Monster Weakness Chart

[Karinya]

Re: Monster Weakness Chart

I have seen the following monsters appear in different categories on different lists:

Cockatrice (avian or lizard)
Worm (vermin or amorpha)
Sea monk (aquan or amorpha)
Funguar (amorpha or plantoid)
Elemental (arcana or their own category; it has been reported that although they share with arcana the property of magic aggro, Arcana Killer and weapons with added effect vs. arcana have no effect on them and they therefore shouldn't be considered arcana.)

More data concerning these monsters (e.g. a screenshot of "The Cockatrice is intimidated by TigerFamiliar's presence." or the equivalent) would be helpful. If elementals really are their own category with no killer traits effective against them, then this can't be *positively* proved by any amount of seeing them not be intimidated by drks, but could be confirmed to a reasonable degree of certainty.

Looking ahead at the TAU monsters revealed so far, it seems likely that Imps are demons, Orobon are aquans, and Apgallu are avians. The description of Lamia and how they were created seems to imply that they may actually be arcana, although they look like (and may be) beastmen. Of course, these classifications are all questionable since no actual evidence is present.

[Rai]

Re: Monster Weakness Chart

Cockatrice = bird
Worm = Amorpha
Sea Monk = Amorpha
Funguar = Plantoids
Elemental = Arcana

according to Mystertour.

[Aeni]

Re: Monster Weakness Chart

I have seen the following monsters appear in different categories on different lists:

Cockatrice (avian or lizard)
Worm (vermin or amorpha)
Sea monk (aquan or amorpha)
Funguar (amorpha or plantoid)
Elemental (arcana or their own category; it has been reported that although they share with arcana the property of magic aggro, Arcana Killer and weapons with added effect vs. arcana have no effect on them and they therefore shouldn't be considered arcana.)

More data concerning these monsters (e.g. a screenshot of "The Cockatrice is intimidated by TigerFamiliar's presence." or the equivalent) would be helpful. If elementals really are their own category with no killer traits effective against them, then this can't be *positively* proved by any amount of seeing them not be intimidated by drks, but could be confirmed to a reasonable degree of certainty.

Looking ahead at the TAU monsters revealed so far, it seems likely that Imps are demons, Orobon are aquans, and Apgallu are avians. The description of Lamia and how they were created seems to imply that they may actually be arcana, although they look like (and may be) beastmen. Of course, these classifications are all questionable since no actual evidence is present.

Not just Mystery Tour, but just about any JP database have said Elementals ARE Arcana. People should throw out the whole killer/intimidate effect issue with regards to elementals.

Do they aggro to magic? You fucking bet they do. *stamps <arcana> on elementals*

Cockatrice are not Lizards. They drop plumes/giant bird feathers. That should end debate right there.

As a BST, I notice that worms intimidate bats. Bats are birds, Worms are amorphs.

Sea Monks are amorphs. You could try taming one in Gustav Tunnel (from fishing) and see if they'll intimidate bats, which they should.

Funguars are plantoids. I mean, c'mon.

Taurus is a demon. Your logic should imply that Ahrimans should be classified as birds. No, they are not birds and neither should you break down the Tauri (Guess that would be the plural form)

Luminans basically do not share any properties of the "old" creatures. Therefore, they are rightfully classified in their own grouping. Same goes for the creatures from the Empty.

Lamians haven't been introduced yet. Those are monsters to come out with the next Expansion.

[Caspian]

Re: Monster Weakness Chart

Whats the difference b/w dragons, wyverns, and wyrms? I know in the classical sense that a wyrm is a wingless dragon. Does the same hold true in ffxi? Whats the difference b/w a wyvern and a dragon then? Are there physical characteristics that differentiate them? Or did the devs just decide some would be called one thing and other mobs be called another thing?

[Aeni]

Re: Monster Weakness Chart

Whats the difference b/w dragons, wyverns, and wyrms? I know in the classical sense that a wyrm is a wingless dragon. Does the same hold true in ffxi? Whats the difference b/w a wyvern and a dragon then? Are there physical characteristics that differentiate them? Or did the devs just decide some would be called one thing and other mobs be called another thing?

SE uses each term pretty loosely. However, there are 3 distinct models to represent the three.

Dragons are pretty much modeled after Shadow Dragon, which you fight for Rank 3 (No matter which nation you hail from) Ash Dragon, a high level NM, is modeled as such.

Wyverns are pretty much what you see in the lower holds of Gustav and Kuftal Tunnels. You may also find them in Ifrit's Cauldron. The NMs, Guivre and Bune, are both Wyverns. So is Ungar.

Wyrms, afaik, are the 3 NMs that SE put in with the COP expansion: Jormagund, Tiamat and Vrtra. They are all friggin' huge, as far as scale goes.

If you've seen these 3 types, then you've seen them all, basically. Aside from the color of the skin and any pattern, they are basically all the same structure.

As for why does Dragoon's pet look really small, it has more to do with being able to run the game without lagging a hella lot more than any other reasons. If it were technically possible with the PS2, I'm pretty sure SE would give DRGs a break from all the running jokes about their tiny friends.

[sdfb6]

Re: Monster Weakness Chart

whooow, finally i post a discussion that people have serious interest in. thanks for all the replys...cough cough BST is the best cough. and thanks. lol, i'm Trias on Midgar, later.

[Alontier]

Re: Monster Weakness Chart

I know you didn't ask for the monster elemental weekness chart but this has them sorted by
categories and also lists how charmable they are:
http://www015.upp.so-net.ne.jp/reaver/monster.html

[Karinya]

Re: Monster Weakness Chart

Not just Mystery Tour, but just about any JP database have said Elementals ARE Arcana. People should throw out the whole killer/intimidate effect issue with regards to elementals.

Do they aggro to magic? You fucking bet they do. *stamps <arcana> on elementals*

Why do you consider magic aggro evidence more important than killer evidence for determining classifications? It seems more plausible to me that more than one type of monster could aggro magic than that some arcana aren't affected by arcana killer/vs arcana weapons.

Killer effects (and the related vs. type: effect weapons) are the most reliable way of determining monster category membership (and also the reason category membership is relevant in the first place). But people should throw it out because you say so, giving no reason? Sheesh.

Mysterytour has a lot of useful information. It also has some wrong information. Many sites copy information from each other and both true and false information gets propagated. Arguments from authority are very weak, at best.

Cockatrice are not Lizards. They drop plumes/giant bird feathers. That should end debate right there.

No, it shouldn't. Seeing them get intimidated by a leech or a rabbit should end the debate. Examining their drops shouldn't. In some areas you can steal crab meat from tigers, but that doesn't make tigers aquans. Golems and worms both drop ore, but that doesn't make them the same category.

As a BST, I notice that worms intimidate bats. Bats are birds, Worms are amorphs.

Sea Monks are amorphs. You could try taming one in Gustav Tunnel (from fishing) and see if they'll intimidate bats, which they should.

Funguars are plantoids. I mean, c'mon.

Taurus is a demon. Your logic should imply that Ahrimans should be classified as birds. No, they are not birds and neither should you break down the Tauri (Guess that would be the plural form)

I'm not sure you got my point. I'm looking for *evidence* to resolve these disputed classifications (and warning people that they exist, so they won't rely too heavily on Arcana Killer when they go to hunt elementals, etc.) Not speculation. I've seen Taurus and Ahrimans intimidated by demon killer/whatever the circle equivalent is called; those abilities are only effective against demons. Therefore they're demons. That's logic. "I mean, c'mon" is not.

Of course if you've seen worms intimidate bats, then that *is* evidence. And your suggestion about sea monks is a good idea that I might implement if my BST wasn't 6 and my fishing 0. (If I had a leveled BST, I would have gathered the evidence myself rather than ask others for it.)

But the rest of your post is speculation or assertions supported by nothing but your say-so. You may be right, or you may be wrong - without evidence we don't know. I find it plausible that funguars are plantoids - but then again, maybe they're not. Fungi aren't really plants. But regardless of how you argue the "logic" of it back and forth, one screenshot of an intimidate effect could settle the question definitely. That was the whole point of asking for evidence.


P.S. The "wyrm" model was originally designed for Fafnir and Nidhogg. CoP wyrms Jormungand, Tiamat, Vrtra and Ouryuu use reskinned versions of the same model.

[Aeni]

Re: Monster Weakness Chart

Because, killer effect/intimidation is not useful evidence either. There is such a thing as a "bug" in games, and your reliance on a message that may or may not have been accurately produced by the server is just as "flawed" as my "logic." Relying on "one" screenshot proves nothing.

For example, my long hours in the Maze charming bats and using them to fight worms and noticing about 100 of these messages where the bats are intimidated by worms should pretty much be accurate with regards to what classification you'd project those two creatures.

However, having one screenshot after hundreds of attempts to do so proves nothing, because I've seen some weird stuff before where they shouldn't have existed (I've once checked a regular leech, not an NM, and it returned as Impossible to Gauge and I've also gotten a message that said an Ahriman countered my physicalattack when we all know that is impossible for that monster to do)

Here is my take on elementals. The fact that I still can do more physical damage than any other melee as a DRK must mean we do have a killer trait on them. For some reason, they cannot be intimidated, but I believe this is due to their very HIGH physical defense trait and thus negates intimidation effects. However, if you look at it from the magical aggression perspective, it is the only monster that currently does not get grouped with the other arcana monsters who are all aggressive to magic.

Logic will then state that elementals should be arcana. In fact, they are listed in many guide books in Japan, a couple of which is OFFICIALLY recognized by SE.

You also saying that you were able to steal crab meat off a tiger could also have been a bug. I've never seen that happened before and unless people can provide proof of this, then I'll just chalk that up to anomalies. In other words, I stand by the fact that Cockatrice are birds, not lizards. You can steal and get drops of feathers from every cockatrice you can come across. If someone wants to go waste their time proving this, they can go to LoO and try to charm a cockatrice and go fight one of those Sea Monks or even Lord of Onzozo and see if you'll get the intimidation message.

Also, Tauri are demons, but you must've misread that. You just agreed with what I have stated. However, you wanted to break the Tauri down to individual categorization, which is like taking the demon family as a whole and breaking them down. That was my point. In other words, you don't see people trying to classify an Ahriman as a bird, do you? So why are you trying to break them down as such ...

TAU monsters revealed so far, it seems likely that Imps are demons, Orobon are aquans, and Apgallu are avians

Also, as a BST I already seen that funguars are plantoids. This is why I questioned you, as why did you bring that up? Because everyone knows they are plantoids. From the first day the BST job class was playable.

Anyway, I like to believe that classifications are just a guide for people if they're into that sort of thing. For BSTs, it's invaluable reference, but only 2/3 of it is really practical (They can't just go charm an undead, for example) I think people look too much into something with the argument over elementals being a prime example. Again, if SE may be agreeing to the classification, why is there any argument to begin with?

[Karinya]

Re: Monster Weakness Chart

Oh, I see... TAU = Treasures of Aht Urhgan. Seems to have confused you. No relation to the Taurus family of monsters, which are demons (I don't think anyone ever said they weren't). Any classification of TAU monsters at this time is obviously speculation, which I admitted, and needs confirming evidence as soon as TAU comes out and people can test it.

It just isn't useful to classify elementals as arcana if they aren't affected by anything that affects arcana. People create classification systems because they are useful: monsters in the aquan class are those that you can use aquan killer against, that intimidate amorphs and are intimidated by birds. That's useful information that people can use when they fight those monsters. If someone sees elementals in the arcana category and tries to use arcana killer or a vs. arcana weapon against them, it won't work and they might even die as a result. That's why it is misleading and harmful to classify elementals as arcana, even though they share some important properties (magic aggro) with arcana.

Also, arcana in general have some resistance to magic and are easier to damage physically; elementals are just the opposite, having physical resistance and being weak to magic. Again, lumping them together confuses the issue and could mislead someone who is relying on the guide for information.


Your point about flukes and flaky bugs is well taken. Multiple screenshots > one screenshot. But even one screenshot is better than any amount of talk.

SE's acknowledgement of a particular guide does not imply that they are saying everything in the guide is 100% accurate. (Arguments from authority again?)