Revisionist game publishing

[DracoSuave]

Which makes about as much sense to me as arbitrary racial level limits. I just can't suspend disbelief to accept for instance two minotaurs both being minotaurs and of the exact same race, but with completely different abilities because one is a "monster" and the other is its gimpy little brother that's kosher and approved for PC use.

Funny, Humans do it all the time.

Here's the thing. A minotaur's racial traits that define it are those bull horns, and that ability to gore you with them. If the PC minotaur didn't have that, I'd call shinanegans.

BUT

The size of the weapon is not a defining trait of minotaurs. It doesn't call to their minotaurness. All it is, is a big sword.

Here's a hint, the only effect that does is Moar Damage. Does your +2 Strength and +2 Constitution already not encapsulate your bigness for you?

Goliaths, which are bigger, don't get oversized weapons either.

Quit whining.

As others have said, if I want to play a minotaur, I'll play a minotaur. If playing X non-standard race doesn't make sense for a campaign or happens to be too powerful compared to other PCs of X level, then it's up to the DM to say no, rather than game itself making lesser versions of that creature for PC usage that are still supposed to be the same creature but very much aren't.

But, again, oversized weapons don't define minotaurs. No one goes 'Oh, you can tell it's a minotaur by the large axe in its hand.' BS.

You can tell it's a minotaur, because it has a bull's head.

And this isn't a 4e thing either. I really loathed the "Nerra" and "Spikers" in the 3.x Planar Handbook because they were essentially runty slaads and runty bladelings for PC use because real slaadi and bladelings were "monsters" and obviously not for play in a campaign. Play a slaadi or play a bladeling and deal with and explore the thematic issues they bring up and the differences in inherent racial power as a DM that you'll need to handle. Don't gimp one or the other and act like the lucky PC is still getting to play an actual slaadi or actual bladeling.

Well... bladelings -do- have a PC right up in 4e.

But, the very fact you think that the lack of a big axe gimps a minotaur exposes that you think 'Minotaur' means 'big combat damage' when in fact, it means 'Dude with a bull's head.'

Always has.

Always will.

They preserved the defining minotaurness, while getting rid of a balance issue that actually did not impact the identity of the race.

Besides, and this is something you must remember.

Monsters don't use the normal weapon damage tables for PCs anyways--they use their own rules for damage dealing in their powers that have nothing to do with weapons. So it's even a moot point to say the monster minotaurs have 'oversized weapons' and therefore you can too. It doesn't even -make sense- given the game design.

 

[DracoSuave]

I've a somewhat different opinion...

The races in the back of the Monster Manual were specifically designed to be used by players, not DMs, regardless of what Mearls or anyone else says

Several of the monsters in the Monster Manual have racial traits and powers, not unlike the races presented in the Player’s Handbook. In general, these traits and powers are provided to help Dungeon Masters create nonplayer characters (NPCs). This information can also be used as guidelines for creating player character (PC) versions of these creatures, within reason. Note that these traits and powers are more in line with monster powers than with player character powers.
A player should use one of the following races to create a character only with the permission of the Dungeon Master. The DM should carefully consider which monster races, if any, to allow as PCs in his or her campaign.

I believe the DMG over you, sir.

Repeated for emphasis:

In general, these traits and powers are provided to help Dungeon Masters create nonplayer characters (NPCs).

If you refuse to believe the source material itself, then nothing anyone says to you will have any effect. Continuing to impress upon you the stone-cold fact written in that very book is an episode of futility.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Monsters don't use the normal weapon damage tables for PCs anyways--they use their own rules for damage dealing in their powers that have nothing to do with weapons. So it's even a moot point to say the monster minotaurs have 'oversized weapons' and therefore you can too. It doesn't even -make sense- given the game design.

Exactly. The actual root of the problem revealed.

 

[Snoweel]

Exactly. The actual root of the problem revealed.

What problem?

If NPC X does y amount of damage on a hit does it really matter how y was arrived at?

Do your PCs audit your NPCs' stat blocks?

The only problem is between your ears - your NPCs have to follow the rules even though you're the only person who'll ever notice.

Let it go mate. D&D isn't a simulation.

 

[Umbran]

The amount of antagonism in this thread is unacceptable.

Chill out, people. This isn't something worth getting mad about, or insulting other people over. People will be convinced by your reasoning, or not. And that's okay.

 

[ExploderWizard]

What problem?

If NPC X does y amount of damage on a hit does it really matter how y was arrived at?

Do your PCs audit your NPCs' stat blocks?

The only problem is between your ears - your NPCs have to follow the rules even though you're the only person who'll ever notice.

Let it go mate. D&D isn't a simulation.

A simulation of what? If I want detailed combat simulation then I have GURPS handy with more detail than D&D provides.

Wanting mechanics that follow some sort of logic or common sense isn't trying to simulate anything. An attempt at realism means that a large chunk of the world dissappears in a puff of smoke.

Logic and common sense do not need to try and simulate anything specific to be desired.

There are some who may not recognize these elements when they are missing and they tend to get upset when others point that out.

A failure to recognize a lack of common sense on your part does not constitute any problem with me.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

A simulation of what? If I want detailed combat simulation then I have GURPS handy with more detail than D&D provides.

Wanting mechanics that follow some sort of logic or common sense isn't trying to simulate anything. An attempt at realism means that a large chunk of the world dissappears in a puff of smoke.

Logic and common sense do not need to try and simulate anything specific to be desired.

There are some who may not recognize these elements when they are missing and they tend to get upset when others point that out.

A failure to recognize a lack of common sense on your part does not constitute any problem with me.

Why does it violate common sense that PCs get to use game rules that do not lead to broken results? Does it violate common sense that a game master that needs to create or control uses simpler rules for creating and controlling his "characters" then a player that only needs to create or control a single character?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Why does it violate common sense that PCs get to use game rules that do not lead to broken results? Does it violate common sense that a game master that needs to create or control uses simpler rules for creating and controlling his "characters" then a player that only needs to create or control a single character?

Common sense says that if creature X in the game world can do Y simply by virtue of being creature X then logically the formula is X=Y.

If X does not equal Y under certain conditions then those conditions should make sense within the framework of the game world. If they do not then there will be common sense issues.

"Broken" has no meaning within the framework of the milieu. Broken would thus need a translation that has meaning from within to avoid the logic errors.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

"Excuse me, Mr. Yes, you with the bull horns on the left, with the Fury-In-The-Slaughterhouse T-Shirt".
"Yeah? What do you want?"
"I happen to notice that you and your friends are wearing really big swords and axes. I don't think I could carry them. Why would this be?"
"Well, look at these muscles and at my hands! Why do you think?"
"So, you don't think it is some kind of racial ability?"
"Huh? Never thought of it. I mean, we're not born with these weapons... But we're are pretty large, eh?"
"Yup. But then... what's with the guy over there. His weapons seem to be smaller than yours."
"You mean Padrin? He just doesn't have the build for it. But it doesn't seem to matter much, because he's really brutal with it. Never seen a more fearsome warrior in my life."
"But you don't think he could not be a "real" Minotaur?"
"You think he's a Changling?"
"No, maybe just a ... Minitaur?"
"Well, you could ask him yourself that... Of course, I am not sure you'd like the answer. But that would be a creative yet also painful form of suicide..."
"Ahahaha. Nevermind then."

 

[Obryn]

Which makes about as much sense to me as arbitrary racial level limits. I just can't suspend disbelief to accept for instance two minotaurs both being minotaurs and of the exact same race, but with completely different abilities because one is a "monster" and the other is its gimpy little brother that's kosher and approved for PC use. As others have said, if I want to play a minotaur, I'll play a minotaur. If playing X non-standard race doesn't make sense for a campaign or happens to be too powerful compared to other PCs of X level, then it's up to the DM to say no, rather than game itself making lesser versions of that creature for PC usage that are still supposed to be the same creature but very much aren't.

I think some others have covered some similar ground, but I'd rather, as a DM, be able to say "Yes, but..." than "No."

One of the fundamental changes in 4e was that NPCs/Monsters and PCs are created differently within the system. It's a core element to 4e which some folks love and some folks hate. If you want your NPCs and PCs to be built with the same rules, 4e is not the game for it. A side-effect of this is that it's incoherent to build a PC using a monster as a baseline - which we're kinda running into here. (Unless I broke out the DMG2 Companion rules, which may or may not keep things interesting enough for a full-time character.)

So if a player wanted a minotaur, and there were no rules for it, I'd work with them on a character that hit on the essential features of minotaur-ness while remaining balanced in play. For 4e, this would be a new race. 3.5, otoh, kept the balance with level adjustments and racial hit dice, with occasional... mixed results *cough*

Spoiler

Yak-Folk

*cough*.

This is an inevitable side-effect of how PCs and NPCs work under 4e. IMO, it's handled very, very well and makes my job easy. It's not to everyone's tastes, is all.

-O