Humanoid and Monsterous Humanoid: what makes a man, a man?

[SidusLupus]

Recently while reading in detail about the alter self spell, and what you can and can't do I came upon a strange discontinuity.

There seems to be a very blurry distinction as to what is a humanoid, and what isn't a humanoid. The extreemes are easy to spot. A human is a (humanoid), a minotaur is a (monsterous humanoid). Somewhere along the line though, the middle gets grey.

I should first point out what it takes to be a humanoid or a monsterous humanoid
(http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm)

A humanoid usually has two arms, two legs, and one head, or a humanlike torso, arms, and a head. Humanoids have few or no supernatural or extraordinary abilities, but most can speak and usually have well-developed societies. They usually are Small or Medium. Every humanoid creature also has a subtype.

Monstrous humanoids are similar to humanoids, but with monstrous or animalistic features. They often have magical abilities as well.

So now, the differences are established.

Why then are gnolls classified as humanoid? Or merfolk? Lizardfolk? kobold? locathah?

All of these are classified as humanoid, but clearly have monsterous or animalistic features and seemingly might fit better in the (monsterous humanoid) category.

It gets more blurry because Blackscale Lizardfolk from the MM3 are classified Monsterous humanoid, but are most definately lizardfolk. They happen to be large so they violate the size req for humanoid. Why then aren't they in the giant category?

A giant is a humanoid-shaped creature of great strength, usually of at least Large size.

Accordlingly a large lizardfolk (which is humanoid as a medium or small creature), should be considered lizardfolk (giant). Blackscale lizardfolk are large humanoids.. but somehow fall into the monsterous humanoid category.

Then though, why are derro (monsterous humanoid)? Though their entry lacks a picture, from their description they have no animalistic or monsterous features and are just mutant human dwarves.

Why isn't a kuo-toa classified as humanoid? They dont seem to be any more animalistic than lizardfolk.

I guess my question is, what exactly makes a monsterous humanoid monsterous and not humanoid, since by their very description and examples I can't readly tell the difference. Seems like the lines are very blurred and there are violations are on both sides of the spectrum. Am I missing something?

As a side note, why are lamias magical beasts, and not monsterous humanoids like centaurs?

 

[Crothian]

I think you give the people who made the MM way to much credit thinking there is a bit of logic to this stuff. I think they drew types out of a hat for some of them, other thing they just used best guess at the time, and I agree with them that say that no one took a look at the overall categories to see what was where. But what do I know?

 

[demiurge1138]

There doesn't seem to be any actual way of delineating them. A monstrous humanoid is more likely to have more hit dice than a humanoid (which might explain the blackscale lizardfolk discrepancy), but there's no real answer. The categories are somewhat arbitrary by definition.

And derro are monstrous, I think, for their extensive spell-like abilities (although duergar and svirfneblin has SLAs...) and racial insanity (although particularly aberrant mindsets are defined as part of aberration). Kuo-toa are monstrous for their various exotic abilities (can see invisible creatures, slippery, and the priest's ability to generate lightning).

And, of course there's the ugly truth that some creatures have unusual types given for purely mechanical reasons (lamias are magical beasts so they can have d10 hit dice, just like war trolls are monstrous humanoids for the BAB).

And don't even get me started on ropers.

Demiurge out.

 

[frankthedm]

Gnolls are tough humanoids that are still throw away monsters so it is cool charms and holds hit them out of the gate.

Blackscales/ kroxigors take the place of ogres in the lizard folk ranks. They needed the Monsterous Humaniod type to defend vs humaniod targeting affects. The good BAB makes them a real concern againt a party that has pumped its ACs [MMIII seem to take min maxing players into account] The only other option was giant, and those tend to be mammalian.

Monte Cook slightly nerfed Deep ones when he made them abberations in the D20 cthulhu book.

 

[Voadam]

Monstrous humanoids have 1/1 BAB. Humanoids and giants have 3/4 BAB advancement.

Monstrous humanoids and giants are not affected by person spells.

Explains why war trolls are monstrous humanoids while trolls are giants, the war trolls get better BAB that way.

Gnolls by their description should be monstrous humanoids, but that would make them tougher. Design choice about how tough they should be and for the person spell classifications would be my guess for their type. Same for lizard folk et al.

 

[EdL]

You expect D&D rules to make sense, or their writers to pay any attention to? ROFLMAO!!!

 

[interwyrm]

I'm inclined to think it is purely for mechanical reasons. Should this creature be affected by charm person? No. Ok, monstrous humanoid. Also, should players be able to alter self into this creature? No. Monstrous humanoid.

 

[the Jester]

It's like choosing a class. How do you want the BAB to be? The base saves? How do you want the creature to be affected by spells?

 

[SidusLupus]

Seems kind of.. rotten that creatures which fall into a category based on description are put into another because mechanically it would be more advantageous. Munchkin pc meet munchkin monster =/


I think I'm going to have to go through and reclassify creatures to make sense according to their decription. Without changing the monster the secondary classification would be an additional way to identify the creature, so that someone with ranks in knowledge nature could actually identify gnolls and merfolk incharacter.

 

[Len]

what makes a man, a man?

A man's a man if he's a Dwarf!