M&T Shapechangers

[Fizz]

Hi all-

The creature type section of Monsters & Treasure mentions shapechangers. But i can't find a single shapechanger monster in the book. Doppelgangers are monstrous humanoids, mimics are aberrations, and lycanthropes are humanoids.

Is this an oversight? Or am i missing something?

-Fizz

[gideon_thorne]

Well, lycanthropes are shapechangers...
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[DangerDwarf]

I think his point is that in the M&T book, it states that a monster's type can be particularly important as far as spells and magical summonings are concerned.

It then gives a list of monster "types", with each critter being assigned one of those "types". So, if you have a spell which lets say, effects those creatures with the "shape changer" type, then RAW would lend you to say that lycanthropes cannot be effected by it as they are not of the shapechanger "type".

Of course, most CK's will not be bothered by that and handle it appropriately.

[Fizz]

gideon_thorne wrote:
Well, lycanthropes are shapechangers...

Lycanthropes aren't classified into the `shapechanger' type. Their entry reads "Type: Humanoid". In fact, no monster in the book is "Type: Shapechanger". Just trying to figure out why this is.

-Fizz

[gideon_thorne]

It may not specifically say so in the monster 'type', but the shapechanger does cover those creatures that can assume other forms.

The 'main' type of critter for a lycanthrope, or even a doppelganger is humanoid, but they can change their shape, so both categories can apply. I suspect that most creatures can have multiple categories. Seems like each creature was given the most relavent type.

Even some dragons are shapechangers.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[DangerDwarf]

Personally, I think the "types" are unnecessary all together. I don't recall ever seeing them prior to 3e and I never saw that it added anything to the game.

[Fizz]

DangerDwarf wrote:
Personally, I think the "types" are unnecessary all together. I don't recall ever seeing them prior to 3e and I never saw that it added anything to the game.

I think they arose out necessity from powers of other classes. Your ranger might be asking if a griffin is an `animal', for example. Clerics deal with undead, etc. Paladins fighting demons, etc.

Personally, i like types. I wish they'd done a bit more with them in C&C (BtH based on type and HD, not just HD).

-Fizz

[serleran]

It is not an oversight. There are shapechangers in forthcoming monster works. Simply not having in M&T means nothing.

[Treebore]

Besides, if you want "types" download the 3E SRD and just use their types. Or define it how you think it should be.

I, for one, like how M&T goes with the most relevent type, so I define "shapechangers" as any creature that can change their shape, irregardless of what their base race is. So dopplegangers, mimics, lycanthropes, etc... are shapechangers.

I would even have a wizard who is under the effects of polymorph self be treated as a "shapechanger" during the spells duration.

[serleran]

Which is where the real thing comes in.... several creatures are multiple types, but the one that is most accomodating to its archetype is kept, and is the defaulted listing. Lycanthropes, on the whole, are humanoids who have the ability to assume the shape of an animal. They are not first and foremost, mutable entities... which is the number one criterion for being a shapechanger. Hell, druids, at 6th level (or whenever they get totem shape) become shapechangers, too, if you really think of it.. but they are still humanoid by type.

The game assumes a certain level of common sense, and does not try to handhold the CK in every issue.

[Treebore]

You know, I haven't been thinking of the Druid as a shapechanger, and my daughter is playing one. 7th level. I'll have to remember that.

[DangerDwarf]

Fizz wrote:
I think they arose out necessity from powers of other classes. Your ranger might be asking if a griffin is an `animal', for example.

And I'd tell him no and to try again.
I'm just one who prefers the common sense approach used in 1st and 2nd edition.

[Fizz]

DangerDwarf wrote:
I'm just one who prefers the common sense approach used in 1st and 2nd edition.

Well, not all things in a fantasy world are easily decided by common sense. With as little descriptive text as their is, there can be a lot of gray area, where reasonable minds can reach different conclusions.

I see many people talk about how they like C&C for its archetypes, and i agree. I think monster types serve that exact same purpose. All giants have things in common, just as all fey have things in common, etc. Monster types are a useful tool for grouping together common features, resistances, immunities, etc, to help remove some of those gray areas, without overburdening the players in details.

-Fizz