Creating a new type of creature?

[Belial_the_Leveler]

If the goal was to create an entirely new type of fantastic creature-not just a single species-that didn't exist in fantasy literature/games/whatever before, what would you do?

I mean, only very, very few people have managed that. Lovecraft was the man behind what we now call Aberrations-and no other fantastic creature type has been created in recent history.

[arguskos]

If the goal was to create an entirely new type of fantastic creature-not just a single species-that didn't exist in fantasy literature/games/whatever before, what would you do?

I mean, only very, very few people have managed that. Lovecraft was the man behind what we now call Aberrations-and no other fantastic creature type has been created in recent history.

So, you mean creating a brand new creature type in D&D 3.5, such as Aberration, Outsider, Giant, whatever?

First, I'd probably look at the current types and figure if there's anything missing from the selection we currently have. If so, I would then go about devising stats for the missing hole.

The issue here is that I can't seem to figure anything that the current creature types can't handle.

[lvl 1 sharnian]

It's pretty much covered right now, but if I had to I guess I'd separate abberations and make aliens/extraterrastrials.

[The Rose Dragon]

It's pretty much covered right now, but if I had to I guess I'd separate abberations and make aliens/extraterrastrials.

Why would you? Aliens are already covered by subtypes, rather than types.

[Eldariel]

I'd search for factors where difference is available and build from there. Like simple silicon-based creatures could warrant separate types. Far Realms-type stuff would also deserve their own type (although the epic Abomination-type sorta has that covered). Organic machines could make for their own type outside Construct and Plant. But yeah, search for something not covered (or covered insufficiently) and go from there, or split an existing überlarge group such as Outsiders.

[Yora]

For my homebrew setting, I use the current creature types:

Humanoid: As humanoids, but the giant type is included as large humanoids.
Animals: All creatures with Intelligence 1 or 2 and no supernatural abilities. This includes Owlbears and Ankhegs.
Fey (spirit): True spirits from the material plane and spirit world.
Elemental (spirit): Every creature from an elemental plane.
Monstrous Humanoid (spirit): Humanoid creatures native to the spirit world.
Magical Beast (spirit): Non-humanoid creatures native to the spirit world.
Dragon: Like Magical Beast (spirit), includes only true dragons.
Magical Beast: Non-humanoid creatures from the material plane with either Intelligence of 3+ or supernatural abilities.
Plant:Plant-based "humanoids" or "animals".
Aberrations: Spontaneously evolved creatures from the primordial chaos, whose evolution was never guided by a god.
[b]Undead:[b] A creature that has died, but is still moving.
Outsider: A true spirit neither from the mortal plane/spirit world or the elemental planes.

As you see, Magical Beast appears twice. You could also make two kinds of Monstrous Humanoids, if you don't want to change creatures like sahuagin into humanoids. Both are the results of special conditions in this particular setting. I guess it's much easier to find types for existing creatures, than to think about a new type just because you want a new type.

[Aedilred]

I think the original point has kind of been missed; the OP wasn't talking about creating a new creature template into which to shove creatures similar to those which already exist so much as he was talking about creating a creature the like of which had never been seen or even really thought of before; something as radically different from the creature types we currently have as Lovecraft's creations were from the traditional fantasy creatures of his day.

Looking at the existing creature types and seeing if there's a gap is one thing, but given that pretty much by definition this new creature would be totally new, the gaps wouldn't be there to spot, because we don't know what should be filling the hole.

I think it would be difficult, personally, and no, I don't really have any ideas.

[mikeejimbo]

I dunno, I think part of the problem is defining a "type." You say not just new species, but then what? Genus? Family? Order? Something that can't be discussed in taxonomy? (Lovecraft already covered all those that are outside our own realm of understanding.)

Science Fiction has a similar problem. Mostly because humans tend to think in analogies. So if you try to come up with a creature that's unrelated to earth creatures, it's hard to describe. It's much easier to say "It's like a reptile, except - " and even if you don't use comparisons, just telling people what it is like will cause them to compare it to a known creature. Even in Lovecraft's mythos. "Oh, Cthulhu is like a big squid."

[Lycanthromancer]

Personally I'd make gods (true, actual gods, not the avatars as are statted up in official sources) their own creature types, rather than outsiders (call them, say, numen).

I'd keep avatars outsiders, though.

[RS14]

Purely psychic creatures, maybe.

It also strikes me as odd that all the creatures of the multiple, infinite planes are a single type, "outsiders," while we have a dozen or so types for creatures of the material plane. So there is probably room to improve here.

[Devils_Advocate]

If the goal was to create an entirely new type of fantastic creature-not just a single species-that didn't exist in fantasy literature/games/whatever before, what would you do?

Why would I have that as a goal?

I'll echo RS14's suggestion, though. Purely mental beings, maybe a type of psychic parasite or something. In d20, "incorporeal" means that something's body is see-through and hard to effect. Feh! I'm talking about beings that don't have bodies of their own.

There's also the whole hive mind angle, but that seems more like something for one species than for a variety of related creatures.

[Eldariel]

I think the original point has kind of been missed; the OP wasn't talking about creating a new creature template into which to shove creatures similar to those which already exist so much as he was talking about creating a creature the like of which had never been seen or even really thought of before; something as radically different from the creature types we currently have as Lovecraft's creations were from the traditional fantasy creatures of his day.

The major problem is, most creatures you could come up with can already be lumped to existing categories. Hell, it'd be easy to lump Aberrations with Outsiders and call it a day; most creatures you can come up with can easily fall into Outsider-type.

[Yora]

Well, outsiders are usually spirits from the outer planes, while aberrations are mortals with an unusual anatomy and biology. I don't really think they are very similar.

[hewhosaysfish]

I think the original point has kind of been missed; the OP wasn't talking about creating a new creature template into which to shove creatures similar to those which already exist so much as he was talking about creating a creature the like of which had never been seen or even really thought of before; something as radically different from the creature types we currently have as Lovecraft's creations were from the traditional fantasy creatures of his day.

Looking at the existing creature types and seeing if there's a gap is one thing, but given that pretty much by definition this new creature would be totally new, the gaps wouldn't be there to spot, because we don't know what should be filling the hole.

I think it would be difficult, personally, and no, I don't really have any ideas.

How to think of something that no-one else has thought of before?
A reliable method, an algorithm, for creating something truly original and inspired?

[SirKazum]

The major problem is, most creatures you could come up with can already be lumped to existing categories. Hell, it'd be easy to lump Aberrations with Outsiders and call it a day; most creatures you can come up with can easily fall into Outsider-type.

Well if you really wanna go with that "everything can be lumped into one of the categories", you can just scratch several of the types in 3E D&D. Why do you need "dragon" when "magical beast" is perfectly serviceable? As others said, "aberration" could go into "outsider", and Fey and Elemental too, as well. Humanoid, Monstrous Humanoid and Giant are kinda redundant when you look at it this way, as are Animal, Beast and Magical Beast (they already did away with Beast), and probably Vermin as well.

The question is - is that really desirable? The question may not be whether you can lump a given sort of creature with others, but whether you'd want to. As others said, "outsider" is way too broad, it might as well be split up. Not to mention that one's campaign may have new creatures that are different enough to merit a new type, even though you could shoehorn them into one of the existing ones.

[GreatWyrmGold]

The issue here is that I can't seem to figure anything that the current creature types can't handle.

You can blame abberations for that. They're the catch-all category.

That being said, look for a specific type and think of an opposite. That seems to be how the BoED's writers did deathless (positive energy, good undead-like creatures).