Quote Originally Posted by liquidformat View Post
That is why I am saying it isn't RAW that person=humanoid, however, 3.5 is pretty careful about its use of the term 'person'. To my knowledge which isn't exhaustive but I have gone through most if not all the rule and splats multiple times, the term 'person' is only used in spells that are humanoid only (besides this monster entry) which is enough for a strong coloration. The fact that it is a rarely used term that when used is used in connotation with humanoid is therefore established inside the rule books. So sure it isn't mechanically binding and that is why I didn't say it is RAW however, it is pretty well established based on the way the 3.5 rules use the term.
Eh...that's kind of a weak argument. It strikes me as basically being an argument via semantics, using a term we both agree isn't actually defined in the first place. Since a formal definition is core to sound semantics, the "implied definition" at the heart of your argument rots its very foundation. (Mind you, if "person" was formally defined to always mean "humanoid type," a semantic argument would be 100% sound. "Semantics" isn't the problem, "Unsound" is.)


Quote Originally Posted by lord_khaine View Post
Looking at said abilities i dont see anything that require special DM adjustment. They are fairly precise in describing what they do.
Then why are there so many arguments about the details of Enthral, down to what creature types it can affect? It certainly isn't because your reading (as unambiguous as can be) is the only possible reading, because there are others who are equally certain that a different reading is RAW—indicated by the directly-opposed interpretations expressed by people in this thread.