Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="saucercrab" data-source="post: 3327810" data-attributes="member: 3659">Well it doesn't directly, literally state it either way (that I know of), so what sounds more logical? A half-humanoid creature can be affected by a spell aimed at humanoids, but its more-than-half-humanoid offspring can't?If you want to disregard that, then: <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Certain spells I'm thinking of that are applicable (enlarge person, charm person/charm monster, dominate animal/dominate person/dominate monster) mention creatures by type, not subtype.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A wizard's familiar is (if using an animal as the base creature) a Magic Beast (Augmented Animal). PHB, page 52, Familiars sidebar, first paragraph, third-to-last sentence: "... but it is treated as a magical beast instead of an animal for the purpose of any effect that depends on type."</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">MM, page 296, Creating the Monster section, Creature Type heading, first paragraph, last sentence: "A creature's type determines the size of its HD & how magic affects the creature; for example, the hold animal spell affects only creatures of the animal type." The Subtype heading lacks any text concerning spell eligibility.</li> </ul>AFAICT, signs point to "no, (the augmented subtype doesn't count as type)."</blockquote>