Fun Finds v6.0

[zook1shoe]

where does Deathless then come into play if the Type Pyramid still functions?

what about non-Humanoid shapchangers?

[littha]

what about non-Humanoid shapchangers?

Whoever wrote Savage species obviously was working off the old 3.0 rules where shapechanger was its own type, not a subtype and didn't take that change into account when building the thing.


Also if Shapechanger is a humanoid subtype (which the Type versus Subtype box says you can only have one of) do you keep the original or the gained subtype?

Is an Elf Werewolf a Humanoid (Shapechanger) or a Humanoid (Elf). It should obviously be the latter but what happens then if you take a feat or class that changes your humanoid subtype, does Shapechanger go away? can you then become a tauric creature?

The real reason I don't use the type pyramid at all is because the whole section is a mess of 3.0/3.5 rule interactions that make little or no sense and that the "Notes on Specific templates" section is basically as long as the rest of the section.

[ketaro]

what about non-Humanoid shapchangers?

Whoever wrote Savage species obviously was working off the old 3.0 rules where shapechanger was its own type, not a subtype and didn't take that change into account when building the thing.


Also if Shapechanger is a humanoid subtype (which the Type versus Subtype box says you can only have one of) do you keep the original or the gained subtype?

Is an Elf Werewolf a Humanoid (Shapechanger) or a Humanoid (Elf). It should obviously be the latter but what happens then if you take a feat or class that changes your humanoid subtype, does Shapechanger go away? can you then become a tauric creature?

The real reason I don't use the type pyramid at all is because the whole section is a mess of 3.0/3.5 rule interactions that make little or no sense and that the "Notes on Specific templates" section is basically as long as the rest of the section.

Creatures can have multiple subtypes. There is no limit.
Only the main creature type can be a single thing.

Have you not seen creatures in the many MMs with multiple subtypes?
Several demons, for example, are subtyped as [Evil] & [Extraplanar].
For example.

[littha]

what about non-Humanoid shapchangers?

Whoever wrote Savage species obviously was working off the old 3.0 rules where shapechanger was its own type, not a subtype and didn't take that change into account when building the thing.


Also if Shapechanger is a humanoid subtype (which the Type versus Subtype box says you can only have one of) do you keep the original or the gained subtype?

Is an Elf Werewolf a Humanoid (Shapechanger) or a Humanoid (Elf). It should obviously be the latter but what happens then if you take a feat or class that changes your humanoid subtype, does Shapechanger go away? can you then become a tauric creature?

The real reason I don't use the type pyramid at all is because the whole section is a mess of 3.0/3.5 rule interactions that make little or no sense and that the "Notes on Specific templates" section is basically as long as the rest of the section.

Creatures can have multiple subtypes. There is no limit.
Only the main creature type can be a single thing.

Have you not seen creatures in the many MMs with multiple subtypes?
Several demons, for example, are subtyped as [Evil] & [Extraplanar].
For example.

From Savage Species:

TYPE VERSUS SUBTYPE
The pyramid applies to creature types, not subtypes. A creature generally only has one type, and the pyramid helps determine which type a creature has. A creature may have many subtypes. In general, a creature may have one humanoid subtype such as goblinoid or dwarf (if it is humanoid), two alignment subtypes (either law or chaos and either good or evil), one elemental subtype, one energy subtype, and any number of other subtypes such as reptilian, aquatic, or incorporeal.

Shapechanger appears to be a humanoid subtype.


This is ignoring those creatures that have more than one elemental subtype

[ketaro]

You do realize it says they MAY have one humanoid subtype, right?
Right after it says "IN GENERAL,"
Subtype limits and restrictions are quite clearly being pretty vague on the limits and restrictions.

Because they didn't think of situations where one could have multiple humanoid subtypes, but also left it openended because they probably thought they might've missed ways that one could. I unno. *shrugs*

As you stated, it ignores creatures with multiple energy subtypes because the quote says "one energy subtype,"

Because "IN GENERAL," is generally "Usually it's like this, but it doesn't always have to be"

[littha]

The text for the entire Type pyramid section is littered with "may" and "guidelines" and the like. People still seem to take it as hard and fast rules.

[Chemus]

littha, all the rules are 'guidelines'. You seem to mislike the type pyramid; so choose not to use it, either by not allowing SS in your game, or by making a ruling. It is relevant to 3.5 as a whole, however. There are newer rules that did not exist in other areas, and vagueness or soft wording are not specific to the type pyramid. Even later authors were not completely in step with how all rules work, but SS's authors were operating in a time of transition, so artifacts like Shapechanger Type [edit]Humaniod (Shapechanger) is the same notation as 3.5. Where's the fire?[/edit] are more likely. Mistakes in the material do not invalidate the rules it presents.

The rules on creature subtypes looks like it's in a sidebar clarification to me; an actual guideline.

[littha]

Mistakes in the material do not invalidate the rules it presents.

No, but updates to the material do. Savage species is a 3.0 book, maybe written with 3.5 in mind but still a 3.0 book.

With that in mind any 3.5 template will have rules precidence over Savage species wherever they disagree. Especially the 3.5 monster manual which is defined as the primary source for rules on templates.


I have no issue with the type pyramid itself really. What I do have an issue with is people presenting it as hard and fast rules for 3.5, especially to people who might not know any better. Being unupdated 3.0 content it is heavily within the "If the DM says so" line of things most of the time.

If you have something that only works using the type pyramid, fine. Something that only works without, also fine. Telling someone that they can't do something perfectly legal in 3.5 because of a 3.0 rule (that they haven't specifically said is in place) not so fine.

I hope that clarifies my stance somewhat.

[ketaro]

Because the Type Pyramid is ALWAYS on the field unless thrown out by the DM.

Thus when arguing about it on the internet when there is no DM overseeing to declare a ruling, Type Pyramid is a thing that talks about rules.

[littha]

Because the Type Pyramid is ALWAYS on the field unless thrown out by the DM.

Thus when arguing about it on the internet when there is no DM overseeing to declare a ruling, Type Pyramid is a thing that talks about rules.

But it isnt.

We are talking about 3.5 rules most of the time. Nearly every question asked is also about 3.5 rules.

Only when we are specifically talking about 3.0/3.5 combined should we be using the type pyramid because by default most people only use 3.5 rules.


For example:
Someone comes to ask for advice on a build for a 3.5 game. They make no suggestion they are using or even own any copies of the 3.0 rules. Should you bring up the type pyramid?

or:

Someone is playing a 3.5 Core only game and wants to apply templates?

[ketaro]

Thats why 3.5 threads are labeled 3.5 and others are labeled 3.x

[littha]

Thats why 3.5 threads are labeled 3.5 and others are labeled 3.x

People rarely label their threads unless they are 3.0 or pathfinder. Just look at the other threads in this section of the forum.

Perhaps we should label them but as it stands only about 1/3 to 1/4 are.

[ketaro]

Looks you're arguing semantics in the wrong place

Mind you, I dunno where the right place is.

[SorO_Lost]

It also has contradictory rules:

If at any time the base creature becomes ineligible for the next template, you must stop. A creature may become ineligible because of ability score changes or because its type changes. For instance, the lycanthrope template can only be added to humanoids. An elf with the tauric template becomes a monstrous humanoid and cannot then become a lycanthrope. Conversely, a lycanthrope elf is a humanoid (shapechanger) and cannot become a tauric creature. Each rules the other out.

That's not contradictory.
A Tauric Elf is a Monstrous Humanoid, Lycanthrope can only be applied to Humanoids & Giants.
A Lycanthrope Elf is Humanoid(shapechanger) which sits above Monstrous Humanoid, you cannot down step.
It's specifically addressing the Humanoid Type with the Shapechanger Subtype. It's not based on the Subtype, rather the combination of Subtypes added to the addressed Type. And in Type vs Subtype, it's discussing the fact that there is no Subtype pyramid and you can add as many as you wish.

[zook1shoe]

so a Were-Wolf Elf cannot gain the Were-Goat template since it is no longer a "Humanoid" but is too high up on the list as a "Humanoid (shapechanger)"... just great 

[SorO_Lost]

so a Were-Wolf Elf cannot gain the Were-Goat template since it is no longer a "Humanoid" but is too high up on the list as a "Humanoid (shapechanger)"... just great 

The type pyramid only prevents you from stepping down, from humanoid(shapechange) to monstrous humanoid, not stepping on the same block again (humanoid shapechanger to humanoid shapechanger).

The question of becoming a were-wolf were-goat is a question of the Lycanthropy Template stacking with it's self and how it would do so.

[snakeman830]

so a Were-Wolf Elf cannot gain the Were-Goat template since it is no longer a "Humanoid" but is too high up on the list as a "Humanoid (shapechanger)"... just great 

The type pyramid only prevents you from stepping down, from humanoid(shapechange) to monstrous humanoid, not stepping on the same block again (humanoid shapechanger to humanoid shapechanger).

The question of becoming a were-wolf were-goat is a question of the Lycanthropy Template stacking with it's self and how it would do so.

And the fact that goats are not applicable for lycanthrope, due to being herbivores.

[Chemus]

...With that in mind any 3.5 template will have rules precidence over Savage species wherever they disagree. Especially the 3.5 monster manual which is defined as the primary source for rules on templates.

Except that SorO already debunked that; SS itself refers to being intended to work with both the original (3.0) and revised (3.5) MM's.

I have no issue with the type pyramid itself really. What I do have an issue with is people presenting it as hard and fast rules for 3.5, especially to people who might not know any better. Being unupdated 3.0 content it is heavily within the "If the DM says so" line of things most of the time.

If you have something that only works using the type pyramid, fine. Something that only works without, also fine. Telling someone that they can't do something perfectly legal in 3.5 because of a 3.0 rule (that they haven't specifically said is in place) not so fine.

I hope that clarifies my stance somewhat.

I see your point, and it is a valid concern (but see my reference to SorO's post above). My stance is that in instances where 'all books allowed' is the paradigm (and many CO builds presume this, ever since WotC's 'playing with everything' article years ago), you can't pick and choose which rules you want to follow, and when. The DM can, but in CO we've tended to leave those changes out of our calculations.

[phaedrusxy]

so a Were-Wolf Elf cannot gain the Were-Goat template since it is no longer a "Humanoid" but is too high up on the list as a "Humanoid (shapechanger)"... just great 

The type pyramid only prevents you from stepping down, from humanoid(shapechange) to monstrous humanoid, not stepping on the same block again (humanoid shapechanger to humanoid shapechanger).

The question of becoming a were-wolf were-goat is a question of the Lycanthropy Template stacking with it's self and how it would do so.

And the fact that goats are not applicable for lycanthrope, due to being herbivores.

You obviously have never owned a goat. They'll eat anything. (Neither have I, just thought that wound sound funny...)

[littha]

...With that in mind any 3.5 template will have rules precidence over Savage species wherever they disagree. Especially the 3.5 monster manual which is defined as the primary source for rules on templates.

Except that SorO already debunked that; SS itself refers to being intended to work with both the original (3.0) and revised (3.5) MM's.

I have no issue with the type pyramid itself really. What I do have an issue with is people presenting it as hard and fast rules for 3.5, especially to people who might not know any better. Being unupdated 3.0 content it is heavily within the "If the DM says so" line of things most of the time.

If you have something that only works using the type pyramid, fine. Something that only works without, also fine. Telling someone that they can't do something perfectly legal in 3.5 because of a 3.0 rule (that they haven't specifically said is in place) not so fine.

I hope that clarifies my stance somewhat.

I see your point, and it is a valid concern (but see my reference to SorO's post above). My stance is that in instances where 'all books allowed' is the paradigm (and many CO builds presume this, ever since WotC's 'playing with everything' article years ago), you can't pick and choose which rules you want to follow, and when. The DM can, but in CO we've tended to leave those changes out of our calculations.

The arguments I originally used for my stance on savage species are:

1. Requiring that you have a 3.0 book to make sense of the core 3.5 rules is ludicrous
2. As MM1 is the primary source for template rules in 3.5 its templates (like Half Dragon) that change type would supersede the type pyramid if there was a disagreement between them. It could also be stated that 3.5 rules have priority over 3.0 rules.
3. Requiring an FAQ update to every 3.0 rule would be an exhaustive and mostly pointless exercise.
4. It can be assumed that 3.5 MM1 contains all the respective rules for templates as they could have easily reprinted the table there.
5. The type pyramid presents itself as guidelines and that "In almost every case, some judgement calls are necessary"

I will leave it at that, there is no point having this argument again.