D&D 5E Hold Person/Monster vs. Undead?

[jrowland]

Not correct. 5e does not do away with Keywords, All monsters have their type of written under their name. So a Humanoid is a Humanoid.

I don't know why you would think this.

Keywords as a thing (ie mechanic) are not the same as creature type.

In general, a creature type is a "keyword" (no caps, common english) but it is NOT a "Keyword" (caps, game rule). There are also damage types and the associated resistance/vulnerabilities to those damage types, but that is a far cry from a Keyword-Based mechanic we've seen in prior editions that were a mechanic in and of themselves.

Missing are things like "Rattling" or "Brutal", and mechanics that say "Fire" keyword ignites things (although that is in there as a "up to DM" example) or that "Light" or "positive" keywords cancels "darkness" or "nragtive" keywords and visa versa.

In short, there is no mechanic for Keywords. They are, thankfully, gone, and while there are "types", its up to the DM to adjudicate any effects beyond the limited role there.

Under Damage Type (PHB) and Creature Type (MM) it specifically calls out there are no rules for "type" but there are specific instances where they might come into play (such as Hold Monster/Person).

It's more than just semantics of "keyword" being gone and "type" replacing it.

 

[the Jester]

Keywords as a thing (ie mechanic) are not the same as creature type....

>snip<

It's more than just semantics of "keyword" being gone and "type" replacing it.

You seem to be contradicting yourself a bit here. I agree that keywords and creature type aren't the same and disagree that creature type isn't a mechanic.

Creatures have had a "type" since 3e (in 3e, you might have a Magical Beast or a Monstrous Humanoid; in 4e, you'd have a Humanoid, Animate, etc). Some have also had keywords (in 3e, you'd have subtypes such as Extraplanar or Goblin; in 4e, you'd have tags like Goblinoid).

And creature types do sometimes have rules attached, but they're attached via specific game elements such as hold person (which specifies that a "humanoid" is affected). Just because they aren't as obvious and aren't spelled out under the creature type doesn't mean that the mechanics don't exist.

 

[jrowland]

You seem to be contradicting yourself a bit here. I agree that keywords and creature type aren't the same and disagree that creature type isn't a mechanic.

From MM (pg 6): "The game includes the following monster types, which have no rules of their own."

Hmm...not a very good start for a mechanic. Certain specific effects might "...interact in special ways with creatures of a specific type." But that is the mechanic of the effect (such as a spell or magic item) not the mechanic of the type.

Creatures have had a "type" since 3e (in 3e, you might have a Magical Beast or a Monstrous Humanoid; in 4e, you'd have a Humanoid, Animate, etc). Some have also had keywords (in 3e, you'd have subtypes such as Extraplanar or Goblin; in 4e, you'd have tags like Goblinoid).

And creature types do sometimes have rules attached, but they're attached via specific game elements such as hold person (which specifies that a "humanoid" is affected). Just because they aren't as obvious and aren't spelled out under the creature type doesn't mean that the mechanics don't exist.

Again, the type does not have a rule, it is the game element that interacts with type that has the rule (and even that is under DM adjudication due the use of common language - i.e. sans keywords). There are no rules for type. The rules very clearly specify there are no rules for type. And there certainly isn't any rules for "Keywords".

 

[Zinnger]

From MM (pg 6): "The game includes the following monster types, which have no rules of their own."

Hmm...not a very good start for a mechanic. Certain specific effects might "...interact in special ways with creatures of a specific type." But that is the mechanic of the effect (such as a spell or magic item) not the mechanic of the type.



Again, the type does not have a rule, it is the game element that interacts with type that has the rule (and even that is under DM adjudication due the use of common language - i.e. sans keywords). There are no rules for type. The rules very clearly specify there are no rules for type. And there certainly isn't any rules for "Keywords".

I am not sure that I understand all that is being said about the type and keyword and tags or whatever. But the OP asks about a spell (Hold Person) having an effect on undead. So... if we are going to quote the MM P.6 then lets quote more of it... "A monster's type speaks to its fundamental nature. Certain SPELLS (what we are talking about here), magic items... interact in special ways with creatures of a particular type. For example, an arrow of dragon slaying deals extra damage not only to dragons but also other creatures of the dragon type, such as dragon turtles and wyverns." It then gives a long list of "types". This list has Humanoids and also has Undead. Having separate listings under "type" clearly indicates that they are NOT the same for SPELL purposes. Hold Person has an effect on Humanoid Type and NOT the Undead Type. A Fey may walk on two legs and be basically a humanoid in many aspects but the spell would not work on them either because while Fey have many things in common with Humanoid it is of a different Type and therefore unaffected by the spell.

So, the simple answer to the OP is that Hold Person DOES NOT have any affect on Undead as they are NOT of the Humanoid Type (as per MM P. 6&7) and thus cannot be "chosen" for purposes of this spell. Seems simple enough for me.

 

[jrowland]

So, the simple answer to the OP is that Hold Person DOES NOT have any affect on Undead as they are NOT of the Humanoid Type (as per MM P. 6&7) and thus cannot be "chosen" for purposes of this spell. Seems simple enough for me.

The spell does NOT say it effects only creatures of the humanoid type, only that it effects humanoids. This "english normal" language is on purpose. For those who care, they can use the creature types and say just as you do in the above quote.

However, and this is important, for those who find such things limiting to their campaign and play-style, they can ignore the types and use their own judgement. Not to resurrect any edition war, but the straight-jacket of certain previous editions were offensive to many. This plain language approach is a nice compromise.

No ruling is BADWRONGFUN.

The OP made a GOOD ruling. Its not one I would make nor you would make, but it was a good ruling, and the "rules" allow for it in the plain english of the spell. You are not bound by types. They are there, certainly, and if suits your game, use them. Otherwise, the plain english is good enough.