Targeting monstrous humanoids


Rules Questions


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Since they are monstrous humanoids, are creatures like gnolls susceptible to spells like charm person or enlarge person? Why or why not?

Mostly looking for developer input rather than player opinion on this one.

Liberty's Edge

No. Humanoid is a Type. Monstrous Humanoid is a Type. They are different types. That Humanoid appears in the MH name is immaterial.

Disclaimer:
Not a developer, but you knew that.

Liberty's Edge

As Howie said, no, they are not.

Would you say "500 dollars" and "5 dollars" are equal? Can you do everything with 5 dollars that you can do with 500?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Fun fact: the developers have commented on this.

But I dislike the 'Imma ignore you if you aren't a developer, so shut up' mentality.


Gnolls appear to be susceptible because they have the type humanoid(gnoll). But no, monstrous humanoid type creatures are not affected by Charm Person or Enlarge Person spells. Humanoid != Monstrous Humanoid.


I know you're looking for a dev response Ravingdork, but I'm 99.999% sure the response you're going to get to your faq request is "staff: no response required."

It's fairly cut and dried...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Cheapy, could you provide a link please? That would make this short and sweet.

Also, monstrous humanoid has the word HUMANOID in it, so how are they not humanoids?

Just because there is a humanoid type doesn't mean monstrous humanoids aren't humanoids too.

It's like saying a car is a vehicle, but a truck isn't. It's true they are different, but they are both vehicles.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Just because there is a humanoid type doesn't mean monstrous humanoids aren't humanoids too.

Actually it means exactly that, otherwise they'd be a subtype.

Quote:
It's like saying a car is a vehicle, but a truck isn't. It's true they are different, but they are both vehicles.

No, it's like saying a jet ski is a jet, because it has "jet" in the name.

Liberty's Edge

Ravingdork wrote:

Also, monstrous humanoid has the word HUMANOID in it, so how are they not humanoids?

Just because there is a humanoid type doesn't mean monstrous humanoids aren't humanoids too.

It's like saying a car is a vehicle, but a truck isn't. It's true they are different, but they are both vehicles.

These are both from the Bestiary section on types.

"Each creature has one type, which broadly defines its abilities. Some creatures also have one or more subtypes. A creature cannot violate the rules of its subtype without a special ability or quality to explain the difference—templates can often change a creature's type drastically."

"Monstrous humanoids are similar to humanoids, but with monstrous or animalistic features. They often have magical abilities as well. A monstrous humanoid has the following features."

In everyday language, the phrase monstrous humanoid is an adjective and a noun. It's a humanoid. What kind of humanoid? A monstrous humanoid. Types don't work that way. Every creature has exactly one type. Effects that are limited by type affect only creatures of that type. The keyword phrase Monstrous Humanoid is a proper noun. Monstrous Humanoids aren't a subset of humanoid; they are a different type of creature all together, in the same way that a Dragon is a different type of creature than an Outsider.

Basically, you're making the argument that when a spell targets a humanoid, it isn't referring to the type Humanoid. If you're gonna take that position, you need to defend it in terms of the spells charm animal and charm monster. I don't think it is the correct way to view the situation.

Quote:
It's like saying a car is a vehicle, but a truck isn't. It's true they are different, but they are both vehicles.

No, it isn't. Cars and trucks are both vehicles, in the same way as Humanoids and Monstrous Humanoids are both types. Words don't make the thing.

"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" (D. Farragut, August 5, 1864, paraphrased)


And besides, if they counted as humanoid normally, the Serpentine bloodline wouldn't need to specify Monstrous Humanoids being valid targets for enchantments that normally only affect humanoids.

Liberty's Edge

Ravingdork wrote:
Cheapy, could you provide a link please? That would make this short and sweet.

I think Cheapy was going to help you except your attitude in the first post turned him off of it. That may be a lesson for you in the future.

@LordPendragon: I love the Jet ski analogy, very fitting.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

What attitude? Me thinks you guys are reading into something that isn't there.


I've noticed a very common attitude on this board that the OP unfortunately reflects -- "if you're not a developer, you're illiterate and therefore your reading of the rules is irrelevant." That attitude is explicit in the second paragraph of the opening post.

There's an explicit list of types listed on the Paizo site. "Humanoid" and "Monstrous humanoid" are listed separately, and that page states "Each creature has one type [as well as possibly having] have one or more subtypes"; the rules are therefore quite clear that something with the "monstrous humanoid" type does not have a second type of "humanoid."

So, yes, just because there is a "monstrous humanoid" type does mean that they're not humanoids, in the same way that they're not plants. Each creature has one type.


Just trolling guys, gnolls are not even monstrous humanoids. You can go about your business. Move along. Move along.


I actually didn't detect anything averse in Ravingdork's attitude. Even his request for a dev response wasn't insulting like some I've seen around here on occasion. I just unfortunately don't think he's going to get a clarifying response. I've seen some things that were far less clear get the "no response required" treatment. :(

Grand Lodge

Ravingdork wrote:
What attitude? Me thinks you guys are reading into something that isn't there.

I always read your posts in the voice of Enos, from The Dukes of Hazzard.


Lord Pendragon wrote:
I actually didn't detect anything averse in Ravingdork's attitude. Even his request for a dev response wasn't insulting like some I've seen around here on occasion. I just unfortunately don't think he's going to get a clarifying response. I've seen some things that were far less clear get the "no response required" treatment. :(

It's certainly less insultingly expressed than I've seen it before, but the attitude itself is annoying to some (including myself). Developers' time is valuable, and I'd rather they spend it making cool products instead of reading the SRD to people on the forum.

As you pointed out, the rules covering this question seem to be very clear; unless RD has something more significant to point to than the question of why a panda bear isn't really a bear (and a glass snake isn't a snake, and fool's gold isn't actually gold, and you can't wear a railroad tie around your neck with a dinner jacket), there's really no reason for a dev to drop by this thread.

Liberty's Edge

I've answered this question in a straight forward manner.

That said, my opinion when people are asking for developer input, it tends to not matter what has been said. Asking for developer input is asking for a voice of authority, which basically says the logic of the situation doesn't matter.

RD, you've been playing long enough that I've been tending to view this question as either 1) You're posting an RD-is-bored, let's see what people say type post, or 2) You're looking for input to pass on to another player who is making the claim, but apparently that person will only be swayed by authority (their mind is already made up). Both of these, frankly, are pretty much a waste of everyone's time. Regardless of my thoughts on what your motives for asking the question are, I've given you the best reply I can (being bored myself), and wish you the best on getting an answer that satisfies you.


Howie 23 and Orfamay Quest have the right of it. Humanoid and Monstrous Humanoid are two different creature types. Per the Bestiary, a creature can only have one type, and then further divided into subtypes. So a creature can only be a humanoid OR a monstrous humanoid. Not both. Separate entries = separate types.

If monstrous humanoid were meant to count as a humanoid, it would not be its' own creature type. It would be listed as Humanoid (monstrous).

Devil's Advocate view: When used as a PC race, Gnolls are listed as Humanoid (Gnoll) per the ARG, following the proper protocol of other humanoid precedents for listing of creature type. When used as a monster encounter or enemy, Gnolls are listed as Monstrous Humanoid and use the Bestiary or specific AP listing.

I can see this going both ways, depending on the role a specific Gnoll plays in your universe.


Developer input on this exact subject. Hope this helps, RD.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Howie, though I don't believe it to be the case, I was trying to keep an open mind and considering the possibility that humanoid and monstrous humanoid were the same for the purposes of things like charm person. All I wanted was some official clarification on the matter. Opinions don't help me because I already know what the majority consensus is.

Thank you HB. That thread answers my question perfectly.


You know, that SKR quote could apply to sooooo many threads in these forums.... :p

Liberty's Edge

It is possible to keep a mind too open.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Targeting monstrous humanoids All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.