Why is Wizards so fanatical about all PCs having the Humanoid type?

[Aleph Null]

It doesn't make any sense to me. The only things that care about that (that I can think of) are Charm Person and Hold Person, and the amount of times I have seen a DM use either of those effects in the 1.5k+ hours I've played is countable on one hand. Yet even in the UA for minotaurs and centaurs, they went out of their way to make sure the races had the Humanoid type even though they shouldn't lore-wise. It just seems like they make an arbitrary assumption somewhere that all PCs have that...and for some reason it really frustrates me. Why should players not be allowed to play anything other than the most boring creature type in the game? (That is my opinion, some people might argue that since types have no rules of their own it doesn't matter)
For all the LFQW crap 3rd edition had, it certainly gave players far more options where races are concerned (and even then it was STILL severely punished through level adjustments). My big question is: why are these restrictions in place? I know that some creatures will be attacked on sight if they enter a town, but there are plenty of others that could easily fit into society...it all just seems like a really bad attempt to keep conformity.
(Yes, I know 5e can be homebrewed, but not all GMs will allow that and balance issues can be frequent)

[Naanomi]

Mechanically the main effect is which spells (and a few monster abilities based on spells) can effect a character. For example, Dominate Person is lower level than Dominate Monster... some types (undead especially, and fiends) have more such rule interactions than others

[Pronounceable]

A) Because DnD is a goddamn mess that can never make up its mind whether it's a bunch of rules for simulating a made up fantasy world in idiotically complicated detail or a cool tabletop minifigures battle game that happens to happen in a made up fantasy world.

B) Because Gygax made a pulpy action game that takes cues from Howard and Tolkien and there should be no place for playing weirdass critters like vampires or centaurs in it yet some people demand to so there has to be rules for it but those rules must be arbitrarily punishing and/or dumb to discourage such shenanigans.

C) Because DnD designers have completely lost the forest for the trees for like two decades now and think the insane obsession with theoretical white room game balance on the internet means much to players sitting around a table in the real world.

D) All of the above.


Harsh, I know. It's what they deserve. If you wanna go all corporate product peddler and try to convince me I'll need a neverending supply of new books 30 dollars a pop, you'd better make sure the **** you're peddling sparkles. And D and D never sparkles.

[jollydm]

A) Because DnD is a goddamn mess that can never make up its mind whether it's a bunch of rules for simulating a made up fantasy world in idiotically complicated detail or a cool tabletop minifigures battle game that happens to happen in a made up fantasy world.

B) Because Gygax made a pulpy action game that takes cues from Howard and Tolkien and there should be no place for playing weirdass critters like vampires or centaurs in it yet some people demand to so there has to be rules for it but those rules must be arbitrarily punishing and/or dumb to discourage such shenanigans.

C) Because DnD designers have completely lost the forest for the trees for like two decades now and think the insane obsession with theoretical white room game balance on the internet means much to players sitting around a table in the real world.

D) All of the above.


Harsh, I know. It's what they deserve. If you wanna go all corporate product peddler and try to convince me I'll need a neverending supply of new books 30 dollars a pop, you'd better make sure the **** you're peddling sparkles. And D and D never sparkles.


...who hurt you?

[Slipperychicken]

DnD is the kind of game whose writers and GMs can't say "no", but instead feel obligated to make a show of catering to every player whim (I wanna be a robot! I wanna be a cthulhu! I wanna do nothing but punch people!) even while passive-aggressively nerfing the stuffing out of it.

[Ninja_Prawn]

You know, I think the humanoid-only PCs restriction is one of the more sensible ones. Creature type has a lot of interactions. A quick scan of the core books gives me:

Turn Undead, Destroy Undead, Turn the Unholy and Turn the Faithless
Nature's Ward
Divine Sense
Favoured Enemy and Primeval Awareness
Command Undead
Create Thrall and Gaze of Two Minds
All the healing abilities that don't work on undead or constructsAnimate dead
Calm emotions
Charm person
Create undead
Crown of madness
Detect evil and good
Dispel evil and good
Divine word
Dominate person
Finger of death
Forbiddance
Hallow
Hold person
Magic circle
Magic jar
Planar binding
Protection from evil and good
Reincarnate
SimulacrumThe death tyrant's Negative Energy cone zombifies humanoids only
Fiendish Charm, succubus/incubus Charm, Fey Charm and Luring Song only work on humanoids
Shadow dragons and shadows can turn humanoids into new shadows
Ghosts can only possess humanoids
The night hag's Nightmare Haunting and the sea hag's Horrific Appearance only target humanoids
Intellect devourers can only steal humanoid bodies, and mind flayers can only Extract Brain on humanoids
Only humanoids can be cursed with lycanthropy or vampirism, and only humanoids become vampires when a wight Life Drains them
Myconid spores only work on humanoids and beasts
Slaadi need humanoid hosts to reproduce
Wraiths can create specters out of dead humanoids
So allowing non-humanoid PCs creates problems because a lot of monsters' signature abilities won't work on them, and some of the PCs own abilities will hinder their allies. Certainly the latter has come up in my game - all of my PCs are fey creatures, which means the paladin couldn't really pick the Oath of the Ancients, even though it would have been thematically appropriate, because her Turn the Faithless ability would have affected the party whenever it was used.

[Pex]

So allowing non-humanoid PCs creates problems because a lot of monsters' signature abilities won't work on them, and some of the PCs own abilities will hinder their allies. Certainly the latter has come up in my game - all of my PCs are fey creatures, which means the paladin couldn't really pick the Oath of the Ancients, even though it would have been thematically appropriate, because her Turn the Faithless ability would have affected the party whenever it was used.

That is where you the DM come in and fiat change the ability to affect non-friendly fey creatures. When a campaign is specialized enough to be out of the norm, such as an all-fey party, it is reasonable to change class features to accommodate as necessary.

[Ninja_Prawn]

That is where you the DM come in and fiat change the ability to affect non-friendly fey creatures. When a campaign is specialized enough to be out of the norm, such as an all-fey party, it is reasonable to change class features to accommodate as necessary.

I offered that, but the player decided to go for Oath of Devotion anyway.

[ZorroGames]

I offered that, but the player decided to go for Oath of Devotion anyway.

Then there was/is no problem.

[ZorroGames]

A) Because DnD is a goddamn mess that can never make up its mind whether it's a bunch of rules for simulating a made up fantasy world in idiotically complicated detail or a cool tabletop minifigures battle game that happens to happen in a made up fantasy world.

B) Because Gygax made a pulpy action game that takes cues from Howard and Tolkien and there should be no place for playing weirdass critters like vampires or centaurs in it yet some people demand to so there has to be rules for it but those rules must be arbitrarily punishing and/or dumb to discourage such shenanigans.

C) Because DnD designers have completely lost the forest for the trees for like two decades now and think the insane obsession with theoretical white room game balance on the internet means much to players sitting around a table in the real world.

D) All of the above.


Harsh, I know. It's what they deserve. If you wanna go all corporate product peddler and try to convince me I'll need a neverending supply of new books 30 dollars a pop, you'd better make sure the **** you're peddling sparkles. And D and D never sparkles.

While not a fan of a Gygax personally, 🙄 it did begin with the Tolkien, Conan, Moorcock, etc., books boost. What else was there then?

Harsh, not really for someone who seems to want they want, everyone be damned. There are interactions as noted above.

Such a Game as espoused has no attraction for me. Honestly Centaurs are ridiculously unattractive to me as a medium creature. Or even as a large PC. But then so are Minotaurs, Vampires, and other monsters. But I just do not play such rather than rant about being “limited” by a game structure/rules.

Are there limits in games like Pathfinder? Surely there are FRPGs and SFRPGs galore to fit such a character.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Then there was/is no problem.

In this case, yes, but I still contend that messing with PCs' creature types is risky. WotC have clearly written the core rules with that assumption built in, so it'd be remiss of them to go ahead and produce an 'official' race that conflicted so jarringly with their own RAW.

WotC have done plenty of things I disagree with, but I think it's fine to leave non-humanoid PC options to homebrewers. Or indeed other game systems, as you point out.

[Asmotherion]

Isn't it a bit... pointless?

I mean, Elves and Half Elves are imune to sleep effects just because, but a Centaur can't be imune to Humanoid-Targeting effects because of it's Race?

I guess they were more worried about appearing politically correct about PC races, ending up writing something that made less sence that it should, because they read too much between the lines and didn't want to have any of their more "touchy" fans "offended".

That's what happens when people get easyly offended over trivial things. That's why we can't have nice things like "Monstrosity Minotaurs" and "Large PCs".

[OvisCaedo]

I'm frankly left wondering if their new "hybrid nature" examples actually do much of... anything. Is there anything in the game that specifically targets "monstrosities" as a creature type besides... Ranger's favored enemy?? Is that the only thing that actually makes their hybrid nature different from UA minotaurs/centaurs just being treated as humanoid?

[Aleph Null]

... "Large PCs".

Don't even get me started on that rant.

[LudicSavant]

Isn't it a bit... pointless?

I mean, Elves and Half Elves are imune to sleep effects just because, but a Centaur can't be imune to Humanoid-Targeting effects because of it's Race?

I guess they were more worried about appearing politically correct about PC races, ending up writing something that made less sence that it should, because they read too much between the lines and didn't want to have any of their more "touchy" fans "offended".

That's what happens when people get easyly offended over trivial things. That's why we can't have nice things like "Monstrosity Minotaurs" and "Large PCs".

I very sincerely doubt that the reason that we can't have nice things like Large PCs is because of political correctness, of all things.

[ZorroGames]

In this case, yes, but I still contend that messing with PCs' creature types is risky. WotC have clearly written the core rules with that assumption built in, so it'd be remiss of them to go ahead and produce an 'official' race that conflicted so jarringly with their own RAW.

WotC have done plenty of things I disagree with, but I think it's fine to leave non-humanoid PC options to homebrewers. Or indeed other game systems, as you point out.

I prefer the humanoid approach myself.

[ZorroGames]

I very sincerely doubt that the reason that we can't have nice things like Large PCs is because of political correctness, of all things.

True. More likely concern (maybe legitimately) about grid based combat, reach, and other mechanical aspects.

[SociopathFriend]

That is where you the DM come in and fiat change the ability to affect non-friendly fey creatures. When a campaign is specialized enough to be out of the norm, such as an all-fey party, it is reasonable to change class features to accommodate as necessary.

The thing is, not all DMs want to fiat. I know my brother very frequently complains that he wants the books to spell out exactly what should happen and what he should do. He doesn't want to DM fiat. Now is he normal? I couldn't say, I've had 4 DMs with radically different styles for 3 of them (2 had virtually the same, "Yeah sure you can do that" mentality).

So if he were offered either the chance for the rules to specify X is Y in order to enforce game balance, he'd call that a good thing.