PDA

View Full Version : D&D 3.x Other Dual Types



Ursus Spelaeus
2017-02-19, 04:01 AM
Should modrons count as outsiders or constructs?
Should fomorians count as giants or fey?

I really wish D&D 3.5 allowed for monsters with multiple types.

What would happen if one were to gestalt creature types together? Pick two creature types, taking the best HD, BAB, saves, and skill points plus traits of both, and put them together.

Your construct-outsider could look something like this:

Construct-Outsider)

Features
d10 hit dice
BAB equal to hit dice
Good saves
(8 + Int) skill points, x4 at first level

Traits
No Constitution score
Low-light vision
Darkvision out to 60 feet
Immunity to mind-affecting effects
Immunity to poison, sleep, paralysis, stunning, disease, death effects, and necromancy effects
Cannot heal damage on their own
Not subject to precision damage, nonlethal damage, ability damage, ability drain, fatigue, exhaustion, or energy drain
Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save
Not at risk of death from massive damage
Cannot be raised or resurrected, except by limited wish, wish, miracle, or true resurrection
Proficient with all simple and military weapons mentioned in its entry
Proficient with whatever type of armor it is described as wearing
Bonus hit points
Does not eat, breathe, or sleep


What problems might you face if you were to make dual type creatures? How would you adjust CR to compensate?

Jormengand
2017-02-19, 05:37 AM
I made some creatures with dual types (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21316479&postcount=7) as a kind of familiar equivalent for the paragon of duality. I just multiclassed them, given that with hit dice working how they work there's not much to lose from doing so.

Ursus Spelaeus
2017-02-19, 09:15 AM
Mixing hit dice using 3.5's multiclassing system is certainly a good way to go about it.

Thanks for the link!

Deepbluediver
2017-02-19, 08:13 PM
Personally I've got no problems with Gestalt creature types- I've used them and they didn't seem particularly overpowered, though I will say I did redo a fair amount of the stats-from-creature-type first.

The issue normally arises because in 3.5 RAW, spells can usually either target Humanoids, or everything, and so for some classes that changed your creature-type it was a nice little bit of fluff but it tended to ADD vulnerabilities. That's the only thing I think you have to be careful of- spells or abilities (Favored Enemy) that target a specific creature type.

Ursus Spelaeus
2017-02-19, 10:28 PM
Can you tell me a little more about how you've redone creature types?

Malimar
2017-02-19, 10:54 PM
Epic Level Handbook had a few monsters with two Types, but I think errata or updates later stripped them of their dual Types because they're single-Typed in the SRD. I don't know how dual Types was supposed to work in that context.

Deepbluediver
2017-02-19, 11:18 PM
Can you tell me a little more about how you've redone creature types?
I scrapped a lot of the Type-wide immunities or special abilities (like Darkvision) for the most part, and most of the weirder mechanics like null ability scores. And then I just rejiggered the HD, saves, and Skill Points a bit so that you can make an interesting monster without needing to give it class levels.

What exactly are you looking for? From the basic creature types it's hard to gestalt one that's better than Dragons are to start with. They have the biggest HD, the best BAB, all good saves, and pretty good skills. You could gestalt them with Undead or Constructs for some specific immunity or with an outsider for more skill points, but for the basic chassis a Dragon is hard to beat.

Ursus Spelaeus
2017-02-19, 11:30 PM
I scrapped a lot of the Type-wide immunities or special abilities (like Darkvision) for the most part, and most of the weirder mechanics like null ability scores. And then I just rejiggered the HD, saves, and Skill Points a bit so that you can make an interesting monster without needing to give it class levels.

What exactly are you looking for? From the basic creature types it's hard to gestalt one that's better than Dragons are to start with. They have the biggest HD, the best BAB, all good saves, and pretty good skills. You could gestalt them with Undead or Constructs for some specific immunity or with an outsider for more skill points, but for the basic chassis a Dragon is hard to beat.


3.5's monster taxonomy just annoys me. It's clunky and arbitrary.
If tweaking creature types yields new tools to customize monsters more easily or more faithfully, then all the better.

Deepbluediver
2017-02-19, 11:39 PM
3.5's monster taxonomy just annoys me. It's clunky and arbitrary.
Agreed, but as with much of 3.5 exactly what is the most annoying part and what the best thing to do about it is the source of endless contention. For example, I've decided that I really don't like null ability scores (Ø). My take on it is that your ability scores are the foundation on which everything else is built, and when you starting removing them the whole pile of blocks gets real shaky real fast. It can also lead to some serious balance issues, like Undead having way to many HD (making it far better to channel Turn Undead attempts into something else) and yet still being really squishy for their level.

However, some people don't mind null ability scores and think they make for an interesting gameplay mechanic. So addressing issues with creatures types can be a real hassle if your goal includes getting everyone to agree on something.

Ursus Spelaeus
2017-02-20, 12:12 AM
So addressing issues with creatures types can be a real hassle if your goal includes getting everyone to agree on something.

Ah, I see.

I should say then that I am looking for tools that will better help me at the table when I DM.
I want a more coherent taxonomy of creature types so I can build a more internally consistent world.
I want quicker, easier monster creation so I can reduce prep time and build encounters on the fly.

It seems to me that stitching creature types together into various combinations of dual-type monsters would allow for a great deal of customization without the need for templates.

Deepbluediver
2017-02-20, 12:30 AM
I want quicker, easier monster creation so I can reduce prep time and build encounters on the fly.
Ah well, I'm not sure I'm the best person to help you then- I tend to fall squarely on the side of "prepare everything ahead of time".


It seems to me that stitching creature types together into various combinations of dual-type monsters would allow for a great deal of customization without the need for templates.
Templates in 3.5 are kinda complicated I admit, I think what you might be looking for maybe is something with simpler creature types and then a whole bunch of abilities you can fit in on the side. Maybe have a couple of categories like "brute, sneak, spellcaster, etc" each with a set of abilities, and a selection of various chassis (with HD, BAB, saves, etc) and then you can mix and match as necessary. It would take a bit of work and playtesting to get it right but off that top of my head something like that may be what you want.

Ursus Spelaeus
2017-02-20, 01:12 AM
Templates in 3.5 are kinda complicated I admit, I think what you might be looking for maybe is something with simpler creature types and then a whole bunch of abilities you can fit in on the side. Maybe have a couple of categories like "brute, sneak, spellcaster, etc" each with a set of abilities, and a selection of various chassis (with HD, BAB, saves, etc) and then you can mix and match as necessary. It would take a bit of work and playtesting to get it right but off that top of my head something like that may be what you want.

Better NPC classes for monsters would have been a useful tool for 3.5.
That's something I might work on homebrewing.
I still want to keep the creature types though, as I generally like the flavor and I don't want to have to remove all the effects that relate to them.

Shifting gears a little, I might perhaps use this thread to brainsform some ideas for NPC classes off of you guys.

I would design these NPC classes to be tier-IV in a tier-III centric campaign. They are not designed to by player character classes, so they should be designed in such a way as to discourage players from using them. Skill points and skill lists should be tightly restricted to enforce the idea that these are not intended for general adventuring purposes. Spell lists should be limited, full casting should be avoided.
Each of theses classes should provide a ready-made package of useful features based on familiar roles and designed to counter and challenge common party roles.

Guardian
The Guardian class is based on trip builds. Guardians are melee zoners used to control parts of the battlefield. Use Guardians to deny movement and spellcasting.

Grappler
The Grappler class is based on (you guessed it) grappling builds. Grapplers are a melee lockdown class designed to pin down difficult PC's (specifically spellcasters).

Threat
The Threat class is used to keep pressure on the PC's, and draw fire. Threats are built to soak up a ton of damage and dish it out.

Sapper
The Sapper class is built for chipping away at PC's with a steady stream of weak attacks with annoying attacks that debuff or poison. They are built for battles of attrition.

Spawner
The Spawner class is a spellcasting class geared toward summoning or necromancy. They do little on their own except to bolster enemy numbers with a replenishing stream of weak enemies.

Deepbluediver
2017-02-20, 09:48 AM
Monster-only NPC classes would probably be a fine way to do it as well. To make thing easier on yourself, maybe keep them to just 10 levels with non-standard BAB progressions and stuff like that.

Ursus Spelaeus
2017-02-21, 10:02 AM
Non-standard BAB, eh?

You think I can get away with 1.25 BAB?
1st Level. +1
2nd Level. +2
3rd Level. +3
4th Level. +5
5th Level. +6/+1
6th Level. +7/+2
etc.

Maybe put that on an NPC class designed for making multiple attacks?
Maybe give it pounce at 1st level, and the Monk's unarmored speed bonus?
Put that together with some kind of precision-damage boost on the dead levels.

Then you have a class that's really good at charging in with TWF or natural attacks, and dealing a lot of damage. That should help to 'draw aggro' from the PC's, buying time for enemy casters to work their magic.
Give this class really weak saves so it will be more attractive as spell-bait.
The class wants to go unarmored for the speed boost, so don't bother giving it any armor proficiency. Maybe give it shield proficiency at least though. It definitely needs proficiency with simple and martial weapons.
Give it really weak skills, and no spell-casting, so it will be less attractive for PC's. 2+Int skill points per level, x4 at 1st level. It needs all the movement related skills (Climb, Jump, Ride, Swim) plus Handle Animal to go along with ride, as well as Spot and Listen to avoid getting ambushed. Maybe Intimidate, as is fitting for a terrifying combat monster.

What to do for hit dice though? Should it be a tank, or a glass cannon? Maybe split the difference and give it a d8?

Lionheart2000
2017-04-04, 10:29 AM
testing my ability to post