Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 9637212" data-attributes="member: 3400">It's also true that being a "giant class humanoid" wasn't really doing a lot of lifting - other than giving rangers extra damage. It didn't, for example, define what a charm person could affect since that spell could affect some of the entries on the giant class humanoid list but not others. It wasn't until 3e, that I recall, that those classifications meant something more and would be keywords for who spells could affect, what things they might be immune to, etc. And since then, they've been rejiggered with every edition, major and minor and Pathfinder. Some classifications have gone away, new ones have been invented, and creatures have shifted from one group to another with every edition revision. So, why, exactly, the consternation over goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears being shifted to fey? It does shift their vulnerability to certain kinds of spells - true. But then, even in 1e, bugbears weren't subject to charm person or hold person despite being humanoid and cousin to goblins/hobgoblins (who were subject to those spells). More recent editions have tightened those definitions up a bit (thanks to classifications being MUCH better defined than in 1e days), so it can come as a bit of a surprise when  experienced 5e.2014 players run into them with 5e.2024 rules.To my mind, shifting from humanoid to fey enables them to be portrayed a bit more stereotypically - your magical-creature essentialist, if you will. So it's a bit of a reclassification shell game from design that enables them to say that they're respecting concerns about bioessentialism while still kind of having it for creatures they intend to use more antagonistically like gnolls and, now, goblinoids.</blockquote>

Verification