Dhampir makes sense as a Humanoid, provided one parent is a Humanoid, and the other's a Vampire, but you could also argue that it should be Undead. But WotC made them Humanoids.
Similarly, Aasimar and Tieflings make sense as humanoids, but you could equally argue that they should be Celestials and Fiends respectively. But WotC made them Humanoids.
Reborn definitely should be Undead. But WotC made them Humanoids.
Warforged should definitely be Constructs. But WotC made them Humanoids.
Eladrin as long-time denizens of the Feywild should be Fey. But WotC made them Humanoids.
It wasn't until Spelljammer that they finally gave us a Monstrosity, an Ooze, and a Construct as player races.
They're humanoid because there are a bunch of mechanical issues they'd have to write traits just to overcome for being truly undead as a player, not least of all is that the vast majority of healing effects don't work on undead, this is the same reason warforged aren't proper constructs. They've kind of gone down the workaround route for Autognomes, but it's a bit clunky IMO.
I guess thematically it just comes down to the fact that you're not a "proper" vampire or a "proper" undead, but some kind of in-between stage; you might be a newly turned vampire for whom the full powers haven't asserted themselves yet, or a Reborn you've been resurrected but by unusual means so you're not quite as you were and so-on.
I do wonder if they might change how creature types are handled in OneD&D to make them more like damage types, i.e- have the no healing effect be part of specific undead monsters rather than a feature of the healing effects themselves, so then we can have more variety in racial types without the complications it causes?
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
They're humanoid because there are a bunch of mechanical issues they'd have to write traits just to overcome for being truly undead as a player, not least of all is that the vast majority of healing effects don't work on undead,
I think this is the big one that most players would run into as an undead creature type.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Not all those who wander are lost"
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
For spells and divine sense purpose, are they "Undead"???
Nope. Humanoid.
Dhampir makes sense as a Humanoid, provided one parent is a Humanoid, and the other's a Vampire, but you could also argue that it should be Undead. But WotC made them Humanoids.
Similarly, Aasimar and Tieflings make sense as humanoids, but you could equally argue that they should be Celestials and Fiends respectively. But WotC made them Humanoids.
Reborn definitely should be Undead. But WotC made them Humanoids.
Warforged should definitely be Constructs. But WotC made them Humanoids.
Eladrin as long-time denizens of the Feywild should be Fey. But WotC made them Humanoids.
It wasn't until Spelljammer that they finally gave us a Monstrosity, an Ooze, and a Construct as player races.
They're humanoid because there are a bunch of mechanical issues they'd have to write traits just to overcome for being truly undead as a player, not least of all is that the vast majority of healing effects don't work on undead, this is the same reason warforged aren't proper constructs. They've kind of gone down the workaround route for Autognomes, but it's a bit clunky IMO.
I guess thematically it just comes down to the fact that you're not a "proper" vampire or a "proper" undead, but some kind of in-between stage; you might be a newly turned vampire for whom the full powers haven't asserted themselves yet, or a Reborn you've been resurrected but by unusual means so you're not quite as you were and so-on.
I do wonder if they might change how creature types are handled in OneD&D to make them more like damage types, i.e- have the no healing effect be part of specific undead monsters rather than a feature of the healing effects themselves, so then we can have more variety in racial types without the complications it causes?
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I think this is the big one that most players would run into as an undead creature type.
"Not all those who wander are lost"