RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Good afternoon,
James answered a question here with thoughts on how the line got cluttered in D&D between the two.
I'm just wondering, where's the line in Pathfinder?
Creative Director
|
Good afternoon,
James answered a question here with thoughts on how the line got cluttered in D&D between the two.
I'm just wondering, where's the line in Pathfinder?
The line in Pathfinder is basically:
Humanoids are generally human shaped—two arms, two legs, and a head. They also are generally things that, if they were in a movie, one could create with a mask and some makeup. Size isn't limited to human size, but the further you get from Medium the less likely you're a humanoid. Giants are an obvious exception; in Pathfinder, a giant is a subtype of humanoid. They're not their own type any more. The troll or the lizardfolk (seen on the cover of the Bestiary) is probably as inhuman as a humanoid will get. And with the exception of giants, you'll not often see many humanoids that have more than a few Hit Dice, and the majority won't have racial HD at all.
Monstrous humanoids are generally a lot less humanoid, but generally have identifyable features that are humanoid. A minotaur is a good example. So is a gargoyle, or a centaur, or a hag, or a harpy, or a morlock, or a skum, or a yeti. All of these have pretty humanoid features, but generally have at least one feature that is VERY inhuman, be it hooves and animal heads, quadrepedal lower torsos, wings, lots of fur, or tails. A morlock or a hag is probably the most human that a monstrous humanoid will ever look... and even then those things are decidedly MONSTROUS in their personalities and actions.
In actual game design, though, the difference is this:
Humanoids generally have few or no racial HD (with the exception of giants), and rarely if ever have extravigant special abilities or supernatural powers.
Monstrous Humanods ALWAYS have racial HD, often quite a lot. They also usually have some pretty unusual abilities and supernatural powers.
Put another way, humanoids will generally be monsters that would work pretty well as PC races, while monstrous humanoids won't.
To a greater point... we won't be mixing types. If in the future we come up with variant yetis, they'll all be monstrous humanoids. Likewise, variant lizardfolk will all be humanoids. Unless the monsters are SO mutated that they become something else entirely. The babbler (from 1st edition Fiend Folio and in 3.5 the Tome of Horrors) is a good example; it's a more monstrous mutated version of a lizardfolk. In the ToH, the babbler is presented as a magical beast, since it's a lot less interested in society and more interested in just being beastly. A good analogy on the human side of things for the lizardfolk–babbler relationship would be humans and sphinxes, I guess.
Ok. So Human = Humanoid. Gillman = Humanoid. Skum = Monstrous humanoid. Thank you.
This is inspiring me to run a game where all the characters start out as monstrous humanoids.
Not sure if this was asked elsewhere, but there was so many "except giants" in the humanoid description that I can't help but wonder why they weren't folded into Monstrous Humanoid rather than humanoid?
Sean Mahoney
|
Not sure if this was asked elsewhere, but there was so many "except giants" in the humanoid description that I can't help but wonder why they weren't folded into Monstrous Humanoid rather than humanoid?
Sean Mahoney
How can the Iconic Ranger be a giant-slaying madman if he's targeting all monstrous humanoids? Humanoid (giant) still lets Harsk slaughter giants left and right while not automatically wanting to kill centaurs on sight.