I propose splitting beasts/animals or move all non-animal monsters to some other type. Currently if you go to check Ancient Stone Beast's (for example) monster type, you'll see that is tameable and neutral for druids which is not true. Incidentally I may try to test whether these non-animal beasts (displacer beasts, hippogriffs etc) are more susceptible to hunting arrows/bows. If this is not true, then they don't even have a single common feature (besides being depicted by F). Ln (talk) 13:56, September 23, 2013 (UTC)
- Valid points... I wrongfully assumed that the terms 'beast' and 'animal' meant the same thing in the game, but it appears that they do have different properties to each other. On a separate note I may also have mistakenly assumed some intelligent monsters to be part humanoid, since from (later) looking at some comments from the Creator in the bug tracker, monster intelligence may exist as an explicitly defined attribute for each monster (rather than being inherited from 'type').
- I support the proposition, anyway. I'd also be curious about whether the supposed critical hit bonus that beastfighters get apply to both types or only 'beasts'... is there even any known data on what this increased chance even is? Nightcrawler226 (talk) 20:48, September 23, 2013 (UTC)