Today I noticed that we have a tag, relating to the D&D creature (mostly about 4e, although there's one 5e question too).

I know we shouldn't create a separate tag for each spell, as recently highlighted in this question, and there was also this question a while back on mimics having their own tag.

The decision for that last one was to synonymise it with the tag (although I'm not sure if this was ever actually done).

Should we do the same with , or should we simply burninate the tag?

  • \$\begingroup\$ Note: This question was asked with a D&D 5e mindset (i.e. an assumption that pixie = monster), without being aware of the fact that in D&D 4e, pixies are actually a playable race (as the answer and comment chain below it points out). In retrospect, my proposal obviously shouldn't be done, as tags for races is perfectly fine, hence me requesting that the [status-declined] flag be put on my question. \$\endgroup\$ – NathanS Dec 4 '19 at 13:56

The tag is fine as-is. No action needs to be taken.

We do have race tags: see , , , etc. It's fine to also have a tag.

It should not be a synonym of because it is not a monster. It may be ascribed a mechanical treatment of monster-ness in some game releases, but we need to look at this more from a generic point of view.

Note the issue about spell tags is unique to spells themselves and does not inherently set a precedent for any other category of thing. Spells have multiple coinciding qualities that make them uniquely problematic to assign tags to. (Some notable spells like are an exception.)

  • \$\begingroup\$ In D&D 5e, a pixie is definitely a monster, not a race (it could be a race, but currently it's only a monster, RAW; meaning, it has a stat block and appears in the Monster Manual). However, this tag is only used on one D&D 5e question, the others are all 4e questions. Is the pixie considered a race rather than a monster in 4e? (I don't know much about 4e...) \$\endgroup\$ – NathanS Nov 21 '19 at 14:37
  • \$\begingroup\$ Just to be clear, I completely agree with elf, dwarf, tiefling, etc \$\endgroup\$ – NathanS Nov 21 '19 at 14:37
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ The pixie is a playable race in multiple D&D editions. We also don't define tag taxonomy based only on what one game considers to be a monster. Mimics are typically monsters in a generic fantasy context, not just in D&D's context. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Nov 21 '19 at 14:38
  • \$\begingroup\$ Out of interest, which editions? \$\endgroup\$ – NathanS Nov 21 '19 at 14:38
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @NathanS D&D 4e and 3.5e had playable Pixie races. I am not sure about others. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Nov 21 '19 at 14:40
  • \$\begingroup\$ Ah, this is what I was wondering. This might be because I'm only familiar with 5e, where a pixie would just be considered a monster (because 5e has tried to avoid anything being a playable race that isn't small or medium, and a pixie is tiny). However, if a pixie is a playable race in 4e (I'm focusing on 4e because all bar one question that tag is included on is 4e), then I agree with you that it's a legitimate race tag for 4e. Given that, perhaps the real issue here is that the one 5e question it's currently used on shouldn't really be using it? \$\endgroup\$ – NathanS Nov 21 '19 at 14:43
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ You might be overthinking it: our tag hierarchy doesn't really care about D&D's concepts of monster vs PC races. If the question is about pixies, it should have the pixie tag. If the question is about monsters in the context of the question's game, it should have the monster tag. If a question is asking about pixies that are also monsters in that game, it should have both tags. In this case the question is about pixies as a PC race and not about monsters; it should have just the [pixie] tag out of these two. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Nov 21 '19 at 14:46
  • \$\begingroup\$ Ah, you're right; in that one 5e question's context, it is about races after all. In that case, I retract everything I've said, it was based on an assumption that pixie + 5e can only mean monsters. This is why I was wary of my "5e only" mindset. Regardless, I am convinced that the tag is fine as it is and the questions that use it are fine to use it, all of them. Accepted. \$\endgroup\$ – NathanS Nov 21 '19 at 14:50
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Did you want to stick a [status-declined] or something on this meta question? \$\endgroup\$ – NathanS Nov 21 '19 at 14:50
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Thanks for talking with me and hearing me out! I'll add that tag. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Nov 21 '19 at 14:51
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I have proposed a tag wiki edit to make this definition clear. With no usage guidance any only knowledge of 5e I can see how this meta came about. \$\endgroup\$ – linksassin Nov 21 '19 at 23:36

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .