New monster type for awnshegliens?

[Azrai]

I thought about the several monster types of awnshegliens or ershegliens. For some it is not easy to find the right classification. Especially the humanoid creatures make problems.

Most predefined types don't fit perfectly. This holds e.g. for the Manslayer or the Raven. Maybe some general method should be found.

What about defining an extra monster type, awnsheglien, ersheglien?

[Nikolai II]

How about having it as a denominator?

Magian: Undead (evil) (outsider) (awnsheligen)

or something..?

[Azrai]

Yep, for the Magian it is easy, the Undead type fits. But not for other awnshegliens.

[Mark_Aurel]

Awnsheghlien (and also ehrsheghlien) are defined as a subtype. It is generally pretty easy to fit any of the existing ones into the standard types. There's really no need to mess more than necessary with the type system, especially considering the rather small number of awnsheghlien-specific effects there are, if any.

Why does awnsheghlien of the humanoid type cause problems? Rhuobhe is a humanoid (awnshegh) and Raven is at this point probably a monstrous humanoid (awnshegh). Granted, I might see a case that some might make for making Rhuobhe a "monstrous" humanoid, but his anatomical changes really aren't that pronounced.

The siren would be a humanoid. Ghuralli and the Binman seems like good cases for construct awnsheghlien. Magian is definitely undead; the Vampire is more debatable - he could also be seen as a monstrous humanoid. Swordhawk - monstrous humanoid. The Wolf and the Boar - magical beasts. The Banshegh is an interesting case, though, but hardly insoluble - it depends on how you view her history and how you view the nature of the transformation; there was some interesting debate on this a while ago.

[Azrai]

Originally posted by Mark_Aurel
Awnsheghlien (and also ehrsheghlien) are defined as a subtype. It is generally pretty easy to fit any of the existing ones into the standard types. There's really no need to mess more than necessary with the type system, especially considering the rather small number of awnsheghlien-specific effects there are, if any.

I don't think it is that easy. You have to think also of creatures wich have the bloodform abilites (also player characters). For them each DM has to choose wich type fits best. This could be complicated.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Azrai

Originally posted by Mark_Aurel
Awnsheghlien (and also ehrsheghlien) are defined as a subtype. It is generally pretty easy to fit any of the existing ones into the standard types. There's really no need to mess more than necessary with the type system, especially considering the rather small number of awnsheghlien-specific effects there are, if any.

I don't think it is that easy. You have to think also of creatures wich have the bloodform abilites (also player characters). For them each DM has to choose wich type fits best. This could be complicated.

Actually if they are player characters then the DM should be working with the player to determine what are the most accuracte characteristics that the define the charater. If they can't come up with any then they character probably wasn't/isn't very well developed. This is one of the reason I tried to have my players write up character histories so that they (and I ) could come up with a "focus" for what their player's are trying to accomplish and how the usually "act". It definitely helps with role-playing.:)

[Azrai]

Ok, it is right that the available monster types cover all aspects of common D&D monsters. But Birthright is a special case.

- Awnshegliens have the essence of divine energy
- Some awnsheglien can shapechange into different forms

Concerning the shapechange abilitiy, this is really hard to put into one type. Are they shapechangers, or just magical beasts? Or could one say that the shapechange is a linear process?

I have really problems with the Raven.

Where does an anatomic change start to make them a beast?

I am not shure what would be the best.

[Nikolai II]

My thought (and wish) would be that one usually could use the most obvious type.

I like the heterogenity of the awnsheglien, and if they were of several different types it would shine clearer that anything can have divine essence, and it would make it easier to differentiate them and have the difference mean something.

Sure, we could create a monster type with good save= all, hit dice d12 and a bonus feat per hit dice and so on, but I don't like the idea.

Shapechanging is an ability, not a type. Werewolves don't get another type just because they can shift between humanoid and monstrous humanoid, (and magical beast).
Just decide which is the basic type (core type) and stick with it.

The Chimaira is a magical beast, nowadays, just like a lvl20 monk would be an outsider, so there is prejudice for changing type easily. (As easily as going from lvl19 to lvl20 at least)

Anatomy doesn't enter the equation, either they are one type or they are another, depending upon where they would fit the best. I won't comment on the raven since it was a while since I read the books, but I would suggest that if some creatures are hard to place, then put them up for vote, open a thread for the discussion where people are allowed to post their opinion and then either follow the majority or the most sensible explanation.

(Ramble ramble :P )

[Ariadne]

I have seen that some creature types aren't listed in the "create an awnshegh" part. Example: Outsider, giant, dragon. Is it completely impossible to create an awnshegh/ ershegh of this type or is it only forgotten...

[Mark_Aurel]

A couple of types were left out on purpose; giant is supposed to be in there, though.

Shapechanger is no longer a type of its own, but a subtype.