Hussar said:
Why lose the Giant type? Never thought that that particular one was a problem.
I started a thread in general that was quite popular about how Humanoid, Monstrous Humanoid and Giant were all essentually the same thing, and how they should be simply one type, perhaps two types, with sub-types catergorizing everything else.
Look, for example, at the "reptilian" sub-type - why is it there, even? Well, stuff like Favoured Enemy, Bane weapons, etc, that's why. So, take it a step further and use real-life groupings for all the "furries" (term used loosely and non-offensively) all over the monstrous humanoids/humanoids classifications and sub-divide them - IE Canines, Felines, etc. Then, have giant as a another sub-type. And so on.
Giants, with their 3/4 BAB and d8 HD would be a humanoid (giant) and many cretaures would be moved into either humanoid or monstrous humanoid.
Spells like
hold person would have to be re-tooled so as to only allow their effects affect those of a similar type (in the case of humans/elves/dwarve etc it would be "untyped" subtype, since they are basically, in D&Dland, humans squeezed and pulled different ways) and those other other types might have a higher spell level slot (not unlike metamagic). That way it smoothes over discrepenceis like the gaping hole of
hold giant, which is infact not a spell but a place where a spell should be.
These are just some rough and random thoughts, but workable. I think perhaps one of the main problems was WotC not being hard-set on what classifies a humanoid/monstrous humanoid - like the Gnoll, for example.
EDIT: beaten to the punch, eh Sammael

