Talk:Ghost Cat - Revision history

Cure at 01:10, 18 February 2010

2010-02-18T01:10:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:10, 17 February 2010
Line 2:		Line 2:

	:I'm unsure what to do about undead animals. Technically, according to 3.x rules, once something becomes undead, it's just undead, it's not what it used to be. 4e allows the undead label to be applied to other base types, though. General question: should we be categorizing strictly according to rules (an undead animal is undead, not animal) or based on what people would expect to see while browsing? (an undead animal is both undead and animal). Should we try to bridge the gap and make a "Category:Augmented Animal"? Should we be using the most recent rules that Ravenloft was published under (3.5) or should we use the most recent rules overall (4e). Should we avoid locking ourselves into a ruleset and find a way to accommodate all? I suppose it's a bit late for that. The case could be made that we've shunned 2e already because it didn't have creature types. How are we going to handle all the 2e monsters that were never converted to 3e? Will we have to guess a category for them? -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 20:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)		:I'm unsure what to do about undead animals. Technically, according to 3.x rules, once something becomes undead, it's just undead, it's not what it used to be. 4e allows the undead label to be applied to other base types, though. General question: should we be categorizing strictly according to rules (an undead animal is undead, not animal) or based on what people would expect to see while browsing? (an undead animal is both undead and animal). Should we try to bridge the gap and make a "Category:Augmented Animal"? Should we be using the most recent rules that Ravenloft was published under (3.5) or should we use the most recent rules overall (4e). Should we avoid locking ourselves into a ruleset and find a way to accommodate all? I suppose it's a bit late for that. The case could be made that we've shunned 2e already because it didn't have creature types. How are we going to handle all the 2e monsters that were never converted to 3e? Will we have to guess a category for them? -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 20:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

			I am in favour of user practicality with a slight bias towards 3.5e where that bias doesn't produced strange results. So I would not view an undead Arak as no longer deserving to be categorised also as an Arak. One of the Vistani became a vampire. I am sure he isn't welcome with the vistani anymore, but he still knows the culture and has the history, and so deserves the reference. Equally, a ghost cat is going behave more like an animal than a fellow ghost that is human, so the animal category as well as the ghost category makes sense to me.[[User:Cure\|Cure]]

Gonzoron at 20:11, 17 February 2010

2010-02-17T20:11:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:11, 17 February 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Is it correct to cross reference this as additionally a Magical Beast and an Animal? The first as the former familiar was the intelligence and I believe the status of a Magical Beast and the second as the base creature for the familiar was an animal.		Is it correct to cross reference this as additionally a Magical Beast and an Animal? The first as the former familiar was the intelligence and I believe the status of a Magical Beast and the second as the base creature for the familiar was an animal.

			:I'm unsure what to do about undead animals. Technically, according to 3.x rules, once something becomes undead, it's just undead, it's not what it used to be. 4e allows the undead label to be applied to other base types, though. General question: should we be categorizing strictly according to rules (an undead animal is undead, not animal) or based on what people would expect to see while browsing? (an undead animal is both undead and animal). Should we try to bridge the gap and make a "Category:Augmented Animal"? Should we be using the most recent rules that Ravenloft was published under (3.5) or should we use the most recent rules overall (4e). Should we avoid locking ourselves into a ruleset and find a way to accommodate all? I suppose it's a bit late for that. The case could be made that we've shunned 2e already because it didn't have creature types. How are we going to handle all the 2e monsters that were never converted to 3e? Will we have to guess a category for them? -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 20:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Cure: Created page with 'Is it correct to cross reference this as additionally a Magical Beast and an Animal? The first as the former familiar was the intelligence and I believe the status of a Magical B…'

2010-02-13T17:02:29Z

Created page with 'Is it correct to cross reference this as additionally a Magical Beast and an Animal? The first as the former familiar was the intelligence and I believe the status of a Magical B…'

New page

Is it correct to cross reference this as additionally a Magical Beast and an Animal? The first as the former familiar was the intelligence and I believe the status of a Magical Beast and the second as the base creature for the familiar was an animal.