Talk:Bulbasaur (3.5e Monster)

Immune to Crits

So it's immune to crits? I'd say it's a reptile with a plant subtype, not the other way around (therefore not immune to crits). If it is a plant, are fires, and fire spells, critically effective? My next question is, can we expect another 150 of these? --The Badger 22:44, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

Plant isn't a subtype but ironically reptilian is, so it can actually be Plant (Reptilian). I won't comment on balance since I have no idea if its crit immunity is intentional, but I wholely support you making more.  :D -- Eiji Hyrule 23:16, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

Also, it's a Pokemon. It is not immune to critical hits. And someone who gets a critical hit on one is allowed to say "Super Effective!" --Genowhirl 00:19, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

I'd support making a new type, "Pokemon", which would have the following traits/features:

Pokemon Type

Pokemon are similar to animals and magical beasts, but can have Intelligence scores higher than 2. Pokemon usually have supernatural or extraordinary abilities, but sometimes are merely bizarre in appearance or habits. A Pokemon's name often gives a clue into what subtype it belongs to.

Features

A Pokemon has the following features.

• 8-sided Hit Dice.
• Base attack bonus equal to total Hit Dice (as fighter).
• Good Fortitude and Reflex saves.
• Skill points equal to (2 + Int modifier, minimum 1) per Hit Die, with quadruple skill points for the first Hit Die.

Traits

A Pokemon possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).

• Cannot heal damage on its own if it has an Intelligence score less than 2, although it can be healed by anything (including itself) with an Intelligence score greater than 2.
• Low-light vision, unless otherwise specified.
• Proficient with its natural weapons only.
• Proficient with no armor.
• Pokemon eat, sleep, and breathe.
• Depending on how accurate we wanted to be, we could say all damage is treated as non-lethal, and reducing a Pokemon to 0 hp makes them "faint". --The Badger 02:52, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

Hell no. Look, just write up some common traits to pokemon as a tag/template--vulnerable to critical hits, can be safely stored inside little spheres, whatever else figures--and these traits usually supercede any other traits where they would conflict. Also, 8-sided HD does not work for pokemon. Having a set HD size that applies to all of them doesn't work. It needs to be case-by-case. Anyway, they've been working on Pokemon d20. Frank Trollman had a bunch of Pokemon as d20 monsters written up, but that site has apparently expired. There is this, though: http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=48778&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 --Genowhirl 03:02, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

I guess in my mind "Pokemon" would be as diverse a group as "Magical beasts". I mean, that covers everything from Frost Worms to Dragonnes to Unicorns. I wouldn't figure a Shocker Lizard would have the same HD Size as a Tarrasque, or a Pegasus; they sure as hell do. However, I would understand the argument against a "Pokemon" type because we'd want Ditto to be an ooze, or Mr. Mime to be a Humanoid. The idea of a "Super-type" that applies over standard types would work for me though. I think the only real argument for a "Pokemon" type is to remove and concern as to how to categorize them. Take Bulbasaur. According to this page, he's a plant type, but here is his part of his description: "The most remarkable thing about this creature is the large plant seed growing from its back". If he truly were a Plant type (think assassin vine), the most remarkable thing about this creature would be the little dinosaur growing off the bottom of the plant. --The Badger 03:24, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

These are from the Pokemon d20 game Frank and his sister put together a long time ago (converted from 3e, and with descriptions added, but otherwise pretty much unchanged). "Pokemon" are any Aberration, Beast, Dragon, Elemental, Magical Beast, Ooze, Outsider, Plant, or Vermin that advances by Hit Dice - so a Pokemon subtype would be redundant. Ditto is an Ooze or (probably) Aberration, Mr. Mime is an Aberration (Psionic), and you can stuff a Unicorn into a Pokeball. Quantumboost 05:36, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

I approve the idea of a Pokemon subtype. It will allow you to override traits of anything you find universal (for example, Living Construct changes Construct quite a bit), and more importantly it gives you something to categorize. You could, for some reason, be a Ranger with favored enemy Pokemon, or have a Pokemon-only item. It need not be big, nothing like what it says above. More simple, universal traits like "Storable in magic balls" and "Certain types able to turn into different Pokemon when certain conditions are met." and all. -- Eiji Hyrule 01:18, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

Since the Pokemon types are a scaled up rock paper scissor, i think this should have fire vulnerability (which is why fire is super effective) and maybe resistance to an element. Water types could have electrical vulnerability while ground types have electrical immunity, ect.--NameViolation 01:31, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

Except... the entire point of Pokemon d20 is that Pokemon are D&D monsters, and some D&D monsters are Pokemon and can be caught in Pokeballs and the like. And you can't honestly tell me that D&D monsters don't turn into other kinds - the True Dragon age categories and advancement through Fiendish types are seriously not any different from Pokemon evolution. I don't see any purpose that is served by adding a Pokemon subtype except segregating them from the rest of the monsters, which defeats the entire point.

@NameViolation: Maybe. Fire Vulnerability seems a bit extreme for just Grass-type given that it's one of the most common damage types - though a "you take an extra X from fire attacks" coupled with minor electricity resistance might be in line. But yeah, a lot of the Pokemon do have somewhat appropriate energy resistances or immunities (though things like Charmander getting immunity to fire is just part of the system translation), and Gyarados and Scizor have vulnerabilities to their respective things. I could totally see Paras have outright Fire Vulnerability too. But I don't want to give out D&D Energy Vulnerability except when it comes to dual weakness. Quantumboost 04:47, January 26, 2010 (UTC)