Why is Undead a type and not a subtype?

[Fax Celestis]

For that matter, why is Giant a type and not a subtype?

[OldTrees1]

For that matter, why is Monstrous Humanoid a type and not a subtype?



I don't think subtypes can change the size of the RHD. Changing from having Con to not having Con required a RHD size change to give undead enough hp/HD.

[Cybris75]

For that matter, why are Undead and Giant not templates?

[Urpriest]

Undead is a type because it determines the main features of Undead creatures: their immunities, their metabolism, and the like. In general, it's a much more relevant trait of such creatures than their original type. Undead are also relatively commonly accessible as PC minions, so there's good reason to standardize their capabilities.

As for Giants, alongside Humanoids and Monstrous Humanoids it's somewhat arbitrary, which is why Pathfinder got rid of them. Do note that that makes them susceptible to Charm Person, Enlarge Person, and the like. It all comes down to how you want to divide types up. For example, why should Dragon be a type, rather than a subtype of Magical Beast? Shouldn't Aberration just be a subtype?

[OldTrees1]

For that matter, why are Undead and Giant not templates?

Lots of undead are templates(that grant the undead type) now, but there are even more undead that do not preserve characteristics of the original.



I think Aberration should be a type. It contains a larger variety of creatures than even the Outsider type does and for good reason. If Aberration were split up then there would be a large number of creatures without a good place to put them. Sure Illithids could go under Humanoid, but what about Beholders and Aboleths?

[Urpriest]

I think Aberration should be a type. It contains a larger variety of creatures than even the Outsider type does and for good reason. If Aberration were split up then there would be a large number of creatures without a good place to put them. Sure Illithids could go under Humanoid, but what about Beholders and Aboleths?

Magical Beasts, presumably.

One benefit of Aberration being a subtype, you could have Obryths and Far Realm stuff as Outsider(Aberration).

[OldTrees1]

Magical Beasts, presumably.

One benefit of Aberration being a subtype, you could have Obryths and Far Realm stuff as Outsider(Aberration).

Magical Beasts are similar to animals (although they can be intelligent). Putting an Aberration as Magical Beast(Aberration) seems to stretch belief with "similar to animal" vs "not natural". It could work but it seems to stretch Magical Beast.

On the other hand you are right that an Aberration subtype would be very useful.

[Fax Celestis]

Undead is a type because it determines the main features of Undead creatures: their immunities, their metabolism, and the like. In general, it's a much more relevant trait of such creatures than their original type. Undead are also relatively commonly accessible as PC minions, so there's good reason to standardize their capabilities.

Subtypes are perfectly capable of changing all of those features. Take a look at swarm or living construct, for example.

[Psyren]

For that matter, why is Giant a type and not a subtype?

In Pathfinder, Giant is a subtype, so somebody clearly had the same thought process you did at some point.

Undead is a type because there are some undead with no fixed prior form, like shadows.

[Fax Celestis]

In Pathfinder, Giant is a subtype, so somebody clearly had the same thought process you did at some point.

Undead is a type because there are some undead with no fixed prior form, like shadows.

One could make a new type (Avatar or Incarnation or something) and toss elementals in there too, and shadows would thereby be Avatar (Undead).

In comparison, Skeletons would be Construct (Undead) or Humanoid (Undead) depending upon their construction method.

[LordErebus12]

There are arguments for many of the types/subtypes switching places... pathfinder made that abundantly clear with several of their switches. I dont really think its necessary, but some changes do make sense.

[Ferronach]

From my standpoint on it, it was likely based on how you would name something.

For example: An Undead Human and a Giant Human. As opposed to a Human undead and a human giant...

Probably way off my rocker!

[Inevitability]

Types/subtypes are largely arbitrary. Remember how 3.0 had Shapechangers as a type? And both 4e and 5e have vastly different ways of ordering creatures.


But to answer the OP's question, the reason Undead is a type is that the developers thought it'd work better that way.

[LordErebus12]

personally, i think the biggest change that should have happened is the addition of a type, with several other types becoming subtypes.

The Spirit type, which would include:

All incorporeal undead
All fey
All elementals
Creatures in astral form or with astral bodies (but not a creature physically present on the Astral Plane)
All creatures of the spirit subtype (see Oriental Adventures)
Spirit folk and telthors (see Unapproachable East)
Spirit creatures created by spells such as dream sight or wood wose (see Chapter 7 of Complete Divine).

Naturally, this would mean Fey and Elementals become spirits with the Fey or Elemental subtype.
Likewise, Incorporeal Undead would simply become Spirits with the incorporeal subtype.

the problem with this, however, is the fact that it would alter large groups of creatures and render a lot of previously printed monsters as obsolete until they were re-printed. Nothing is worse than being inconsistent.

[LordErebus12]

But to answer the OP's question, the reason Undead is a type is that the developers thought it'd work better that way.

that, or they simply didn't give it much thought, or they didn't consider anything to the contrary. Who really knows after all these years? I doubt any of the developers could even remember what was going through their minds at the time that decision was made.

[Urpriest]

Subtypes are perfectly capable of changing all of those features. Take a look at swarm or living construct, for example.

Subtypes are capable of changing basically all the features of a type. What, in your mind, are types supposed to do?

[LordErebus12]

Subtypes are capable of changing basically all the features of a type. What, in your mind, are types supposed to do?

Types should define the base features, while subtypes should split up larger groups of types into varying chunks, which differ slightly from the original model. the problem is its pretty arbitrary...

[Fax Celestis]

Subtypes are capable of changing basically all the features of a type. What, in your mind, are types supposed to do?

Well, I just think its silly, for instance, that enlarge person works on someone before they're turned into a vampire but not afterwards.

EDIT: on top of it, undead should be a subtype because of what it does. You can have an undead dragon, or an undead humanoid, or an undead aberration. Right now, you can have just an "undead", but it doesn't really define itself the way, say, Ooze does.

[Psyren]

One could make a new type (Avatar or Incarnation or something) and toss elementals in there too, and shadows would thereby be Avatar (Undead).

In comparison, Skeletons would be Construct (Undead) or Humanoid (Undead) depending upon their construction method.

But undead aren't necessarily "contstructed." Using LM's explanations and the fluff of several of the creatures themselves, they can be spontaneously generated by areas/events of great evil, horror or slaughter. Even just in core, you can animate a wight intentionally, or it can spring into being by a good commoner unknowingly picking up an unholy sword etc.

Another huge difference between the two is their use of charisma. For constructs it is irrelevant at best, but undead are literally powered by their sense of self. "I am not, therefore I am." So I think they should be kept thematically and mechanically separate.

[ArqArturo]

For that matter, why are Undead and Giant not templates?

For that matter, why are Undead and Giant not spell subschools?

Sorry for the sillyness :smalltongue:.

[Psyren]

Well, I just think its silly, for instance, that enlarge person works on someone before they're turned into a vampire but not afterwards.

The answer to that is to create Enlarge Monster (or better yet, arcane Expansion) - not to abolish an entire creature type.

[Fax Celestis]

The answer to that is to create Enlarge Monster (or better yet, arcane Expansion) - not to abolish an entire creature type.

Again, though, "Undead" can be applied to any number of things. You can have undead dragons, undead aberrations, undead humanoids, undead magical beasts...

You can have plain ol' "Undead" right now, but it doesn't define itself the way "Aberration" or "Magical Beast" does. A creature with Dragon type can be expected to look and function a specific way, but Undead? You have no expectations: it could be a vampiric dragon, or a zombified humanoid, or an incorporeal ghost, or a skeletal aberration, or an aboleth lich, or any number of things.

[Vhaidara]

Well, I just think its silly, for instance, that enlarge person works on someone before they're turned into a vampire but not afterwards.

Why does Enlarge Person not work on Tieflings (Yes, I'm aware of Lessers, but I'm not talking about those)? Or Warforged? Because the spell is very arbitrarily limited and therefore a bad example.

[Fax Celestis]

Why does Enlarge Person not work on Tieflings (Yes, I'm aware of Lessers, but I'm not talking about those)? Or Warforged? Because the spell is very arbitrarily limited and therefore a bad example.

Tieflings are ousiders, not ex-humanoids. Same with warforged: they're constructs, not ex-humanoids.

[Vhaidara]

Tieflings are ousiders, not ex-humanoids. Same with warforged: they're constructs, not ex-humanoids.

Honestly, I think the bigger problem is the Humanoid type. After all, all three are humanoid, but not Humanoid.

[KillianHawkeye]

I think the answer to this question essentially boils down to legacy-based design methods. In fact, a lot of the problems in 3rd arose from the authors trying to maintain the D&D legacy despite building an entirely new game system.

Keep in mind that the more drastically modifying subtypes (swarm and living construct) did not originally exist in the edition, and they are exceptions to how much power a subtype normally has. Therefore we can say that creature types were designed to define the main communal traits of a broad swathe of similar creatures while subtypes were created to establish sub-groupings within a particular creature type (such as devils and demons both being Outsider-type creatures).

So, knowing that dragons are a really big part of D&D (it's in the friggin' name!), we got a Dragon type. Most of the playable races are similar enough to humans that they all fell under the Humanoid type. Animals exist so we got the Animal type, and so on. There are so many kinds of undead creatures, and fighting against undead has been such a big part of the history of D&D, that we got the Undead type. Same goes for giants and aberrations. They all have a long history in D&D, so they were considered important enough to define as creature types. Gelatinous cube? Can't forget that, looks like we need an Ooze type!

[Fax Celestis]

I think the answer to this question essentially boils down to legacy-based design methods. In fact, a lot of the problems in 3rd arose from the authors trying to maintain the D&D legacy despite building an entirely new game system.

Keep in mind that the more drastically modifying subtypes (swarm and living construct) did not originally exist in the edition, and they are exceptions to how much power a subtype normally has. Therefore we can say that creature types were designed to define the main communal traits of a broad swathe of similar creatures while subtypes were created to establish sub-groupings within a particular creature type (such as devils and demons both being Outsider-type creatures).

So, knowing that dragons are a really big part of D&D (it's in the friggin' name!), we got a Dragon type. Most of the playable races are similar enough to humans that they all fell under the Humanoid type. Animals exist so we got the Animal type, and so on. There are so many kinds of undead creatures, and fighting against undead has been such a big part of the history of D&D, that we got the Undead type. Same goes for giants and aberrations. They all have a long history in D&D, so they were considered important enough to define as creature types. Gelatinous cube? Can't forget that, looks like we need an Ooze type!

Uh. Swarm is core.

[Urpriest]

Again, though, "Undead" can be applied to any number of things. You can have undead dragons, undead aberrations, undead humanoids, undead magical beasts...

You can have plain ol' "Undead" right now, but it doesn't define itself the way "Aberration" or "Magical Beast" does. A creature with Dragon type can be expected to look and function a specific way, but Undead? You have no expectations: it could be a vampiric dragon, or a zombified humanoid, or an incorporeal ghost, or a skeletal aberration, or an aboleth lich, or any number of things.

Aberrations are like that too, though. Aberrant fish, aberrant cephalopods, aberrant arthropods...basically every aberration is "let's assemble some animal parts until it becomes squicky and give it magical powers". Get rid of "until it becomes squicky" and you've got the definition of magical beasts.

[Fax Celestis]

Sure, but you can still have a living and an undead version of any creature. I don't see why that should make it change types.

[Urpriest]

Sure, but you can still have a living and an undead version of any creature. I don't see why that should make it change types.

You can also have a magical and not magical version of any animal, why should that make it change types?

[Fax Celestis]

You can also have a magical and not magical version of any animal, why should that make it change types?

Because that's a new creature, not an undead version of the same one. A unicorn isn't a horse, it's a unicorn. A vampire is a human with a template.

[Urpriest]

Because that's a new creature, not an undead version of the same one. A unicorn isn't a horse, it's a unicorn. A vampire is a human with a template.

What's a Nightwalker then?

[Fax Celestis]

What's a Nightwalker then?

Avatar (Undead), like I went over earlier. Or Elemental (Undead), if you please. They're basically elementals for the plane of shadow as they are now.

[Zanos]

There are enough undead creatures in 3.5 that they warrant their own type that standardizes their mechanical features. There are more printed Undead that are their own creature with no prior characteristics than there are undead templates. That is all. What is decided to be made a type or not is largely arbitrary. It's simply useful.

Also, the most common undead templates all but obliterate the traits the creature had before, and reduce it to a pile of undead RHD. When undead RHD are so common, it makes sense for it to be it's own type.

I think that Undead should be it's own type with several subtypes. Vampires and other such "fleshy" undead should have a subtype like "Unliving", where they are still subject to many of the same effects that a living creature is. Tome of Necromancy handles this fairly well, actually.

[Tvtyrant]

What real distinction is there between Humanoid and Monstrous Humanoid? Hadozee are humanoid monkeys, anthropomorphic monkeys are monstrous humanoid monkeys.

I would divide the system like so: Origin (Outsider or Material), Suborigin (which plane, alive, dead, etc), type (Basically the shape of the thing. Humanoid, Monstroid), subtype (Draconic, etc.) Race, Subrace.

[torrasque666]

What real distinction is there between Humanoid and Monstrous Humanoid? Hadozee are humanoid monkeys, anthropomorphic monkeys are monstrous humanoid monkeys.

I would divide the system like so: Origin (Outsider or Material), Suborigin (which plane, alive, dead, etc), type (Basically the shape of the thing. Humanoid, Monstroid), subtype (Draconic, etc.) Race, Subrace.

Whoa man, getting a bit organized there. We all know Wizards needs to be vague as it can so that no one knows what the hell they're saying. And so that we can have the vast amount of dairy products that we do.

[Slipperychicken]

Let's not forget how many creatures are identical to humans, but are somehow not humanoid. Mainly things like Nymphs, Aasimar, Giants, those guys from Planescape or MotP who never speak (forgot their names but they seem like huge mary sues), and Elans.

One of the things I kind of like that 5e did is lumping Animal and Magical Beast into the category "Beast".

[Urpriest]

Avatar (Undead), like I went over earlier. Or Elemental (Undead), if you please. They're basically elementals for the plane of shadow as they are now.

I get that you proposed that earlier, but it doesn't fit your current argument. Nightwalkers aren't "an elemental that has become undead", or "an avatar that has become undead", they started as undead. While they may be "an avatar/elemental that happens to be undead", a unicorn is "a horse that happens to have magical powers", so "an avatar/elemental that happens to be undead" is by your own logic insufficient justification for it to be typed as Avatar/Elemental (Undead).

[Fax Celestis]

I get that you proposed that earlier, but it doesn't fit your current argument. Nightwalkers aren't "an elemental that has become undead", or "an avatar that has become undead", they started as undead. While they may be "an avatar/elemental that happens to be undead", a unicorn is "a horse that happens to have magical powers", so "an avatar/elemental that happens to be undead" is by your own logic insufficient justification for it to be typed as Avatar/Elemental (Undead).

See, that's where I disagree. A unicorn isn't a horse that happens to have magical powers, it is a unicorn: its own distinct creature. While they may look and function similarly, a horse is a horse, and a unicorn is a unicorn. Meanwhile, a vampire is not a distinct creature: it is an existing creature that has been changed. A nightwalker doesn't fit here, sure, and that's why I proposed the Avatar type. It didn't start as alive and become undead, sure, but the Avatar type would demonstrate that it was an embodiment of its subtype--no origin necessary, it just is.

[Brookshw]

a horse is a horse of course, of course. Inventing new types to resolve the change is a bit odd of course. Just go to the source (the book, if course) and find something unifyy-iiing.

[Xaktsaroth]

What if types were based on the very basic shape of the creature with minor/major traits, with the subtypes re-defining major traits, but types/subtypes were functional, as opposed to defined?

Under that outlook, Magical Beasts would be Animal(Aberrant), as a Chimera would have the qualities of an animal and a 'holy crap, that's not a normal animal', cuz magic.

Mind Flayers would become Humanoid(Aberrant), Fire Elemental would be Humanoid(Elemental, Fire), Vampire would be Humanoid(Undead), Tieflings would be Humanoid(Outsider).

It gets a little tricky with some creatures, like a beholder, which would be pure Aberration under this new system, it's shape is really, really weird, and being an aberration is basically the go to explanation for what it is.

So subtypes would only exist if you needed to add a secondary or overridding characteristics of the base form.

This would also solve the awkwardness of certain creatures, like Juiblex. He's an outsider, who then needs a large block of space to tell of all the ooze traits he gets to keep, instead of just being Outsider(Ooze).

Multiple subtypes would still work, Zuggtmoy, for instance, would be Humanoid(Plant, Outsider), with an arguement for adding the Aberrant subtype.

I quite like this idea, actually. :D

[Rubik]

Personally, I think that creatures such as allips and wraiths ought to be Elementals with the Undead subtype. After all, they appear to have sprung fully formed from elemental negative energy.

[Fax Celestis]

Personally, I think that creatures such as allips and wraiths ought to be Elementals with the Undead subtype. After all, they appear to have sprung fully formed from elemental negative energy.
That's what I've been saying!

[Urpriest]

Personally, I think that creatures such as allips and wraiths ought to be Elementals with the Undead subtype. After all, they appear to have sprung fully formed from elemental negative energy.

Allips and Wraiths were both mortal once. Are you thinking of something else?

[BioCharge]

This is why we should re-write all spells/feats/class features/other type-related effects to simply list every (and I mean every) creature it affects by name in the description.

[Lord Vukodlak]

See, that's where I disagree. A unicorn isn't a horse that happens to have magical powers, it is a unicorn: its own distinct creature. While they may look and function similarly, a horse is a horse, and a unicorn is a unicorn. Meanwhile, a vampire is not a distinct creature: it is an existing creature that has been changed. A nightwalker doesn't fit here, sure, and that's why I proposed the Avatar type. It didn't start as alive and become undead, sure, but the Avatar type would demonstrate that it was an embodiment of its subtype--no origin necessary, it just is.

What type would a Dream Vestiage be if undead was a subtype? Or a Forshaken Shell? What would be the base type of a Necronaught? or a Vasuthant? Oh Corpse Gatherer, sure its humanoid shape and its giant size but its made up of hundreds of corpses and mountains of dirt, a boneyard presents a similar problem. Humanoids have a certain physiology, so do giants, animals, magical beasts etc etc. When they become undead that physiology ceases to function.

Does a skeletal horse have more things in common with a skeletal unicorn or with a living horse? Becoming a skeleton stripped the unicorn of its magical powers.


Meanwhile, a vampire is not a distinct creature: it is an existing creature that has been changed.
If you awaken an animal or a vermin to give it an intelligence score its type changes because it no longer qualifies as its old type. Its hit dice, saves and base attack may stay the same but the type changes because it possesses qualities the old type doesn't allow. Certain effects can change a creature's type.
Plenty of templates change a creature's type,


Personally, I think that creatures such as allips and wraiths ought to be Elementals with the Undead subtype. After all, they appear to have sprung fully formed from elemental negative energy.

That's what I've been saying!

So a human who is turned into a wraith has his type changed to elemental?

[hamishspence]

Dragon Magazine's Birth of the Dead article (and Libris Mortis) tended to depict the vast majority of undead as being the ex-living.

Even nightshades. (Supposed to come into being when an Evil Outsider is slain through negative energy and left in it for a long time. A pit fiend trapped in the Negative Energy plane and killed by it, eventually comes back as a nightwalker, for example.)

[Rubik]

Allips and Wraiths were both mortal once. Are you thinking of something else? I don't think there's anything stating that elementals cannot be the reincarnated spirits of once living creatures reborn on the Elemental Planes. Spirits with the undead subtype could easily be the same type of thing, but negative energy based.


That's what I've been saying!Am I not allowed to implicitly agree with you by stating what I believe?

[Fax Celestis]

What type would a Dream Vestiage be if undead was a subtype?
Avatar (Undead)

Or a Forshaken Shell?
Construct (Undead)

What would be the base type of a Necronaught?
Outsider (Chaotic, Evil, Extraplanar, Undead)

or a Vasuthant?
Avatar (Undead)

Oh Corpse Gatherer, sure its humanoid shape and its giant size but its made up of hundreds of corpses and mountains of dirt,
Construct (Undead)

a boneyard presents a similar problem.
Construct (Undead)


If you awaken an animal or a vermin to give it an intelligence score its type changes because it no longer qualifies as its old type. Its hit dice, saves and base attack may stay the same but the type changes because it possesses qualities the old type doesn't allow. Certain effects can change a creature's type.
Plenty of templates change a creature's type,
I am aware. That doesn't mean that Undead needs to be a type.


Am I not allowed to implicitly agree with you by stating what I believe?

You are. I'm agreeing with your agreement.

[Psyren]

Again, though, "Undead" can be applied to any number of things. You can have undead dragons, undead aberrations, undead humanoids, undead magical beasts...

You can have plain ol' "Undead" right now, but it doesn't define itself the way "Aberration" or "Magical Beast" does. A creature with Dragon type can be expected to look and function a specific way, but Undead? You have no expectations: it could be a vampiric dragon, or a zombified humanoid, or an incorporeal ghost, or a skeletal aberration, or an aboleth lich, or any number of things.

The mechanical impacts are pretty pervasive though. You'd have to start throwing "excepts" everywhere - the Knowledge skills, Handle Animal, Charm/Dominate, Alter Self, Favored Enemy, Enlarge, Daze, Hold etc. (e.g. "Normally, an animal will attack only living humanoids, living monstrous humanoids, living giants, or other living animals.")

In addition, undead are not tied to their physical forms as much as the source creature may have been. Humanoids generally have two arms, two legs, a head, and range in size from small to medium. What would a zombified head be, and why?

I get where you're coming from with this, and it's a good way to differentiate a brand new system if you're making one, but I don't see the value in modifying D&D or PF this way.

[Fax Celestis]

Half of those listed effects undead are immune to anyway, from their type-based traits (which shifting it to a subtype wouldn't alter). The other half I don't see a problem with. Favored Enemy already has subtype-based function (Favored Enemy: Shapechangers, for instance), and why shouldn't enlarge person work on a Humanoid (Undead)?

[Elderand]

Half of those listed effects undead are immune to anyway, from their type-based traits (which shifting it to a subtype wouldn't alter). The other half I don't see a problem with. Favored Enemy already has subtype-based function (Favored Enemy: Shapechangers, for instance), and why shouldn't enlarge person work on a Humanoid (Undead)?

It seems to me that you are trying to fix your leaking sink by reworking the entire water network of your country.

-Signed Elderand, who clearly makes terrible plumbing analogies-

[Prime32]

I always thought Ooze would make more sense as an (amorphous) subtype. Most oozes would be Aberration (amorphous) or Plant (amorphous), while elementals would be Outsider (amorphous).

[Urpriest]

I don't think there's anything stating that elementals cannot be the reincarnated spirits of once living creatures reborn on the Elemental Planes. Spirits with the undead subtype could easily be the same type of thing, but negative energy based.


There aren't any elementals that are described as reincarnated spirits of once-living creatures, though. Also, it would be rather odd of Allips or Wraiths began their life cycle on the Negative Energy Plane, considering that they don't have any means of planar travel and are primarily found on the Prime.

[Psyren]

Half of those listed effects undead are immune to anyway, from their type-based traits (which shifting it to a subtype wouldn't alter). The other half I don't see a problem with. Favored Enemy already has subtype-based function (Favored Enemy: Shapechangers, for instance), and why shouldn't enlarge person work on a Humanoid (Undead)?

The immunity is irrelevant because things like Threnodic Spell either exist or can be created later. As a designer you have to look down the road to what is possible nearly as much as you look at the base state. Doing it your way would add a lot of bloat to an already wordy system, by specifying which effects affect "living X," "undead X" or "all X" and needing extra words for each case.

Every undead statblock would go from "Undead" to "(Original Type) Undead." You would have to decide which other subtypes stay and which are lost when a creature is reanimated - Would the "human" subtype stay on a human skeleton? Would the "cold" subtype stay on a skeletal white dragon? Could a creature lose and regain the "shapechanger" subtype depending on what it was turned into?

Like I said, I understand why you want to do this and it's certainly legit if you're already rebuilding the system from scratch. But it doesn't add very much to an existing one for the level of effort and space required.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Half of those listed effects undead are immune to anyway, from their type-based traits (which shifting it to a subtype wouldn't alter). The other half I don't see a problem with. Favored Enemy already has subtype-based function (Favored Enemy: Shapechangers, for instance), and why shouldn't enlarge person work on a Humanoid (Undead)?

If you have favored enemy: humanoid(undead) it wouldn't function against animal(undead); or magical beast(undead) because type defines primary characteristics of a creature while subtype is for secondary characteristics. A ranger with favored enemy humanoid(shapechanger) wouldn't get that bonus against outsider(shapechanger).

Because "enlarge person" is limited to certain a physiology. Undead physiology is quite different then living creature... often they don't have one at all. A zombie horse has more in common with a zombie human then it does with a living horse.


Personally, I think that creatures such as allips and wraiths ought to be Elementals with the Undead subtype. After all, they appear to have sprung fully formed from elemental negative energy.

That's what I've been saying!

So a human who is turned into a wraith has his type changed to elemental? but having his type changed when turned into a vampire is out of the question?

—————
Here's something no one has mentioned yet, types should be more significant then subtypes. Undead have 13 lines of traits(that's ignoring features like HD, saves and base attack), That means if you turn something into an undead, its subtype is more significant to its stats then its base type... If a human becomes a Necropolitan, his undead subtype would be vastly more significant then his humanoid base type. The same applies to other types of creature's as well, undead ends up being more important then the base type.

I ask you this question... how is the game improved by having undead be a subtype?

[Tvtyrant]

There aren't any elementals that are described as reincarnated spirits of once-living creatures, though. Also, it would be rather odd of Allips or Wraiths began their life cycle on the Negative Energy Plane, considering that they don't have any means of planar travel and are primarily found on the Prime.

Or maybe they are gated in from the negative energy plane when horrible things happen? So you do not become an allip, an allip is allowed through by the violence of your suicide.

I always fluffed undead as being negative energy golems anyway, so it doesn't seem that bad to me. Makes deathless easier too; they are positive energy golems.

[Fax Celestis]

If you have favored enemy: humanoid(undead) it wouldn't function against animal(undead); or magical beast(undead) because type defines primary characteristics of a creature while subtype is for secondary characteristics. A ranger with favored enemy humanoid(shapechanger) wouldn't get that bonus against outsider(shapechanger). Except you can select "Shapechanger" independently of parent type?


Because "enlarge person" is limited to certain a physiology. Undead physiology is quite different then living creature... often they don't have one at all. A zombie horse has more in common with a zombie human then it does with a living horse.It's magic. Why does it care about physiology?




So a human who is turned into a wraith has his type changed to elemental? but having his type changed when turned into a vampire is out of the question?
N...no? Wraiths are not made from people. If it were, though, it would be Humanoid (Incorporeal, Undead).


Here's something no one has mentioned yet, types should be more significant then subtypes. Undead have 13 lines of traits(that's ignoring features like HD, saves and base attack), That means if you turn something into an undead, its subtype is more significant to its stats then its base type... If a human becomes a Necropolitan, his undead subtype would be vastly more significant then his humanoid base type. The same applies to other types of creature's as well, undead ends up being more important then the base type.
Swarm and Living Construct are also like this. It is not without precedent.

[Urpriest]

Except you can select "Shapechanger" independently of parent type?

Rules quote? Wasn't aware you could do this in 3.5.

[Fax Celestis]

Son of a monkey, I thought there was an expansion in one of the Complete books (or maybe an Eberron book?) that had Favored Enemy (Shapechangers) as an option.

[flare'90]

Son of a monkey, I thought there was an expansion in one of the Complete books (or maybe an Eberron book?) that had Favored Enemy (Shapechangers) as an option.

It was an option... in 3.0.

[LordErebus12]

So a human who is turned into a wraith has his type changed to elemental? but having his type changed when turned into a vampire is out of the question?


This is why I mentioned adding a Spirit type. the entire spirit shaman class categorizes incorporeal undead (among other creature types/subtypes), such as the wraith, as being a spirit; in addition to being undead.

I dont agree with making a wraith an elemental, since a soul (corrupted/animated by anger or otherwise) is not an element. Its a spirit that was unable to pass on because of its rage... its Wrath...

remember...

(3.5) Elemental Type: An elemental is a being composed of one of the four classical elements: air, earth, fire, or water.

(Pathfinder) Elemental: An elemental is a creature which is made up completely of one of the four elements of air, earth, fire or water. This means that they do not have anatomies and nervous systems as do most other creatures. As a result they cannot be stunned, poisoned or paralysed, and do not have a blind side or vulnerable areas that can be targeted by their enemies. They do not breathe, eat or sleep, and are typically outsiders from one of the Elemental Planes.

By changing it to elemental, you are literally changing the entire fluff around what makes an elemental an elemental, when there is no need to do so.

[Gemini476]

I guess I could post some historical examples of what other editions have had for types and/or subtypes? From the ones I'm familiar with, that is. Someone else would need to fill in the rest or correct my mistakes.

Normal Animal (Giant Animal, Prehistoric Animal) Note: Giant animals are just huge versions of normal ones, prehistoric ones are stuff like dinosaurs
Construct (Enchanted Monster)Note: magically created, can only be healed by magic, immune to poison and mental effects, do not reproduce. Lesser constructs can be hit by anything, greater constructs need magic weapons.
Dragon (Dragon-Kin) Note: Dragon-Kin are basically "lesser dragons" and include stuff like chimerae and hydras
Humanoid(Giant humanoid, Demihuman, Human) Note: definition is basically "Does it have a humanoid body?", giants are immune to Charm Person.
Lowlife Note: mostly nonintelligent (Int 0) things, like fungi, versmin, and oozes. Also comes in huge versions of the former.
Monster Note: a catch-all category for stuff that doesn't fit in any other. Includes animals and humanoids with special powers and abilities.
Planar Monster (Enchanted Monster) Note: basically outsiders/elementals. If summoned/gated they are also "enchanted" and thus stopped by things like Protection From Evil.
Undead Note: immune to poison and mind-affecting things, ae also "enchanted" if created by magical spells (and can thus be Dispelled, amongst other things.)
Creatures in 4E have two big things as "types":
Origin (a.k.a where you come from)
Aberrant native to or corrupted by the Far Realm
Elemental native to the Elemental Chaos (note: includes Demons since the Abyss is down there in the 4E multiverse)
Fey native to the Feywild, includes various Fair Folky races like cyclopes and elves and treants and eladrin
Immortal native to the Astral Sea, basically the Outsiders of old, examples in the Rules Compendium are angels and devils
Natural native to the "natural world", so the Prime Material I guess
Shadow native to the Shadowfell, which includes a bunch of undead if I recall correctly because of it being something like the Negative Energy Plane+(Demi)Plane of Shadows combined into one

Type

Animate critter given life by magic, like golems or zombies
Beast mostly non-magical animals like owlbears and bears and drakes
Humanoid humans and those that resemble them
Magical Beast beasts that are either intelligent, have magical powers, or both, like dragons


Race is another thing but is mostly restricted to humanoids, who also have a class if they're a PC and sometimes rarely when they're an NPC. (Most NPCs follow the AD&D standard of not having a class to speak of - Normal Men, in other words.)

Creatures also sometimes have keywords attached to them, which are basically the subtypes of old like [angel], [fire], , and so on. Things that describe the creature and might have additional rules.

For example, a zombie is a "natural animate (undead)" whilst an angel is an "immortal humanoid (angel)" and a dragon is a "natural magical beast (dragon)".

This is based on the basic rules, and may not be the same in the final product.

Types have no rules on their own, but are referred to by other things, like an arrow of dragon slaying dealing extra damage to those of the dragon type. Nevertheless, here they are:
[B]Aberrations mostly the same as in 3E, except they also include Slaadi - they are "utterly alien beings".
Beasts "nonhumanoids that are a natural part of the fantasy ecology" - includes dinosaurs and giant animals.
Celestials critters native to the Upper Planes. Now include coutls and pegasi.
Constructs made, not born. Include modrons.
Dragons big reptiles. Includes both true dragons and what will probably be called "lesser dragons" in the future but aren't defined as such in the document from what I can tell beyond being worse than True Dragons.
Elementals native to the Elemental Planes.
Fey closely tied to nature, the Feywild, and/or forested Outer Planes.
Fiends native to the Lower Planes - "if an evil celestial is a rarity, a good fiend is almost inconceivable."
Giants big big humanoids. There are both true giants and non-true giants.
Humanoids player races, goblinoids, etc.
Monstrosities monsters, be they the result of magical experimentation (owlbears), terrible curses (minotaurs, yaun-ti), or otherwise. A catch-all category that includes the Tarrasque from what I recall.
Oozes slimy jellies.
Plants specifically vegetable creatures. Most are ambulatory, some are carnivorous.
Undead once-living brought to life through necromantic magic or unholy curses. Includes both walking corpses and bodiless spirits.

Monsters might also have tags like humanoid (orc) - these have no specific rules, but might be referred to by spells or magic items or whatnot. Basically subtypes I guess?

I searched through a 2E book and I don't think monsters had anything resembling types in that? Could someone clarify that, and maybe also how it worked in 1E or OD&D?

Personally I prefer 4E's way of doing things, but well, that's just, like, my opinion, man.

[Fax Celestis]

This is why I mentioned adding a Spirit type. the entire spirit shaman class categorizes incorporeal undead (among other creature types/subtypes), such as the wraith, as being a spirit; in addition to being undead.

I dont agree with making a wraith an elemental, since a soul (corrupted/animated by anger or otherwise) is not an element. Its a spirit that was unable to pass on because of its rage... its Wrath...

remember...

(3.5) Elemental Type: An elemental is a being composed of one of the four classical elements: air, earth, fire, or water.

(Pathfinder) Elemental: An elemental is a creature which is made up completely of one of the four elements of air, earth, fire or water. This means that they do not have anatomies and nervous systems as do most other creatures. As a result they cannot be stunned, poisoned or paralysed, and do not have a blind side or vulnerable areas that can be targeted by their enemies. They do not breathe, eat or sleep, and are typically outsiders from one of the Elemental Planes.

By changing it to elemental, you are literally changing the entire fluff around what makes an elemental an elemental, when there is no need to do so.
I'm not saying change it to Elemental, I'm saying change it to Avatar, which includes Elemental.

[Rubik]

But you can have acid and cold elementals, so why not positive and negative energy? That, and I can see there being a Spirit type, for wraiths and ghosts and such to go in as well.

[Urpriest]

But you can have acid and cold elementals, so why not positive and negative energy?

Cold Elementals either come from an alternate cosmology where cold is one of the classical elements, or they're Ice Paraelementals, which are a mix of Air and Water. And I've never seen an Acid Elemental, though there are certainly Acid Energons.

Thinking about this, the one almost inviolable thing about types is that (sans Augmented subtype) they determine the properties of your hit dice. Undead have Con -- in 3.5 and aren't usually big and bulky like constructs, so they need d12 hit dice, and the easiest way to give that to them is to give them their own type.

Essentially, it boils down to this: what should a type do? Mechanically speaking, a type should classify HD.

[Fax Celestis]

Cold Elementals either come from an alternate cosmology where cold is one of the classical elements, or they're Ice Paraelementals, which are a mix of Air and Water. And I've never seen an Acid Elemental, though there are certainly Acid Energons.

Thinking about this, the one almost inviolable thing about types is that (sans Augmented subtype) they determine the properties of your hit dice. Undead have Con -- in 3.5 and aren't usually big and bulky like constructs, so they need d12 hit dice, and the easiest way to give that to them is to give them their own type.

Essentially, it boils down to this: what should a type do? Mechanically speaking, a type should classify HD.

Would you be more amenable if the Undead subtype didn't change HD, removed CON, and based bonus HP off of Charisma?

[Karnith]

Uh. Swarm is core.
I know that I'm over a page late, but I do love pointless trivia. The Swarm subtype was not originally part of 3E - it was introduced in Fiend Folio, fairly late in 3.0 (April 2003).

[Fax Celestis]

I know that I'm over a page late, but I do love pointless trivia. The Swarm subtype was not originally part of 3E - it was introduced in Fiend Folio, fairly late in 3.0 (April 2003).

As far as I'm aware, well over 90% of the conversations here are either talking about 3.5 or PF, and it can be relatively easily assumed that if someone is talking about "core", they mean 3.5 core.

[Karnith]

As far as I'm aware, well over 90% of the conversations here are either talking about 3.5 or PF, and it can be relatively easily assumed that if someone is talking about "core", they mean 3.5 core.
Yes, but KillianHawkeye's post (or, at least, the part in question) was pretty clearly about third edition as a whole, and the swarm subtype was a pretty radical change when it was introduced. Compare the pre- and post-errata stat block for, say, Ruin Swarms, for example, or consider the BoVD hivemind rules without the swarm subtype.

[KillianHawkeye]

Uh. Swarm is core.

Yes, but they weren't part of core until 3.5, whereas I was talking about the original 3rd Edition where the creature types were originally established.

My point was that to understand creature types, you have to look at how they were originally presented and not what they ended up being with things like swarms and living constructs which have a larger-than-normal amount of rules than most subtypes.

[Urpriest]

Would you be more amenable if the Undead subtype didn't change HD, removed CON, and based bonus HP off of Charisma?

PF-style you mean?

In a PF-like environment, or a 4e-like one where undead simply have Con scores, there's less need for an undead type. They're still iconic enough foes that it might make sense to give them their own type (similar to why Dragons are not simply Magical Beasts with the Dragonblood subtype, or Outsiders are not just other types with the Extraplanar subtype). There's also the concern that they're common minions, with HD-based methods of acquiring them. That means it's generally better for them to all have the same HD, so that some aren't obviously superior. (Dragon and Outsider skeletons are already great, but imagine if they had full BAB while Giants and the like did not. Normally Giants have more HD to counterbalance this, but if you've got an HD cap on your minions that doesn't matter.)

[Psyren]

Would you be more amenable if the Undead subtype didn't change HD, removed CON, and based bonus HP off of Charisma?

That would be a pretty raw deal for animals, who have d8s and little Cha to speak of. Yet when I think of a zombie bear, it should be tougher than a living one.


PF-style you mean?

In a PF-like environment, or a 4e-like one where undead simply have Con scores, there's less need for an undead type. They're still iconic enough foes that it might make sense to give them their own type (similar to why Dragons are not simply Magical Beasts with the Dragonblood subtype, or Outsiders are not just other types with the Extraplanar subtype). There's also the concern that they're common minions, with HD-based methods of acquiring them. That means it's generally better for them to all have the same HD, so that some aren't obviously superior. (Dragon and Outsider skeletons are already great, but imagine if they had full BAB while Giants and the like did not. Normally Giants have more HD to counterbalance this, but if you've got an HD cap on your minions that doesn't matter.)

PF did roll elementals into Outsider and giants into Humanoid. Keeping Undead separate is more helpful for newer players though, who may miss the "undead" amidst a raft of subtypes like "evil," "incorporeal" and "extraplanar" and thus not realize they can use their channel energy on it.

Actually, that might be another reason it was a type - there are undead who can have a number of subtypes. and it would make the statblock messy.

[LordErebus12]

But you can have acid and cold elementals, so why not positive and negative energy?

You can. They are from the paraelemental planes, where the elemental planes overlap. Acid would be where water and earth combine, but more to the earth side... meanwhile cold would be where water meets air.

[Lord Vukodlak]

N...no? Wraiths are not made from people. If it were, though, it would be Humanoid (Incorporeal, Undead).

Create Spawn (Su)
Any humanoid slain by a wraith becomes a wraith in 1d4 rounds.
The thing is humanoids carry there own subtypes, which are often lost when transformed into undead. This obviously happens with non-templated undead such as ghouls, wraiths, shadows etc. But it also happens with skeletons and zombies.


Swarm and Living Construct are also like this. It is not without precedent.
Living Construct could probably be its own type however; because spells/effects that specific constructs are also supposed to effect warforged and it saves a great deal of print space for the grand total of five creatures or less who use it. Even if it offers great radical changes if only a tiny handful of creatures actually use the type its best to be a subtype. That's why they eliminated the shapechanger subtype so few monstrous used it.

Swarms however are not like that at all, they only posses a small handful of traits on top of the already existing creature type. A swarm is just a whole bunch of creatures nothing has really changed its just a mechanical way of fighting a huge mob of creatures without putting lots of weak trivial things on the board.


It's magic. Why does it care about physiology?
Then why doesn't enlarge person work on cows? Obviously the magic cares about physiology, what do you think separates one type from another? In any event it fail against all undead because its a fort save that doesn't effect objects but that wasn't really either of our points. Because there are spells that specify creature type; obviously magic cares about physiology. Otherwise you wouldn't have charm person, speak with animals or invisibility to undead.

So undead have there own type because they have a unified physiology, more unified then any other type.

Why isn't a dragon a magical beast, why aren't monstrous humanoids just a subtype of humanoids. Why bother with vermin just make them animals. Why bother with oozes they can be aberrations, Giants obviously are just big humanoids. Elemental's aren't all that different from outsiders.
The definitions are not clear Undead are a bit more clear, its neither living nor dead.

The point is you can call for the elimination of just about any type and replace the unifying features with subtypes.

[Fax Celestis]

Then why doesn't enlarge person work on cows? Obviously the magic cares about physiology, what do you think separates one type from another? In any event it fail against all undead because its a fort save that doesn't effect objects but that wasn't really either of our points. Because there are spells that specify creature type; obviously magic cares about physiology. Otherwise you wouldn't have charm person, speak with animals or invisibility to undead.

So undead have there own type because they have a unified physiology, more unified then any other type.

I just think its' *%&*(&^ stupid that a cleric who becomes a vampire can no longer cast enlarge person on himself.

[LordErebus12]

I just think its' *%&*(&^ stupid that a cleric who becomes a vampire can no longer cast enlarge person on himself.

agreed. You could give it the 'augmented humanoid' subtype and allow it in your games. that or allow it to gain access to the expansion power.

[Fax Celestis]

I get what you're saying but augmented doesn't work that way.

[LordErebus12]

I get what you're saying but augmented doesn't work that way.

i understand that, but if its your game, then anything goes...

[Lord Vukodlak]

I get what you're saying but augmented doesn't work that way.

Neither does changing undead to a subtype either way its a house rule but one is a hell of a lot simpler than the other.

[Pan151]

I'm failing miserably to grasp the point of this thread.

Is there any real reason to redo the whole type/subtype system from scratch? Is there something wrong enough with it that would justify such an extensive change?

From the posts so far, the only real problem I see is spells and effects that are humanoid-specific, because the designers did not account for non-humanoid player characters when they were balancing spells. Which is something easily solved by a relatively small set of houseroules. No need to re-write a significant portion of the game's rules to be even more convoluted than it already is, for no apparent reason other than someone being bored...

[Fax Celestis]

I'm failing miserably to grasp the point of this thread.

Is there any real reason to redo the whole type/subtype system from scratch? Is there something wrong enough with it that would justify such an extensive change?

From the posts so far, the only real problem I see is spells and effects that are humanoid-specific, because the designers did not account for non-humanoid player characters when they were balancing spells. Which is something easily solved by a relatively small set of houseroules. No need to re-write a significant portion of the game's rules to be even more convoluted than it already is, for no apparent reason other than someone being bored...

I am in the middle of a system rewrite and I'm trying to determine what I'm doing with types.

[Pan151]

I am in the middle of a system rewrite and I'm trying to determine what I'm doing with types.

If you are re-writing the whole system, then yeah, change as much as you want. However, extensively changing the type/subtype system is too much work for too little benefit - redoing the augmented subtype rules and the humanoid-only effects does more or less the same job with minimal effort.

[Ettina]

Honestly, I think the bigger problem is the Humanoid type. After all, all three are humanoid, but not Humanoid.

Humanoid doesn't mean humanlike body shape. It means humanlike body shape and humanlike internal physiology. Warforged, as constructs, clearly wouldn't have humanlike physiology. Tiefllings are half outsider, so their physiology is also pretty different.

Just because they look humanlike doesn't mean they're humanlike on the inside. It makes sense that spells designed for humans won't work properly on them.

[Ettina]

I just think its' *%&*(&^ stupid that a cleric who becomes a vampire can no longer cast enlarge person on himself.

Why? He's changed his anatomy in a very basic way.

I mean, he's no longer affected by poisons and such, positive energy now hurts him while negative energy heals him, he no longer needs to breathe, etc, etc. Those are pretty dramatic changes. Why is it so hard to accept that some random spell would affect him differently, when so much else does?

[Fax Celestis]

He's still a human, albeit one powered by negative energy. Still, that shouldn't interact with magic in any way outside if how healing spells treat him.

[Psyren]

If you are re-writing the whole system, then yeah, change as much as you want. However, extensively changing the type/subtype system is too much work for too little benefit - redoing the augmented subtype rules and the humanoid-only effects does more or less the same job with minimal effort.

Or better yet, just replacing Enlarge Person with a spell called Expand that works on any creature type.

[Vhaidara]

Tieflings are ousiders, not ex-humanoids. Same with warforged: they're constructs, not ex-humanoids.


What about someone who acquires the half-fiend template? It was shown in a web article that you can acquire a template like that after creation. They used to be human, they used to be able to cast Enlarge Person on themselves, but now they have the Outsider type and cannot cast the spell on themselves.

If you rule that they cannot, then you have just ruled that just because something is an ex-human does not mean that they can benefit from having been human.

If you rule that they can, then why can't tieflings? Planetouched are, by definition, more human than the matching halfbreed.

[Gemini476]

I am in the middle of a system rewrite and I'm trying to determine what I'm doing with types.

I'd just do the 4E thing and push all the rules into the spells themselves and keywords. So basically the "shove the rules into the subtypes" approach.

[Eldan]

IF anyone's interested, I once reorganized the types as follows:

Main Types:
Animal
Construct
Humanoid
Magical Beast
Ooze
Spirit
Plant

Subtypes:
Aberrant
Dragonic
Elemental
Fey
Giant
Planar (formerly outsider)
Undead
Verminous (really might just be dropped entirely)
Plus most of the old ones.

I think it actually works quite well. A giant becomes a humanoid (giant), a fire elemental is a spirit (elemental, fire), an angel is a spirit (planar, angel, good, law), a dragon a magical beast (draconic), a few is a spirit (fey) or humanoid (fey). A skeleton would be construct (undead), while a shadow is spirit (undead). It has a few nice side effects, too, like working well with the Spirit Shaman (which introduced Spirits, anyway), or solving some issues of template stacking (you can have a Humanoid (giant, undead) or magical beast (undead, dragon)). Also, native outsiders aren't as much of an oddity, being humanoid (planar), now.


To me, "type" is mostly about body type, shape and function. Biomechanics, if you will. It's also what mundane abilities like martial arts or favoured enemy work on. Subtypes are more a matter of magical essence. There's spells that work on types (enlarge person, some mind control) and a lot of magic that works on subtypes (bane weapons, banishments, that kind of thing.)

[Zombimode]

Why certain types exist (or do not exist) is not a very useful question. Type are arbitrary.

You can always come up with an explanation of why a specific type should be a subtype or vice versa. If not, you're not thinking hard enough.

I mean, if it bothers you, sure, go ahead and change some thing around. But reduction on itself is not a worthwhile goal.

Do you really want typelines like this:
large humanoid (evil, chaotic, fire, giant, outsider, magical)
?

[Ettina]

He's still a human, albeit one powered by negative energy. Still, that shouldn't interact with magic in any way outside if how healing spells treat him.

He's not still a human. He's a vampire. Vampires aren't human.

If someone used a permanent polymorph spell to turn himself into a bear, would you say that spells that work on humans and not bears should still work on him?

[Eldan]

Why certain types exist (or do not exist) is not a very useful question. Type are arbitrary.

You can always come up with an explanation of why a specific type should be a subtype or vice versa. If not, you're not thinking hard enough.

I mean, if it bothers you, sure, go ahead and change some thing around. But reduction on itself is not a worthwhile goal.

Do you really want typelines like this:
large humanoid (evil, chaotic, fire, giant, outsider, magical)
?

Yes, yes I do. Far more precise.

Though, really, I'm not even sure we need "giant" for anything. It's probably the first I'd drop, that or vermin.

[Psyren]

Why certain types exist (or do not exist) is not a very useful question. Type are arbitrary.

You can always come up with an explanation of why a specific type should be a subtype or vice versa. If not, you're not thinking hard enough.

I mean, if it bothers you, sure, go ahead and change some thing around. But reduction on itself is not a worthwhile goal.

Do you really want typelines like this:
large humanoid (evil, chaotic, fire, giant, outsider, magical)
?

Agreed, it's a lot of piddle and semantics for no real benefit.

But if one is rewriting the whole from scratch anyway and wants a lightweight way to make their version stand out, this is one way to do it.

[Fax Celestis]

He's not still a human. He's a vampire. Vampires aren't human.

If someone used a permanent polymorph spell to turn himself into a bear, would you say that spells that work on humans and not bears should still work on him?

Yes, because Polymorph doesn't change your type.

[Eldan]

Now I'm just tempted to split things into physical types and mental types, so we could have a bear that is physically and mentally an animal, or a polymorphed wizard who is physically an animal, but mentally a human.

Why yes, I do overcomplicate.

[Psyren]

Yes, because Polymorph doesn't change your type.

In 3.5 no. In PF it is very vague.

[Rubik]

What do you mean, "Polymorph doesn't change your type"? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/polymorph.htm)

Check the last sentence, first paragraph.

[Fax Celestis]

What do you mean, "Polymorph doesn't change your type"? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/polymorph.htm)

Check the last sentence, first paragraph.

Wasn't that not!errata'd when PHB-II introduced polymorph subschool? But my bad anyway, I forgot it did that.

[Psyren]

Hmm, it says the spell's text overrides the subschool, so I don't know that you can call it errata even if it were different. (It also doesn't mention type, so it seems that Rubik's quote is correct.)

[Lord Vukodlak]

Nothing in the polymorph subschool section of the PHBIII says the subject retains or changes his type, so that determination is based on the spell.

[Gemini476]

However, a Druid who Wildshapes into a bear still has the Humanoid type. Or the Undead type, or the Outsider type, etc. depending on what race he is.

It's pretty weird!

[Bad Wolf]

I think it's so you don't end up with a Skeleton Zombie Vampire that's also a Werewolf. Changing the type makes it so they aren't eligible for a lot of templates anymore.

[Psyren]

I think it's so you don't end up with a Skeleton Zombie Vampire that's also a Werewolf. Changing the type makes it so they aren't eligible for a lot of templates anymore.

Excellent point - a lot of templates will need to be reworded or redesigned due to this change.

[Fax Celestis]

Excellent point - a lot of templates will need to be reworded or redesigned due to this change.

No they won't.


"Skeleton" is an acquired template that can be added to any corporeal creature (other than an undead) that has a skeletal system (referred to hereafter as the base creature).


"Zombie" is an acquired template that can be added to any corporeal creature (other than an undead) that has a skeletal system (referred to hereafter as the base creature).


"Half-dragon" is an inherited template that can be added to any living, corporeal creature (referred to hereafter as the base creature).

[Gemini476]

Excellent point - a lot of templates will need to be reworded or redesigned due to this change.


"Skeleton" is an acquired template (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#templates) that can be added to any corporeal creature (other than an undead) that has a skeletal system (referred to hereafter as the base creature).

"Zombie" is an acquired template (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#templates) that can be added to any corporeal creature (other than an undead) that has a skeletal system (referred to hereafter as the base creature).

"Vampire" is an acquired template (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#templates) that can be added to any humanoid (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#humanoidType) or monstrous humanoid (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#monstrousHumanoidType) creature (referred to hereafter as the base creature).

[...]

Create Spawn (Su (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#supernaturalAbilities))


A humanoid (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#humanoidType) or monstrous humanoid (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#monstrousHumanoidType) slain by a vampire’s energy drain (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#energyDrainAndNegativeLevels) rises as a vampire spawn (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/vampire.htm#vampireSpawn) 1d4 days after burial.


Energy Drain (Su (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#supernaturalAbilities))


Living creatures hit by a vampire’s slam attack (or any other natural weapon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#naturalWeapons) the vampire might possess) gain two negative levels (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#energyDrainAndNegativeLevels) . For each negative level bestowed, the vampire gains 5 temporary hit points. A vampire can use its energy drain (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#energyDrainAndNegativeLevels) ability once per round.


"Lycanthrope" is a template (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#templates) that can be added to any humanoid (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#humanoidType) or giant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#giantType) (referred to hereafter as the base creature). The lycanthrope template can be inherited (for natural lycanthropes) or acquired (for afflicted lycanthropes). Becoming a lycanthrope is very much like multiclassing as an animal (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#animalType) and gaining the appropriate Hit Dice.

[...]


Curse of Lycanthropy (Su (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#supernaturalAbilities))

Any humanoid (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#humanoidType) or giant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#giantType) hit by a werewolf’s bite attack in animal or hybrid form must succeed on a DC 15 Fortitude save (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm#fortitude) or contract lycanthropy.

Maybe the specific example of a Skeleton Zombie Vampire Werewolf is a bad idea since it requires pretty much 0 reworking if you move Undead to a subtype. (You can already be a Vampire Werewolf, though, so that's a thing. Of course, I'm pretty sure that Fax is already (planning on) rewriting those templates anyway.)

[Bad Wolf]

If Undead was a subtype, I could have a Radiant Half-Nymph Skeleton, which makes no sense. It'd have a Charisma score of 11. There's a skeleton that's better looking then you are.

[Psyren]

No they won't.

- "Lycanthrope" is a template that can be added to any humanoid or giant (referred to hereafter as the base creature)." Needs updating.
- "Vampire" is an acquired template that can be added to any humanoid or monstrous humanoid creature (referred to hereafter as the base creature)." Needs updating.
- "Lich" is an acquired template that can be added to any humanoid creature (referred to hereafter as the base creature), provided it can create the required phylactery." Needs updating.
- Monster of Legend, Half-Golem, Half-Vampire, Necropolitan, Ghost Brute, Sacred Watcher... and so on.

[Fax Celestis]

If Undead was a subtype, I could have a Radiant Half-Nymph Skeleton, which makes no sense.

Because such template shenanigans as this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=2174577&postcount=388), this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=9254742&postcount=1), this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=9297576&postcount=30), or this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=9257828&postcount=12) don't happen already?

[RedWarlock]

Any old template that references 'humanoid' or 'monstrous humanoid' gets a 'living' qualifier added to it, which would preclude undead and deathless. Not super-hard.

[Fax Celestis]

- "Lycanthrope" is a template that can be added to any humanoid or giant (referred to hereafter as the base creature)." Needs updating.
- "Vampire" is an acquired template that can be added to any humanoid or monstrous humanoid creature (referred to hereafter as the base creature)." Needs updating.
- "Lich" is an acquired template that can be added to any humanoid creature (referred to hereafter as the base creature), provided it can create the required phylactery." Needs updating.
- Monster of Legend, Half-Golem, Half-Vampire, Necropolitan, Ghost Brute, Sacred Watcher... and so on.

Most of those aren't OGL, so I can't touch them anyway. I do see your point, but the majority of non-undead templates say something like "an acquired template that can be applied to any living, corporeal creature".

[Psyren]

Any old template that references 'humanoid' or 'monstrous humanoid' gets a 'living' qualifier added to it, which would preclude undead and deathless. Not super-hard.

Or animals, plants, magical beasts, elementals, outsiders, and "avatars" as stated above, among others.

[Gemini476]

If Undead was a subtype, I could have a Radiant Half-Nymph Skeleton, which makes no sense. It'd have a Charisma score of 11. There's a skeleton that's better looking then you are.

And this
http://i.imgur.com/bNjeeD9.jpg
has a charisma score of 26.

Charisma is by no means just appearance. (Also Cha 11 is pretty much average, but that's a separate issue.)

Also also, you can already have a Radiant Half-nymph Skeleton. Note how two of those are inherited templates and one is acquired. Also^3, it would still have Cha 1 since Skeleton gets applied last in the order and overrides the rest.

[Psyren]

Most of those aren't OGL, so I can't touch them anyway. I do see your point, but the majority of non-undead templates say something like "an acquired template that can be applied to any living, corporeal creature".

As I've said previously, for your brand new system that you're already reworking from the ground up, this is fine. It's your playground, do what you like. What I am giving you are reasons why the existing systems, or the people playing those systems, would not want to go this route.

(Presumably though you would want ease of conversion between existing d20/OGL systems, so this issue is something to be aware of.)

Also, being OGL is no reason not to touch something. Pathfinder for instance has updated plenty of non-OGL stuff.

[Bad Wolf]

Because such template shenanigans as this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=2174577&postcount=388), this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=9254742&postcount=1), this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=9297576&postcount=30), or this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=9257828&postcount=12) don't happen already?

Eh, I just find the idea of a flamboyant half-nymph undead funny. If anyone manages to make that into an avatar, I will love you forever.

[Fax Celestis]

As I've said previously, for your brand new system that you're already reworking from the ground up, this is fine. It's your playground, do what you like. What I am giving you are reasons why the existing systems, or the people playing those systems, would not want to go this route.

(Presumably though you would want ease of conversion between existing d20/OGL systems, so this issue is something to be aware of.)

True.

So, knowing that this is for system rewrite, if Undead Subtype does the following, is there an issue?


Undead
Undead are the walking dead.

Traits
An undead possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry).
No Constitution score.1 An undead creature uses its Charisma2 modifier for Concentration checks, Fortitude saves, and Hit Point calculations.
Darkvision out to 60 feet.
Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects), unless the undead creature possesses an Intelligence score. Undead creatures with Intelligence scores are only immune to negative mind-affecting effects, though they may raise and lower this defense at will.3
Immunity to poison, sleep effects, paralysis, stunning, disease, and death effects.
Not subject to critical hits, nonlethal damage, ability drain, or energy drain. Immune to damage to its physical ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution), as well as to fatigue and exhaustion effects.
Cannot heal damage on its own if it has no Intelligence score, although it can be healed. Entropic Damage (such as an inflict light wounds spell) can heal undead creatures in some cases. The fast healing special quality works regardless of the creature's Intelligence score.
Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects or is harmless).
Not at risk of death from massive damage, but when reduced to 0 hit points or less, it is immediately destroyed.
Not affected by raise dead and reincarnate spells or abilities. Resurrection and true resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead.
Undead do not breathe, eat, or sleep.
1Should I really do this? What if I just left undead with CON scores?
2On what you said earlier about undead animals having terrible HP, what if I made this Wisdom modifier instead?
3Is this 2nd sentence really necessary?

[Vhaidara]

If you're doing this so that a Vampire Human Cleric can still be affected by Enlarge Person, get rid of the Intelligent Undead's immunity to mind affecting. Using your logic, why can't he be charmed when he's still basically human?

[Fax Celestis]

If you're doing this so that a Vampire Human Cleric can still be affected by Enlarge Person, get rid of the Intelligent Undead's immunity to mind affecting. Using your logic, why can't he be charmed when he's still basically human?

Yeah, I was leaning on that.

I was actually considering making Mindless the only type-based way to get mind-affecting immunity. Basically, if you have INT greater than --, [Mind-Affecting] works barring resistances or specific immunities.

[Vhaidara]

Yeah, that makes a lot more sense. If it has a brain, you can mess with it.

Significant buff to enchantment, which it really needs.

[Bad Wolf]

If you're doing this so that a Vampire Human Cleric can still be affected by Enlarge Person, get rid of the Intelligent Undead's immunity to mind affecting. Using your logic, why can't he be charmed when he's still basically human?

Can't Humans-turned-Vampires already be affected by Enlarge Person? Their type changes to Undead (augmented humanoid), which I'm 50% sure that means they can still be affected by that.

[Vhaidara]

Can't Humans-turned-Vampires already be affected by Enlarge Person? Their type changes to Undead (augmented humanoid), which I'm 50% sure that means they can still be affected by that.

Nope, that's not how augmented works
A creature receives this subtype whenever something happens to change its original type. Some creatures (those with an inherited template) are born with this subtype; others acquire it when they take on an acquired template. The augmented subtype is always paired with the creature’s original type. A creature with the augmented subtype usually has the traits of its current type, but the features of its original type.

[Fax Celestis]

Can't Humans-turned-Vampires already be affected by Enlarge Person? Their type changes to Undead (augmented humanoid), which I'm 50% sure that means they can still be affected by that.

Nope.


Augmented Subtype
A creature receives this subtype whenever something happens to change its original type. Some creatures (those with an inherited template) are born with this subtype; others acquire it when they take on an acquired template. The augmented subtype is always paired with the creature’s original type. A creature with the augmented subtype usually has the traits of its current type, but the features of its original type.

...which would mean the following for a vampire:


Features
A humanoid has the following features (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).

8-sided Hit Dice, or by character class.
Base attack bonus equal to ¾ total Hit Dice (as cleric).
Good Reflex saves (usually; a humanoid’s good save varies).
Skill points equal to (2 + Int modifier, minimum 1) per Hit Die, with quadruple skill points for the first Hit Die, or by character class.

Traits
An undead creature possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).

No Constitution score.
Darkvision out to 60 feet.
Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects).
Immunity to poison, sleep effects, paralysis, stunning, disease, and death effects.
Not subject to critical hits, nonlethal damage, ability drain, or energy drain. Immune to damage to its physical ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution), as well as to fatigue and exhaustion effects.
Cannot heal damage on its own if it has no Intelligence score, although it can be healed. Negative energy (such as an inflict spell) can heal undead creatures. The fast healing special quality works regardless of the creature’s Intelligence score.
Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects or is harmless).
Uses its Charisma modifier for Concentration checks.
Not at risk of death from massive damage, but when reduced to 0 hit points or less, it is immediately destroyed.
Not affected by raise dead and reincarnate spells or abilities. Resurrection and true resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead.
Proficient with its natural weapons, all simple weapons, and any weapons mentioned in its entry.
Proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) it is described as wearing, as well as all lighter types. Undead not indicated as wearing armor are not proficient with armor. Undead are proficient with shields if they are proficient with any form of armor.
Undead do not breathe, eat, or sleep.

[Bad Wolf]

Oh, that makes sense. Carry on then.

[Gemini476]

- "Lycanthrope" is a template that can be added to any humanoid or giant (referred to hereafter as the base creature)." Needs updating.
Undead are immune to most fortitude saves, and thus cannot get afflicted with lycanthropy.

- "Vampire" is an acquired template that can be added to any humanoid or monstrous humanoid creature (referred to hereafter as the base creature)." Needs updating.
Undead are immune to energy drain, not to mention how the vampire's Energy Drain only works on living creatures.

- "Lich" is an acquired template that can be added to any humanoid creature (referred to hereafter as the base creature), provided it can create the required phylactery." Needs updating.
This might need some reworking, yes. Although given that the requirement for creating the phylactery is spellcasting and CL 11 most undead won't have access to it, I suppose. (Adding the word "living" before humanoid fixes it nicely.)

- Monster of Legend
Besides being 3.0 material, I'm not entirely sure that a fix would be necessary here. (I kind of get the feeling like turning into an Outsider(Native) would override the undead subtype, but I honestly don't have any idea how that works.)

, Half-Golem
...I'm not entirely sure that it's all that much of an issue (it would pretty much be limited to vampires and such), but again sticking the word "living" in there is a zero-effort job.

, Half-Vampire
Isn't that one an inherited template? 'Cause that would go on before applied stuff. At birth. So you might have a half-vampire mummy but he was a half-vamp before he got entombed, y'know?

, Necropolitan
The mechanics of the Ritual of Rebirth laugh at your puny former undeaddishness. No, really, it basically goes out on them killing you and then casting Raise Dead. That'll reset a lot of stuff.

, Ghost Brute, Sacred Watcher... and so on.
These two have this thing going on where you really shouldn't be getting two templates from the same event - in this case, dying and rising again.
...This is kind of like a guy rising as a ghost and an allip at the same time. There really should be some kind of sanity check regarding stuff like this. (Like adding "living", I suppose, but that gets weird when the guy in question is dead. Maybe "dead X or Y" instead? And make sure that it's clear that undead creatures and dead creatures aren't the same thing.

[Psyren]

- Change "negative" to "harmful" to avoid confusion with negative energy.
- Yeah, Wis should be fine.
- Yeah, the intelligent undead having control over their immunity should be fine, but you need to specify what action they need to take to change this status.
- Clarify whether resurrection and TR need to be cast on destroyed undead, or whether "active" undead can be affected. (This was a peeve of mine.)



...I'm not entirely sure that it's all that much of an issue (it would pretty much be limited to vampires and such), but again sticking the word "living" in there is a zero-effort job.

To one template, sure. To 40, it adds up, and could easily be a source of annoyance to the DM who is trying to convert things.

Look, you can go through every individual example and say it's not a big deal before moving on to the next, but presumably one of the goals of this system is to make things clean and clear. One benefit of the Undead type is that it saved you from having to do all that.

[Pan151]

1Should I really do this? What if I just left undead with CON scores?

Then you would need to also update a bunch of other rules to avoid things like an undead somehow getting regeneration 1/- and consequently being immune to all damage ever.


2On what you said earlier about undead animals having terrible HP, what if I made this Wisdom modifier instead?

It would make no sense from an in-universe perspective. I would personally just keep the d12 HD as far as hitpoints are concerned.


3Is this 2nd sentence really necessary?

Not really. It just complicates things. You could however rephrase it as simply "Intelligent undead can drop or raise this defence at will" (or just include that directly in the rules for immunity themselves)

[Psyren]

It would make no sense from an in-universe perspective. I would personally just keep the d12 HD as far as hitpoints are concerned.


Honestly it's no less sensible than bonus HP from Cha (and a darn sight more sensible than Faerie Mysteries Initiate.)

[Lord Vukodlak]

True.
3Is this 2nd sentence really necessary?
Only if it says "undead may not"

The whole idea of lowering you're immunities was intended for player characters like Elves who for the purposes of an adventure might be required to sleep so they can lower there immunity for a sleep spell. Think about why undead should have immunity to mind affecting effects. (other then the mindless ones). Then ask you're self it ifs something they should be able to lower at all. Would you let an undead lower there immunity fort saves that don't effect objects? Warforged have a special resistance to cure spells?

If you're remaking the system save your self some trouble and remove that line about lowering immunities. You can forgo rolling a d20 but if the very nature of being undead makes you immune to mind affecting then it shouldn't work ever... or only mindless undead should have that immunity.


On what you said earlier about undead animals having terrible HP, what if I made this Wisdom modifier instead?
Mindless undead; (who'd have average charisma) could get a size bonus to hp comparable to constructs.

[Pan151]

Honestly it's no less sensible than bonus HP from Cha (and a darn sight more sensible than Faerie Mysteries Initiate.)

Well, bonus HP from Cha means that when you're hurt badly enough that the magics that bind you together would normally fade away, you can force them to still work through sheer determination and force of will.
Bonus hp from wisdom means that you do the same thing through sheer... perceptiveness of your surroundings, I guess?

EDIT. Though, on second though, both attributes are pretty much a mess as to what exactly they represent, so I guess you're right.

[Rubik]

Only mindless things should be immune to [mind-affecting] effects. A saving throw bonus, on the other hand, wouldn't be amiss, even if it's 1/2 the creature's HD (minimum, say, +4).

[Psyren]

Well, bonus HP from Cha means that when you're hurt badly enough that the magics that bind you together would normally fade away, you can force them to still work through sheer determination and force of will.
Bonus hp from wisdom means that you do the same thing through sheer... perceptiveness of your surroundings, I guess?

Both are awareness - one of yourself, one of "not yourself." While the former is probably a better fit for determining damage, they're both ultimately arbitrary.

Again, the bigger problem is that animals are very aware of their surroundings but not very aware of themselves, by the stats, and so making an animal undead could actually make it quite weaker.

Hmm - maybe undead should have bonus HP from size like constructs do?

[The Insanity]

There should be only two types - PC and non-PC.

As for undead's immunity to mind-affecting effects - undead don't actually have brains. They're dead, their brains don't work. It's magic that makes them work, so I can understand that you can't influence them. OTOH, it's "mind"-affecting, not "brain"-affecting, so it could be argued that it would work on them because they have minds and it's not specified what kind of minds it works or does not work on. Personally I don't know what to think about removing that immunity. It kinda wouldn't feel right, because it's almost iconic.

[Psyren]

There should be only two types - PC and non-PC.

As for undead's immunity to mind-affecting effects - undead don't actually have brains. They're dead, their brains don't work. It's magic that makes them work, so I can understand that you can't influence them. OTOH, it's "mind"-affecting, not "brain"-affecting, so it could be argued that it would work on them because they have minds and it's not specified what kind of minds it works or does not work on. Personally I don't know what to think about removing that immunity. It kinda wouldn't feel right, because it's almost iconic.

They can think though (well, the intelligent ones) and even feel emotions, so it's pretty clear a brain isn't required.

Liches can get angry (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0661.html) so I don't see a reason why they couldn't, say, benefit from bardic music or rage and suchlike if they really wanted to. But again, I think that opening themselves to certain benefits should be a double-edged sword, thus I would want there to be an action cost or window associated.

[Urpriest]

There should be only two types - PC and non-PC.


That's one thing that should have no representation whatsoever in the monster rules, if you want to preserve the unique appeal of 3.5.

[Psyren]

Or at least, it shouldn't have anything to do with the typing system. "LA -" is enough to say "don't let your players be this," and PF says "try making a 0 LA/0 RHD version with the race builder if the monsters as PCs rule doesn't quite work."

[Ettina]

They can think though (well, the intelligent ones) and even feel emotions, so it's pretty clear a brain isn't required.

Liches can get angry (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0661.html) so I don't see a reason why they couldn't, say, benefit from bardic music or rage and suchlike if they really wanted to. But again, I think that opening themselves to certain benefits should be a double-edged sword, thus I would want there to be an action cost or window associated.

Just because you can think doesn't mean your brain uses the same process to think.

Cephalopods such as octopi have many cognitive skills that vertebrates also have, but their brain is arranged completely differently. For example, the neurons responsible for planning how to reach out and grab something are located in the central brain of a vertebrate, but in cephalopods those neurons are in the limb that they're responsible for moving. Which means a severed octopus arm can grab objects and try to put them in a nonexistent mouth, but a severed vertebrate limb is only capable of (at most) randomly twitching. Also, vertebrate neurons are sheathed in myelin to help messages travel more quickly, which means that the destruction of myelin can cause issues like multiple sclerosis. Cephalopod neurons don't have myelin - they have a variety of other tactics to speed up neuronal communication.

Similar kinds of differences in underlying function and structure could make certain mind-affecting spells only effective on certain kinds of creatures. (Maybe an explanation for why Charm Person and Charm Monster are different spells.) In the case of undead, maybe they don't even use neurons - instead they have little negative energy processing core thingies that function like neurons. As long as it serves the same function, you'll see similar behavior, but a spell designed to affect neuronal function will have no effect on little negative energy processing cores.

[Psyren]

Just because you can think doesn't mean your brain uses the same process to think.

It doesn't mean you don't, either. Or more accurately, it doesn't mean that whatever process you do use isn't similarly susceptible to compulsion magic.

Now, for the record I do think that it's better to start with the immunity and put the onus on the enchantment-using caster to spend resources (like feats (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/metamagic-feats/threnodic-spell-metamagic)) to crack it. In this way, it means that a necromancer is better at controlling undead "out of the box" than an enchanter or illusionist, which is a valid design goal. But if differentiation is the goal then this is an area that can be safely tweaked.

[Fax Celestis]

Just because you can think doesn't mean your brain uses the same process to think.

Cephalopods such as octopi have many cognitive skills that vertebrates also have, but their brain is arranged completely differently. For example, the neurons responsible for planning how to reach out and grab something are located in the central brain of a vertebrate, but in cephalopods those neurons are in the limb that they're responsible for moving. Which means a severed octopus arm can grab objects and try to put them in a nonexistent mouth, but a severed vertebrate limb is only capable of (at most) randomly twitching. Also, vertebrate neurons are sheathed in myelin to help messages travel more quickly, which means that the destruction of myelin can cause issues like multiple sclerosis. Cephalopod neurons don't have myelin - they have a variety of other tactics to speed up neuronal communication.

Similar kinds of differences in underlying function and structure could make certain mind-affecting spells only effective on certain kinds of creatures. (Maybe an explanation for why Charm Person and Charm Monster are different spells.) In the case of undead, maybe they don't even use neurons - instead they have little negative energy processing core thingies that function like neurons. As long as it serves the same function, you'll see similar behavior, but a spell designed to affect neuronal function will have no effect on little negative energy processing cores.

I know that Pelor kills a catgirl every time someone brings up physics in a D&D discussion: what happens when you bring up biology?

[Bad Wolf]

I know that Pelor kills a catgirl every time someone brings up physics in a D&D discussion: what happens when you bring up biology?

Half-dragons die.

[Milo v3]

Half-dragons die.

To be specific, half-dragon gelatinous cubes and half-dragon shrieking fungus.

[georgie_leech]

Half-dragons die.

So that's the reason for what happens when Dragon Disciples reach level 10.