|
But the wording still feels loose. When it says humanoid it doesn't say anything like humanoid type or anything that gets more specific like most entries usually do which considering that we do have 2 separate humanoid types and have since this was ported from 3.5 it seems odd that it wouldn't further specify it as the humanoid type. Not saying it's wrong I'm just wondering if their are any specific rulings written out somewhere or in an errata the clarify it more fully.
Think of humanoids as being the equivalent to animals, and monstrous humanoids as magical beasts.
No, there is only one humanoid type, the other is monstrous humanoid. A rule that affected just those types would state "humanoids and monstrous humanoids" such as here.
|
|
Think of humanoids as being the equivalent to animals, and monstrous humanoids as magical beasts.
Yeah that's my usual assumption but considering they usually call it out specifically in a lot of these it seems weird that they use the generic term and in some places not at all (hold person doesn't state anything specific in its readout at all) which makes understanding for especially new players rather difficult.
This is just one of those weird corner cases where specificity might actually matter since this seems like something that could easily cause confusion with new and old players. The biggest thing I'd like to see is some sort of reference to something in say the Core Rulebook that states what it means one way or another. That way I can just point to it when players are confused and save a lot of time explaining this lol.
For a quick list in the Core Rulebook of creature types,
look up Ranger Favored Enemies,
or the Bane Magic Weapon Property.
I'm not sure if they are in the Glossary or Index.
The Core Rulebook has a lot of additional info at the end since it came out 1st, well before the Bestairy.