Man I really forgot about this thread.
No, dear god no. Humanoid, as in the dictionary term, precedes Humanoid, the creature type. If they say humanoid form, it means the dictionary definition, not the glossary one. If they meant type, they would say type rather than form. Humanoid is an adjective first, and the context of these creatures and templates are using that definition.
I know twisting words is the one true goal in life for many of this forum's members, but don't go that far, it is really not worth it.
This interpretation actually hurts me more. I'm just trying my best here to be correct here.
And if you looked at my second example you will notice that it doesn't say form:
This humanoid golem is composed of magically coherent grave earth.
See?
Because it's being used as an adjective, humanoid<adj golem<noun, the adjective modifying the subject. The adjective form is the dictionary definition I was referring to. 'Golem' isn't a defined type either, so it's also relegated to flavor text alongside the usage of 'humanoid'.
You know I could probably argue more about this but screw it. Yours is the much more sensible interpretation and is probably correct anyways. Spin-off arguments like this is why I procrastinated on replying to this thread for so long. I concede the point.
For any new person reading this: forget about Incarnate Construct "muddying things" as well.
But there is no way to declare something is an outsider other than through type, is there? If you have the outsider type, you are an outsider. Can you point to any creature that is explicitly called out as an outsider, yet does not have the outsider type?
Off the top of my head, there's any creature with the Otherworldy feat:
Benefit
You are a native outsider, not a humanoid. You have darkvision out to 60 feet. Furthermore, you gain a +2 bonus on all Diplomacy checks.
That feat changes your type from humanoid to outsider, and gives you the native subtype. Do you have an official stat block of such a creature for verification?
The grave dirt golem is a construct. It doesn't even have the evil subtype. The humanoid part is merely a descriptor for its overall shape (upright, head, 2 arms, 2 legs). You wouldn't allow someone to cast Reduce Person on the golem, would you? Of course not, it doesn't have the humanoid type or a humanoid subtype even.
Pretend that the golem got the subtype from the ritual of association or something.
Anyways what you are saying is the sensible and PO view of things. I'm looking for the RAW here and RAW is oftentimes not very sensible. I don't think I would ever rule that monks are not proficient with their unarmed strikes in an RL game but that's the RAW.
Monks have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. That's how everyone else gets the "proficiency", so why not them? Besides, unarmed attacks basically a specific sub-set of natural attacks. Would you say that all creatures with natural weapons are not proficient with them, because there is no mention of proficiency in the natural weapons part of the Monster Manual?
While I could make a case for the interpretation of the Otherworldy feat that I had been arguing earlier, I don't think it would accomplish anything. Consider the point conceded.
However, if we do accept that having a type (or subtype) turns you into that thing (like the [Elf] subtype making you an Elf) than thing get kind of wierd. For example, what about the [Fire] subtype? If you have it can someone cast Pyrotechnics on you? You might say that what you said only applies to "racial" subtypes but as far as I know the rules don't make that distinction. What's wierder is that this actually make sense for lots of creatures that naturally have the subtype (like Fire elementals). It's only when you apply it artifically through the ritual that things get wierd.
Of course things getting "wierd" doesn't have much to do with RAW. Mostly I'm arguing against you because I can't really find a rule saying that having a type/subtype makes you into that thing. The designers seemed to have assumed it was obvious (which I don't blame them for). There is some circumstantial evidence for the designers intending things to not be what you're saying (see the orc stuff I posted earlier) but...RAI isn't RAW.
When you want to make things as RAW as possible but the rules don't really cover it, what do you do? I suppose...you go for the "common sense" interpretation since many things the rules don't cover in DnD would just make the game unplayable if interpreted as not being there...I'm just wondering aloud. If anyone one has thoughts to voice by all means chime in.
Also, IUS doesn't give proficiency (not sure what you meant by the quotation marks around the word). And yes,
if there was no mention of proficiency in the natural weapons part of the Monster Manual than I would say they wouldn't have proficiency in them by strict RAW. I'd houserule it in actual play but in a discussion of RAW I would say so.
However that point is kind of moot since most monsters with natural weapons
do get proficiency with them. It's in the type section of the MM, not the natural weapons section. Certain types give automatic proficiency with natural weapons.
Off the top of my head, there's any creature with the Otherworldy feat
my interpretation-
this feat replaces the Humanoid type (or another previous type, since non-Humanoids can get the feat) with the Outsider (native) type.
your interpretation-
it look like an outsider non-type and loses its old humanoid non-type.
further support-
SRD only says Outsider type creatures are partially composed of the essence of some plane. How does that help to get a description of the creature?
it looks like some aspect of the plane? Which aspect of the Material Plane? It doesn't say. Does it still even have a body? Arms? legs?
no, that's the original creature's description is for, based of it being whatever type/creature originally.
conclusion-
therefore unless you have text that describes the outsider non-type's look, it has to be the my interpretation.
I use mine and yours to simplify things, since others side with both of us.
No, dear god no. Humanoid, as in the dictionary term, precedes Humanoid, the creature type. If they say humanoid form, it means the dictionary definition, not the glossary one. If they meant type, they would say type rather than form. Humanoid is an adjective first, and the context of these creatures and templates are using that definition.
I know twisting words is the one true goal in life for many of this forum's members, but don't go that far, it is really not worth it.
This interpretation actually hurts me more. I'm just trying my best here to be correct here.
And if you looked at my second example you will notice that it doesn't say form:
This humanoid golem is composed of magically coherent grave earth.
See?
The way I have always seen it done is using types, unless otherwise stated; just because a Golem is humanoid in shape, doesn't make it a Humanoid Type unless stated. Again, part of why such as thing as Incarnate Construct would exist.
I suppose I could have specified even further that, as stated before "humanoid" does not translate to "Humanoid Type", as they are indeed two different things. I apologize if anyone was under the assumption I was stating Golems are "Humanoid Type", as I was trying to state (and perhaps failing at that) that many Golems are "humanoid in shape".
As above, consider the point conceded.
