On Half-Fiends, Half-Celestials, Planetouched and other things, and RHD (RAI?)

[Larkas]

I had a question about half-fiend's SLAs and took it to the Q&A by RAW thread. Carmudgeon swiftly responded to it, but it raised more questions than it answered:


(...) a Human who inherits the Half-Fiend template becomes an Outsider (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#outsiderType), not a Humanoid (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#humanoidType), and retains 1 racial HD (with the skill points and other particulars as specified). There is no such exchange option for Outsiders.

Humanoids with 1 Hit Die exchange the features of their humanoid Hit Die for the class features of a PC or NPC class. (...)

By RAW, that assessment is absolutely correct (which is why I'm posting a new thread and not asking further questions in the Q&A thread), but that is something I never, ever considered, much less used. Specifically, this adds a hidden "LA +1" in the form of RHD to any template that changes the creature's type. This has long-reaching consequences. For example, even though it is a race and not a template, in one hand, it could explain why lesser planetouched have LA +0 compared to regular planetouched's +1; in the other hand it doesn't explain why the Aasimar (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/planetouched.htm#aasimar) presented to us is a 1st-level warrior with just one d8 HD: effectively, he lost his RHD to gain a class level like any humanoid, even though he is an outsider!

This is VERY strange. Maybe the "augmented humanoid" subtype counts as a "humanoid" when losing RHD, though that would still leave the question as to why Aasimars and outher planetouched get to lose their RHD to start with (they only have the "native" subtype). Maybe any single-hit-die creature that advances "By character class" can lose their RHD regardless of type, though that would mean that the ruling is wrong (or they just didn't think about it at the time). What do you think? How do you use these templates and races in your own games?

[Shadowknight12]

What? Fey don't have the Humanoid's "exchange RHD" clause, yet Pixies are specifically stated to do so, just as aasimar.

[hamishspence]

And the sample half fiend in MM has no racial hit dice- only cleric class levels.

[Wabbajack]

I've seen the interpretation that the rules refer to humanoid creatures, not creatures with the humanoid type.

[Larkas]

What? Fey don't have the Humanoid's "exchange RHD" clause, yet Pixies are specifically stated to do so, just as aasimar.

Not really. On Pixies (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/sprite.htm#pixie). The Pixie entry says specifically that "A pixie character exchanges its 1 HD of fey for its first class level." The Aasimar entry linked above doesn't have that clause.

[hamishspence]

There's outsider races playable from 1st level, that don't come with RHD- like the Neraphim in Planar Handbook.

And Aasimar & tieflings, are statted in Races of Destiny- again not requiring you to take one RHD.

[Larkas]

And the sample half fiend in MM has no racial hit dice- only cleric class levels.

Indeed! I was going by the SRD here, but the sample creature in MM, pg. 147 is a 7HD, half-fiend 7th-level human cleric. For that matter, the half-dragon sample is a 4HD, half-black dragon 4th-level human fighter (and has the dragon type), and the sample half-celestial is a 9HD, half-celestial 9th-level human paladin.

[hamishspence]

There's probably 1 HD plant races out there playable from 1st level that don't need to take that first Hit Dice as plant. There's certainly at least one aberration- the elan.

[Larkas]

I'm guessing Wabbajack's interpretation is the way to go, though not even it is perfect. Pixies, for example, are humanoid only in a very broad sense. They may advance by racial hit die, however, maybe that's why that exchange clause was needed? Maybe anything that advances "by class level" and everything else specifically stated to do so lose their single RHD when taking class levels?

[Urpriest]

Savage Species, at the very least, had a general rule that any 1HD monster could exchange its first HD for a class level, and the specific rule about humanoids in 3.5 does nothing to negate that general rule. I think I found a more direct source in my Monster Handbook. I'll dig around and see what I can come up with.

Edit: Checked the guide, Savage Species was my only source. On the other hand, due to the wording you can interpret the Humanoid entry as requiring humanoids to trade in their first hit die, while for other creature types doing so is optional.

[Shadowknight12]

Not really. On Pixies (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/sprite.htm#pixie). The Pixie entry says specifically that "A pixie character exchanges its 1 HD of fey for its first class level." The Aasimar entry linked above doesn't have that clause.

Yes, exactly, that's what I'm saying. Races with an Intelligence of 3 or more and only one RHD (of any type) exchange it for a class level.

[Larkas]

Races with an Intelligence of 3 or more and only one RHD (of any type) exchange it for a class level.

Hmmmm, that's a way of looking at it, though the Formian Worker (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/formian.htm#worker), for example, might not conform to that interpretation. Maybe they are just not meant to be characters, and advance solely by RHD, even though they have Int 6.


Savage Species, at the very least, had a general rule that any 1HD monster could exchange its first HD for a class level, and the specific rule about humanoids in 3.5 does nothing to negate that general rule. I think I found a more direct source in my Monster Handbook. I'll dig around and see what I can come up with.

Edit: Checked the guide, Savage Species was my only source. On the other hand, due to the wording you can interpret the Humanoid entry as requiring humanoids to trade in their first hit die, while for other creature types doing so is optional.

Interesting! Even though it is 3.0, I don't think there is any incompatibility arising from the update. Do you have this piece of ruling's page number by any chance, Urpriest?

[hamishspence]

Page 13 "A creature with a single Hit Die, like all standard-race characters, gives up that Hit Die when it gains it's first class level."

[Shadowknight12]

Hmmmm, that's a way of looking at it, though the Formian Worker (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/formian.htm#worker), for example, might not conform to that interpretation. Maybe they are just not meant to be characters, and advance solely by RHD, even though they have Int 6.

They are not meant to be played as characters, as per your reading of how they advance. If a creature can't take a character class, it's effectively unplayable.

[Larkas]

Page 13 "A creature with a single Hit Die, like all standard-race characters, gives up that Hit Die when it gains it's first class level."

Hmmmm, nice, it's pretty clear. The only problems I see arise from it being 3.0 and too broad in approach (the said Formian Worker, for example, could lose its RHD, though I don't think that's necessarily reasonable). The best course of action, as always, is using common sense to solve these problems.

[hamishspence]

While it's 3rd ed, it's late 3rd ed- some of the 3.5 changes- in particular skill names- are already there.

[Urpriest]

They are not meant to be played as characters, as per your reading of how they advance. If a creature can't take a character class, it's effectively unplayable.

They're not meant to be played as PCs, but they're not actually unable to take class levels normally. (I've seen Curmudgeon's RAW arguments that only creatures with Advancement (By Character Class) can take class levels, and I find them somewhat lacking of complete rigor. There are, regardless, many examples of creatures that typically advance by Hit Dice taking class levels, so regardless of RAW it is how the rules operate in practice).

[Roguenewb]

My belief is that SavS is like BoED and BoVD in that "3.25" period, where it was obvious to WotC that they were going to need to patch things. There are a lot of minor changes, and very little of the material created for those couple of books was ever updated, instead relying on the grandfather clause. Some of the BoVD vile stuff has since come back to us in EoE, EdE, and FC1 and FC2, but BoED is almost entirely unreprinting (I wish they'd kill sanctified though) and SavS is the same way.

[hamishspence]

Incorrect- BoED was published after 3.5 came out- everything in it follows 3.5 rules. The damage reduction of monsters in it is pretty clearly 3.5 whereas late 3.0 books always have the older style of DR - for example 10/+1, not 10/magic or 10/good.

[Shadowknight12]

They're not meant to be played as PCs, but they're not actually unable to take class levels normally. (I've seen Curmudgeon's RAW arguments that only creatures with Advancement (By Character Class) can take class levels, and I find them somewhat lacking of complete rigor. There are, regardless, many examples of creatures that typically advance by Hit Dice taking class levels, so regardless of RAW it is how the rules operate in practice).

Well, you're right. I took a second look and contrasted the monster classes given in Savage Species (that have recommendations on what other character classes work well with the monster) and there are many monsters in the MM that do not have advancement by character class and yet SS treats them as though it was perfectly fine for them to take levels in a character class.

My only explanation for the Formian Worker is "Yes, it can exchange its RHD for a class level, even if it's not been specifically stated anywhere because nobody remembers Formian."

[Urpriest]

Well, you're right. I took a second look and contrasted the monster classes given in Savage Species (that have recommendations on what other character classes work well with the monster) and there are many monsters in the MM that do not have advancement by character class and yet SS treats them as though it was perfectly fine for them to take levels in a character class.

My only explanation for the Formian Worker is "Yes, it can exchange its RHD for a class level, even if it's not been specifically stated anywhere because nobody remembers Formian."

Savage Species isn't the clearest example of this, since some things were indisputably changed in the transition to 3.5. There's a pretty huge number of examples in later sourcebooks though, most relevantly including PrCs for Beholders and Dragons, both of which advance by hit dice and the former of which is LA --.

[willpell]

Yeah, I pretty much think Curmudgeon is just wrong on this one. I don't know exactly to call what I think he's doing, but it reminds me of the old gag about 'what the meaning of 'is' is"; he's fixating on a specification of the RAW that I'm pretty sure is not meant to be taken that literally. Which is probably appropriate for that thread, but still. I'm 100% confident that he's misread this rule or at least read it in a manner he shouldn't have, even if it's technically correct.

[hamishspence]

While the rules say that 1HD humanoids trade their Hit Dice for a PC or NPC class level, at no point does it say that only humanoids can do this.

After trawling through the various books, there are examples of:

Outsiders (aasimar & tieflings)- MM.
Fey (uldra) - Frostburn
Giants (half giant) - Expanded Psionics Handbook
Monstrous Humanoids (dromites) - Expanded Psionics Handbook
Plants (volodni)- Unapproachable East

All of which have traded their first hit dice for a character level (usually warrior).

And these are far from the only examples.

Curmudgeon seems to be arguing that all these statted examples break RAW.

Seems to me far more likely that he's simply made an (incorrect) assumption that because humanoids are specifically called out as doing this, all other creature types can't do this.

[JadePhoenix]

Killoren is another fey example. Tibbit is a magical beast example.

[Chronos]

From the OP:
Specifically, this adds a hidden "LA +1" in the form of RHD to any template that changes the creature's type.Not exactly, since you do still get something from a racial hit die. A fair bit, actually, in the case of outsider RHD: 8 skill points (times 4, since it's your first level), full BAB, 8+con HP, and +2 to all saves.

And the only requirement anywhere in the rules to be able to take class levels is to have an Int of at least 3. The "Advancement" line in monster entries is how monsters of that type usually advance, and determines whether and how far advancement by RHD is possible, but it does not prevent advancement by class levels. Of course, some monsters might have difficulty using some class features (say, due to a lack of hands, or a very low ability score), but that's their problem if they're foolish enough to take such a class.

[Larkas]

As a law student in a civil law system country, I can certainly understand the importance of interpreting laws and regulations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics#Law). Laws (and rules, for that matter) are useless without interpretation; however, it's that same interpretation that makes it possible to ABuse regulations.

I can certainly understand where Curmudgeon is coming from. He's trying to interpret rules in the strictest way possible. Make no mistake, he IS interpreting rules, if only from a grammatical standpoint. And that point of view certainly has its merits, and is perfectly acceptable, if not desirable, in a RAW Q&A thread.

It certainly is NOT the only way to interpret rules, though. Where I come from, for example, a law (or part of it) is only revoked if another, newer law, explicitly or implicitly, revokes it. Applying that to D&D, we have 3.0 rules which were "revoked" by 3.5 rules, though not in their entirety. Newer books are always the way to go for if some conflict arise, but I don't see HOW Savage Species' affirmative that "any single-hit-died creature can lose their hit die and gain the benefits from a class hit die" is contradicted by "any single-hit-died humanoid can lose their hit die and gain the benefits from a class hit die". This is a specific rule, that, a general commandment. I'm sure anyone can see that this is a reasonable ruling, and it certainly has its merits. However, like before, this is not absolute. It is also totally reasonable for someone to take Curmudgeon interpretation to heart. If the 3.5 rules say that humanoids can exchange their RHD and is silent about any other creature type, and 3.5 rules trumps 3.0 rules, even by omission, you can come to the conclusion that all the relevant sample monsters stats are effectively wrong. After all, my own interpretation depends on a commandment from my country's legal system, however reasonable it is, and has nothing to do with D&D, right?

It is just something I have never done in any game I DMed or played, and have never heard anyone doing, which is why I felt the concept so... Strange and alien.

Bottomline, I think that RAW doesn't really exist. The rules don't say anything without anyone to read them and, that's right, interpret them. That is somethings a lot of people don't perceive at first. You can interpret them in the strictest sense possible, grammatically analyzing what each word means, or you can take a look at the broader picture and interpret how each rule relates to the rest of the system and try to fit the part harmoniously with the whole. You can also chose any POV in-between that, or even completely different views. Every interpretation is equally valid and desirable: each person can have his opinion and that's perfectly okay.

Does that bring chaos to the game? No. First of all, you can't bring a rule to mean something it obviously doesn't: a Fireball is an Evocation [fire] spell, no matter how much you wanted it to be a Trasmutation [cold] spell, or a ranged weapon. Second, it is implicitly and explicitly stated that the DM should adjudicate every rule controversy presented to him, so we do have a "judge" of sorts in a game, so at least we should count on each game to have internal rules consistency. That also means that the bare minimum a person should have to be a DM is common sense :smalltongue: Lastly, we have the "implicit social contract" people like so much to bring up, that says people must cooperate for the game to be consistent and, most importantly, fun for everyone. That means people should help make the game work, even if in-game their characters hate each other. Unless someone is actively trying to disrupt the game (or can't take criticism for a skewed view of the rules), this is actually pretty easy to achieve.

Luckily, D&D is a game, not a law system to govern a country :smallsmile:

@Chronos: Okay, okay, you have a point there, a RHD is MUCH better than LA +1, specially if it is an Outsider or Dragon RHD, but it still wrecks character builds. A half-celestial bard under strict rules interpretation, for example, would have LA +4 and 1 RHD: he could never hope to cast 6th level spells before going epic.

Ehm, sorry for the massive wall of text :(

[willpell]

This seems revelatory:



Racial Hit Dice
A number of the minor races, particularly nonhumanoids, begin play with some number of Hit Dice derived from their monstrous race in addition to their class levels.

This sentence would be nonsensical if all nonhumanoids began play with 1 racial hit die.

[Curmudgeon]

While the rules say that 1HD humanoids trade their Hit Dice for a PC or NPC class level, at no point does it say that only humanoids can do this.
Actually, it does. It specifically mentions Humanoids in every instance of the exchange option (other than the Pixie racial exception): see Monster Manual on pages 290, 295, and 310.

The 3.5 specification that Humanoids can do this is in the Humanoid type (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#humanoidType) specification. In none of the other type specifications is there such an option. The sole possibly general mention of such an exchange rule in Monster Manual (page 290) has a bold header: Humanoids and Class Levels.

It's only Savage Species, a pre-3.5 source, that says any 1 HD monster can swap that for a class level.

Curmudgeon seems to be arguing that all these statted examples break RAW.
Am I arguing that many example creatures don't follow the rules? Absolutely! In the 3.5 Monster Manual there are seventeen creatures with a feat (Weapon Finesse) they don't meet the qualifications for; there's a big box on the first page of the Errata file listing the corrections just for that one repeated error.


This sentence would be nonsensical if all nonhumanoids began play with 1 racial hit die.
Many nonhumanoids begin play with some larger number of racial hit dice. There's nothing nonsensical about that sentence.

[BlueEyes]

Are there any non-humanoid (and I don't mean the humanoid type) creatures that have 1 or no RHD?

[Morph Bark]

Actually, it does. It specifically mentions Humanoids in every instance of the exchange option (other than the Pixie racial exception): see Monster Manual on pages 290, 295, and 310.

The 3.5 specification that Humanoids can do this is in the Humanoid type (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#humanoidType) specification. In none of the other type specifications is there such an option. The sole possibly general mention of such an exchange rule in Monster Manual (page 290) has a bold header: Humanoids and Class Levels.

It's only Savage Species, a pre-3.5 source, that says any 1 HD monster can swap that for a class level.

You are interpreting that wrongly. While it does specifically call out Humanoids in those instances, it never says that rule only goes for Humanoids, which is what hamishpence was saying.

Since the only case where that rule is mentioned with regards to other creature types states it also holds true for them, it can be used for non-Humanoids as well, unless the 3.5 update for Savage Species says otherwise. After all, 3.0 material can be perfectly used with 3.5, as it's the same game, but 3.5 is the updated version. Of course, a lot of people won't play with 3.0 material when playing 3.5, but most of those people will likely still play Half-Ogres, Killoren, Dusklings and Half-Fiends without racial HD (as long as Half-Fiend is not applied to a creature with 2 RHD or more).

I'm curious though, does your group play with your interpretation of the rule? (And are you the DM or a player?)

[Larkas]

@BlueEyes: The aforementioned Formian Worker, any Planetouched, any augmented humanoid with a template that changes type, Nixies, several animals... There are lots of examples.

And I knew I shouldn't have posted such a big wall of text =P

[Curmudgeon]

You are interpreting that wrongly. While it does specifically call out Humanoids in those instances, it never says that rule only goes for Humanoids, which is what hamishpence was saying.
How does titling a rule with Humanoids and Class Levels make you think it applies to non-Humanoids? Or being inside the Humanoid type (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#humanoidType) description?

I know of no instance of a rule in a 3.5 book which states generally that 1 HD creatures can exchange that HD for a class level; instead I've found three instances which say Humanoids can do so; one instance which says Pixies can do so; and one which states Warforged can do so. Please show me which rule I'm "interpreting wrongly".

[BlueEyes]

@BlueEyes: The aforementioned Formian Worker, any Planetouched, any augmented humanoid with a template that changes type, Nixies, several animals... There are lots of examples.

And I knew I shouldn't have posted such a big wall of text =P
I said that I don't mean the type.

[Douglas]

In my opinion, WotC has demonstrated through the total consistency of all examples and multiple specific exceptions that the rule was intended to apply to all 1-HD races regardless of type. Yes, that's not what a strict reading of the rule as written says, but I believe RAI was that anything with a single hit die when full grown that gains a class level trades that hit die in and that is how I handle it in any game I run.

[hamishspence]

I know of no instance of a rule in a 3.5 book which states generally that 1 HD creatures can exchange that HD for a class level; instead I've found three instances which say Humanoids can do so; one instance which says Pixies can do so; and one which states Warforged can do so. Please show me which rule I'm "interpreting wrongly".

There's also the examples of statted fey, monstrous humanoids, giants, plants, outsiders, etc that have done so.

While "just because's it's statted doesn't mean it's RAW" might apply, the sheer number of examples is suggestive.

[Curmudgeon]

In my opinion, WotC has demonstrated through the total consistency of all examples and multiple specific exceptions that the rule was intended to apply to all 1-HD races regardless of type.
You might want to check out the "Sage Advice" answer by Andy Collins in Dragon # 326, page 102:
Unless noted otherwise, all creatures (other than 1-HD humanoids) retain their racial HD when they gain class levels. Of course, he then goes on to say that a Pixie character retains that single racial hit die as well. :smalltongue:


While "just because's it's statted doesn't mean it's RAW" might apply, the sheer number of examples is suggestive. And 17 creatures listed with Weapon Finesse in their Feats entries, despite not qualifying, is equally suggestive ─ or it was, until the Monster Manual Errata file listed 17 corrections for that repeated blunder. :smallamused:

[Larkas]

@BlueEyes: The aforementioned Formian Worker, any Planetouched, any augmented humanoid with a template that changes type, Nixies, several animals... There are lots of examples. :smalltongue:

[Urpriest]

And 17 creatures listed with Weapon Finesse in their Feats entries, despite not qualifying, is equally suggestive ─ or it was, until the Monster Manual Errata file listed 17 corrections for that repeated blunder. :smallamused:

This is irrelevant, for exactly the reasons you stated: it was corrected in errata. There has been plenty of time for the various 1HD monsters to be corrected, and they have not.

Edit: Of course, there are lots and lots of examples of errors in sample creatures. But few of these errors are applied with consistency across books, which is the metric being used here.

[hamishspence]

Might be interesting to see what the average player's reaction to a statement like:

"your dromite/half/giant/goliath/elan/duskling (etc) character is wrong- you need to restat it so it has one racial hit die, before you can play it"

would be. Especially if, when the player pointed to all the statted NPCs of those races, in the relevant sourcebooks, the DM said "all of those are wrong" as well.

I suspect a DM who pulled that on the players would become very unpopular very fast.

[JadePhoenix]

I suspect a DM who pulled that on the players would become very unpopular very fast.

It's not like you have any evidence to support this claim, right? /sarcasm

[hamishspence]

heh- just using my admittedly somewhat limited knowledge of human nature :smallamused:

[Urpriest]

Might be interesting to see what the average player's reaction to a statement like:

"your dromite/half/giant/goliath/elan/duskling (etc) character is wrong- you need to restat it so it has one racial hit die, before you can play it"

would be. Especially if, when the player pointed to all the statted NPCs of those races, in the relevant sourcebooks, the DM said "all of those are wrong" as well.

I suspect a DM who pulled that on the players would become very unpopular very fast.

[Anticipating Curmudgeon] The "as races" entries for those explicitly eliminate the racial hit die, much the same way that it does for pixies. [/Curmudgeon]

[hamishspence]

Note that Curmudgeon here:


a Human who inherits the Half-Fiend template becomes an Outsider (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#outsiderType), not a Humanoid (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#humanoidType), and retains 1 racial HD (with the skill points and other particulars as specified). There is no such exchange option for Outsiders.

Your example Half-Fiend Human Fighter 18 will be an ECL 23 character, have 19 hit dice, and qualify for all Half-Fiend spell-like abilities.

argued that when you take a template that changes your type, you are forced to take 1 racial hit dice - since a half-fiend human is no longer a humanoid and therefore can no longer start with a character level instead of a racial hit dice.


[Anticipating Curmudgeon] The "as races" entries for those explicitly eliminate the racial hit die, much the same way that it does for pixies. [/Curmudgeon]

I figured that (since he was arguing that changing a creature's type with a template, forces it to take a RHD even if the base creature was statted as a playable non-RHD race) his view was that every case where a member of a nonhumanoid race is statted out without RHD, breaks RAW.

However it's possible my reading of his argument is incorrect.

[Curmudgeon]

argued that when you take a template that changes your type, you are forced to take 1 racial hit dice
Please note that's specific to inherited templates when the resulting creature is non-Humanoid at birth. Acquired templates have no such requirement.

[hamishspence]

What about all those nontemplated nonhumanoid races?

Half-giants? Dromites? Dusklings? Warforged scouts?

[Curmudgeon]

What about all those nontemplated nonhumanoid races?
As per Andy Collins's rule summation: they retain racial HD.

[hamishspence]

Haven't you said in the past that Sage Advice is not entirely to be trusted- and sometimes contradicts RAW itself?

EDIT: I've just checked, and Sage advice, in Issue 332 (June 2005) explicitly states that several things in the advice to Issue 326 were wrong. and that The Sage "regrets these erroneous conclusions, and throws himself on the mercy of the court for leniency."


Page 82, Dragon 332:

Unless noted otherwise, all 1-HD creatures lose their racial HD when they gain class levels. Thus, your pixie would have 1 HD (from his rogue level).

So, we've got a 3.5 source that agrees with Savage Species.

[Curmudgeon]

Haven't you said in the past that Sage Advice is not entirely to be trusted- and sometimes contradicts RAW itself?
Yes, and I stand by that. I used that quote as a summary of the relevant rule, not an authoritative source. (I already pointed out that Andy got the answer wrong.) So instead of having the right reason and the wrong answer, the revision has the wrong reason but the right answer. :smallsigh: (The right reason is that the Pixie race specifically has a 1 HD exchange rule.)

I don't have ready access to that Dragon issue, but I can probably borrow it later. Did it cite any part of the rules text, or just make a flat statement (as usual) without any backing?

[T.G. Oskar]

Am I arguing that many example creatures don't follow the rules? Absolutely! In the 3.5 Monster Manual there are seventeen creatures with a feat (Weapon Finesse) they don't meet the qualifications for; there's a big box on the first page of the Errata file listing the corrections just for that one repeated error.


And 17 creatures listed with Weapon Finesse in their Feats entries, despite not qualifying, is equally suggestive ─ or it was, until the Monster Manual Errata file listed 17 corrections for that repeated blunder. :smallamused:

I'd be very careful just mentioning that without clarifying.

The errata states that most of the creatures presented didn't qualify for Weapon Finesse (as you stated). Then it goes and mentions that Weapon Finesse should be a bonus feat, which makes it concord with the first few pages of the MM which introduces the monster entries (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm) (look at the feats section). Finally, since Weapon Finesse becomes a bonus feat, it causes them to gain new feats to cover for the converted feat, as they'd be out of feats otherwise.

The way the two mentions were posted would give the impression, without enough system mastery, that Weapon Finesse has to be removed because it's not a legal choice. The SRD concords with the errata, and places Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat. Without reading the introduction to monster entries, you wouldn't figure that Weapon Finesse, turned into a bonus feat, is perfectly legal for the creatures stated as bonus feats in monster entries are independent of prerequisites. In essence, Weapon Finesse was corrected to be considered a racial bonus feat for those creatures, in the odd case you can qualify to choose those creatures for, say, Alter Self (aka, take a Killoren or Duskling, make it a wizard and add enough levels to reach Alter Self, turn into a Nixie for Weapon Finesse, use a light mace with Greater Mighty Wallop...something like that).

Also, there's an apparent contradiction across books, and determining the precedence of the primary source can be a hassle:
First, the Monster Manual page 290 states, specifically, that "Creatures with 1 or less HD replace their monster levels with their character levels", but the title is, as you mentioned, "Humanoids and Class Levels"
Then, the Dungeon Master's Guide, in page 172, under the title "Monsters and Races" in the Characters section, on the fifth paragraph when determining "Starting Level of a Monster PC", states the same in a different way, but expanding upon: "If a monster has 1 Hit Die or less, or if it is a template creature, it must start the game with one or more class levels, like a regular character.

Which one has precedence? Under the Primary Sources rule, the Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for "magic item descriptions, special material components, and so on", whereas the Monster Manual is the primary source for "monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities." However, this is a question regarding game rules (specifically PC races and character construction), which is where the Player's Handbook reins in, and the Player's Handbook doesn't contradict any of the two stances. However, the same primary sources section define that "the monster's statistics block supersedes the descriptive text". Now, will the Monster Manual and that little spot supersede the precedence of the Dungeon Master's Guide, or does the monsters' statistics block supersedes the descriptive text in the same book?

Page 6 of the Player's Handbook, under "Character Creation", "Choose your class and race": "The races, described in Chapter 2, are human, dwarf, elf, gnome, halfling, half-elf, and half-orc". By strict RAW, these are the only legal choices.

However, as the Dungeon Master's Guided defines the notion of what a DM is and what it can do, there's two strong (though not absolute) arguments regarding the topic: alternate rules and adjudication. In essence; anything on the "Characters" chapter detailing Races is the DM's determination, and it states the guidelines a DM must follow (or rather, should follow) when dealing with expanding the choice of races, classes, prestige classes, epic levels and so forth. Else, the Dungeon Master's Guide would have a much less preeminent purpose.

Step by step, the first step would be to recognize that the DM has, in its own table, the choice to allow monsters as races, and thus can use the section "Monsters as Races" as detailed in the Dungeon Master's Guide, Characters section, Races subsection. Second, the Dungeon Master has to notice the contradiction between the Monsters as Races text and the Humanoids and Class Levels text. Third, it must subject to adjudication, in which page 6 of the DMG applies, and as Adjudication is the realm of the DM, the Dungeon Master's Guide takes precedence.

Going in this way (and using the 1st level aasimar warrior as an example), the following can be inferred, which while not exactly RAW, it is as pretty darn close as it is: when a DM uses a 1 HD monster as a combat encounter, the monster statistics block supersedes descriptive text, so a 1st level aasimar warrior is perfectly legal. If altering the aasimar as a special character, then its 1 HD by means of being an outsider kick in, so any aasimar other than a 1st level aasimar warrior would have a number of HD equal to its class levels plus 1 (as usual). However, if the aasimar is to be used as a player character race, the "Monsters as Races" supersedes the "Humanoids and Class Levels" section because the circumstances change entirely: the DM is not improving a monster, but rather allowing the monster to progress as a humanoid character because the DMG supersedes the Monster Manual regarding player characters, because the Player's Handbook supersedes the DMG regarding player characters, but because the Characters section is a guideline for the DM's houserules regarding player characters, so specific trumps general.

Thus, in a nutshell: any aasimar improved by the DM must hold the racial HD as presented in the Chapter 4 of the Monster Manual, but if used as a player character race, the Races subsection of Chapter 6 in the Dungeon Master's Guide takes precedence so as long as the Dungeon Master allows using monsters as races, thus creating a house rule that supersedes the rules presented in the Introduction, page 6, Character Creation section in the Player's Handbook.

Is this a sufficiently reasonable reading, or not?

[tyckspoon]

Also, there's an apparent contradiction across books, and determining the precedence of the primary source can be a hassle:
First, the Monster Manual page 290 states, specifically, that "Creatures with 1 or less HD replace their monster levels with their character levels", but the title is, as you mentioned, "Humanoids and Class Levels"


Wanted to add my opinion on just this bit, because it's come up several times: I do not believe this is contradictory. It is poorly edited, but not contradictory. The reason is that the bolded headers are for organizational purposes; they do not have rules impact in their own right. All they are for is telling you what the rule you are about to read is called, or what the following paragraph is about. If the header is incorrect, that's annoying, but it does not change the actual rule. And the rule in that section is the normal-face line immediately following it: "Creatures with 1 or less HD
replace their monster levels with their character levels." Which is in perfect agreement with the couple dozen already-cited examples of creatures-as-characters created by that rule.

[Larkas]

Wanted to add my opinion on just this bit, because it's come up several times: I do not believe this is contradictory. It is poorly edited, but not contradictory. The reason is that the bolded headers are for organizational purposes; they do not have rules impact in their own right. All they are for is telling you what the rule you are about to read is called, or what the following paragraph is about. If the header is incorrect, that's annoying, but it does not change the actual rule. And the rule in that section is the normal-face line immediately following it: "Creatures with 1 or less HD replace their monster levels with their character levels." Which is in perfect agreement with the couple dozen already-cited examples of creatures-as-characters created by that rule.

My thoughts exactly. The header doesn't change the meaning of text that follows.

[Curmudgeon]

The reason is that the bolded headers are for organizational purposes; they do not have rules impact in their own right. All they are for is telling you what the rule you are about to read is called, or what the following paragraph is about.
Balderdash. Let's look at that argument in another rules-based context.
First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Does this rule apply to the Mexican Congress or Micronesian Congress?

[JadePhoenix]

Curmudgeon, you have yet to adress hamishspence pointing out that Dragon Magazine said that Sage Advice you keep quoting was wrong, TG Oskar's long post citing primary sources and the Monsters as Races paragraph.
People have been playing the game this way for 10 years now, even if it was worng it's not like anyone is gonna change their opinion because a random guy in the internet says so.

[Flawless]

Balderdash. Let's look at that argument in another rules-based context. Does this rule apply to the Mexican Congress or Micronesian Congress?

This is the reason why some RAW discussions are so difficult. There is no clear RAW as some people like to think. The 'rules as written' are a purely philosophical entity.
No human being can know the 'rules as written', as 'rules as written' are just an abstract idea of text in a collection of books. All a human being can know is the RAR, the 'rules as read'.
And everybody reads to rules in a slightly different context, interprets the texts a little differently.

Now, what as is usually spelled out as a RAW discussion is a way of interpreting the rules in certain window of context and application as to create a common ground for discussions.
But this is still a window and in certain cases, such as this, there are multiple ways to read to rules and stay within that window.
The rules do not state that they are to be read as legal texts are read, or to be read as any other specified type of text. Even legal texts have no true one way of being interpreted for the same reasons.

As it is not specified within the rules as to what meaning a header carries (humanoids and class levels) it's not clear whether that heading restricts (or sets the scope) to rules printed in the following paragraph or just gives a general idea of what the paragraph is about. So both readings are correct unless we create some sort of RAW-comitee that clears the matter and specifies the meaning of headers in RAW-compliant readings of the rules.

[Larkas]

nice argument

Thank you, I've been trying to say that since last page.

Anyways, Curmudgeon, even though I understand your reasoning, your example doesn't have any bearing on D&D. But if we must take that route, several civil law countries are known to pass several laws with "rogue" chapters, that is, pieces of rulings that don't have any bearing on or relation to the subject of the law itself. So a law whose introduction says it is about, say, health care, could have some chapters about a prohibition of socks imports from some other country.

On the subject, the title "Humanoids and Class Levels" might have been selected because people will generally play humanoids (and hence it would be easier to find) or simply because of an oversight on the part of the editors. Nothing aside from this title indicates that only humanoids can lose their single RHD when gaining a class's hit die, while we have plenty of indications elsewhere that other creature types can do so too, such as the half-celestial, half-dragon and half-fiend sample characters, and even the sample planetouched.

[mattie_p]

Nothing aside from this title indicates that only humanoids can lose their single RHD when gaining a class's hit die...

If I might be so bold as to answer this particular objection from above.

The Fighter class is silent regarding a fighter's ability to cast arcane or divine spells (it neither says he/she can nor says she/she cannot). Because of the silence on the issue, should we then assume that a Fighter can cast 9th level arcane spells at 1st level?

I think we can all agree that a fighter cannot. Many of the 3.5 rules permit things under specific circumstances, silence on other specific circumstances probably should not be construed as general license. Absent other guidance (errata, FAQ, Dragon Magazine articles), Curmudgeon is well within his rights to adhere to his (possibly overly) literal reading. And others are well within their rights to adhere to their (possibly overly) permissive reading.

This is splitting hairs, which is what we do best on this forum. That said, I'd love to hear what Curmudgeon has to say after he reads that article.

[Larkas]

I understand what you're saying, mattie, but you can't take what I said out of context, just as what I said didn't take things out of context: Curmudgeon's assessment would be completely irreprehensible if we didn't have so many examples pointing the other way (i.e.: several other creature types losing their RHD). I was also the first to say that his interpretation is completely possible, reasonable and logic, just as the opposite interpretation is also possible, reasonable and logic. My writing may be boring, but that wall of text was there for a reason :(

[hamishspence]

Going in this way (and using the 1st level aasimar warrior as an example), the following can be inferred, which while not exactly RAW, it is as pretty darn close as it is: when a DM uses a 1 HD monster as a combat encounter, the monster statistics block supersedes descriptive text, so a 1st level aasimar warrior is perfectly legal. If altering the aasimar as a special character, then its 1 HD by means of being an outsider kick in, so any aasimar other than a 1st level aasimar warrior would have a number of HD equal to its class levels plus 1 (as usual). However, if the aasimar is to be used as a player character race, the "Monsters as Races" supersedes the "Humanoids and Class Levels" section because the circumstances change entirely: the DM is not improving a monster, but rather allowing the monster to progress as a humanoid character because the DMG supersedes the Monster Manual regarding player characters, because the Player's Handbook supersedes the DMG regarding player characters, but because the Characters section is a guideline for the DM's houserules regarding player characters, so specific trumps general.

Thus, in a nutshell: any aasimar improved by the DM must hold the racial HD as presented in the Chapter 4 of the Monster Manual, but if used as a player character race, the Races subsection of Chapter 6 in the Dungeon Master's Guide takes precedence so as long as the Dungeon Master allows using monsters as races, thus creating a house rule that supersedes the rules presented in the Introduction, page 6, Character Creation section in the Player's Handbook.

Is this a sufficiently reasonable reading, or not?

What about when it's used as a nonplayer character race? Like when the DM wishes to stat out an Aasimar Adept, aristocrat, or for that matter an NPC with PC race?

I was also the first to say that his interpretation is completely possible, reasonable and logic, just as the opposite interpretation is also possible, reasonable and logic.
It must be said, that the Issue 322 Sage Advice answer (later admitted to be in error, and corrected) is not the only case of a 3.5 writer following that interpretation.

From the Rules of the Game Archive (Monstrous conundrums) by Skip Williams:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060411a


When a creature of the humanoid type with one racial Hit Die or fewer gains its first class level, the racial Hit Die is dropped in favor of the class Hit Die. Creatures of other types simply add the class Hit Die to their existing Hit Dice, even if they have only one racial Hit Die. (The text dealing with monsters as races in the Dungeon Master's Guide doesn't make this clear, but the text in the Monster Manual does; see page 290).

[T.G. Oskar]

Wanted to add my opinion on just this bit, because it's come up several times: I do not believe this is contradictory. It is poorly edited, but not contradictory. The reason is that the bolded headers are for organizational purposes; they do not have rules impact in their own right. All they are for is telling you what the rule you are about to read is called, or what the following paragraph is about. If the header is incorrect, that's annoying, but it does not change the actual rule. And the rule in that section is the normal-face line immediately following it: "Creatures with 1 or less HD replace their monster levels with their character levels." Which is in perfect agreement with the couple dozen already-cited examples of creatures-as-characters created by that rule.

Note the term I used, "apparent contradiction". I agree in that, in both terms, the words used refer to creatures (not specifying type), but I use the term "apparent" in light of the controversy caused.

In fact, I don't find a debate at all. However, I had to put terms carefully so as to not fall under Oberoni Fallacy.


What about when it's used as a nonplayer character race? Like when the DM wishes to stat out an Aasimar Adept, aristocrat, or for that matter an NPC with PC race?

Based on the inference? 1 HD plus the class level, unless it's the class stated on the monster statistics block. It'd be a "special character", falling under the "Improving Monsters" chapter.

Not like I'd do that on my table, though. The racial Hit Dice would be nixed in favor of expediency. After all: what will I do with half a Hit Dice (see the Grig for details)? Treat it as a character of 3 levels higher (as per level adjustment), then requiring half the amount of XP to level from 4 to 5? The idea is absurd, yet you'd have to adjudicate how many XP the character needs to level from ECL 3.5 to ECL 4.

What I ask is if the inferred reading is strict enough and reasonable sounding (per the evidence shown) so as to be considered a RAW reading, regardless of how absurd it is. I could just say that a DM has enough power on its own table to make a houserule ignoring both my reading and Curmudgeon's, and it'd be solid enough because the game not only allows houserules (see Adjudicating) but also insists on their consistency (both a term that applies in the DMG and the DMG II). If the reading isn't strict enough (and its lack of strictness proven), then the debate can continue; however, if it is strict enough, then you can point out those kinks on the reading and realize that the reading is absurd and pretty much academical (a house rule can remove it away on per table basis).

By the way, good way to point out how absurd it is, when Occam's Razor could have solved this eons ago. Oddly enough, I'm not a fan of Occam's Razor...

[Namfuak]

Balderdash. Let's look at that argument in another rules-based context. [...] Does this rule apply to the Mexican Congress or Micronesian Congress?

You're shooting yourself in the foot a bit with this argument, because the logical conclusion is that in the same way that "First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States" applies laws exclusively to that Constitution, "Humanoids and Class Levels" applies laws about class levels exclusively to humanoids, and the section does not apply to non-humanoids.

[hamishspence]

That actually sounds about right- with the law for 1HD humanoids being that they must exchange that hit dice- but there being no law either way for nonhumanoids.

With Savage Species providing the clarification that they may exchange their 1HD, but not making it compulsory.

[Larkas]

Indeed, that is a reasonable conclusion.

The remaining problem would lie in the "official" interpretations, such as the one from Rules of the Game. But then again, they are just that: interpretations. And frankly, I think that if people asked them "what about planetouched characters?" they would rethink their answers.

[hamishspence]

Yup. Andy Collins rethought his interpretation- unless the actual reason for the wrong answer in Dragon 322 was something else.

[mattie_p]

With regards to this topic (and a campaign I am working on) I was just reading through the online Rules of the Game Archive, specifically Types and Templates Part 2 (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060718a), when I found this little nugget:


The Augmented Subtype: Whenever a creature loses its original type in favor of a new one, it gains the augmented subtype, which is always paired with the creature's original type. For example, a human who gains the outsider type through the monk class becomes an outsider (augmented humanoid); Part Four contains a longer discussion of class-induced changes in type.

Adding the augmented subtype to a creature serves a number of purposes. First, it provides a reminder of the creature's history and true ancestry. Second, a creature with the augmented subtype retains the features from its original type, but it often has the traits from its assumed type (see page 306 in the Monster Manual). This tends to make changing a creature's type easier to handle because features from a type affect many of a creature's basic game statistics. See the descriptions for creature types in the Monster Manual glossary for the list of traits and features that go with each type.

MM1 - A creature with the augmented subtype usually has the traits of its current type, but the features of its original type.

Retains the features... I wonder if it is not the outsider part that is the problem, but the lack of (augmented humanoid), at least for templated creatures. The part about exchanging the 1 hit die for a class is defined in MM neither as a trait nor a feature...

[Larkas]

MM1 - A creature with the augmented subtype usually has the traits of its current type, but the features of its original type.

Retains the features... I wonder if it is not the outsider part that is the problem, but the lack of (augmented humanoid), at least for templated creatures.

I've raised that possibility too, but unfortunately it has no real bearing on this discussion. See the humanoid type (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#humanoidType) for traits and features. The RHD-thing isn't part of either features nor traits. Furthermore, even if it was, this would only apply to augmented humanoids. You could argue that planetouched characters should have the augmented humanoid subtype too, but there are plenty of creatures without a humanoid ancestry that supposedly lose their RHD when taking character levels. :smallfrown:

[mattie_p]

I edited my post to clarify that the 1 hit die to be exchanged was not listed as a trait or a feature. I realized after posting that I looked more ignorant than I actually was.

[Curmudgeon]

You're shooting yourself in the foot a bit with this argument, because the logical conclusion is that in the same way that "First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States" applies laws exclusively to that Constitution, "Humanoids and Class Levels" applies laws about class levels exclusively to humanoids, and the section does not apply to non-humanoids.
I don't think I'm "shooting myself in the foot" at all. I am in complete agreement with you: this paragraph with the header "Humanoids and Class Levels" applies exclusively to Humanoids.

Now, can anyone point to any (other) 3.5 rule which allows non-Humanoids without racial hit dice? (Example creatures aren't rules.) I've found one in Monster Manual that's specific to Pixies:
A pixie character exchanges its 1 HD of fey for its first class level. And I've found one in Eberron Campaign Setting that's specific to Warforged:
A warforged derives its Hit Dice, base attack bonus progression, saving throws, and skill points from the class it selects. I haven't found any actual rules which generally allow for non-Humanoids without class levels. (Rules of the Game articles by Skip Williams agreeing with me, and Sage Advice columns by Andy Collins first agreeing, then disagreeing with me, do not count. Those and the FAQ are commentaries on the rules, not rules themselves.)

Show me a rule, please. I'm willing to be convinced; all it takes is a proper citation.

[hamishspence]

The NPC adjustments section of DMG (page 127) says "if a creature has racial hit dice, this material includes relative adjustments to base attack bonus and skill modifiers".

Several- including the Aasimar and Tiefling- have no adjustment to base attack bonus- suggesting they have no racial hit dice, rather than 1 racial hit dice.

[BlueEyes]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monstersAsRaces.htm#humanoidsAndClassLevels
"Creatures with 1 or less HD replace their monster levels with their character levels. The monster loses the attack bonus, saving throw bonuses, skills, and feats granted by its 1 monster HD and gains the attack bonus, save bonuses, skills, feats, and other class abilities of a 1st-level character of the appropriate class."

[hamishspence]

His argument seems to be that the bit above this "humanoids and class levels" makes the use of the phrase "creatures" incorrect- the phrase should be "humanoids".

[BlueEyes]

Nah, it's the other way around. And it's not only "creatures", but also "monsters". And I'd say that rule sections are more important when discussing rules than... titles of those sections.

[hamishspence]

The problem would be that making it compulsory for all INT 3 1 HD creatures to exchange their HD for a character level, would invalidate certain 1HD monster statblocks. Savage Species's position of saying they may do so, seems like the best solution.

[BlueEyes]

Take it in the context it is supposed to be taken - monsters as races.

[Curmudgeon]

The NPC adjustments section of DMG (page 127) says "if a creature has racial hit dice, this material includes relative adjustments to base attack bonus and skill modifiers".

Several- including the Aasimar and Tiefling- have no adjustment to base attack bonus- suggesting they have no racial hit dice, rather than 1 racial hit dice.
Again, examples are not rules. Also NPC rules (the purview of the DMG) don't apply to PCs, so that wouldn't be a general exchange principle even if those examples had rule effect.


His argument seems to be that the bit above this "humanoids and class levels" makes the use of the phrase "creatures" incorrect- the phrase should be "humanoids".
No, it's not incorrect at all. Humanoids are creatures. If a store for Women's Clothing had a display with "Easy-care suits for the business person on the go", you wouldn't expect to find suits for all (both female and male) business persons; the context establishes that in this store, the available suits for business persons are all made for women. Similarly, the Humanoid exchange rule could have been stated as "Humanoid creatures with 1 or less HD replace their monster levels with their character levels." ─ but, since the header (just 4 words previously) had already established that this rule was for Humanoid creatures, that repeated adjective wasn't necessary. Most readers don't have difficulty retaining context from 4 words back, but D&D rules readers seem to be an exception. :smallyuk:

[BlueEyes]

Consistency is a big deal in rules. The word "humanoid" is mentioned only in the header, which isn't rules. They write "creatures" and "monsters", because it's not limited to humanoids. Otherwise they would be specific.

Look at a statblock of a monster. Solar, for example. It has a big header "Angel, Solar". Obviously everything in that statblock concerns a Solar. Yet they go out of their way to use the word Solar in almost each ability description.

"A solar has a deep and commanding voice, and stands about 9 feet tall. It weighs about 500 pounds."

"Solars are puissant champions of good. Only the most powerful fiends approach their power.

Even more fearsome than their +5 dancing greatswords are their +2 composite longbows that create any sort of slaying arrow when drawn.

A solar’s natural weapons, as well as any weapons it wields, are treated as good-aligned and epic for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction."

"A solar can assume the form of any Small or Medium humanoid."

"A solar takes normal damage from epic evil-aligned weapons, and from spells or effects with the evil descriptor."
etc.
They don't say "creature" because there's a header that explains what creature they mean. They say "Solar", because that's clear and unambiguous.

[hamishspence]

If "taking a racial hit die" was compulsory for all nonhumanoids, one would expect the statblocks for them as PC races to reflect this.

So a half giant would specify that it has one giant hit die, starting number of skills as appropriate for a giant, and so forth.

but it doesn't do this.

EDIT: Might be interesting to compare the 3.0 MM with the 3.5 MM.

In the 3.0 MM there was no extra specification for humanoids- instead there was a general rule, on page 14:

Creatures With Class Levels
If a creature acquires a class, it follows the rules for multiclassing described on pages 55-56 in the Player's Handbook. The creature's character level equals the number of class levels it has, plus the total Hit Dice for such beings. For example, an ogre normally has 4 HD. If it picks up one barbarian level, it becomes a 5th level character: 1st level barbarian/4th level ogre (its "monster class") and adds 1d12 to its hit point total. Creatures with one or fewer HD use only their character levels (see Monsters as Races, page 22 in the Dungeon Master's Guide, for details).

In the 3.0 DMG, on page 23 (Starting Monster Levels) it states:
If a monster has 1 Hit Die or less, or if it is a template creature (such as a vampire or a lycanthrope; see the Monster Manual), it must start the game with one or more class levels, like a regular character.

And on page 24: Other Statistics for Monsters:
Creatures with Hit Dice of 1 or less have normal, class-based Hit Dice and features. Those with 2 or more Hit Dice have statistics based on these Hit Dice plus those for class levels (if any).

So back in 3.0, the presumption was that all creatures of 1 HD had class-based hit dice and features- humanoids weren't specifically called out.

Savage Species specifically wrote a sidebar saying that a 1HD creature could exchange its HD for a class level- it didn't have to start with one.

[Curmudgeon]

Consistency is a big deal in rules. The word "humanoid" is mentioned only in the header, which isn't rules.
That seems like an unfounded statement. I'll believe you as soon as you can cite a D&D rule which says that headers aren't part of the rules.

They write "creatures" and "monsters", because it's not limited to humanoids. Otherwise they would be specific.

Look at a statblock of a monster. Solar, for example. It has a big header "Angel, Solar". Obviously everything in that statblock concerns a Solar. Yet they go out of their way to use the word Solar in almost each ability description.
Well, I started with the "A"s and didn't have to go very far to find a counterexample:
Angel Traits: An angel possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry). English uses synonyms (http://www.whitesmoke.com/synonyms.html) to avoid continually repeating the same word, which is a writing style faux pas.
Use synonyms to avoid redundancy.

[hamishspence]

Might be interesting to compare the 3.0 MM with the 3.5 MM.

In the 3.0 MM there was no extra specification for humanoids- instead there was a general rule, on page 14:

Creatures With Class Levels
If a creature acquires a class, it follows the rules for multiclassing described on pages 55-56 in the Player's Handbook. The creature's character level equals the number of class levels it has, plus the total Hit Dice for such beings. For example, an ogre normally has 4 HD. If it picks up one barbarian level, it becomes a 5th level character: 1st level barbarian/4th level ogre (its "monster class") and adds 1d12 to its hit point total. Creatures with one or fewer HD use only their character levels (see Monsters as Races, page 22 in the Dungeon Master's Guide, for details).

In the 3.0 DMG, on page 23 (Starting Monster Levels) it states:
If a monster has 1 Hit Die or less, or if it is a template creature (such as a vampire or a lycanthrope; see the Monster Manual), it must start the game with one or more class levels, like a regular character.

And on page 24: Other Statistics for Monsters:
Creatures with Hit Dice of 1 or less have normal, class-based Hit Dice and features. Those with 2 or more Hit Dice have statistics based on these Hit Dice plus those for class levels (if any).

So back in 3.0, the presumption was that all creatures of 1 HD had class-based hit dice and features- humanoids weren't specifically called out.

Savage Species specifically wrote a sidebar saying that a 1HD creature could exchange its HD for a class level- it didn't have to start with one.

Perhaps because they knew some of the rules would change in 3.5.

[Curmudgeon]

Might be interesting to compare the 3.0 MM with the 3.5 MM.
...
Savage Species specifically wrote a sidebar saying that a 1HD creature could exchange its HD for a class level- it didn't have to start with one.
That's a good find. So Savage Species wasn't creating a new rule; they were just echoing the existing 3.x rule. So Humanoids (and Pixies and Warforged) got a relative boost in 3.5 when they restricted the 1 HD exchange to them.

[BlueEyes]

That seems like an unfounded statement. I'll believe you as soon as you can cite a D&D rule which says that headers aren't part of the rules.
I don't really care if you believe me or not. I find it self-explanatory, and other people who will read it will decide for themselves if they agree or not.
Maybe you should cite me a rule that says that headers are part of the rules?


Well, I started with the "A"s and didn't have to go very far to find a counterexample:
I looked hard, but I couldn't find where in the Solars stablock is mentioned the part you're quoting. Could yo please show me how your quote is in any way relevant to my argument?
Also note that there's an explanation WHAT creatures they're talking about in the same sentence. Mind the context. It helps.

If "Humanoids and class levels" would talk about a specific type (humanoid), they would be specific and not general. But they're general, so they're talking about creatures, not specifically humanoids. If it were just synonyms to avoid redundancy, they would mention humanoid in the rules text at least once, then they would have even less redundancy, because they could use three words instead of just two ("creatures", "monsters" and "humanoids"). But they didn't. Because they're not talking about humanoids.

[Larkas]

Or perhaps it was a piece of ruling that was removed from 3.5 when revising the core books (i.e.: "this seems useless, let's cut it"). Maybe they thought those were implicit to the system and as such didn't need to be explicated?

[hamishspence]

Given the number of other NPCs with "the exchange" I find it hard to believe that they were knowingly "restricting the exchange to creatures with the humanoid type only unless stated otherwise".

Easier to believe that the compulsary exchange is "humanoids only" and that Savage Species's sidebar covers the Optional Exchange, since it states a 1 HD monster does not have to take that class level and instead can keep its 1 HD and add a character level on top of it.

Especially given how many books after MM have had characters (NPCs) that. Have made the exchange.

[T.G. Oskar]

Show me a rule, please. I'm willing to be convinced; all it takes is a proper citation.

That sounded really smug, ya know. It's not really good.

However, I find it odd that you missed a little point when explaining that a human turning into a half-fiend retains its 1 HD.

In Chapter 4, page 291 of the Monster Manual, on the Templates section, Reading a Template subsection, in Hit Dice and Hit Points, the first thing you see is "Most templates do not change the number of Hit Dice a monster has, but some do".

Reading the half-fiend description, on "Creating a Half-Fiend", at "Size and Type": "Do not recalculate Hit Dice, base attack bonus, or saves.. The premise presented in the original post was that a human turned into a half-fiend would attain 1 HD as an outsider, but if you can't recalculate Hit Dice, you can't change Hit Dice (alter its size). You'd have to assume that the human has its humanoid Hit Dice...but "Humanoids and Class Levels" states that "Creatures with 1 or less HD replace their monster levels with their character levels", so the humanoid had to already replace the Hit Dice it had. It's a question of precedence: is the humanoid choice first, or the template choice? By the Character Creation section on the introduction, the choice of race and class is simultaneous, but you must first choose a race before choosing the template (because you can't choose the template if you don't qualify for it). Race kicks in, identifies as humanoid first, Humanoids and Class Levels take precedence, which means the class level must be taken before the template does. Otherwise, the humanoid Hit Dice must have existed in the first place

In any case, the Aasimar Warrior can keep its 1 HD, because it's specific (Rules Compendium, page 5, Order of Rules Application: "The D&D game assumes a specific order of rules association: general to specific to exception), and the actual quip that explains how specific beats general ("For instance, a monster description is more specific than a general rule about monsters"); ergo, the same can be assumed about the specific nature of the monster's statistics block vs. the general rule about improving monsters. Oh, and Rules Compendium has precedence over any core rulebook or supplement, so it has precedence over the Monster Manual. At least one-third of the interpretation I presented is entirely valid (an Aasimar can replace its racial Hit Die for 1 level of Warrior, because the monster statistics block does), and if the precedence of the Dungeon Master's Guide over the Monster Manual regarding DM adjudication is correct, a second part of the interpretation would also be correct.

Yet again, I insist it's essentially pointless to keep arguing, because a DM can mostly say that a houserule in its table would be to have any creature with 1 racial Hit Die or less, regardless of its type, can or must replace its racial Hit Die with a class level, and for that table, the adjudication would be correct (the DMG insists on this, on page 6, and the second iteration of the Dungeon Master's Guide further insists on it). Going any further is arguing for the sake of winning the argument, which is rapidly approaching the absurd: you can't ask for clearance about the matter, you can't ask to add new errata to the Edition (unless WotC decides to reprint the Core Rulebooks with errata AND insists on adding new errata by request of the consumers), and for the sake of expediency, most DMs will probably rule that you can do the replacement nonetheless. It's as pointless as adjudicating that any non-humanoid with less than 1 racial Hit Dice keeps it, as the definition of partial Hit Dice isn't truly clear.

[Flawless]

Again, examples are not rules.
...

That seems like an unfounded statement. I'll believe you as soon as you can cite a D&D rule which says that headers aren't part of the rules.

Is there actually a D&D rule which says that examples aren't part of the rules? I really would like to know.

[mattie_p]

... Is there actually a D&D rule which says that examples aren't part of the rules? I really would like to know.

From the MM I errata:


One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees. A monster’s statistics block supersedes the descriptive text.

And that might be the evidence everyone is looking for... does the descriptive text include the glossary definition of type? If the monster statistics block has only one racial hit die which is superseded by a class level when the outsider type text block says that it cannot be superseded, which of those two takes precedence? Glossary? or Statistics block?

[willpell]

On a vaguely related tangent, why is it that a human who grows up in Hell can be a Fiendish Human, but a tiefling who grows up in Hell can't be Fiendish? Also as far as I can tell, a Fiendish creature can become a Half-Fiend but not the reverse. Someone really did not think all this through.

[hamishspence]

I'd probably allow any creature born off plane to gain the extraplanar trait when on the mortal plane, and become "native" to the plane they were born on.

In Champions of Valor, it mentions a Netherese enclave that was moved to Selune's domain during the Downfall of Netheril, and thus survived. In the present day its inhabitants are aasimar with the Extraplanar trait.

If you can have Extraplanar aasimar (who are still Native Outsiders for the purposes of things like eating, sleeping, etc) why not extraplanar tieflings?

[willpell]

I don't mean Extraplanar, I mean Fiendish, as in the Monster Manual template of that name. (Don't ask me why I want it; it mightily sucks but I guess I just can't get past the panache of the name.)

[hamishspence]

Don't know why they chose to leave Outsider off the list of creatures that could take the template- maybe it was a conscious decision based on the idea that Outsiders from that plane would already have absorbed as much fiendish energy as possible.

Possibility- use the Lesser Planetouched rules (Player's Guide to Faerun) to make your tiefling into a humanoid rather than an Outsider- thus allowing it to qualify.

[Cadrac]

I'm new here, so I don't know how much the SRD is considered an acceptable source for RAW discussions on this site, but from the Monsters As Races section of the SRD--and not the portion titled "Humanoids and Class Levels"--we have this:


Other Statistics for Monsters: Creatures with Hit Dice of 1 or less have normal, class-based Hit Dice and features. They get skills and feats appropriate to a 1st-level character (even if they have a level adjustment).
Those with 2 or more Hit Dice have statistics based on these Hit Dice plus Hit Dice for class levels (if any).

This would seem to me to clearly indicate that any creatures, humanoid or otherwise, with only 1 Hit Die do not keep that Hit Die when taking class levels.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Balderdash. Let's look at that argument in another rules-based context. Does this rule apply to the Mexican Congress or Micronesian Congress?

Of course it doesn't apply to those congresses. They operate under different bodies of rules altogether.

That's like saying that by removing the heading as rules text, that this rule should apply to a game of mutants and masterminds or call of cthulu, it's patently absurd.

[willpell]

I'm new here, so I don't know how much the SRD is considered an acceptable source for RAW discussions on this site, but from the Monsters As Races section of the SRD--and not the portion titled "Humanoids and Class Levels"--we have this:



This would seem to me to clearly indicate that any creatures, humanoid or otherwise, with only 1 Hit Die do not keep that Hit Die when taking class levels.

Please, Curmudgeon, weigh in on this one.