why aren't they aberrations like beholders instead of monstrosities? Why are pegasuses (pegasi?) celestials instead of some sort of magical beast? MY MIND IS BOGGLED!
What is even the difference between an [aberration] and a [monstrosity]? Ignoring whether the types are applied consistently, the definition for [aberration] basically says they are aliens from Lovecraft land. Is the basilisk an alien from Lovecraft land?
The whole "unnatural" criterion doesn't make sense, either. It's not possible to universally define what is and isn't natural, especially since we can't even define what natural is in itself. Why would a basilisk be unnatural? You can make one by incubating a chicken egg with a snake IIRC. While an odd instance of spontaneous generation (which turns grain into mice and meat into flies), it doesn't strike me as distinctly unnatural. At least not unnatural enough to be as different from a regular lizard as an alien from Lovecraft land. Wizards can turn people to stone, too, but that doesn't make all wizards aliens from Lovecraft land.
(EDIT: Wait, why are we distinguish beasts and magical beasts to begin with if we aren't distinguishing humanoids and magical humanoids? A basilisk is no more different from a lizard than a sorcerer who can cast
flesh to stone is from a non-sorcerer.)
The pegasus being a celestial seems to be a reference to Greek mythology, where Pegasus was the demigod son of Poseidon and Medusa. The Gorgon Medusa, a woman with snakes for hair, gave birth to a winged horse.
Quote from: Brad;1123525I agree with you. Not EVERY monster needs a label, and in fact it's mostly irrelevant except to know what sort of stuff Turn Undead works on and if an Orb of Dragonkind will work on a hydra. In both cases, the DM is the ultimate authority, anyway, and in the hydra case it could depend entirely on how the DM envisions hydras in his game. In the Palladium FRP, they're somewhat intelligent (although still pretty dumb); I always liked that and made hydras the offspring of Tiamat that she spawned when she was drunk or something. So the Orb would work. If you're going with the Hercules hydra, then it probably wouldn't.
As I said before, Greek myth literally defines the hydra as a type of dragon (https://www.theoi.com/greek-mythology/dragons.html). It's a pretty intuitive classification, I would think.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1123531There are a lot of questions about type that the DM may not want to have to answer on a case-by-case basis, and there is CERTAINLY a chance for unintended consequences if they do. What creatures should a druid be able to turn into? Should they be able to turn into a pegasus, a giant spider, an ankheg, a beholder? Using type lets you answer that question consistently from table to table, and if you decide differently for whatever reason, it's clear you're using a variant rule. There's value in that.
Alternately, you could scrap the poorly designed shape shifting mechanic and let druids build the statistics and traits of their forms using a point buy mechanic or something else that is internally balanced rather than letting them arbitrarily assume the form of any monster with the [beast] type. For example, the tressym has spell turning and therefore isn't balanced as an option for wildshape (not that the magic system was ever balanced to begin with, but I digress).
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?
Because D&D is the only source that states the hydra isn't a dragon? How 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.)
Quote from: Bren;1123532And 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.
As 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.
[/HR]
Since it keeps coming up, I'll list the dragon traits (http://www.blackdrago.com/whydrgn.htm) from myth and how they're a better way of categorizing dragons than the arbitrary D&D distinction.
The common traits of dragons are: reptilian attributes, flight, connection to water, supernatural powers, and toxic breath or fumes. The rarer traits are: connection to the weather or natural phenomena, avian attributes, guardians and emissaries, connection to deities and status. These aren't just materialistic descriptors, but have spiritual symbolism too.
Dragons have reptilian attributes, but are distinguished from other reptiles/archosaurs* by their amazing powers like super-strength or toxic breath. There shouldn't be any reptilian magical beasts, monstrosities, or whatever the taxonomy is using in X edition: these should all be dragons. Monsters like the basilisk, behir, chimera, hydra, naga, etc should be categorized as dragons because they fit the criteria.
* Like the scansoriopterygids (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scansoriopterygidae) or pterosaurs. These weren't known to exist in medieval times. We could speculate similar fossils were discovered and lost to history after inspiring myths of dragons, as often speculated by anthropologists.
Although in real life birds are more closely related to crocodiles and turtles than either are to snakes or lizards, mythical birds like the garuda, phoenix, roc, simurgh, and thunderbird are not classified as dragons in the academic sources I consulted. Presumably because they don't have
primarily reptilian attributes and the associated symbolism, even if dragons could have chimerical features like fur or feathers in addition to scales. I'd be more than happy to classify all of these mythical birds as dragons if that ever became relevant, but the distinction between scales and feathers is intuitive enough that I don't see the need to apply it as mandatory.
Quote from: Bren;1123532Table to table consistency is predominantly a benefit for some type of organized play.
In 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.
Trying to come up with a fair mechanic
on the fly for me, as the DM, to tell the player what it takes to successfully turn into a beholder is a
tall order[/b.]
Maybe if I had a month to plan, but this??
to 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 don't need Shao Khan to have the outsider descriptor to know that he is native to another plane and I would likely allow a holy sword vs demons/undead get its bonus damage on him as such. Now templates like vampire or lich was a great innovation, but the 3e habit of assigning a type descriptor to everything was foolish and limiting in my opinion, it gave a certain type of player room to argue all sorts of trash based on this magic the gathering creature type notion.
Quote from: Brad;1123525Why is a giant spider just a beast instead of a monstrosity? An ankheg could arguably be just as natural a creature as a giant spider because there's nothing particularly crazy about an animal that spits acid (ants?). It's just really big. But so is the spider.
Fun bit of trivia: giant spiders (at least in D&D) seem to be based on those in Tolkien's works. The funny thing about the giant spiders in Middle Earth is that they're actually the descendants of an alien named Ungoliant that assumed the form of a giant spider when it appeared in Middle Earth (similar to how in the
Exalted cosmology, fair folk have to travel through "nirakara" to take form).
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.
Trying to come up with a fair mechanic on the fly for me, as the DM, to tell the player what it takes to successfully turn into a beholder is a tall order[/b.]
Maybe if I had a month to plan, but this??
IIRC, 5e originally wrote wild shape with an internal balance but discarded this during playtested after complaints even though the replacement was an unbalanced mess. I think the original rules are still floated around or were reintroduced as an Unearthed Arcana article or something.
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 don't need Shao Khan to have the outsider descriptor to know that he is native to another plane and I would likely allow a holy sword vs demons/undead get its bonus damage on him as such. Now templates like vampire or lich was a great innovation, but the 3e habit of assigning a type descriptor to everything was foolish and limiting in my opinion, it gave a certain type of player room to argue all sorts of trash based on this magic the gathering creature type notion.
As a matter of fact, I was always confused by why Turn Undead never affected demons even though it seemed to operate on similar logic to the Paladin's Smite Evil. Always made more sense to me to use a more generic "Turn Anathema" that could be customized by the cleric's deity. For example, being able to turn alcoholics or windmills.
Quote from: Slipshot762;1123539but the 3e habit of assigning a type descriptor to everything was foolish and limiting in my opinion, it gave a certain type of player room to argue all sorts of trash based on this magic the gathering creature type notion.
Such as? The rules are pretty clear about what a type does and does not. Can you provide a specific example of a 'trash argument' that's not immediately and obviously resolved by reference to the rules?
Quote from: Brad;1123491No matter how sophisticated the technology gets, until it understands the spirit of what constitutes a strike, the computer will never be as good as the umpire.
I apologize for being obstreperous, but what exactly is "the spirit of what constitutes a strike"? Either the ball is within the strike zone or outside of it, and in principle it seems like a good enough camera system should be able to track that at least as well as a human, if not eventually better.
Now 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 poster above you presents what i think counts as an example of such, demons/devils by strict 3e rules generally cannot be turned, but in real world lore the act of turning or presenting a show of faith that repels or purges evil works just as well on demons as undead, rolled well enough you can force the demon from the pea soup projectile vomiting peasant girl entirely, it feels to me thematically appropriate and i'd allow it, yet edgy players would insist that demons must also have the undead descriptor for it to work. a Fun encounter where the turning pc can dramatically best demons "the power of pelor compels you" ruined by an argumentative player and a set of arbitrary descriptors. Now we have to cast banishment...and does that even work if the pit fiend has magic jarred young mary sue? I was happier when the cleric could roll turning to force the fiend out of her now i'm having finger fuck descriptors and splatbooks and shit.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1123531IApplying the rules as written shields me from accusations of favoritism or antagonism. If I say 'hydras are not dragons, it doesn't work' and the rules back me up, there's no chance that the players are going to feel like I'm being unnecessarily limiting on their creativity. Alternatively, if it doesn't say and I say it does work, some players might feel I'm pulling my punches and making things TOO easy.
I can ALWAYS change the rules, no matter what, so not having a rule that comes up is NOT a defense of the quality of the rules.
There are a lot of questions about type that the DM may not want to have to answer on a case-by-case basis, and there is CERTAINLY a chance for unintended consequences if they do. What creatures should a druid be able to turn into? Should they be able to turn into a pegasus, a giant spider, an ankheg, a beholder? Using type lets you answer that question consistently from table to table, and if you decide differently for whatever reason, it's clear you're using a variant rule. There's value in that.
Who the hell are you playing with? Sounds like a bunch of pain-in-the-ass players to me. If you say hydras aren't dragons, they're not. The written rules are ultimately irrelevant to a game you're running in the end. Also, if you're worried that someone will have a different experience at your table vs. another, what does that say about your DMing..? You should WANT players to have a different experience because you're better than the cookie-cutter bullshit they can get playing Neverwinter Nights masquerading as a person.
RE: druid, here's the text from AD&D.
2. Ability to change form up to three times per day, actually becoming, in all respects save the mind, a reptile, bird or mammal.
A. Each type of creature form can be assumed but once per day.
B. The size of creature form assumed can vary from as small as a bullfrog, bluejay, or bat to as large as a large snake, an eagle, or a black bear (about double the weight of the druid).
C. Each assumption of a new form removes from 10% to 60% (d6, multiply by 10) of the hit points of damage, if any, the druid has sustained prior to changing form.
You can blame later editions of the game for turning this into some sort of pseudo-lycanthropy so the druid can fuck shit up in combat.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1123543I apologize for being obstreperous, but what exactly is "the spirit of what constitutes a strike"? Either the ball is within the strike zone or outside of it, and in principle it seems like a good enough camera system should be able to track that at least as well as a human, if not eventually better.
Now 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.
A strike is a ball within the strike zone. The strike zone varies for a variety of reasons, it's not a consistent value, nor should it be. Think of it this way: if a player is figuring out a way to abuse the strike zone to get BBs, the umpire can start liberally applying his judgement to call a strike instead. Same as if some munchkin designs a 100 point HERO character than can launch nukes out of his hands. The GM can just say GTFO with that crap.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1123534The problem is that the distinction between dragons and any other reptiles isn't intuitive, especially once you start getting into comparative mythology. ... For that matter, the definitions rely on having a modern Western education so that you know what an "ecology" is when medieval scholars had no concept of it.
...How do you define "mundane" and determine what does and doesn't qualify? Why is that distinction on the same level as distinguishing construct, living, and undead? Why would that be baked into the in-universe laws of physics so thoroughly that it applies in the way that the game rules say so?
...I prefer using a taxonomy mechanic that feels intuitive for most people, rather than operating on arbitrary game logic that only make a twisted sort of sense to people who have internalized D&D lore.
...I dislike using the supernatural/natural distinction because it starts breaking down when applied to fantasy settings where the supernatural may be commonplace, or even medieval bestiaries where plenty of natural creatures had properties that seem supernatural to us now.... The whole "unnatural" criterion doesn't make sense, either. It's not possible to universally define what is and isn't natural....
I appreciate the points you're raising but it does look like you're contradicting yourself here. Is it possible to intuitively classify monsters on the fly in a way that makes sense and is easy to remember and keep consistent, or isn't it?
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1123548I appreciate the points you're raising but it does look like you're contradicting yourself here. Is it possible to intuitively classify monsters on the fly in a way that makes sense and is easy to remember and keep consistent, or isn't it?
I think that it is possible to do that. I hope so, since I'm depending on it for some of my system rules. However, I think to do it, the very minimum requirements are:
1. Considerable care put into the names and focus of the tags.
2. Carefully limit the scope of what the tags are meant to do (lest the edge cases from a more wide-ranging scope sink the whole effort).
3. Build the system from the ground up with the classification system in place.
I do not believe is it possible to do so in D&D while still keeping the game near its traditional range. It is possible in D&D to use tagging as a mere communication device, a short-hand on which to hang a few rules.
Note also that this issue is not limited to games. It can rear its ugly head anytime someone tries to retroactively apply an overly ambitious tagging scheme for both classification and process rules. Plus, it doesn't take much ambition to hit "overly".
Quote from: Brad;1123546A strike is a ball within the strike zone. The strike zone varies for a variety of reasons, it's not a consistent value, nor should it be.
On the Major League Baseball website the strike zone is officially defined as, "The official strike zone is the area over home plate from the midpoint between a batter's shoulders and the top of the uniform pants -- when the batter is in his stance and prepared to swing at a pitched ball -- and a point just below the kneecap. In order to get a strike call, part of the ball must cross over part of home plate while in the aforementioned area."
Now the actual value of that is going to differ from player to player but the
rule by which it's judged does not; the
definition is consistent even if the result varies. And if you added motion-tracking dots to uniforms so that a camera could follow them easily, I don't see why a computer couldn't do this. Heck, the fact that some camera replays end up invalidating umpire calls suggests that there's less of a "spirit" to the definition of a strike than we might think.
QuoteSame as if some munchkin designs a 100 point HERO character than can launch nukes out of his hands. The GM can just say GTFO with that crap.
Sure, but that's not a rules-interpretation call -- by RAW the player's done nothing wrong. That's a group-participation call -- like the umpire throwing a player out for displaying "improper on-field conduct", which
isn't defined by a rule and in theory can be anything the umpire doesn't like.
I'm not disputing the value or necessity of judgement calls, I'm just pointing out that anywhere the rules
can be explicit and clear enough to make them unnecessary is usually a good thing.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1123551On the Major League Baseball website the strike zone is officially defined as, "The official strike zone is the area over home plate from the midpoint between a batter's shoulders and the top of the uniform pants -- when the batter is in his stance and prepared to swing at a pitched ball -- and a point just below the kneecap. In order to get a strike call, part of the ball must cross over part of home plate while in the aforementioned area.
Except that's not always the case.
Quote from: Slipshot762;1123544the poster above you presents what i think counts as an example of such, demons/devils by strict 3e rules generally cannot be turned, but in real world lore the act of turning or presenting a show of faith that repels or purges evil works just as well on demons as undead, rolled well enough you can force the demon from the pea soup projectile vomiting peasant girl entirely, it feels to me thematically appropriate and i'd allow it, yet edgy players would insist that demons must also have the undead descriptor for it to work. a Fun encounter where the turning pc can dramatically best demons "the power of pelor compels you" ruined by an argumentative player and a set of arbitrary descriptors. Now we have to cast banishment...and does that even work if the pit fiend has magic jarred young mary sue? I was happier when the cleric could roll turning to force the fiend out of her now i'm having finger fuck descriptors and splatbooks and shit.
My thoughts exactly. My favorite mental image of this has always been an explicitly Christian cleric/paladin/whatever who holds up a crucifix against demons/undead/other evil doers, cries "the power of Christ compels you" repeatedly, and upon winning the spiritual combat/exorcism then the demon/undead/whatever explodes into pea soup, and the green slime comically showers our hero every time like an old Nickelodeon program.
But I digress.
Anyway, I've always been frustrated by the arbitrary distinction between demons and undead in D&D. The monster manuals explicitly stated a lot of undeads were just demons sent to the material plane, so why wouldn't the same exorcisms affect them? When you're dealing with constructs or undeads or whatever animated by a mystic force, I would think it matters what that force is whether it be a ghost, a demon, an angel, an elemental, etc. For example, if you're dealing with something animated/possessed by a demon then I would think that exorcisms would work against it. A demonically possessed laundromat/car/whatever is running around killing people? An exorcism should work!
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1123566My thoughts exactly. My favorite mental image of this has always been an explicitly Christian cleric/paladin/whatever who holds up a crucifix against demons/undead/other evil doers, cries "the power of Christ compels you" repeatedly, and upon winning the spiritual combat/exorcism then the demon/undead/whatever explodes into pea soup, and the green slime comically showers our hero every time like an old Nickelodeon program.
That's more easily solved by saying 'Turn Undead' works on creatures with the [Evil] subtype.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1123567That's more easily solved by saying 'Turn Undead' works on creatures with the [Evil] subtype.
That doesn't exist in 5e, which is the edition I am primarily criticizing.
That's why I previously suggesting a customizable power called "Turn Anathema" where the anathema varies by the nature of the character's patron deity/saint/whatever. If the patron is the good of goodness, light, and everything nice, then the anathema in this case would be any personifications of evil (and by extension, corpses or trees or whatever animated by one).
I 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.
Quote from: Brad;1123491Not debating that at all; pretty sure it started with RPGA and kept going to whatever it's called now...Adventurer's League? But AD&D claimed to do this and it still required a fair referee. D&D 3.X and beyond can be run with someone who blindly follows the rules. I liken it the having an umpire in baseball vs. using a camera/computer. No matter how sophisticated the technology gets, until it understands the spirit of what constitutes a strike, the computer will never be as good as the umpire.
You'd change your mind pretty fast if you were batting and the umpire thought six inches off the outside corner was within "the spirit of what constitutes a strike."
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;1123534Quote 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;1123534Quote 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.
Quote from: Bren;1123574The problem is that unlike the computer, the human being doesn't have a perfect recall of the rules....
Couldn't prove that by some of the players
I've played with. :rolleyes: (Heck, I've been one of those types on occasion.)
Indeed, the entire point of complex rule sets is that they attract precisely the sort of player capable of accurately memorizing them in great detail. That was
always one of the challenges/rewards of this type of game.
Quote... 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.
Well, a badly organized or too-sparse index is a thing worth criticizing on its own, entirely apart from this issue.
But ultimately taxonomy is kind of like alignment: it comes down simply to being able to answer the question, "Does spell/power/ability X work against target/creature Y?"
The problem with using rules of classification rather than GM judgement is that rules can become excessively complex and may not make sense to all players, or may be poorly organized or contain contradictions or gaps the designers didn't catch in playtesting (and which, by virtue of now being "official", may become even more restrictive).
The problem with using GM judgement instead of rules of classification is that GM judgement doesn't always make sense either, is more likely to be inconsistent because a GM is less likely to remember how he ruled two sessions ago, and is prone to being misinterpreted when the GM's necessarily adversarial function is mistaken for actual antagonism.
Which of these seems worse is likely to depend on each group's/player's own experiences.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1123534How is that unnatural? It looks like a perfectly natural case of spontaneous generation.
Because roosters don't lay eggs? You can't "naturally" spontaneously generate from something that exists only the imagination, right?
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.
I tend to agree, however this is more an "old school" vibe. I've found that more modern (younger?) 5th Ed players like to be able to build characters for specific builds, so knowing this sort of thing can be important these days (If your build relies on the fact that druids can turn into giant spiders then you really need to know that before you start play).
Quote from: Zalman;1123728Because roosters don't lay eggs? You can't "naturally" spontaneously generate from something that exists only the imagination, right?
Firstly, the medieval peasants who invented these stories believed roosters could lay eggs. Maybe not often, but enough that it was noted to hatch basilisks. They also believed that
mice arose from grain you left out too long. Clearly, they didn't operate under the same line of logic that you do.
Secondly, in fantasyland roosters might very well be able to lay eggs and grain turns into mice.
Thirdly, this is a tangent from the original point about the taxonomy of the basilisk. It's a perfectly natural beast/serpent because that's what the medieval scholars who invented it literally said, and what every fictional and non-fictional book on cryptids has repeated. I can't think of any non-arbitrary reason why it wouldn't.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1123734Firstly, the medieval peasants who invented these stories believed roosters could lay eggs. Maybe not often, but enough that it was noted to hatch basilisks. They also believed that mice arose from grain you left out too long. Clearly, they didn't operate under the same line of logic that you do.
Secondly, in fantasyland roosters might very well be able to lay eggs and grain turns into mice.
Thirdly, this is a tangent from the original point about the taxonomy of the basilisk. It's a perfectly natural beast/serpent because that's what the medieval scholars who invented it literally said, and what every fictional and non-fictional book on cryptids has repeated. I can't think of any non-arbitrary reason why it wouldn't.
Hm, well if anything can happen "in fantasyland", then everything is "natural" according to that relativistic approach. Is that your point?
As to the assertion that "medieval peasants who invented these stories believed roosters could lay eggs" ... do you have any evidence of that belief? I find it pretty difficult to swallow that humans hadn't figured out it's the female chickens who lay eggs exclusively, by that time.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1123734Firstly, the medieval peasants who invented these stories believed roosters could lay eggs. Maybe not often, but enough that it was noted to hatch basilisks. They also believed that mice arose from grain you left out too long. Clearly, they didn't operate under the same line of logic that you do.
But did they? It seems to me that the people who would know what animals do would be the very people that have chickens whereas the people who would write down stories about Roosters laying eggs would be the very people who had no idea what a chicken did because eggs just appear magically in the kitchen.
Kinda like the kids who think that milk comes from the Supermarket.
Quote from: Shasarak;1123741But did they? It seems to me that the people who would know what animals do would be the very people that have chickens whereas the people who would write down stories about Roosters laying eggs would be the very people who had no idea what a chicken did because eggs just appear magically in the kitchen.
Well, OF COURSE that's what the peasants believed. Every elite knows that peasants are ignoramouses because all it takes to farm is putting some seeds in the ground and waiting.
I all but guarantee that whoever came up with the basilisk story was either an aristocrat or clergyman writing a mockery of what they thought peasants believed -or- was recording it because they believed it to be true after a peasant made it up to see just how gullible the elite really was.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1123710What 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.
Sure, but I'm not asking you to justify your feel, and by the same token you shouldn't need for someone else to justify theirs. Because we are talking about "feel". For any "feel", you can find someone else that will find it feels arbitrary. For most of those things that others feel are arbitrary, they aren't. They were based on a reason--however thin.
It's the difference between "D&D using armor to avoid getting hit via Armor Class seems arbitrary to me," versus "D&D using armor to avoid getting hit is based on reasons that produce a feel that doesn't work for me." For the former, someone can explain why D&D using armor that way is in fact, not arbitrary. Knowing the reason may not change how a person feels about it in play.
Basically, I'm saying that part of your issue here is that you are asking for logic to understand a thing, when what you need to really understand it is more like empathy. A person who doesn't like D&D AC even when they know fully well why it is the way it is, can at least grow to appreciate why others don't mind it or even prefer it.
Quote from: Chris24601;1123746Well, OF COURSE that's what the peasants believed. Every elite knows that peasants are ignoramouses because all it takes to farm is putting some seeds in the ground and waiting.
I all but guarantee that whoever came up with the basilisk story was either an aristocrat or clergyman writing a mockery of what they thought peasants believed -or- was recording it because they believed it to be true after a peasant made it up to see just how gullible the elite really was.
Yeah. Humorous exaggeration and juxtaposition were not first invented during the Enlightenment. Cast a wide enough net, and you can find people that will believe almost any crazy thing, but if they write about it, it tends to different styles. Supposedly academic papers? Sure. Conspiracy theories? Absolutely. Think about what someone 500 years from now might derive about our typical beliefs solely from a casual inspection of popular media. Then compare that to what people do mostly believe.
Quote from: Chris24601;1123746Well, OF COURSE that's what the peasants believed. Every elite knows that peasants are ignoramouses because all it takes to farm is putting some seeds in the ground and waiting.
I all but guarantee that whoever came up with the basilisk story was either an aristocrat or clergyman writing a mockery of what they thought peasants believed -or- was recording it because they believed it to be true after a peasant made it up to see just how gullible the elite really was.
My guess would be that it's a Classical legend, folk tale or bit of bizarre humor that the medievals, with their reverence for ancient auctors, took at face value. :)
Quote from: spon;1123733I tend to agree, however this is more an "old school" vibe. I've found that more modern (younger?) 5th Ed players like to be able to build characters for specific builds, so knowing this sort of thing can be important these days (If your build relies on the fact that druids can turn into giant spiders then you really need to know that before you start play).
I've noticed the same thing. It's one of the aspects of how 5E often is played that I don't particularly enjoy, but have a difficult time escaping.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1123710Fair 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?
I don't find the idea that a dragon is some type of lizard particularly intuitive or logical.
I don't follow what your concern is in your second paragraph. (I don't mean it as a criticism, I just don't follow what your concern is or what the problem is that you feel needs solving.) Creation of hybrids and transformation of people isn't arbitrary. It may be a natural property of certain beings, based on magical spells or items, a result of godly intervention, or part of some sort of mythological origin story depending on the setting and what sort of change we are talking about. But those reasons are hardly arbitrary.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1123722The problem with using rules of classification rather than GM judgement is that rules can become excessively complex and may not make sense to all players, or may be poorly organized or contain contradictions or gaps the designers didn't catch in playtesting (and which, by virtue of now being "official", may become even more restrictive).
The problem with using GM judgement instead of rules of classification is that GM judgement doesn't always make sense either, is more likely to be inconsistent because a GM is less likely to remember how he ruled two sessions ago, and is prone to being misinterpreted when the GM's necessarily adversarial function is mistaken for actual antagonism.
Which of these seems worse is likely to depend on each group's/player's own experiences.
I mostly agree. Though I will note that in my experience the GM is no more likely (often less likely) to forget their own interpretation than they are to forget a rule written by some third party, especially a rule in a complex system that is infrequently used. And of course GM judgements can be recorded for later recollection making them, in effect, the same as a published rule.
Quote from: Zalman;1123740Hm, well if anything can happen "in fantasyland", then everything is "natural" according to that relativistic approach. Is that your point?
As to the assertion that "medieval peasants who invented these stories believed roosters could lay eggs" ... do you have any evidence of that belief? I find it pretty difficult to swallow that humans hadn't figured out it's the female chickens who lay eggs exclusively, by that time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cock_egg
In any event, IIRC in D&D basilisks reproduce "normally" so the whole story about the cock egg is irrelevant. My point is that D&D's taxonomy of the basilisk is arbitrary. In other settings, like
Warcraft (https://wow.gamepedia.com/Basilisk), they're beasts.
The only reason I can think of why they're typed as [monstrosity] or whatever is 1) they don't exist in real life, which is an arbitrary distinction that makes no sense for a fantasy planet unrelated to Earth (https://www.monsterdarlings.com/blogposts/2016/03/02/the-frustration-of-fantasy-taxonomies), and 2) you don't want druids to
wild shape into them or
charm animal them, which is defied anyway by the [beast] type including flying snakes, tressym, and cranium rats by RAW.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1123750Sure, but I'm not asking you to justify your feel, and by the same token you shouldn't need for someone else to justify theirs. Because we are talking about "feel". For any "feel", you can find someone else that will find it feels arbitrary. For most of those things that others feel are arbitrary, they aren't. They were based on a reason--however thin.
It's the difference between "D&D using armor to avoid getting hit via Armor Class seems arbitrary to me," versus "D&D using armor to avoid getting hit is based on reasons that produce a feel that doesn't work for me." For the former, someone can explain why D&D using armor that way is in fact, not arbitrary. Knowing the reason may not change how a person feels about it in play.
Basically, I'm saying that part of your issue here is that you are asking for logic to understand a thing, when what you need to really understand it is more like empathy. A person who doesn't like D&D AC even when they know fully well why it is the way it is, can at least grow to appreciate why others don't mind it or even prefer it.
AC is game mechanic, intended to abstract combat. Taxonomy is a world building concern as much as a mechanical concern.
Quote from: Bren;1123793I don't find the idea that a dragon is some type of lizard particularly intuitive or logical.
The most basic definition of a dragon is a mythical reptile with superpowers. They are intuitively linked with other reptiles in the public consciousness. Much like how Garm, Cerberus, etc are intuitively linked with dogs. At least outside of D&D subculture and all its D&Disms.
Quote from: Bren;1123793I don't follow what your concern is in your second paragraph. (I don't mean it as a criticism, I just don't follow what your concern is or what the problem is that you feel needs solving.) Creation of hybrids and transformation of people isn't arbitrary. It may be a natural property of certain beings, based on magical spells or items, a result of godly intervention, or part of some sort of mythological origin story depending on the setting and what sort of change we are talking about. But those reasons are hardly arbitrary.
I am talking about a basic ontological problem with D&D world building. What defines what an animal is, what species are, and what qualifies as a hybrid? When you turn someone into an animal, where does the genetic material come from for its new form? Why are some things hybrids but not others? Are species platonic ideals, remembered by morphic fields, or transient like in reality?
For example, settings like
Avatar: The Last Airbender and
The Dragon Prince take place in worlds where many or most animals are hybrids, but otherwise treated like normal animals. They aren't considered unnatural or alien or whatever. They're considered the norm. This is in contrast to D&D for the most part, not including D&D's inconsistencies.
I don't know how else to articulate it, but D&D seems to run on its own weird arbitrary "logic" (and I say that loosely) that isn't remotely similar to medieval authentic logic or other non-D&D logic.
[/HR]
To get back to classifying creatures... in real life naturalists placed creatures into taxonomies based on sets of consistent criteria. That was upended by genetic comparisons which exposed the flaws in purely visual observations, but the general idea is sound if transplanted to a fantasy setting. The D&D taxonomies are largely arbitrary rather than based on sets of consistent criteria.
For example, why are hydras, basilisks, chimeras, behirs, etc not classified as dragons? What list of criteria constitutes a dragon and why don't those monsters meet it?
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1123799The most basic definition of a dragon is a mythical reptile with superpowers. They are intuitively linked with other reptiles in the public consciousness. Much like how Garm, Cerberus, etc are intuitively linked with dogs. At least outside of D&D subculture and all its D&Disms.
Have you consider using a different system and setting?
QuoteI am talking about a basic ontological problem with D&D world building. What defines what an animal is, what species are, and what qualifies as a hybrid? When you turn someone into an animal, where does the genetic material come from for its new form? Why are some things hybrids but not others? Are species platonic ideals, remembered by morphic fields, or transient like in reality?
D&D, as written, is a kitchen sink setting that has grown by accretion over decades. As a system/setting it values inclusion over consistency. You can't get a consistent categorization for D&D because any such categorization will have new objects (monsters, races, items, deities) added from outside the current categorization, thereby invalidating the schema. You can select a subset of D&D creatures and develop a consistent categorization for that subset, but you can't include all the creatures written up in the system.
QuoteFor example, settings like Avatar: The Last Airbender and The Dragon Prince take place in worlds where many or most animals are hybrids, but otherwise treated like normal animals. They aren't considered unnatural or alien or whatever. They're considered the norm. This is in contrast to D&D for the most part, not including D&D's inconsistencies.
They are animals, not hybrids. They appear to be hybrids because the creators have chosen to create and depict the animals in those fictional worlds as a combination of earthly creatures, possibly with more arms, legs, or fins than the earthly models and we, the audience are familiar with our own real world animals. I never got the impression watching the show that a polar-bear-dog was created by someone in the fictional world who magically or scientifically combined the DNA of two existent creatures i.e. of polar bears and dogs. The animals in those settings arbitrarily mix earthly species and classes and arbitrarily vary whether they are quadropeds and or hexapods.
QuoteI don't know how else to articulate it, but D&D seems to run on its own weird arbitrary "logic" (and I say that loosely) that isn't remotely similar to medieval authentic logic or other non-D&D logic.
The supposed characteristics of medieval creatures aren't particularly logical, they like any mythology are a-logical and fairly arbitrary. Like the D&D setting they grow by accretion. D&D seems arbitrary because it isn't focused on setting consistency. It is much more focused on kitchen sink inclusion. A system/setting can include virtually everything or it can be highly consistent. It can't be both.
Quote from: Bren;1123793I don't find the idea that a dragon is some type of lizard particularly intuitive or logical.
For example, in Palladium products, at least RIFTS, I'm not sure about Fantasy, dragons are mammals.
Quote from: Bren;1123809Have you consider using a different system and setting?
People have suggested this to BoxCrayonTales many times, in other threads. He seems to be more interested in "deconstructing" D&D.
I don't have a dog in this fight. I think keywords are a good idea to settle what is and isn't a giant, for example, for game mechanics purposes.
Taxonomy is the kind of think I can use or discard as needed.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1123813People have suggested this to BoxCrayonTales many times, in other threads. He seems to be more interested in "deconstructing" D&D.
Why waste time deconstructing D&D when we still don't know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1123799https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cock_egg
In any event, IIRC in D&D basilisks reproduce "normally" so the whole story about the cock egg is irrelevant. My point is that D&D's taxonomy of the basilisk is arbitrary. In other settings, like Warcraft (https://wow.gamepedia.com/Basilisk), they're beasts.
The only reason I can think of why they're typed as [monstrosity] or whatever is 1) they don't exist in real life, which is an arbitrary distinction that makes no sense for a fantasy planet unrelated to Earth (https://www.monsterdarlings.com/blogposts/2016/03/02/the-frustration-of-fantasy-taxonomies), and 2) you don't want druids to wild shape into them or charm animal them, which is defied anyway by the [beast] type including flying snakes, tressym, and cranium rats by RAW.
A "Cock egg" may be a thing, but not relevant to the basilisk, since that involves a toad egg. As to the cockatrice -- that one involves being
hatched from a cockerel's "egg" (quote from Wikipedia). Not the same thing as that clever name for a pullet egg.*
I agree with you that the taxonomical categories of D&D are essentially utterly arbitrary -- and for me un-fun for that reason. I still find the argument that "basilisks are natural" to be unconvincing, but I personally don't need to be convinced.
* Edit: did I get that reversed previously? This one is correct.
Quote from: Bren;1123809Have you consider using a different system and setting?
All the time.
Mythras Classic Fantasy,
Trudvang,
Mazes & Minotaurs, etc. I just like using D&D as a common point of reference.
Quote from: Bren;1123809They are animals, not hybrids. They appear to be hybrids because the creators have chosen to create and depict the animals in those fictional worlds as a combination of earthly creatures, possibly with more arms, legs, or fins than the earthly models and we, the audience are familiar with our own real world animals. I never got the impression watching the show that a polar-bear-dog was created by someone in the fictional world who magically or scientifically combined the DNA of two existent creatures i.e. of polar bears and dogs. The animals in those settings arbitrarily mix earthly species and classes and arbitrarily vary whether they are quadropeds and or hexapods.
So, despite being hybrids of real world animals, you define them as not being hybrids. Fair enough. What defines whether something is a hybrid or not? How does it come into existence? Does it matter how it came into existence? Why would that cause it to be classified by the in-game laws of physics as something other than the same category as its components? Where do
animals even come from in the first place? The gods? Spontaneous generation? Morphic fields? Something else? If the god or process that created all the animals created eagles, lions, and griffins, (for example) then why or why wouldn't the griffin be a hybrid by your line of reasoning? Why should this change if something else is responsible for the creation?
Quote from: Bren;1123809D&D, as written, is a kitchen sink setting that has grown by accretion over decades. As a system/setting it values inclusion over consistency. You can't get a consistent categorization for D&D because any such categorization will have new objects (monsters, races, items, deities) added from outside the current categorization, thereby invalidating the schema. You can select a subset of D&D creatures and develop a consistent categorization for that subset, but you can't include all the creatures written up in the system.
Quote from: Bren;1123809The supposed characteristics of medieval creatures aren't particularly logical, they like any mythology are a-logical and fairly arbitrary. Like the D&D setting they grow by accretion. D&D seems arbitrary because it isn't focused on setting consistency. It is much more focused on kitchen sink inclusion. A system/setting can include virtually everything or it can be highly consistent. It can't be both.
D&D is based primarily on Indo-European sources, so it shouldn't be impossible to create a scheme that encompasses those sources. Academia has no problem categorizing these things: comparative mythology shows us that the apparent differences between mythologies aren't as extreme as we might think, since our mythology is united by our shared humanity. By contrast, D&D is far more arbitrary and inconsistent than any real mythology or academic analysis thereof.
Quote from: Bren;1123809The supposed characteristics of medieval creatures aren't particularly logical, they like any mythology are a-logical and fairly arbitrary.
In a purely literal sense, yes these creatures are quite fantastical and that's what I like about them. That is unrelated to how the taxonomy works. The medieval authentic taxonomy is outdated, sure, but it is a hell of a lot better than the D&D taxonomy.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1123813People have suggested this to BoxCrayonTales many times, in other threads. He seems to be more interested in "deconstructing" D&D.
An apt way of putting it. It helps that I was a biology student, so I know what I'm talking about when I say that the D&D taxonomy is broken.
Quote from: Zalman;1123817A "Cock egg" may be a thing, but not relevant to the basilisk, since that involves a toad egg. As to the cockatrice -- that one involves being hatched from a cockerel's "egg" (quote from Wikipedia). Not the same thing as that clever name for a pullet egg.*
I agree with you that the taxonomical categories of D&D are essentially utterly arbitrary -- and for me un-fun for that reason. I still find the argument that "basilisks are natural" to be unconvincing, but I personally don't need to be convinced.
* Edit: did I get that reversed previously? This one is correct.
I'm not trying to convince you. I'm curious as to the underlying reasoning behind your position. Basilisks don't exist, so this is purely a thought experiment about the world building of a fantasy setting.
Why are basilisks unnatural? What is natural? What decides that?
Is it because they don't exist in reality, on our Earth? Why is Earth relevant to Fantasyland? Snaiad (https://canopy.uc.edu/bbcswebdav/users/gibsonic/Snaiad/snduterus.html)isn't real but that doesn't make it an unnatural abomination, does it?
Is it because they can petrify with their gaze? Anybody who knows the right spell can do the same, and that doesn't make casters unnatural abominations, does it? Why is the basilisk different?
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1123822I'm not trying to convince you. I'm curious as to the underlying reasoning behind your position. Basilisks don't exist, so this is purely a thought experiment about the world building of a fantasy setting.
Why are basilisks unnatural? What is natural? What decides that?
The difference between your position and mine is that you are arguing that what's "natural" is relative to the setting, and not a word we can evaluate based on our own real life perspective. I think your use of the word in this way makes that word meaningless -- the bane of all relativism really.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1123820An apt way of putting it. It helps that I was a biology student, so I know what I'm talking about when I say that the D&D taxonomy is broken.
That's no weighty claim. I can go audit a biology course at a community college and them claim to be a biology student.
I agree that forcing every monster to fall into one of a set of exclusive categories is illogical and counterproductive. It's another example of an attempt to impose an unneeded symmetry on the game. Though while they make the systematist in me wince, the real problems are they make things more complex than necessary, and they definitely answer questions I want to leave to the DM's discretion.
On the other hand, I also think it's self-evident that types are useful, particularly when it comes to spells. And that it's best to have types listed in each monster entry, instead of in lists that need to be constantly updated.
I think reverting back to first principles is a good start. What's the purpose of types? To interact with game specific game mechanics. So I don't want to start by trying to classify every monster into a group, and then trying to exhaustively define every possible group. Instead start with the categories demanded by game mechanics -- for instance, it's useful to know what's affected by charm person and hold animal. Then look at each of those cases, and decide if the category needs to be broadened, or further defined -- for instance, I might need a general "evil spirits" category, if I want clerics to turn demons as well as just undead. It's also possible to use types to exclude, for instance telepathy normally might work on any creature with intelligence above a certain level, but I can carve out an exception with an alien mind descriptor, for creatures that think in ways too alien to comprehend. I'll end up with a manageable list of overlapping and non-exclusive types that address what you need in the game, not a rigid hierarchy. Then slap the appropriate ones on each monster entry.
That's the base, but one of my favorite aspects of AD&D 1st edition's mythology was the ambiguity. Are guardian daemons from the FF a type of daemon, in the MM2 sense, or is the name just a coincidence? Or what's the difference between a major and a minor demon? The terms weren't applied until the MM2, and the original MM had at least 3 different ways to break demons into lesser and greater classes. By focusing on providing everything the DM needs to run the game at the game, I already leave room for the DM to make judgment calls about the less pressing questions, instead of answering those questions with game mechanical certainty before they're asked.
But I'd like to add even more uncertainty. One option is to build some ambiguity into the descriptors themselves. For instance, have a dragon type, and a dragon-kin type. A red dragon is a dragon, a hydra is a dragon-kin. Assume by default that a dragon slaying sword only affects dragons, but give the DM a list of things they can tweak for their campaign, including allowing dragonslayer swords to affect dragon-kin as well. And this doesn't have to be purely binary -- maybe the swords work on hydras to a lesser degree, or some swords affect both but are weaker in general. The reason for the default assumption is to ensure there's a pre-packaged answer in place for DMs who don't want to make that call, and it should always be the most restrictive answer because it's easier for a DM to allow new possibilities than to exclude things that are part of the expected baseline.
Another way to do this is to allow descriptors to be uncertain. For instance, is the shadow undead? AD&D says yes, but the B/X monster entry doesn't mention anything, and they're missing from the list of undead. To emulate that ambiguity, apply a conditional: perhaps [maybe undead]. Come up with several different adjectives, implying different degrees of likelihood or certainty; and again have a default answer for each: Maybe should default to no, but probably defaults to yes. That encourages the DM to do world-building in the realm of the descriptors, without requiring them to make a decision every time.
Quote from: Zalman;1123823The difference between your position and mine is that you are arguing that what's "natural" is relative to the setting, and not a word we can evaluate based on our own real life perspective. I think your use of the word in this way makes that word meaningless -- the bane of all relativism really.
How are you defining it, then? Why is the basilisk unnatural and what does being "unnatural" mean in this context? Is it a meaningful distinction to make in the first place? Why?
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1123828That's no weighty claim. I can go audit a biology course at a community college and them claim to be a biology student.
I wasn't trying to be weighty. If you know even a bit of popsci about taxonomy then you should be able to notice flaws in D&D's taxonomy.
Quote from: Pat;1123836I think reverting back to first principles is a good start. What's the purpose of types? To interact with game specific game mechanics. So I don't want to start by trying to classify every monster into a group, and then trying to exhaustively define every possible group. Instead start with the categories demanded by game mechanics -- for instance, it's useful to know what's affected by charm person and hold animal. Then look at each of those cases, and decide if the category needs to be broadened, or further defined -- for instance, I might need a general "evil spirits" category, if I want clerics to turn demons as well as just undead. It's also possible to use types to exclude, for instance telepathy normally might work on any creature with intelligence above a certain level, but I can carve out an exception with an alien mind descriptor, for creatures that think in ways too alien to comprehend. I'll end up with a manageable list of overlapping and non-exclusive types that address what you need in the game, not a rigid hierarchy. Then slap the appropriate ones on each monster entry.
At this point you seem to be conflating the types mechanic with the abilities and traits section of the statblock. Which I would use as a justification to discard the type mechanic entirely and just have everything run off the traits section of the statblock.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1123838At this point you seem to be conflating the types mechanic with the abilities and traits section of the statblock. Which I would use as a justification to discard the type mechanic entirely and just have everything run off the traits section of the statblock.
I'm not conflating anything, I'm talking about general principles.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1123799https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cock_egg
In other words, Cock's Eggs are real things (they're just not called that anymore); putting this more into the realm of superstition akin to spilled salt (and I suspect deriving from spoiled/rotting eggs drawing in various critters that carry diseases... thus, throw it away over your house's roof/a sufficient distance).
The existence of other period terms like dwarf egg, witch egg and wind egg (i.e. all things which were seen as infertile/sterile) suggests "cock's egg" is more a colorful turn of phrase akin to "tits on a boar hog" rather than something actually believed to be true.
But this also highlights the problem with your position; you say "basilisks should just be beasts, not monstrosities" but haven't bothered to actually read the 5e definition of a monstrosity; a beast with notable supernatural abilities that don't fit cleanly into other categories. It's not a beast because normal beast can't kill/petrify people with their gaze.
Dragons aren't monstrosities because D&D has always ascribed a special nature to dragons (it fits cleanly into its own category); they aren't just big lizards that breathe fire, they're almost the embodiment of supernatural power second only to the gods complete with nigh immortal lifespans and colossal intellects.
But that's irrelevant to your complaint, which can be fundamentally boiled down to "they aren't doing it the way
I want them to."
It's just a rehash of your "I think D&D shouldn't have so many unique monsters because ogres and trolls and giants are basically different names for the same folklore creature" pitch with a fresh coat of paint.
Just because it isn't what you want it to be doesn't mean the system used doesn't make sense. My purely mechanical "taxonomy" works perfectly in my game.
Unicorns are primal beasts; kin to the spirits of the natural world. But if, in your world, you want unicorns to be the steeds of gods then you just flip the tag from primal to astral and you're done. If you want all wolves to be supernatural creatures of darkness then flip the tag from natural to shadow. If your rats of your world are all intelligent and able to perform fine manipulation then change them from tiny natural beasts to tiny natural hybrids (or even humanoids if they're primarily bipedal as well).
And my setting does use those names you call "all the same" to make distinctions clear. Giants are primal humanoids, Ogres are natural humanoids. Natural creatures generally follow natural laws like the square-cube law and not being able breathe fire. Magic in the setting is essentially imposing the physics of other realms onto the natural world; the other origins correspond to those realms.
Ogres are big, but big in the sense of a tiger, and are still flesh and blood (their size is also why they're carnivores; it's easier to hit their caloric needs with a meat diet). A fire giant can be anywhere from ogre-sized to the size of an elephant or even a whale and yet still move like a man, have molten blood and can breathe fire because the physics of the primal realm they are connected to allows it.
Wyverns aren't dragons because their abilities are those that natural creatures could have (albeit pushing the upper limits for the largest horse-sized varieties, the smaller species, particularly the eagle-sized forest wyvern fall easily within the laws of physics).
Dragons, by contrast, have to be primal in my setting because they break so many natural physical laws; not least of which is they're as big or bigger than giants and yet can fly.
I'm getting off topic, but my point is; I have an entirely consistent taxonomy system in my setting that fits with its lore, but you've complained about it not meeting your standards and that standard seems to literally be just "how I personally want it done."
Quote from: Chris24601;1123850Natural creatures generally follow natural laws like the square-cube law and not being able breathe fire.
Not to distract too much from hierarchical taxonomy mechanics but I dislike when people evoke the square-cube law.
Quote from: Shasarak;1123854Not to distract too much from hierarchical taxonomy mechanics but I dislike when people evoke the square-cube law.
Why?
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1123820So, despite being hybrids of real world animals, you define them as not being hybrids. Fair enough. What defines whether something is a hybrid or not?
It would need to be some combination How does it come into existence? Does it matter how it came into existence? Why would that cause it to be classified by the in-game laws of physics as something other than the same category as its components? Where do animals even come from in the first place? The gods? Spontaneous generation? Morphic fields? Something else? If the god or process that created all the animals created eagles, lions, and griffins, (for example) then why or why wouldn't the griffin be a hybrid by your line of reasoning? Why should this change if something else is responsible for the creation?
OK. Let me try to explain this again. The creatures in AtLAB are not hybrids since they are not, so far as we see in the show itself, the result of hybridization.
As for what hybrids are, the definition of hybrid works fine so long as we specify that the reproduction is something that happens
in game rather than as just some sort of short hand to describe what the creature looks like.
Spoiler
A hybrid is the offspring resulting from combining the qualities of two organisms of different breeds, varieties, species or genera through sexual reproduction.[/quote]
So, hybrids are a combination by two organisms of different breeds, varieties, species, or genera through sexual reproduction in setting. While what we see on shows like AtLAB are described in shorthand as a combination of two or more creatures, creatures that may also include additional legs, arms, or wings, something like a six-legged turtlehopper (a made up exemplar) are not described as the result of sexual reproduction between a turtle and a rabbit.
Personally, I see little need to include many hybrid creatures in game settings. Where I have, they come from one of two sources.
(1) Chaotic features or manifestations of being touched or tainted by Chaos and genesis or hybridization by certain Chaos creatures, e.g. the reproduction by Broos in Glorantha.
(2) Humanoid inter-species births, e.g. half-elves in Tolkienesque fantasy or human-Vulcan and other hybrids in Star Trek. I'm not enamored of this trope, but when I include it, I do so either because the canonical source material already has included it or accommodate a player who really wants to a PC who is a hybrid. In campaigns I've run, I've had more cultural hybrids (the classical 'raised by wolves' of Romulus, Remus, Mowgli, or Tarzan) than genetic hybrids,
QuoteD&D is based primarily on Indo-European sources, so it shouldn't be impossible to create a scheme that encompasses those sources.
If you restricted the materials to a selected subset of creatures based on Indo-European sources, you could reach general agreement. (Real world scholars don't have a universal consensus.) But if you keep the kitchen sink, you won't get a coherent, consistent, all-encompassing schema that most GMs will accept.
QuoteIn a purely literal sense, yes these creatures are quite fantastical and that's what I like about them. That is unrelated to how the taxonomy works. The medieval authentic taxonomy is outdated, sure, but it is a hell of a lot better than the D&D taxonomy.
It's not better, you just happen to like the medieval listing. I, on the other hand, utterly loathe medieval creature descriptions finding some of them barely tolerable in Pendragon (a setting I like quite a bit overall) only so long as I can add Celtic faerie types and don't try to include most of the medieval creatures.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1123820An apt way of putting it. It helps that I was a biology student, so I know what I'm talking about when I say that the D&D taxonomy is broken.
I've got 30 years of software development experience, most of it object-oriented. You only think you've seen taxonomy problems. :)
You can't fairly ding a thing for taxonomy problems if the problems you are dinging it for are completely outside of what it is designed to do. Biology is kind of an odd appeal to experience from my perspective, since biology has all kinds of edge cases where its own taxonomy starts to blur. But it isn't intended to be perfectly logical. It's jut meant to get a handle on things as a starting point. D&D is the same way, except that it deals with a much wider range of possibilities than biology does purely in the natural world.
Quote from: Bren;1123862Why?
Mainly because of the amount of people that dont use it properly.
For example a Giant in DnD is not a Human that has been increased to giant size.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1123838How are you defining it, then? Why is the basilisk unnatural and what does being "unnatural" mean in this context? Is it a meaningful distinction to make in the first place? Why?
I don't personally think it's a meaningful distinction, no. In D&D, I suppose it's meaningful so long as there is a character class (Druids, or something like them) that can polymorph into only "natural" creatures. To that extent, the context of what's natural and what's unnatural would be based on the intent of that character class -- which as far as I can tell is to limit the transformation to real world animals.
Quote from: Shasarak;1123891Mainly because of the amount of people that dont use it properly.
For example a Giant in DnD is not a Human that has been increased to giant size.
OK. Not sure why that matters. Sure a D&D Giant is not the protagonist from
Attack of the 50 Foot Woman, but depending on the edition, a D&D Giant looks a lot like a humanoid increased to giant size.
Quote from: Bren;1123910OK. Not sure why that matters. Sure a D&D Giant is not the protagonist from Attack of the 50 Foot Woman, but depending on the edition, a D&D Giant looks a lot like a humanoid increased to giant size.
Yes, a Giant looks like a human increased to Giant size.
Quote from: Shasarak;1123891For example a Giant in DnD is not a Human that has been increased to giant size.
Quote from: Shasarak;1123916Yes, a Giant looks like a human increased to Giant size.
I'm just not following you. You said that a D&D Giant is not a giant sized human, but it looks like it is a giant sized human. And that distinction matters, why? And it relates to (or does not relate to) the so-called cube-square law, how?
Quote from: Bren;1123922I'm just not following you. You said that a D&D Giant is not a giant sized human, but it looks like it is a giant sized human. And that distinction matters, why? And it relates to (or does not relate to) the so-called cube-square law, how?
The saying that I really dislike is that a Giant can not stand up because its weight would be so much that its legs would not be strong enough to support it.
This is taken from the fact that as you increase the size of an object the height (or surface area) increases by a squared rate while the volume (or mass) increases by a cubic rate. So for example if you had a 2 meter cube that weighed 8 kg and wanted to double its size to a 4 meter cube then the weight would increase to 64 kg.
However this can not be applied to a Giant because even though a Giant "looks" like a human increased to giant size, it is actually a Giant. Or to phrase it the way another poster already did: Ogres are Natural and Giants are Primal.
Thanks for the clarification. I use a simpler rationale. Giants look like they do because - myth.
Quote from: Chris24601;1123850But this also highlights the problem with your position; you say "basilisks should just be beasts, not monstrosities" but haven't bothered to actually read the 5e definition of a monstrosity; a beast with notable supernatural abilities that don't fit cleanly into other categories. It's not a beast because normal beast can't kill/petrify people with their gaze.
The beast type includes flying snakes, tressym, and cranium rats. They are all fictional and the latter two have magic powers.
The monstrosity type includes centaurs and griffons, which don't seem clearly unnatural or abominable. Not sufficiently for them to be enemies of druids or whatever the logic is.
Giant eagles have intelligence within the normal human range: slowly lower than average (INT 8). They have their own language, and they can understand (but not speak) others.
I don't see any consistent criteria for what distinguishes beasts and monstrosities.
Quote from: Chris24601;1123850Dragons aren't monstrosities because D&D has always ascribed a special nature to dragons (it fits cleanly into its own category); they aren't just big lizards that breathe fire, they're almost the embodiment of supernatural power second only to the gods complete with nigh immortal lifespans and colossal intellects.
Which is contradicted by drakes, wyverns, dragonets, etc being placed under the dragon type.
Why are dragons their own type, but not sphinxes (http://genericcleric.blogspot.com/2015/12/sphinxes-etc-of-nefret.html)? Or deities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity)? Or spirits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit)? Or imaginary friends (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster%27s_Home_for_Imaginary_Friends)? Or H.R. Giger biomechanoids?
My point, as always, is that the D&D taxonomy is arbitrary, vague, and inconsistent.
Quote from: Chris24601;1123850But that's irrelevant to your complaint, which can be fundamentally boiled down to "they aren't doing it the way I want them to."
It's just a rehash of your "I think D&D shouldn't have so many unique monsters because ogres and trolls and giants are basically different names for the same folklore creature" pitch with a fresh coat of paint.
Just because it isn't what you want it to be doesn't mean the system used doesn't make sense. My purely mechanical "taxonomy" works perfectly in my game.
I don't know what I want. I'm still trying to work out a functional taxonomy that doesn't come across as arbitrary and idiosyncratic like D&D's.
However, regardless of my personal WIP taxonomy, my complaint has always been that D&D's taxonomy is vague and inconsistent. Plenty of others in this agreed had agreed with that.
Quote from: Chris24601;1123850I'm getting off topic, but my point is; I have an entirely consistent taxonomy system in my setting that fits with its lore, but you've complained about it not meeting your standards and that standard seems to literally be just "how I personally want it done."
I don't remember complaining about your personal taxonomy. I may not agree with you choice of terminology (e.g. I use the dictionary definition of "ogres" as man-eating giants rather than a specific race), but I acknowledge you at least use consistent criteria. D&D does not.
Quote from: Bren;1123863OK. Let me try to explain this again. The creatures in AtLAB are not hybrids since they are not, so far as we see in the show itself, the result of hybridization.
As for what hybrids are, the definition of hybrid works fine so long as we specify that the reproduction is something that happens in game rather than as just some sort of short hand to describe what the creature looks like. Spoiler
A hybrid is the offspring resulting from combining the qualities of two organisms of different breeds, varieties, species or genera through sexual reproduction.
So, hybrids are a combination by two organisms of different breeds, varieties, species, or genera through sexual reproduction in setting. While what we see on shows like AtLAB are described in shorthand as a combination of two or more creatures, creatures that may also include additional legs, arms, or wings, something like a six-legged turtlehopper (a made up exemplar) are not described as the result of sexual reproduction between a turtle and a rabbit.
Uh huh. That's not the logic D&D uses. If a creature is a combination of any two or more real world animals, then it's a monstrosity regardless of other factors. Unless it's a snake with wings, or a cat with wings and spell turning, or a rat with an exposed brain and psychic powers.
Quote from: Bren;1123863Personally, I see little need to include many hybrid creatures in game settings. Where I have, they come from one of two sources.
(1) Chaotic features or manifestations of being touched or tainted by Chaos and genesis or hybridization by certain Chaos creatures, e.g. the reproduction by Broos in Glorantha.
(2) Humanoid inter-species births, e.g. half-elves in Tolkienesque fantasy or human-Vulcan and other hybrids in Star Trek. I'm not enamored of this trope, but when I include it, I do so either because the canonical source material already has included it or accommodate a player who really wants to a PC who is a hybrid. In campaigns I've run, I've had more cultural hybrids (the classical 'raised by wolves' of Romulus, Remus, Mowgli, or Tarzan) than genetic hybrids,
Fair enough. I quite like the chaos mutation explanation for everything.
In any case, why would hybrids be classified by the in-game law of physics as [monstrosities] or whatever rather than the type of their parents? Why is a griffon or centaur a monstrosity, but a half-elf, half-orc, tressym, cranium rat, etc isn't?
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1123872I've got 30 years of software development experience, most of it object-oriented. You only think you've seen taxonomy problems. :)
You can't fairly ding a thing for taxonomy problems if the problems you are dinging it for are completely outside of what it is designed to do. Biology is kind of an odd appeal to experience from my perspective, since biology has all kinds of edge cases where its own taxonomy starts to blur. But it isn't intended to be perfectly logical. It's jut meant to get a handle on things as a starting point. D&D is the same way, except that it deals with a much wider range of possibilities than biology does purely in the natural world.
Don't even get me started on real world stuff. The difference here is that real world taxonomy is an imperfect social construct intended to understand how objective living things are related to one another. Reality is unimaginably complicated.
Programming has a practical purpose. It may be revised and iterated upon. It is subject to endless amounts of testing.
D&D taxonomy, being pure fiction wholly subject to the arbitrary whims of writers, isn't comparable to either.
Quote from: Zalman;1123893I don't personally think it's a meaningful distinction, no. In D&D, I suppose it's meaningful so long as there is a character class (Druids, or something like them) that can polymorph into only "natural" creatures. To that extent, the context of what's natural and what's unnatural would be based on the intent of that character class -- which as far as I can tell is to limit the transformation to real world animals.
That's really the only answer for this. However, using the druid as a yardstick for what is and isn't natural has massive ramifications for world building that doesn't fit with established D&D rules. For example, you'd think the druid would be an enemy of everything unnatural but we don't see them trying to exterminate all owlbears, centaurs, griffons, pegasus, sphinxes, etc.
For example, in
Mazes & Minotaurs the monster type has a purpose in the setting. Monsters are more difficult for beastmasters to tame, give more XP and honor when you kill them, and are generally implied to be more than simply regular animals with some fantastical abilities. (To my frustration, I can't find anywhere in the book where it defines what a "monster" actually is.)
Quote from: Bren;1123931Thanks for the clarification. I use a simpler rationale. Giants look like they do because - myth.
That's an interesting criterion. Myth and fairytale has some very interesting depictions of giants that you might not think are giants.
In Greek myth, Typhon is a giant with snakes for fingers and other fantastical features.
In Norse myth, several jotun appear in the forms of giant or otherwise fantastical animals: a giant eagle, a giant wolf, a giant snake, and a horse with eight legs. In fact, the word "jotun" may not necessarily translate to giant as several jotun weren't any bigger than the aesir or vanir.
For that matter, giants in myth and fairytale aren't inconvenienced by their apparent size when it comes to interacting with things smaller than them. Like standing in a hall that is sized for humans, or having sex with smaller people, or holding cities in their teeth.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1123932Uh huh. That's not the logic D&D uses.
I didn't even imply, much less say, that it was.
QuoteIn any case, why would hybrids be classified by the in-game law of physics as [monstrosities] or whatever rather than the type of their parents? Why is a griffon or centaur a monstrosity, but a half-elf, half-orc, tressym, cranium rat, etc isn't?
I said nothing about monstrosities. And hybrid is not a class, order, family, genus, or species. I don't consider griffons and centaurs hybrids since they don't follow the definition I gave for hybridization.
Last time I GMed a setting with griffons and centaurs in it, griffons were their own species and centaurs (like minotaurs and a few others) were loosely grouped as beastmen due (I think) to having both the beast rune and the man rune.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1123935That's an interesting criterion.
It works for me as an explanation for why giants' legs don't break and collapse under their own weight and has the virtue of being uncluttered with unessential verbiage.
Quote from: Bren;1123958I didn't even imply, much less say, that it was.
I said nothing about monstrosities. And hybrid is not a class, order, family, genus, or species. I don't consider griffons and centaurs hybrids since they don't follow the definition I gave for hybridization.
I thought we were discussing this with regard to D&D's taxonomy mechanic? Did I get confused somewhere?
Quote from: Bren;1123958Last time I GMed a setting with griffons and centaurs in it, griffons were their own species and centaurs (like minotaurs and a few others) were loosely grouped as beastmen due (I think) to having both the beast rune and the man rune.
That's a way clearer definition than D&D. You're talking about Glorantha, right? I have no familiarity with that setting.
Quote from: Bren;1123958It works for me as an explanation for why giants' legs don't break and collapse under their own weight and has the virtue of being uncluttered with unessential verbiage.
I didn't think the square-cube law applied to fantasyland anyway, since it runs on magic and the anthropic principle rather than real world physics. Glorantha is a good example, no?
Anyway, I expanded [giant] to include non-humanoid giants and giant animals too. The logic here is than giants (or titans, vanir, jotun, asura, wechuge, whatever you want to call them, etc) are the primordial precursors to and exemplars of men and animals. The first children of the primordial deities, somewhere between mortal and divine. Most of them were banished, imprisoned, or otherwise lost their dominion over the world in ancient times. Some of them still live on Earth, and are responsible for natural disasters.
Those who live in the Underworld (named orcneas, oni, wechuge, preta, etc) may be able to possess the bodies of mortals, especially those who break taboos against cannibalism. Hence why they are also called ogres, after the chthonic god/demon Orcus ("oath").
It's still a work in progress, but the idea is to loosely encompass the archetypes spread across world mythology so that it's all immediately recognizable. You'd be surprised by how many archetypes are shared between vastly separated cultures.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1123959I thought we were discussing this with regard to D&D's taxonomy mechanic? Did I get confused somewhere?
A number of settings have been discussed in this thread, not just D&D. For example you brought up, "settings like Avatar: The Last Airbender and The Dragon Prince" which you placed in contrast to D&D.
QuoteThat's a way clearer definition than D&D. You're talking about Glorantha, right? I have no familiarity with that setting.
Yes. It's the first example (so far as I know) of a published setting that uses mythological logic in defining the setting. For example, the world is not a sphere but a lozenge floating on a sea.
QuoteI didn't think the square-cube law applied to fantasyland anyway, since it runs on magic and the anthropic principle rather than real world physics. Glorantha is a good example, no?
Sometimes and in part depending on the system. The Runequest system is pretty simulationist. For example, unlike D&D damage bonus is based on Strength+Size not Strength alone and hit points are based on Constitution+Size so larger characters do more damage and can absorb more damage than smaller creatures. And giants really are gigantic. A small giant might be 10 meters tall. A large one the size of a mountain.