[3.5] On the RAW basis for dropping the first and only RHD of non-humanoids

[TuggyNE]

So, the age-old question: If I play a warforged, a nixie, or an aasimar, can I trade in my single useless RHD for a class level by RAW? There's been a lot of confusion over this issue in the past.

Here's how it looks to me, though. The DMG on page 172 requires playable monsters with one or fewer racial HD to trade that for a class level. The MM on pages 290, 295, and 310 require humanoids (and/or creatures in general; the text and headings are inconsistent in different sections) to trade in their first HD if they have one or fewer racial HD for a (full) class level. The result? Any playable creature* with one or fewer racial HD must trade it in for a class level.

Or, in plain terms: unless you have multiple RHD, you're going to start with nothing more than a class level and possibly some LA, no matter what sort of creature you are. That's RAW, that's how all the dozens or hundreds of examples go, and arguably it's just the most sensible way to handle it too.


TypeHas LA?¼, ⅓, ½12+
HumanoidYesYesYesNone
HumanoidNoYesYesNone
OtherYesYesYesNone
OtherNoMaybeMaybeNone


Any corrections or clarifications are welcomed. Hopefully this will dispel the fear uncertainty and doubt around this question. :smallsmile:

Edit: For reference, the issue was rather thoroughly hashed out in an otherwise-unrelated thread starting about here and continuing to the end. Anything already addressed there is probably not worth bringing up again unless there's some new angle not considered.


* Or non-playable humanoid.

[Hurnn]

im 95% sure you are right

[Dimers]

Good news for those of us who like less-than-massive lycanthropes!

[TuggyNE]

im 95% sure you are right

But it's that natural one that gets you? :smalltongue:

[Zanos]

Good. Let the madness finally end.

[Particle_Man]

That seems right. The only clarification is that if you have a race with 2 or more racial hit dice, they don't get to trade in one of them for a class level, but are stuck with all of them, barring shenanigans (like the tame undead option to level drain you permanently down to 1 RHD, then gain class levels on top of that instead of regaining "lost" extra RHD).

And if that worked, in that singular case, I would assume you don't lose the single RHD left, because when you started out you had more than one, and if you lose the last one, you die and come back as a wraith or something like it (which has its own RHD). Unless you can lose levels/RHD in any order other than "last in, first out" I suppose, in which case a fighter 1/stone giant 14 could get level drained to fighter 1, and then adventure on to become fighter 15 or more.

[Curmudgeon]

The DMG on page 172 requires playable monsters with exactly 1 racial HD to trade that for a class level. The MM on pages 290, 295, and 310 require humanoids (and/or creatures in general; the text and headings are inconsistent in different sections) to trade in their first HD if they have one or fewer racial HD for a (full) class level.
The only inconsistency in the Monster Manual is in the examples. The actual rules always refer to Humanoids for the 1 HD exchange.

The DMG has no sway here. Where it disagrees with MM, the MM is correct; that's what the Primary Sources Errata Rule says.

[hamishspence]

I look at it the other way- do PC races exist, that do not have the humanoid type, and do not have 1 HD, but have class levels instead?

They do.

So, humanoid type at least is not a requirement to "just have class levels"

Can't recall if there's any PC races that are not humanoid in shape, that don't have racial hit dice, though.

[olentu]

The only inconsistency in the Monster Manual is in the examples. The actual rules always refer to Humanoids for the 1 HD exchange.

The DMG has no sway here. Where it disagrees with MM, the MM is correct; that's what the Primary Sources Errata Rule says.

Oh, of course they all refer to humanoids. I mean the rule on page 290 says it applies to creatures, and humanoids are a subset of creatures. I am not really sure why you bothered to emphasize the point given that the fact that they all refer to humanoids, in so much that saying creatures includes humanoids, changes nothing, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

Once again, you are correct. The DMG is vague on whether or not creatures with one or less HD lose that HD in exchange for their first class level, while the monster manual does clearly say that creatures with one or less HD trade in that HD for class levels. Admittedly since the DMG is a bit vague I can not really say that it is a disagreement, but in so much that it is the Monster Manual rule, that creatures with 1 or less HD replace that HD with character levels, must take priority.

[TuggyNE]

That seems right. The only clarification is that if you have a race with 2 or more racial hit dice, they don't get to trade in one of them for a class level, but are stuck with all of them

Pretty sure I put that in the table etc, although if it wasn't clear I should probably work out a way to improve the wording. Hrmm.


The only inconsistency in the Monster Manual is in the examples. The actual rules always refer to Humanoids for the 1 HD exchange.

The DMG has no sway here. Where it disagrees with MM, the MM is correct; that's what the Primary Sources Errata Rule says.

Where does it disagree? All I can see is a specific set of rules largely subsumed by a general set of rules; neither set of rules claims to be the entirety of the rules on the subject in any way.

If you can actually show any sort of disagreement, go ahead and make your case, but just saying "the rules don't say the same thing, that's a disagreement" is disingenuous and incorrect. Similarly, to say "the DMG cannot possibly have any kind of valid rules on the subject" is baseless.

Edit:
The DMG is vague on whether or not creatures with one or less HD lose that HD in exchange for their first class level, while the monster manual does clearly say that creatures with one or less HD trade in that HD for class levels. Admittedly since the DMG is a bit vague I can not really say that it is a disagreement, but in so much that it is the Monster Manual rule, that creatures with 1 or less HD replace that HD with character levels, must take priority.

It's actually the DMG rule that requires all playable creatures with 1 RHD to trade, not the MM rule; the MM rule only says that all humanoids (and in the text, all creatures) with 1 or fewer must trade. Doesn't change anything though, since the MM rule either says nothing at all about non-humanoid creatures being able to trade, or explicitly requires them to do so; it specifically does not forbid them from doing so.

[Talya]

The only inconsistency in the Monster Manual is in the examples. The actual rules always refer to Humanoids for the 1 HD exchange.

The DMG has no sway here. Where it disagrees with MM, the MM is correct; that's what the Primary Sources Errata Rule says.

The examples and the monster manual are actually enough. Heck, the Pixie has playable race stats that are explicit in not having a racial hit die. The primary source rule doesn't apply, because the monster manual does not contradict the DMG. It only specifies humanoids, but it doesn't say you cannot do the same for other types. Since the DMG says you CAN, then it holds as gospel, because the primary source doesn't disagree with it.

[olentu]

It's actually the DMG rule that requires all playable creatures with 1 RHD to trade, not the MM rule; the MM rule only says that all humanoids (and in the text, all creatures) with 1 or fewer must trade. Doesn't change anything though, since the MM rule either says nothing at all about non-humanoid creatures being able to trade, or explicitly requires them to do so; it specifically does not forbid them from doing so.

Hmm, perhaps I have missed the explicit statement to that effect. I will ask you to please point out the location of the words that clearly and explicitly say such a thing. Of course it would not matter either way but I would be interested to know where that is, as it would allow me to further refine my argument in favor of creatures with one or less HD replacing those HD with character levels.

Barring that I feel that vague is a valid description.

[TuggyNE]

Hmm, perhaps I have missed the explicit statement to that effect. I will ask you to please point out the location of the words that clearly and explicitly say such a thing. Of course it would not matter either way but I would be interested to know where that is, as it would allow me to further refine my argument in favor of creatures with one or less HD replacing those HD with character levels.

Citations should be in the OP unless I somehow got them all muddled. The text I'm working off of is "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." Given that regular characters (i.e., the basic playable races, all humanoids) start by trading in their sole RHD for a class level, and given that this is in a section on ECL (implying that there's a strict limit on total levels, preventing simply adding a class level on top in many cases without breaking party ECL), it's hard to see any other reading.

Which reminds me, I should probably include a note about templates; assuming "template creature" means "creature with one or more templates", then apparently anything with a template must trade in its first RHD if possible, or add class levels if not. That is, <=1 RHD becomes 1+ class level, 2+ RHD becomes 2+ RHD and 1+ class level. Odd, but no one ever said RAW was free from quirks.

[olentu]

Citations should be in the OP unless I somehow got them all muddled. The text I'm working off of is "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." Given that regular characters (i.e., the basic playable races, all humanoids) start by trading in their sole RHD for a class level, and given that this is in a section on ECL (implying that there's a strict limit on total levels, preventing simply adding a class level on top in many cases without breaking party ECL), it's hard to see any other reading.

Which reminds me, I should probably include a note about templates; assuming "template creature" means "creature with one or more templates", then apparently anything with a template must trade in its first RHD if possible, or add class levels if not. That is, <=1 RHD becomes 1+ class level, 2+ RHD becomes 2+ RHD and 1+ class level. Odd, but no one ever said RAW was free from quirks.

Ah, so it is nothing new. "Like a regular character" could mean many things. I have seen it interpreted in the way you do, but alternatively I have seen it interpreted as the 1 HD creature and the 2 HD creature both being at least level 2 but that the 1 HD creature, like regular characters, has at least one level in a character class at all times in the game. Since the rule is vague I can not say that one or the other is correct except in so much that one agrees with other rules on the subject and one does not. But if I am going to rely on other rules to determine what this one says, why not just base the argument on the more explicit rules.

[TuggyNE]

Ah, so it is nothing new. "Like a regular character" could mean many things. I have seen it interpreted in the way you do, but alternatively I have seen it interpreted as the 1 HD creature and the 2 HD creature both being at least level 2 but that the 1 HD creature, like regular characters, has at least one level in a character class at all times in the game. Since the rule is vague I can not say that one or the other is correct except in so much that one agrees with other rules on the subject and one does not. But if I am going to rely on other rules to determine what this one says, why not just base the argument on the more explicit rules.

Yeah, my reading does not rely solely on the strength of any one passage in isolation (which is generally a bad way to read any text); the idea is to properly integrate everything on the subject, with the assumption that, generally speaking, the rules are designed to be read as a whole.

However, I wouldn't say the rule is vague, unless you're trying to rely on it in isolation: it refers pretty clearly to existing rules and in a fairly straightforward way. Specifically, regular characters explicitly do not keep their single RHD when they get their first class level, so it is impossible to argue that playable monsters with a single RHD, if they receive a single class level just like regular characters, would retain their RHD: that's not how the process works.

Edit: Tweaked OP for a mistake on fractional HD, and also rejiggered the table to hopefully be more readable.

[Phelix-Mu]

I always thought it was kind of silly that humanoids have racial HD at all. If you want bugbear commoners to have more HD, give them more levels in commoner. If their warriors need more HD, give them more warrior HD. RHD should be for races strong enough to not need a day job, something that applies to few humanoid races.

But I generally feel that there is no loss of balance or weirdness from allowing any 1HD creature to have a job instead of a racial HD. It should be optional for the generic type of that creature, I suppose. I favor opening up more options as a general principle.

[olentu]

Yeah, my reading does not rely solely on the strength of any one passage in isolation (which is generally a bad way to read any text); the idea is to properly integrate everything on the subject, with the assumption that, generally speaking, the rules are designed to be read as a whole.

However, I wouldn't say the rule is vague, unless you're trying to rely on it in isolation: it refers pretty clearly to existing rules and in a fairly straightforward way. Specifically, regular characters explicitly do not keep their single RHD when they get their first class level, so it is impossible to argue that playable monsters with a single RHD, if they receive a single class level just like regular characters, would retain their RHD: that's not how the process works.

Personally I feel that if a rule is too vague, it is too vague. To automatically assume both the knowledge of other rules that the author had and the authorial intent about how the rule was supposed to be interpreted with regards to those other rules is just making any other unsupported author intent argument. Perhaps if there was an example or something of the sort that exists for the purpose of demonstrating the intended reading I might be more lenient, but it would seem that we do not.

Right, so tell me where is the explicit book reference that all those other rules use when they want to refer pretty clearly to existing rules in a fairly straightforward way. You know, like the ones used about three paragraphs back. If they can point you at something with the precision of "Table 3–2: Experience and Level-Dependent Benefits in the Player’s Handbook" then no, I would not say the reference is comparatively so very clear and straightforward.

Look, creatures do lose their racial HD when they take class levels since the monster manual says that this is so. If you want me to believe that the DMG so very explicitly says so I am going to need more then vague implication and supposed designer intent. If you really want me to give on the intent argument I suppose an example would help. It would still be intent, with all the things that being so constitutes, but at least it would be much less unsupported supposition. Perhaps you can find one in one of the slightly more mathematical sections, maybe something about calculating ECL or the like.

[TuggyNE]

I always thought it was kind of silly that humanoids have racial HD at all. If you want bugbear commoners to have more HD, give them more levels in commoner. If their warriors need more HD, give them more warrior HD. RHD should be for races strong enough to not need a day job, something that applies to few humanoid races.

But I generally feel that there is no loss of balance or weirdness from allowing any 1HD creature to have a job instead of a racial HD. It should be optional for the generic type of that creature, I suppose. I favor opening up more options as a general principle.


Personally I feel that if a rule is too vague, it is too vague. To automatically assume both the knowledge of other rules that the author had and the authorial intent about how the rule was supposed to be interpreted with regards to those other rules is just making any other unsupported author intent argument. Perhaps if there was an example or something of the sort that exists for the purpose of demonstrating the intended reading I might be more lenient, but it would seem that we do not.

It has nothing to do with intent: it's the simple assumption when reading any work that the work is written as something vaguely resembling a whole. If it refers to "such-and-such just like a regular character" you go and look up what that means, just like if endure elements says it provides no protection against smoke etc, you go and look up the corresponding rules for those in cases where a character with endure elements on is in the midst of a cloud of smoke.

Or, put another way: what else could that phrase refer to? Anything? No?


Look, creatures do lose their racial HD when they take class levels since the monster manual says that this is so. If you want me to believe that the DMG so very explicitly says so I am going to need more then vague implication and supposed designer intent. If you really want me to give on the intent argument I suppose an example would help. It would still be intent, with all the things that being so constitutes, but at least it would be much less unsupported supposition. Perhaps you can find one in one of the slightly more mathematical sections, maybe something about calculating ECL or the like.

The same section in the SRD, towards the end, has this to say:
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).

Experience for Monsters
A monster with Hit Dice of 1 or less, no level adjustment, and class levels uses the same tables as standard PC races when determining experience needed.

A monster with Hit Dice of 1 or less, a level adjustment, and class levels adds its class levels, and level adjustment together when determining experience needed (class level + level adjustment).

A monster with more than one Hit Die, a level adjustment, and class levels adds its Hit Dice, class levels, and level adjustment together when determining experience needed (HD + level adjustment + class level).

I haven't tracked down exactly where those passages come from yet, though.

All that said, I don't really care whether the DMG says X or Y clearly enough on its own to unambiguously explain everything about a topic. I care about whether the rules as a whole are clear enough. And I think we agree that they are. (Several times over, in fact; there's around three times as much text as strictly needed to get the point across.)

[olentu]

It has nothing to do with intent: it's the simple assumption when reading any work that the work is written as something vaguely resembling a whole. If it refers to "such-and-such just like a regular character" you go and look up what that means, just like if endure elements says it provides no protection against smoke etc, you go and look up the corresponding rules for those in cases where a character with endure elements on is in the midst of a cloud of smoke.

Or, put another way: what else could that phrase refer to? Anything? No?



The same section in the SRD, towards the end, has this to say:

I haven't tracked down exactly where those passages come from yet, though.

All that said, I don't really care whether the DMG says X or Y clearly enough on its own to unambiguously explain everything about a topic. I care about whether the rules as a whole are clear enough. And I think we agree that they are. (Several times over, in fact; there's around three times as much text as strictly needed to get the point across.)

Of course it is intent. If you feel that the author intended for the passage to be read in a particular way then that is rather well intent.

But as for what other way the passage could be interpreted. I believe the other interpretation I have generally heard is


but alternatively I have seen it interpreted as the 1 HD creature and the 2 HD creature both being at least level 2 but that the 1 HD creature, like regular characters, has at least one level in a character class at all times in the game.

As I do not find the ones that take this reading to be given to bouts of insanity, any more so then the normal person at least, I see no real reason to dismiss it out of hand any more then I would do the same to your interpretation.

By the way, your quote from the SRD seems to be wrong. I am reading


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).

Experience for Monsters: A monster with Hit Dice of 1 or less, no level adjustment, and class levels uses the same tables as standard PC races when determining experience needed.
A monster with Hit Dice of 1 or less, a level adjustment, and class levels adds its class levels, Hit Die, and level adjustment together when determining experience needed (class level + HD + level adjustment).
A monster with more than one Hit Die, a level adjustment, and class levels adds its Hit Dice, class levels, and level adjustment together when determining experience needed (HD + level adjustment + class level).


Your says:

A monster with Hit Dice of 1 or less, a level adjustment, and class levels adds its class levels, and level adjustment together when determining experience needed (class level + level adjustment).

While the SRD says:

A monster with Hit Dice of 1 or less, a level adjustment, and class levels adds its class levels, Hit Die, and level adjustment together when determining experience needed (class level + HD + level adjustment).

With the difference being that the SRD says (class level + HD + level adjustment) while yours is missing the HD in the equation. That is a rather pertinent omission. As I downloaded the copy of the SRD that I used from the WotC website a few minutes ago I must assume it is correct. That being the case that particular passage would seem to imply that your interpretation is wrong. Perhaps if we were to take it with the previous information it would make things rather unclear, or to put it another way vague.


Yes, we do seem to agree that the rules as a whole are clear even if we do not agree about the clarity of that particular rule.

[lunar2]

now that curmudgeon has posted his argument, i must step in with specific beats general, so even if non humanoids, in general, don't trade in their one RHD for a class level, the specific MM examples of nonhumanoids without RHD do not gain an RHD in play. an aasimar simply has no RHD to begin with, nor does a warforged, since it is not printed anywhere that they do have RHD.

[TuggyNE]

But as for what other way the passage could be interpreted. I believe the other interpretation I have generally heard is

I posted why I don't think that is tenable. "Specifically, regular characters explicitly do not keep their single RHD when they get their first class level, so it is impossible to argue that playable monsters with a single RHD, if they receive a single class level just like regular characters, would retain their RHD: that's not how the process works." You can't say that they act like regular characters if they are not acting like regular characters.


With the difference being that the SRD says (class level + HD + level adjustment) while yours is missing the HD in the equation. That is a rather pertinent omission. As I downloaded the copy of the SRD that I used from the WotC website a few minutes ago I must assume it is correct. That being the case that particular passage would seem to imply that your interpretation is wrong. Perhaps if we were to take it with the previous information it would make things rather unclear, or to put it another way vague.

Hmm, now I'm going to have to go look up errata and try to track down the different editions and what-not. Ugh. :smallsigh:

[olentu]

I posted why I don't think that is tenable. "Specifically, regular characters explicitly do not keep their single RHD when they get their first class level, so it is impossible to argue that playable monsters with a single RHD, if they receive a single class level just like regular characters, would retain their RHD: that's not how the process works." You can't say that they act like regular characters if they are not acting like regular characters.



Hmm, now I'm going to have to go look up errata and try to track down the different editions and what-not. Ugh. :smallsigh:

You can claim that the writers intent was that "like a regular character" is to be interpreted as trades in HD if one or less, but I have seen others claim differently. Clearly the monster characters do not need to be exactly like the so called regular characters, and once we admit that this is the case then it all comes down to the various definitions of what is sufficiently close to a regular character to constitute "like" a regular character. Without something to differentiate between your interpretation and another I see no reason to choose "trades in racial HD if one or less" over "trades in racial HD only if exactly equal to 1" or "has at least one level in a character class" or "has at least one level in a character class from the PHB" or "trades in racial HD only if a humanoid" (as I believe all PHB races are humanoids) or "must start the game with at least one level in a character class but does not trade in racial HD" or "must start the game with at least one level in a character class but does not trade in racial HD unless a humanoid" or even "trades in racial HD only if a humanoid and has racial HD exactly equal to one."


Ah yes, the things we do to try and gain clarity.

Edit: Or now that I think about that bit of the SRD "trades in racial HD but only if level adjustment is zero and HD is one or less."

[Karnith]

With the difference being that the SRD says (class level + HD + level adjustment) while yours is missing the HD in the equation. That is a rather pertinent omission. As I downloaded the copy of the SRD that I used from the WotC website a few minutes ago I must assume it is correct.Quick note: The wording in the official SRD matches the wording of the DMG. The hypertext SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monstersAsRaces.htm) dropped a few words. In fact, that passage of the SRD (in both cases) is missing an example that makes the writer's intent quite clear:

A monster with Hit Dice of 1 or less, a level adjustment, and class levels adds its class levels, Hit Die, and level adjustment together when referring to table 3-2. For instance, suppose a monster with 1 Hit Die and a +1 level adjustment has two levels of rogue. Its ECL is 4 (2 class levels + 1 Hit Die + 1 level adjustment). In order to gain another class level, it needs a total of 10,000 XP.
(Emphasis mine)
These rules are an atrocious mess
Of course, there is that passage immediately preceding that section that implies that 1 HD creatures drop their racial HD (or that they get first HD bonuses twice, which would be odd):

Creatures with Hit Dice of 1 or less have normal, class-based Hit Dice and features. They get a feat for their first class level and multiply the skill points for their first class level by four (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).
To the best of my knowledge, neither of these sections has been errata'd.

[hamishspence]

I think Savage Species says that while 1HD creatures can trade it in for a class level, they don't have to.

[Karnith]

I think Savage Species says that while 1HD creatures can trade it in for a class level, they don't have to.
Said option is detailed in a sidebar on page 13 of Savage Species. I don't believe that there is a corresponding rule in 3.5, or at least I haven't seen anything in either the DMG or the Monster Manual that makes any indication that there is such a choice, anyway.

[TuggyNE]

Quick note: The wording in the official SRD matches the wording of the DMG; the hypertext SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monstersAsRaces.htm) dropped a few words. In fact, that passage of the SRD (in both cases) is missing an example that makes the writer's intent quite clear:

(Emphasis mine)
These rules are an atrocious mess
Of course, there is that passage immediately preceding that section that implies that 1 HD creatures drop their racial HD (or that they get first HD bonuses twice, which would be odd):

To the best of my knowledge, neither of these sections has been errata'd.

Wow. That's just ugly. Just … yeesh. :smallsigh:

Even with that one rule that seems to outright contradict the others, though, I think the result is still about the same (since there's still more than enough evidence; text that clearly defies all the other rules on the subject without priority is simply wrong). However, I do wish there was a way to reconcile that without throwing out three or four other passages instead.

[olentu]

Quick note: The wording in the official SRD matches the wording of the DMG. The hypertext SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monstersAsRaces.htm) dropped a few words. In fact, that passage of the SRD (in both cases) is missing an example that makes the writer's intent quite clear:

(Emphasis mine)
These rules are an atrocious mess
Of course, there is that passage immediately preceding that section that implies that 1 HD creatures drop their racial HD (or that they get first HD bonuses twice, which would be odd):

To the best of my knowledge, neither of these sections has been errata'd.

Oh good, I am glad to see that the real SRD and the DMG agree. Thank you for taking the time to look things up that I was too lazy to.

This would seem to make the DMG even more unclear then my original estimate. I had only been considering the vagueness of the first referenced section but the various conflicting sections further muddy the waters of the previous lack of actual direct statement.

[Phelix-Mu]

My head hurts just reading that. I'm not even sure I understand what the various citations are seeking to say. Really, just confused at this point.

[ChaoticDitz]

Where is the RAW interpretation here; isn't this the RAI rules? The 1HD humanoids don't even appear to be using RHD at all; I think it might have been Savage Species or Races of Destiny but I'm not sure, however, I read in one of the books that the die listed in monster manual entries is actually for the class that race takes by default; for example, the Orc is using the Warrior NPC class. All seems fairly legit to me.

[TuggyNE]

My head hurts just reading that. I'm not even sure I understand what the various citations are seeking to say. Really, just confused at this point.

The latest stuff in the DMG, or the original post? I can't help you much with the former; I think everyone would consider that an unmitigated disaster.


Where is the RAW interpretation here; isn't this the RAI rules? The 1HD humanoids don't even appear to be using RHD at all; I think it might have been Savage Species or Races of Destiny but I'm not sure, however, I read in one of the books that the die listed in monster manual entries is actually for the class that race takes by default; for example, the Orc is using the Warrior NPC class. All seems fairly legit to me.

Um, no.
Humanoids with 1 Hit Die exchange the features of their humanoid Hit Die for the class features of a PC or NPC class. Humanoids of this sort are presented as 1st-level warriors, which means that they have average combat ability and poor saving throws.

All creatures listed in monster manuals have racial HD to begin with, with no exceptions that I am aware of. 1 HD Humanoids indisputably* then immediately trade their RHD for a class level**, which is how they are then listed in their entries, leading to your misconception. The point of this thread is to establish the RAW basis for extending the same treatment to all other playable monsters (i.e., those of non-Humanoid type and an LA listing of other than --).

RAI would be far simpler to determine, given all the examples that uniformly follow the rule claimed by this thread. But that's not the point here, which is why we are taking considerable pains to track down actual sources and dissecting the wording properly.

* The rule is restated in various forms and in various books at least half a dozen times, all of which apply to playable Humanoids, and most of which apply to all Humanoids. There is no argument on this count at all, RAW-wise.
** The class selected does not have to be the one listed in the entry, which is only an example.

[Phelix-Mu]

I am just confused about how this all got so complicated. It's specifically in reference to assigning ECLs to playable races with existing racial hit die, correct?

It seems to me that they would have been better off stating that all humanoids are commoners unless they are trained in some other class. If bugbear commoners are stronger, then make them 3rd level commoners. The effects are going to be fairly identical to the current mess as I understand it. A humanoid with RHD doesn't really mean anything to me, and seems a major failure to illustrate how humanoids are characterized by how they fill roles in a social context.

It's more complicated with playable non-humanoids with multiple HD, clearly, but playable non-humanoids with 1HD seems a pretty clear cut extension of the logic for replacing the racial HD for humanoids.

If you have stuff to support a logical position, I suppose I favor that over some other stuff that supports a less logical position (such as all playable non-humanoids of 1HD or less can't be characterized by social role a la npc/pc class level...that seems illogical as it is assuming some social context that can't be shown and is largely down to fluff).

[TuggyNE]

I am just confused about how this all got so complicated. It's specifically in reference to assigning ECLs to playable races with existing racial hit die, correct?

With the given text struck out, yes; all creatures have racial HD at some point*. It applies to all playable races that are a) not Humanoid and b) don't have two or more RHD. So warforged, nixies**, tieflings, half-giants, dromites, elans, and of course any race with a template that changes its type.

It got so complicated mostly to address all the little bits of weird semi-contradictory rules, but I hope to be able to summarize the consensus concisely when it all settles down.

* Except intelligent magic items because what's consistency and completeness? :smallsigh:
** Pixies get a specific exception in any case, although I don't think it turns out to be anything more than a reminder.