Countercounterpoint: there are plenty of keyword features that require those keywords whether or not they fit idiomatic English.
Start citing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Class features (such as Sneak attack), Feats (such as Lightly Armored), other spells (such as Conjure Beasts) all have requirements that rely on a specific keyword being attached to something else, and will not work with items or creatures that don't have the required word. For example, Sneak Attack requires a finesse or ranged weapon; you cannot say that your character wields his greatsword with finesse (using an idiomatic definition) and gain sneak attack.
Class features (such as Sneak attack), Feats (such as Lightly Armored), other spells (such as Conjure Beasts) all have requirements that rely on a specific keyword being attached to something else, and will not work with items or creatures that don't have the required word. For example, Sneak Attack requires a finesse or ranged weapon; you cannot say that your character wields his greatsword with finesse (using an idiomatic definition) and gain sneak attack.
This is an excellent point, but as mentioned earlier in this thread:
WotC neglected to give Human, Elf, Dwarf, etc. PC's the (humanoid) tag, and Minotaur PC's the (monstrosity) tag. This seems to be a global oversight for PC's, but we still consider them valid targets for the appropriate spells.
We at least have the following clarification from Jeremy Crawford (i.e. the Sage): "A creature must be designated—with a tag or other text—as a shapechanger to count as one".
Changelings are still being developed. Hopefully we'll eventually see Changeling NPC stats.
A solid counterargument would at least need to take point #1 into account.
I think a bigger question might be: is a Changeling considered to have the (humanoid) tag for spell purposes? Or maybe they have the (monstrosity) tag, like dopplegangers? Or neither? That's going to matter for a lot more to spells than the (shapechanger) tag. DM's will have to make this tag adjudication regardless of which side of the discussion they're on.
To be clear: I'm not advancing adding tags based on idiomatic definitions, I'm merely acknowledging a global oversight (and also that changelings are still in playtest)
This is an excellent point, but as mentioned earlier in this thread:
WotC neglected to give Human, Elf, Dwarf, etc. PC's the (humanoid) tag, and Minotaur PC's the (monstrosity) tag. This seems to be a global oversight for PC's (but we still consider them valid targets for the appropriate spells).
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the Player's Handbook mentions that playable races are humanoid in chapter 1. Also, humanoid and monstrosity are types, not tags. Humanoid monsters often have a tag for their race, e.g. (orc).
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the Player's Handbook mentions that playable races are humanoid in chapter 1.
I'm actually completely good with that notion, but the text you quoted didn't explicitly indicate that all PC races have the Humanoid type (unless noted otherwise).
WolfOfTheBees' advanced the notion that specific keywords should be explicitly indicated (not intuited via idiomatic definitions), which I actually agree with. When dealing with keywords, they should be unambiguous.
So if we're being consistent, we should either:
find where the PHB to explicitly notes the default Humanoid type for PC's
accept that WotC mistakenly failed to make this explicit (and assign it ourselves), or
decide that Humanoid is not the default type
I'm actually good with #2. but that should mean I'm also ok with using the same reasoning regarding changelings and the shapechanger tag (at least until WotC clarifies the issue, hopefully by the end of playtest).
Maybe I'm oversimplifying things. But to me, this should be settled by the question, "Can a changeling change its shape?" If it looks like a shapechanger and acts like a shapechanger and there's nothing that explicitly says the changeling is not a shapechanger, then is there a requirement within the rules that changelings do not meet in order to be considered a shapechanger? We talk a lot about plain English definitions and how a rule does what it says it does and nothing more. Or maybe we already have the answer and changelings fall into a grey area where the DM has to make the call.
I'm trying to figure out if we're picking arbitrary requirements for defining something or if the rules specifically set out what criteria something has to meet in order to be considered a member of a category. And I'm afraid that sounds snarky, but I'm being sincere in my asking.
Changelings are changelings, not shapechangers. Shapechangers are a specific type of monster so per the rules a Shapechanger should have the (shapechanger) designation next to its name. For all intents and purposes PCs are considered the exception to the rule. Changelings are humanoids, but they are not specifically designated as a shapechanging even if they can alter their form. Also, they can only take the shape of other medium-sized humanoids, I don't think that Doppelgangers have that restriction.
All that being said, I would rule that Changelings can be affected by polymorph, but I would give them advantage on any saving throw due to their familiarity with changing their form. But that's a house rule kind of thing.
I'm actually completely good with that notion, but the text you quoted didn't explicitly indicate that all PC races have the Humanoid type (unless noted otherwise).
It explicitly says all PCs belong to a race, and races are humanoid species. Therefore, all PCs are humanoids. There's nothing being inferred.
The only problem the text I quoted has is that it's not repeated in the Races chapter of the Player's Handbook, which makes it easy to forget once you're comfortable with the rules for creating characters and don't need to revisit chapter 1 often. Ideally if I wanted to know how PC races work, I should be able to find all of the general rules in the Races chapter.
If you don't believe a the sentence that explicitly states that all races (unless stated) are humanoid, look at the one exception: Centaur
Fey
Your creature type is fey, rather than humanoid.
I don't think there is any inferring there.
The quote "Every character belongs to a race, one of the many intelligent humanoid species in the D&D world" seems ambiguous to me (i.e. it could mean several different things, and thus requires some inferring to conclude that all PC's have the Humanoid type). Same with "The most common humanoid races are the ones most suitable as player characters".
The Centaur quote is indeed an excellent example of an exception indicating the presence of an underlying rule, but "Exception that Proves the Rule" cases too involve inference.
Not saying you're wrong: I'm just saying it requires inference. The text I'm seeing should really be more explicit (unless you have clearer text I might've missed)
It sounds like we need to suggest some errata to Wizards, "Hey, you need a type for every race, so we can track the usage of things like polymorph."
Most of them seem obvious, but a few might need a ruling. For example, is a Yuan Ti Pureblood a humanoid or a monstrosity? It does say in their description that they look down on humanoids. Also, what is a genasi - humanoid (genasi) or humanoid (human)? Are aarakocra humanoids (they have 6 limbs, not four)? Is a warforged a construct?
Which perhaps leads to the question... what is a "humanoid" anyway?
Most of them seem obvious, but a few might need a ruling. For example, is a Yuan Ti Pureblood a humanoid or a monstrosity?
Both the PC race and the monster are humanoid.
Also, what is a genasi - humanoid (genasi) or humanoid (human)?
Their type is humanoid, and they're also genasi if that ever comes up for rules purposes. Genasi and Human are two distinct races, just like Half-Elf and Elf.
Are aarakocra humanoids (they have 6 limbs, not four)?
Both the PC race and the monster are humanoid.
Is a warforged a construct?
No. They don't have a trait that says they're constructs. PC races are humanoids, RAW and RAI. They have some traits in common with constructs, but they're not constructs for rules purposes.
Which perhaps leads to the question... what is a "humanoid" anyway?
The Monster Manual answers that: "the main peoples of a fantasy gaming world, both civilized and savage..."
Every PC is a humanoid unless you're told otherwise and every monster has a type printed in its stat block, so there's never a situation where you have to guess what type a creature is. The only cases where there's a difference between PC and monster stats so far is Ravnica's centaur, which represents a different kind of centaur from the one in the Monster Manual, and the Eladrin from Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, which the book explicitly says come in both humanoid and fey varieties.
Start citing.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
The glossary for the Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron actually says "Changeling. A race of shapeshifters...".
If WotC gets around to making a Changeling NPC, I'll expect it to have the "Shapeshifter" tag.
I can't tell if this is serious, so:
Class features (such as Sneak attack), Feats (such as Lightly Armored), other spells (such as Conjure Beasts) all have requirements that rely on a specific keyword being attached to something else, and will not work with items or creatures that don't have the required word. For example, Sneak Attack requires a finesse or ranged weapon; you cannot say that your character wields his greatsword with finesse (using an idiomatic definition) and gain sneak attack.
This is an excellent point, but as mentioned earlier in this thread:
A solid counterargument would at least need to take point #1 into account.
I think a bigger question might be: is a Changeling considered to have the (humanoid) tag for spell purposes? Or maybe they have the (monstrosity) tag, like dopplegangers? Or neither? That's going to matter for a lot more to spells than the (shapechanger) tag. DM's will have to make this tag adjudication regardless of which side of the discussion they're on.
To be clear: I'm not advancing adding tags based on idiomatic definitions, I'm merely acknowledging a global oversight (and also that changelings are still in playtest)
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the Player's Handbook mentions that playable races are humanoid in chapter 1. Also, humanoid and monstrosity are types, not tags. Humanoid monsters often have a tag for their race, e.g. (orc).
I'm actually good with #2. but that should mean I'm also ok with using the same reasoning regarding changelings and the shapechanger tag (at least until WotC clarifies the issue, hopefully by the end of playtest).
Changelings are changelings, not shapechangers. Shapechangers are a specific type of monster so per the rules a Shapechanger should have the (shapechanger) designation next to its name. For all intents and purposes PCs are considered the exception to the rule. Changelings are humanoids, but they are not specifically designated as a shapechanging even if they can alter their form. Also, they can only take the shape of other medium-sized humanoids, I don't think that Doppelgangers have that restriction.
All that being said, I would rule that Changelings can be affected by polymorph, but I would give them advantage on any saving throw due to their familiarity with changing their form. But that's a house rule kind of thing.
I'm inclined to agree, but do the rules say that? (i.e. if we shouldn't infer the shapechanger tag, should we infer the humanoid type?)
If you don't believe a the sentence that explicitly states that all races (unless stated) are humanoid, look at the one exception: Centaur
I don't think there is any inferring there.
It explicitly says all PCs belong to a race, and races are humanoid species. Therefore, all PCs are humanoids. There's nothing being inferred.
The only problem the text I quoted has is that it's not repeated in the Races chapter of the Player's Handbook, which makes it easy to forget once you're comfortable with the rules for creating characters and don't need to revisit chapter 1 often. Ideally if I wanted to know how PC races work, I should be able to find all of the general rules in the Races chapter.
The quote "Every character belongs to a race, one of the many intelligent humanoid species in the D&D world" seems ambiguous to me (i.e. it could mean several different things, and thus requires some inferring to conclude that all PC's have the Humanoid type). Same with "The most common humanoid races are the ones most suitable as player characters".
The Centaur quote is indeed an excellent example of an exception indicating the presence of an underlying rule, but "Exception that Proves the Rule" cases too involve inference.
Not saying you're wrong: I'm just saying it requires inference. The text I'm seeing should really be more explicit (unless you have clearer text I might've missed)
It sounds like we need to suggest some errata to Wizards, "Hey, you need a type for every race, so we can track the usage of things like polymorph."
Most of them seem obvious, but a few might need a ruling. For example, is a Yuan Ti Pureblood a humanoid or a monstrosity? It does say in their description that they look down on humanoids. Also, what is a genasi - humanoid (genasi) or humanoid (human)? Are aarakocra humanoids (they have 6 limbs, not four)? Is a warforged a construct?
Which perhaps leads to the question... what is a "humanoid" anyway?
Ambiguous how? You haven't explained what other ways it could be interpreted.
Both the PC race and the monster are humanoid.
Their type is humanoid, and they're also genasi if that ever comes up for rules purposes. Genasi and Human are two distinct races, just like Half-Elf and Elf.
Both the PC race and the monster are humanoid.
No. They don't have a trait that says they're constructs. PC races are humanoids, RAW and RAI. They have some traits in common with constructs, but they're not constructs for rules purposes.
The Monster Manual answers that: "the main peoples of a fantasy gaming world, both civilized and savage..."
Every PC is a humanoid unless you're told otherwise and every monster has a type printed in its stat block, so there's never a situation where you have to guess what type a creature is. The only cases where there's a difference between PC and monster stats so far is Ravnica's centaur, which represents a different kind of centaur from the one in the Monster Manual, and the Eladrin from Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, which the book explicitly says come in both humanoid and fey varieties.
But there is a situation - this thread. The question being, 'are changelings and shifters vulnerable to the polymorph spell?
Or phrased another say, are changelings "humanoid (changeling)" or "humanoid (changeling, shapechanger)"?
OK, technically it is a question of subtype rather than type, but I think it's a question that Wizards should answer in an official way.
Agreed. There should be an official answer on that note.
So then what's the "chain of command" to go through to request an errata for this type of situation?
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2019/12/22/changeling-is-a-shapechanger/
Vindicated at last! :)
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Seriously, I will accept this. I just want to know if it was like that when we only had Wayfinder's Guide.
RAI: yes. Strict RAW: maybe not. As I noted earlier:
And they did so (here): "Changeling Medium humanoid (changeling, shapechanger)"
But up until this: we had rely on inference, which can be subjective. We were all just trying to provide the best advice we could, given the context.