What is monster type overall? I mean should monsters susceptible to pickaxes be monster typed as rock formations? or should som stuff like worms be a monster type (iirc, they are  codd like that in the game)? what about chaos creatures or wereanimals?Soirana (talk) 02:58, June 1, 2017 (UTC)

Good question. I think the overall goal should be for monster type to group monsters such that seeing the monster type on the individual monster pages is useful. So... how to define this objectively? I would include every group of monsters for which slaying weapons or ammo exists, as defined by greater identify. This covers demon, dragon, giant, humanoid, insect, plant, jelly, undead, and unlife. For other monster types I would require:
  1. There are at least five different monsters of that type.
  2. There are multiple distinct interactions (item, spell, class ability, or action) that are exclusive to monsters of that type.
Animals pass the test - interactions would be friendliness with druids, increased beastfighter crit chance, and taming with meat
Rats and rabbits fail both points of the test - not enough different types and only one interaction (cat's claw, rabbit knife)
Worms and wereanimals fail the second point of the test - AFAIK there are no such interactions
Rock monsters are close to qualifying - there's special interaction with both pickaxes and magical digging, but there isn't complete overlap between the two (possible bug/oversight?)
Chaos creatures (as defined by corrupting melee) do qualify and might be worth adding - interactions would be damaged/weakened by PoCC, healed by corruption (raw chaos, moon sickle, etc), and corruption on telepathic mindcraft.
Yulgash (talk) 17:13, June 1, 2017 (UTC)
rats - rat, giant rat, gargantuan rat, chaos rat, vapor rat, wererat - 6.
Thing with rats is that only rat, giant rat, and wererat are counted for the purposes of cat's claw. So do you have separate types for 'counted as a rat by cat's claw' and 'has rat in the name'? Yulgash (talk) 00:54, July 23, 2017 (UTC)
IMO too restricting.
1.Two monsters shall be enough (rabbits)
2.Interactions from the PC are not needed. It is enough that they share certain characteristic, such as: look similar (same letter in ASCII, similar tile), summon lesser creatures (werecreatures), debiliates the PC somehow (worms, eyes), ignore water, ignore traps, taste the same, slower/faster speed, summons something, breeder, feature elemental attack, are generated neutral - only certain locations (townsfolk), fliers, vulnerbale to fire/cold, drop certain items, similar corpse efects or no corpse, similar attacks/abilities, etc.
It is more important they have something common than that there may be no interaction.
Candidates other than mentioned: orb guardians, baby dragons, carmics, worms, eyes, cats, dogs, dark creatures, ratlings, skeletons, liches, shadows, ghosts, mummies, vortices, quicklings, snakes, spiders, rats, bats, ants, bees, aquatics, goblins, kobolds, orcs, ogres, townsfolk, jackals, lizards, minotaurs, dwarves, criminals, ice creatures, fire creatures, wyrms, elementals, grues, golems, statues, wolves, bugs, berserkers, slayers, assassins, barbarians.
Maybe even something like guardians (ogre, royal, ratling, eternal, orb). At least they all guard something. 
I think having a ton of different types would make the monster type a lot less useful on top of being a nightmare to update and maintain. For grouping by a specific ability (ignore water, ignore traps, breeder, elemental attacks, etc), categories are a better place to do this (more room and automatically links to a list page). I don't think grouping by ASCII letter or monster name is useful at all in many cases. Yulgash (talk) 00:54, July 23, 2017 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.