Café de Nuit

Ravenkin are given the Monstrous Humanoid type. As far as I can tell they have the form of birds. Shouldn't they be Magical Beasts instead. Denizens of Darkness p 126-127.

True, they probably ought to be Magical Beasts (as should wolfweres).

Upon review of the RLMC where they first appeared (I think), I'm guessing it's a mixup due to the art. The text clearly says their form is like that of a large raven, with no mention of humanoid tendencies, but the picture is a little misleading, as it seems the legs are somewhat extended. I'll admit that all these years, I've pictured the Ravenkin as somewhat humanoid ravens due to that picture.

But based on the description and the newest picture, I say it should be magical beast. (Again, for Mistipedia purposes, I think we should keep what's written and make a speculative note of possible errata.)

Dragon magazine had an article listing them as small humanoids.

No, there's no mix up, they're monstrous humanoids, and were intended to be so.

Seriously guys, it isn't always the case that when you disagree with design decisions it's because you're right and the writers had no idea what they were doing.

Mangrum wrote:No, there's no mix up, they're monstrous humanoids, and were intended to be so.

Seriously guys, it isn't always the case that when you disagree with design decisions it's because you're right and the writers had no idea what they were doing.

Right.

Centaurs are monstrous humanoids, too. Humanoid in this context need not mean very human-like in body.

Mangrum wrote:Seriously guys, it isn't always the case that when you disagree with design decisions it's because you're right and the writers had no idea what they were doing.

Ordinarily, I'd be the first to say, "I'm sure the writers knew what they were doing", which is why I've pushed for the wiki project to document things as printed, and clearly mark any speculation like this.

I apologize for jumping to conclusions, though in this case, I don't see the rationale for making them humanoid. Would you be willing to elaborate? My books are all currently boxed up for moving, but the sources I saw all seemed to indicate that physically, the Ravenkin aren't much different than regular ravens except in size. Is there a source I missed that gives them humanoid features? Like I said, I've always pictured that as slightly humanoid/raven hybrids, but I'm not sure where I got that idea except from the RLMCI illustration.

From the SRD:
"A humanoid usually has two arms, two legs, and one head, or a humanlike torso, arms, and a head."
"Monstrous humanoids are similar to humanoids, but with monstrous or animalistic features."
"Magical beasts are similar to animals but can have Intelligence scores higher than 2. Magical beasts usually have supernatural or extraordinary abilities, but sometimes are merely bizarre in appearance or habits."


If a Ravenkin looks just like a big raven, except that it talks, how is different from a raven familiar, which is a magical beast? If a Ravenkin doesn't look just like a big raven, what's the physical difference and where is it stated?


While you're here, John, what's your stance on Wolfweres? Considering that the SRD says "no magical abilities and no innate capacity for language or culture" and "no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal)." and also that the Fiend Folio made Jackalweres into Magical Beasts, Wolfweres seem odd as Animals.

Aaracokra are monstrous humanoids, IIRC. Ravenkin don't have hands on their wings, but they're otherwise pretty similar to those guys. Yes, they look a lot like regular ravens, but that's more along the lines of protective camouflage, and the differences would presumably be self-evident to an avian or ornithologist.

Gonzoron of the FoS wrote: While you're here, John, what's your stance on Wolfweres? Considering that the SRD says "no magical abilities and no innate capacity for language or culture" and "no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal)." and also that the Fiend Folio made Jackalweres into Magical Beasts, Wolfweres seem odd as Animals.

That one's a change made by Denizens of Dread when 3.5 got rid of the Shapechanger type, and John wasn't involved in that book.

ewancummins wrote:Centaurs are monstrous humanoids, too. Humanoid in this context need not mean very human-like in body.

Just so. It's just that ravenkin lean toward the "monstrous" end of the "monstrous humanoid" spectrum. Admittedly, the DoDark/Dread illustration pushes them all the way to being fully animalistic, but everyone should keep in mind that it's just a drawing. (Just like the "Pirate Strahd" you guys love to Two Minute Hate so much; seriously guys, move on.)

(ETA: MLM's quote has immortalized that I initially adjusted the Two Minute Hate for inflation.)

Mangrum wrote: (Just like the "Pirate Strahd" you guys love to Five Minute Hate so much; seriously guys, move on.)

I can hear Azalin grumbling. "One or two bad illustrations of the Vampire Stereotype and they're ready to burn WotC to the ground; I haven't gotten a face since 1990, and does anyone ever go into a Two Minutes Hate for me? Cretins."

Gonzoron of the FoS wrote:From the SRD:
"A humanoid usually has two arms, two legs, and one head, or a humanlike torso, arms, and a head."
"Monstrous humanoids are similar to humanoids, but with monstrous or animalistic features."
"Magical beasts are similar to animals but can have Intelligence scores higher than 2. Magical beasts usually have supernatural or extraordinary abilities, but sometimes are merely bizarre in appearance or habits.

If a Ravenkin looks just like a big raven, except that it talks, how is different from a raven familiar, which is a magical beast?

Three differences off the top of my head are that ravenkin have spellcasting ability, they have a unique society, and they advance by character class.

Here are some less obvious points to consider (and believe me, how a ravenkin should be classified was deeply considered). Go through the Monster Manual and its ilk, and compare the entries for individual magical beasts and monstrous humanoids. In which category do you generally see subsections on "... Society" and "... Characters"? How many magical beasts advance by class?

Gonzoron of the FoS wrote:While you're here, John, what's your stance on Wolfweres? Considering that the SRD says "no magical abilities and no innate capacity for language or culture" and "no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal)." and also that the Fiend Folio made Jackalweres into Magical Beasts, Wolfweres seem odd as Animals.

MLM already mentioned that I didn't work on DoDread -- in fact it's [known that] I specifically had my name taken off it -- but I'm not going to rehash my opinions of the developers when it comes to their understanding of the D20 ruleset.

With that in mind, I'll just say that it's an obvious error, and that in 3.5 wolfweres should clearly be magical beasts (shapechanger).

ETA: Added a missing bit.

Thank you John for the precisions and clarifications.

John, since you are about, could you comment on the addition of spellcasting as a prerequisite for making anything with Craft (alchemy): "To make an item using Craft (alchemy), you must have alchemical equipment and be a spellcaster." (SRD) This 3.5 change has ugly consequences on 3.0 Ravenloft prestige classes: Black Powder Avenger and Pistoleer must now all be spellcasters as they have Alchemy as a prerequisite; and Detective loses Chemistry (Ex) as it is based on Alchemy. Or more strictly, you can have legal, non-spellcasting Black Powder Avengers and Pistoleers, for a handful of skill points or two handfuls of cross-classed skill points, who couldn't of course actually make gunpowder, and so would gain no benefit from class bonuses for doing so. Additionally, the Lamordian gunpowder business and Lamordian chemistry generally cease to exist. It has been suggested to me that one would have expected the matter to have been addressed in the 3.5 RLPH. But it was not to the best of my knowledge.

cure wrote:John, since you are about, could you comment on the addition of spellcasting as a prerequisite for making anything with Craft (alchemy):

Sure! I have a simple answer: forget 3.5 and switch to Pathfinder. It's what I do!