Humanoids

[Roman]

I thought any humanoid with more than one starting HD was a monstrous humanoid ...

Lizardmen/Lizardfolk have more than 1 starting HD and are still considered humanoid, so it does not seem to apply.

 

[Wolf72]

Lizardmen/Lizardfolk have more than 1 starting HD and are still considered humanoid, so it does not seem to apply.

ah, so much for that theory ...

 

[Sado]

BTW: What about Troglodytes and Locathahs?

trog·lo·dyte ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trgl-dt)
n.

1. A member of a fabulous or prehistoric race of people that lived in caves, dens, or holes.
2. A person considered to be reclusive, reactionary, out of date, or brutish.

3. An anthropoid ape, such as a gorilla or chimpanzee.
4. An animal that lives underground, as an ant or a worm.

Don't know about Locathahs.

 

[ARandomGod]

Interesting - I wonder why D&D designers decided to make them reptilian humanoids. Were they in any manner reptilian in legends/stories?

D&D designers, in fact, did not make them reptilian. WoTC did that later. And they did it for fun... or to make them fit into new stories.

 

[Jolly Giant]

In the type/subtype descriptions (or possibly in the create-your-own-monsters section) in the 3.0 MM (havn't got the 3.5 books with me, so I'm going by memory now) it says monstrous humanoids are humanoids with some abnormal features. Humanoids with animalistic features are mentioned as typical examples.

Obviously, this places lizardfolk squarely in the monstrous humanoids bracket! Yet they're listed as humanoids. The goliaths from races of stone, on the other hand, got listed as monstrous simply because they're big.

To summarize: The difference between humanoids and monstrous humanoids is highly mysterious and defineing it is best left to ageing monks on remote mountain tops or to epic loremasters.

 

[DMH]

D&D designers, in fact, did not make them reptilian. WoTC did that later. And they did it for fun... or to make them fit into new stories.

They were reptiles long before WoTC came into the picture. OD&D had them as dog people, but the 1st ed MM (~79) has them as reptiles that lay eggs.

I like the idea from the other thread that they are small versions of gnolls, but the egg laying aspect gives them a much better reproductive capacity (something I like about them).

 

[Psion]

D&D designers, in fact, did not make them reptilian. WoTC did that later. And they did it for fun... or to make them fit into new stories.

Actually, it was an artist interpretation. Gygax described one variety as being green, the author took that as "lizard like" and drew them that way. In 3e, the mistake was made true, and they were formalizd as reptiles.

Which seems to be custom now... like giving the nycaloth 4 arms. :\

 

[Woas]

Umm.. correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe Kobold is actually German for Goblin or some type of German mythological thing.

 

[Felon]

Lizardmen/Lizardfolk have more than 1 starting HD and are still considered humanoid, so it does not seem to apply.

It doesn't, but it probably should. Giving lizardfolk, gnolls, bugbears, and other humanoids multiple hit dice is pretty pointless when one considers that levels in the NPC warriror class (from the DMG) would grant near identical benefits. It's more of a hindrance than anything--especially if you're considering them as a PC race.

 

[Turjan]

Umm.. correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe Kobold is actually German for Goblin or some type of German mythological thing.

That's correct .

I think most of the D&D races are just born from the need for monsters of different HD in the "good old times" when monsters did not advance in levels/HD. The question with the PC races has already been answered, with Tolkien as the source for the blueprint of all of them (except gnomes). In mythology, elfs, dwarfs, gnomes, brownies and goblins are all the same. The terms are used interchangeably. Nordic mythology basically knows only elfs and trolls as big archetypes.