Half Dragon Question

[Aurorius Leyrin]

A half dragon changes its type from say Humanoid to Dragon, so therefore a half dragon attempting to wear armor is no longer a humanoid and has to pay the 2x cost right?

Cause it is now a non-humanoid cost to the armor?

[Jeraa]

Bob Boodookins wrote:

A half dragon changes its type from say Humanoid to Dragon, so therefore a half dragon attempting to wear armor is no longer a humanoid and has to pay the 2x cost right?

Cause it is now a non-humanoid cost to the armor?

Correct. It is kind of hard to fit wings into suit of armor made for a human.

[Gisher]

Jeraa wrote:

Bob Boodookins wrote:

A half dragon changes its type from say Humanoid to Dragon, so therefore a half dragon attempting to wear armor is no longer a humanoid and has to pay the 2x cost right?

Cause it is now a non-humanoid cost to the armor?

Correct. It is kind of hard to fit wings into suit of armor made for a human.

Are the wings really the problem? As far as I can tell Human Dragon Disciples and Human Sorcerers with the Celestial, Draconic, or Infernal Bloodlines would still be Humanoids even after they get wings and could get armor at standard prices.

[Jeraa]

There are two possible meanings for the word humanoid.

The first is the actual definition. Having human characteristics or form, resembling human beings. Human beings don't have wings, so any creature with wings would be non-humanoid. Your armor costs more.

The second possible meaning is the Humanoid type. If you have the Dragon type, you are not Humanoid. Your armor costs more.

The table dates back to 3.X D&D where, as far as I know, there never were any Larger or larger creatures of the Humanoid type (giants were their own type, not a subtype). That would make half that column unnecessary. This seems to be one of the instances where "humanoid" is referring to the actual definition of human-like form, and not creature type. Whether or not the same holds true for Pathfinder can be debated.

Either way it goes, half-dragons are non-humanoid and must pay more for armor.

[Gisher]

Jeraa wrote:

There are two possible meanings for the word humanoid.

The first is the actual definition. Having human characteristics or form, resembling human beings. Human beings don't have wings, so any creature with wings would be non-humanoid. Your armor costs more.

The second possible meaning is the Humanoid type. If you have the Dragon type, you are not Humanoid. Your armor costs more.

When the term Humanoid shows up in the rules, my default assumption is that it means the creature type rather than the out-of-game usage. I'm in agreement with you that Half-dragons would need to pay more, I'm just not sure that your assertion that this is because they have wings is the correct reasoning to apply. As a counter-example, Strix have wings but are Humanoids and therefore would not incur the Non-Humanoid cost.

[Lady-J]

armor costs is based on shape not creature type a giant who for some reason is medium sized would pay normal price for armor and not x2 simply for not having the humanoid type

[Red Metal]

Lady-J wrote:

armor costs is based on shape not creature type a giant who for some reason is medium sized would pay normal price for armor and not x2 simply for not having the humanoid type

Your example doesn't work because giants ARE humanoids.

[David knott 242]

Giant is not a type in Pathfinder but a humanoid subtype.

[Lady-J]

k nvm thought giant was its own type like aberation or outsider

[Lady-J]

but many outsiders with a humanoid shape like aasimar and teifling dont have to pay x2 for armor and they can both get wing(altho the teifling wings suck)

[Snowlilly]

Bob Boodookins wrote:

A half dragon changes its type from say Humanoid to Dragon, so therefore a half dragon attempting to wear armor is no longer a humanoid and has to pay the 2x cost right?

Cause it is now a non-humanoid cost to the armor?

Changing type is not the issue, aasimar and tieflings don't pay double for armor. Even when they have wings and tails.

If basic body structure changes to non-humanoid, then it has to pay double.

[Aurorius Leyrin]

Snowlilly wrote:

Bob Boodookins wrote:

A half dragon changes its type from say Humanoid to Dragon, so therefore a half dragon attempting to wear armor is no longer a humanoid and has to pay the 2x cost right?

Cause it is now a non-humanoid cost to the armor?

Changing type is not the issue, aasimar and tieflings don't pay double for armor. Even when they have wings and tails.

If basic body structure changes to non-humanoid, then it has to pay double.

There are no rules or such stating that though. If you want to use humanoid as a descriptive term instead of a type then yes that works. But even on other threads a Centaur has the normal medium sized humanoid upper body but still pays the x2 cost for unusual creature. Even though i understand that Aasimar and Tieflings are mostly humanoid in form, they by raw here do not have the humanoid type or subtype (if you take an alternate racial trait for Aasimar you get the humanoid type/subtype) so therefore by raw their armor costs x2 because they are considered an "unusual" creature.

I understand that it is probably annoying to play a race that is almost 100% identical to a human with cosmetic differences only to be told that their type has to pay x2 armor costs because their type/subtype isn't humanoid.

It should be made aware/prevalent that when discussing armor it prefaces/defines humanoid as body type not racial type. Because everywhere else where humanoid is brought up it is referred to as the racial type.

[Lady-J]

Bob Boodookins wrote:

Even though i understand that Aasimar and Tieflings are mostly humanoid in form, they by raw here do not have the humanoid type or subtype (if you take an alternate racial trait for Aasimar you get the humanoid type/subtype) so therefore by raw their armor costs x2 because they are considered an "unusual" creature.

exept that it doesn't they are still half human even if they dont have the humanoid type as for the centaur unless its full plate all armor is based aroud the upper part of the body so there would be no x2 cost

[Snowlilly]

Bob Boodookins wrote:

If you want to use humanoid as a descriptive term instead of a type then yes that works.

RAW for armor does not specify if the term humanoid is used as a racial type or a descriptive term relating to body shape.

While both usages could be valid, one makes more sense than the other.

But, we could go with your interpretation that armor rules are referring to type. Druids will enjoy paying standard price for armor made to fit their tiger form.

[Aurorius Leyrin]

Snowlilly wrote:

Bob Boodookins wrote:

If you want to use humanoid as a descriptive term instead of a type then yes that works.

RAW for armor does not specify if the term humanoid is used as a racial type or a descriptive term relating to body shape.

While both usages could be valid, one makes more sense than the other.

But, we could go with your interpretation that armor rules are referring to type. Druids will enjoy paying standard price for armor made to fit their tiger form.

Thats the problem, it doesn't specify. Everything else in the books point that Humanoid is a term used to describe racial type. There is this one situation where saying that it is an exception is warranted but it doesn't and thus the questioning

[Snowlilly]

Bob Boodookins wrote:

Snowlilly wrote:

Bob Boodookins wrote:

If you want to use humanoid as a descriptive term instead of a type then yes that works.

RAW for armor does not specify if the term humanoid is used as a racial type or a descriptive term relating to body shape.

While both usages could be valid, one makes more sense than the other.

But, we could go with your interpretation that armor rules are referring to type. Druids will enjoy paying standard price for armor made to fit their tiger form.

Thats the problem, it doesn't specify. Everything else in the books point that Humanoid is a term used to describe racial type. There is this one situation where saying that it is an exception is warranted but it doesn't and thus the questioning

The developers have stated time and again that the rules were written with the assumption of common sense.

If one interpretation makes sense in context and another does not, go with the one that makes sense.