Talk:Fantastical Monsters
Keith, can you check to see if Monster Classifications needs updating for Will O Wisp (i.e. does it need listing as an exception to the norm for Fantasticals) please? --Errol 13:54, 3 May 2007 (NZST)
Done --Keith 15:20, 3 May 2007 (NZST)
Is Will O Wisp in the right category? is it a Fantastical? According to the Monster classification table, it is a creature of Mana (like Undead, Demons), with an aversion to Cold Iron (like Faerie), and it neither fears nor stuns (like Undead, Demons). It doesn't seem to have much in common with the other fantasticals. It's description even says it is like a ghost. Most undead were originally human - maybe the Will o Wisp is the Fae equivalent of a Ghost? Perhaps you could consider reviewing this categorisation when moving all the creatures to their own pages? I believe that the categories are supposed to reflect similarities between members, as well as/instead of taxonomical classes. -- Andreww 12:45, 24 Oct 2007 (NZDT)
I would presume it is a Fae. I have it on my list of Fae to add to the Bestiary :-) Although with the new layout we are going with it is simple to add to both lists with them both staying current. --Mandos 12:55, 24 Oct 2007 (NZDT)
If its a fae, then it differs from other fae in every category except sentience (ditto fantasticals). Can we make it more Fae-like in the Monster Classification, or if it needs these category differences, please explain (to me at least) why it counts as a fae when its so completely different, and not (say) a harmless undead? - Andrew
The issue is it comes from several mythological bases, my preference is for the fae bog spirit, but the ghost basis is also a popular one. Realistically we need to pick one and either add it to Fae, or to Undead. I vote Fae, given that we already have Ghost and Revenant which are very similar in the Undead Category. --Mandos 14:08, 24 Oct 2007 (NZDT)
Some thoughts, in regards to the write-up currently in the bestiary. The only ghostly thing about them is the fact that it says in many ways they are like a ghost. In all other ways they are fae-like.
- They affect all creatures except Fae.
- They are pranksters
- They have glamour as a Talent
- They are affected by Cold Iron
That lot says Fae to me rather than Undead. Also you mentioned Sentience. While the table doesn't state it ([EGC] Actually it does, the lines for the non-top-level groupings only show exceptions --Errol 16:33, 24 Oct 2007 (NZDT)) the writeup does both with the stats and "They can frighten other sentient living creatures" indicating they are sentient. --Mandos 16:14, 24 Oct 2007 (NZDT)
I agree with your argument, darn you to all heck. But now we have a ball of light under the humanoids category. If we are going with the fae bog spirit, lets make it fae; and if we are going with the ghostly ball of light, lets make it ghostly. I suggest that a 'standard' way of implementing an insubstantial, hard-to-hurt fae spirit thing is the dryad - we could use that as a basis for the Will o Wisp mechanics, and change the Dryad monster classification row to Dryad, Will o Wisp. It would be tidy - but then, tidiness is a virtue of small minds, or something. Beats studying for my exam, though! Keith, you put this beast in initially, how did you see the beast working, and why? Andreww 17:08, 24 Oct 2007 (NZDT)
I used the D&D Monster manual as a base and it lists the Will O'Wisp as an Aberration, which is a catch all ability for the weird stuff. If I had to choose between Undead or Fae, I'd select Fae and make them UnSeelee (the MM lists them as 'evil'). However, I think we may need an aberrant category at some point. How would we classify a Gelatinous Cube, or a Black Pudding for instance. The other D&D category we might need later is 'Outsider' for all those extra-planar creatures such as the demons, angels, and elementals. --Keith 18:39, 24 Oct 2007 (NZDT)
G.Cubes are dessert/sweets, B.Puddings are breakfast, I believe. We already have categories for angles, demons & elementals - Summonables and Lesser Powers. If you want the Will O'Wisp to be Abberant, then I think it should be a creature of mana, like a summonable/elemental/etc. If you want it to be a Fae, I think it should have more fae-like properties. Could you consider whether making its mechanics work more like the Dryad would still work? I agree with you & Mandos that the Cold Iron effect & hassling non-faeries makes them faeries. --Andreww 23:29, 24 Oct 2007 (NZDT)
We could always use nethack Categories :-) The Cubes and Black Puddings all come under the pudding category (P) :-) With the Will O' Wisp issue how do you mean more fae like? Other than the reference to ghosts I cannot see what is unfae about them. Could you elucidate? --Mandos 06:54, 25 Oct 2007 (NZDT)
- It would be more fae-like if it
- matched the Fae in more than one of six monster classification categories. The different classifications seem to be based on the initial abberant category (which was fair enough, but if we want it to be fae, make it work like fae). It should be enchanted, and then the other values can be covered by using an approach like Dryad. The Dryad similarities also tie it more strongly to the fae metaphysics.
- This sounds like I'm just being anal, but its metaphysics (silver, stunning, mana-creature, etc) are completely differently from the fae, for no good reason.
- was humanoid, given its in the humanoids section.
--Andreww 21:34, 25 Oct 2007 (NZDT)
Fixed. --Mandos 06:59, 26 Oct 2007 (NZDT)
