Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
"what is the design principle that explain there is no creature with multiple creature type"
We have this with species. Its called Dhampir. Dhampir says you first pick your birth species, say Wood Elf, and then you add on Dhampir. Dhampir lets you get all the starting traits of your birth species, and then adds all the dhampir stuff, you dont need to breath, you have permanent always on spider climb, etc.
The result is the power gamers wants to be a dhampir AND their favorite birth species, so they can get more benefits, more features, more power.
The rules for dhampir have an option where you ignore your birth species, get no benefit from it, and just pick 2 spell proficiencies, dont need to breath, and get permanent always on spider climb, which is still insanely over powered.
I guarantee you, if the rules allowed for multiple creature types, youd be getting players who want to collect all the most powerful types.
Limiting it to "you can only be one type" is a simplification, but it also stops.the powergamers from driving all the dm's crazy.
I know software is aware anything times 0 is 0. Pretty basic math.
Great. The problem with multiple inheritance isnt whether aomeone can multiply, its whether anything defines which base class takes precedence when teo conflicting things happen
One says "immune", the other says "vulberable".
The actual desired outcome of inheriting both of those bases could be the final object is immune, or could be vulnerable, or could be they cancel and just take normal damage, or could be something not seen in either base class.
Handwaving the issue simply means that every dm will homebrew a different solution.
The design philosophy is simple:
They played Pokemon once and tried to figure out If a Golem was weak or strong against Rock type. They thought it was too confusing, so they said "Only one monster 'type' per creature!"
Can't say I blame them.
I want to say somewhere they’ve outlined a RAW order of operations that states that immune guarantees 0 damage of the affected type(s) regardless of other modifiers, but I don’t have time to look it up right now.
This is exactly why the types explicitly don't have any inherent rules or traits associated with them. Creature types don't confer any abilities or features like immunity or vulnerability. The problem you're describing is already solved, because there's nothing to "inherit".
There is no need to homebrew anything when the official rules are already quite clear on what would happen if creatures with multiple types existed.
pronouns: he/she/they
No, the traits doesn't combine to create any new effect because nothing in the rules say they do. If a creature have both traits then they simply have both traits and thus both apply.
But this isn't a problem.
There is an order of operations for damage (that includes vulnerability) but Immunity isn't in it, it has its own definition that comes just after.
That still means your point is correct though as the definition of Immunity is that "Immunity to a damage type means you don’t take damage of that type" so the end result is no damage.
Never having even heard of combining multispecies traits until this thread. What is the purpose of combing them? Is this all about power gaming like one poster referenced above? Is there some other reason?
Doesn't the 2024 rules try eliminate multi species traits by no longer having any half species?
Since this was a subconversation that started with an OOP joke, and evolved into a made up character that is both "acrylic" and "toy" type, i think its fine...
And in case of doubt, we have this explanation from XGtE:
PS. IMO, another possible reading is that "Immunity" is part of "adjustments such as bonuses, penalties, or multipliers are applied first".EDIT: see #33The order of operations for immunity doesn't actually matter; you can apply immunity, resistance, vulnerability, and damage negation in any order and the final damage is still 0.
No it really isn't. Immunity has its own section in the rules just after the section that details the order of operations and it is very clear on what immunity does.
No damage taken means no damage taken, there really is no way to argue ones way around that simple fact.
And even if you try to it changes nothing. Applying immunity first just means that there is no damage that you are about to take so being vulnerable to it still nets you no damage to take.
This is called the "Stacking Method" and most people found it to be VERY abusive. People would find creatures that were to everything except X and Y and then apply something that gives it immunity to X and Y.
D&D prefers the non stacking, cancellation method - advantage + disadvantage = nothing.
The game does not multiply, it replaces.
In other words, this is a game, do not do abusive things to break the power balance.
The claim as "RAW means no damage" is the battle cry of the foolish munchkin. No one I know wants to play that way.
Instead, most people use RAI (Rules as intended) and make the game fun to play. Fun to play means immunity plus vulnerability cancel out to either resistance or normal damage.
Ok, ok, you're right. I've just updated my answer.
So ive been looking at the way the rules use creature types. The examples i keep finding are basically things like the Hold Person spell only works on Humanoid types. A paladins divine sense only detects celestial, fiends, and undead.
Thats not method inheritence of an OOP design, thays an isa(object)==class type question.
It can cause different kinds of problems sometimes but not like the triangle of death.
It would still be impossible to tell if allowing multiple creature types could be abused without basically going through all the rules that use cresture type and check for weird interactions.