Pathfinder 1E Any reason for Monstrous Humanoids not to be a Humanoid subtype?

VelvetViolet

Adventurer
The thing about Humanoids and Monstrous Humanoids is that the distinction between what qualifies a creature as either is extremely arbitrary. Many creatures in one type would make perfect sense under the other type, since plenty of humanoids have animalistic features and many monstrous humanoids don't. You can't have Monstrous Humanoids with the Giant subtype either.

Isn't it about time Monstrous Humanoid became a subtype? It doesn't even need to lose its HD or skills if that's important: the Monstrous subtype just means the creature is stronger than other humanoids.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Coming from a D&D 3.5 background, one obvious reason comes to mind: Alter Self. The spell allows Humanoids to assume the form of any other Humanoid creature within one size category, up to a certain hit die limit.

Categorizing Monstrous Humanoids as Humanoids makes that spell a lot more powerful than it already is.

Is there any good argument in favor of changing it?
 

In PF, Alter Self (like all Polymorph effects) specifies which abilities you're allowed to gain from it. It is actually impossible, for example, to use the spell to gain the ability to fly.

So no, no good reason in PF as far as I can tell. Change it if you want to change it!
 

I guess my question is all I have left: Rather than asking "Why not make this change", I ask, "Why make the change".

As a DM, when players ask for "harmless" or "meaningless" rules or distinctions to be changed or removed, alarm bells start going off in my head. Call me paranoid if you like, but as a DM I don't just suspect that players are out to get me, I know it for a fact.
 

Personally, I've had Giant as a subtype of Humanoid for a long time.

Monstrous Humanoid makes sense to keep separate to me just because the BAB/saves are better, but if you want to just call it a subtype, I see no real reason not to. Type distinctions are pretty arbitrary. If problems with spells or weird abilities crop up, you can always just fix them.
 

I guess my question is all I have left: Rather than asking "Why not make this change", I ask, "Why make the change".

As a DM, when players ask for "harmless" or "meaningless" rules or distinctions to be changed or removed, alarm bells start going off in my head. Call me paranoid if you like, but as a DM I don't just suspect that players are out to get me, I know it for a fact.

Agreed. In general, Chesterton's fence serves as a good reason for not changing rules.

Raneth, do you know why they were made as two separate types to begin with?
 

Raneth, do you know why they were made as two separate types to begin with?
As stated above, most of the reasons for why they're a separate type were removed (shapechanging spells). The charm spell distinction makes no sense (why is a centaur unaffected by charm person despite having identical psychology to demi-humans?), and can be solved by putting an HD cap on charm person like for other spells of similar level. The criterion for monstrous humanoid (monstrous or animal features) is frequently ignored (see Gnolls and every other animalistic race classified as humanoid). In fact, in 3.5, monstrous humanoids were almost identical to humanoids aside from BAB, a second good save, and darkvision. Pathfinder introduced the most changes to the type.

Why are they a separate type?
 

Spell immunities are important. "Person" spells are always supposed to be a threat to PCs until save bonuses are quite high. but only useful on vanilla foes.

Thematically Gnolls should be monstrous humanoids, but PCs were thrown a bone on that one.
 

So should races like Catfolk and Ratfolk. There's no consistency. And the spell immunities aren't so important as to justify treating Humans different from Centaurs. That's just ridiculous, since Centaurs are in fact Humans from the waist up, by definition.
 

Precisely! The current system does not distinguish well. For example, the Humbaba is considered a monstrous humanoid even though it would qualify as a giant. I read a solution from some years ago (back in 3.5) where someone came up with a definitive list of subtypes for the humanoid type and redefined the Monstrous Humanoid type.

Ichthian - fishy/fishlike. Mmm. Fish. Tartar Sauce.
Here's the subtypes/bane types I use in my campaigns for humanoids.

Avian Subtype: These creatures are bird-like humanoids, such as aarakockra and tengu. They always have fly speeds and usually have good maneuverability. They typically speak sylvan and are feathered.

Bestial Subtype: These creatures are animalistic humanoids, such as gnolls, minotaurs, nezumi, and vanara. They typically have natural attacks, such as claws or a bite, and are usually furred. Other than that, they have little in common.

Dwarf Subtype: These are the varieties of dwarf, such as Aleithian, Deep, and Korobokuru. They typically have high Constitution scores, stonecunning, and darkvision. They all speak Dwarven.

Elf Subtype: These are the varieties of elf, such as aquatic, high, and wild. They typically have high Dexterity scores, the ability to detect secret doors, and low light vision. They all speak Elven.

Gith Subtype: These are the gith races, including gith pirates, githyanki, and githzerai. They typically have high Intelligence scores, and live on the Transitive or Outer Planes. They all speak Gith.

Gnome Subtype: These are the varieties of gnome, such as Deep, Forest, and Rock. They typically have high Constitution scores, an inherent knack for illusions, and darkvision. They all speak Gnome and are Small.

Goblinoid Subtype: Goblinoids are stealthy humanoids who usually live by hunting and raiding and who all speak Goblin. Their ranks include the goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears.

Halfling Subtype: These are the varieties of halfling, such as Rivershore and Tallfellow. They are Small, typically have high Dexterity scores, and excellent aim. They speak any number of human regional languages.

Human Subtype: These are the humans, whatever plane they come from. They typically have no unusual ability scores, but are fast learners and gain bonus feats and skill points. They speak any number of human regional languages.

Ichthian Subtype: These creatures always have the Aquatic subtype and many are Amphibious. Examples include Locathah, Kuo-Toa, and Sahuagin, and they speak Aquan.

Orc Subtype: These are the varieties of orc, such as Mountain and Uruk-hai. They typically have high Strength scores, low Charisma scores, and darkvision. They all speak Orcish.

Ranid Subtype: These are the bullywugs, sivs, and other amphibian humanoids. They typically have the Aquatic and Amphibious subtypes, and have a racial bonus to Jump checks. They usually speak Aquan or Sylvan.

Reptilian Subtype: These are the varieties of reptilian humanoids, such as kobolds and pterrans. They typically have darkvision, but other than that vary as widely as the bestial subtype.


I like the definition of Monstrous Humanoid as "partially humanoid, but with additional limbs or heads, or lacking limbs" So centaurs, wemics, nagas, and the Kreen races fall in that category. It's a role-playing distinction more than anything: Humanoids are "PC" races, monstrous humanoids are NPC races, monstrous humanoids have to pay extra for their armor/barding, etc. Anything else falls under savage species rules. :confused:
 

Remove ads

Top