PC races - Non-humanoid vs. dual-typed

[Greywander]

I'm kind of curious to hear what people think about this. I think the centaur was one of the first dual-type races to be released. I've been doing some renovating of my undead race, and someone suggested making them dual-type humanoid/undead. Dual-typing seems like it makes a creature less powerful, as it only makes them vulnerable to more effects, e.g. a humanoid/undead can be targeted with Hold Person, and also with Turn Undead, whereas a pure humanoid could only be targeted by the first and a pure undead could only be targeted by the second.

Does dual-typing make sense for PC races? Would you consider a dual-type to be a sort of less powerful half-breed? E.g. elves are humanoid, then you have a sorta fey race that is dual-typed, then a "pure" fey race that is full fey, being the "strongest".

[Millstone85]

I think the centaur was one of the first dual-type races to be released.Of note is that the centaur that was eventually published, in Guildmasters' Guide to Ravnica, is fey and nothing else.

[Greywander]

You're right, I must have been thinking of the UA centaur, which is humanoid/monstrosity.

So has a dual-type race ever been published, then? Is there a precedent in official material?

[SheVa]

I think that playable races should ideally always include the humanoid type, for the same reason they all are of size medium or smaller: balance.

Giving them specific creature types can protect them from specific effects that PCs should usually be afraid of. Dual-typing is kinda inelegant, but removing the humanois tag is worse, in my opinion.

[Greywander]

It occurs to me that it might work well to have a dual-typed race that has a racial feat that makes them single-typed. Or, perhaps it even let them count as whichever they choose. So, for example, a humanoid/undead with this feat could choose to count as humanoid against Turn Undead, and as undead against Hold Person. Although it's probably better to just have the feat make them count as undead all the time, as being able to choose would be too much, and too complicated.

[Luccan]

I'm actually not sure which effects would be unbalancing to be immune to. Monster types don't really have inherent immunities anymore, they're specified in their entry. To clarify: Hold Person doesn't work on them because it specifies humanoids, but that's an "issue" with the spell. Other spells and effects that would paralyze a creature work just fine, unless the spell or the undead's abilities specified otherwise. Also, I only ever hear Hold Person being brought up as an issue. Are there other abilities and/or spells that being non-humanoid makes you immune to? Because if its just Hold Person and maybe one or two other things, it's probably nothing to worry about. Especially since you do have to worry about Turn Undead.

[JackPhoenix]

I'm actually not sure which effects would be unbalancing to be immune to. Monster types don't really have inherent immunities anymore, they're specified in their entry. To clarify: Hold Person doesn't work on them because it specifies humanoids, but that's an "issue" with the spell. Other spells and effects that would paralyze a creature work just fine, unless the spell or the undead's abilities specified otherwise. Also, I only ever hear Hold Person being brought up as an issue. Are there other abilities and/or spells that being non-humanoid makes you immune to? Because if its just Hold Person and maybe one or two other things, it's probably nothing to worry about. Especially since you do have to worry about Turn Undead.

Well, the obvious answer is "healing". Most healing spells don't work on undead (only Aura of Vitality and Regenerate, IIRC). Which may not matter to enemies, but it's a serious problem for PCs.

[Luccan]

Well, the obvious answer is "healing". Most healing spells don't work on undead (only Aura of Vitality and Regenerate, IIRC). Which may not matter to enemies, but it's a serious problem for PCs.

Sure, but the objections seem to be based around just Undead being too powerful*. Though now that you bring it up that probably makes Undead/Humanoid a better option. Maybe the hypothetical feat would allow them to count as just Undead when it was beneficial, then.

*I guess my question was more, what makes non-humanoid too much than specifically undead, although lack of healing is a flaw I hadn't considered

[Greywander]

I'm actually not sure which effects would be unbalancing to be immune to. Monster types don't really have inherent immunities anymore, they're specified in their entry. To clarify: Hold Person doesn't work on them because it specifies humanoids, but that's an "issue" with the spell.
Yup, there's a few spells that only work on humanoids, and you would be immune to these spells. It's kind of strange from a verisimilitude perspective, but makes sense from a game balance perspective. Hold Person is fine if used against bandits or goblins, but would be too strong against a dragon or lich.

The benefits of not being humanoid are marginal. For the most part, being another creature type doesn't of itself carry any benefit. Being, say, undead usually also comes with some immunities and no longer needing food or sleep and such, but this is independent of having the undead creature type. In fact, as far as I can tell, having any creature type is mostly detrimental, with the level of detriment depending on what that creature type is.

Undead is particularly detrimental:

Most healing spells don't effect you, nor does Lay on Hands.
Most undead are presumed to be evil, so you'll have to hide it.
Speaking of, Detect Evil and Good or Divine Sense can detect your undead-ness.
You're susceptible to Turn Undead, or things like the necromancer's Command Undead.
Paladin smites deal more damage to you (as do some other effects, probably).
Etc.

Being undead is kind of a raw deal, but it almost always comes bundled with immortality, not needing air, food, drink, or sleep, and being immune to poison, disease, and exhaustion. YMMV.

Actually, one could have two racial feats for a dual-typed race. One feat let's you count as if you were only type A and not type B, unless you want to. The other feat does the same, but the other way around. With both feats, you are basically neither A nor B except when you want to be. For example, a humanoid/undead could be immune to Hold Person (counts as not humanoid) as well as Turn Undead (counts as not undead).

On the other hand, this seems kind of cheap. The risk of being detected is one of the exciting things about playing as an undead, and to be able to circumvent basically all the downsides of being undead with a single feat (the one that let's you count as not undead) would cheapen the difficulty greatly. On the other hand, one that let you count as only undead would need something else to make it more worthwhile.

[NoxMiasma]

Remember, the dominate and hold series of spells all have a humanoid and any creature version, and the version that works on any creature is generally three spell levels higher. This means that a low-level nonhumanoid PC may be flat out immune to most or all of the control options in an enemy spellcaster's toolkit, and that immunity is still present if a higher level caster wants to use their lower level slots. It kinda messes with the CR estimations, because like, an enchanter NPC has all of one enchantment spell that will work, and it requires their 5th-level slots.