does the MM include PC race choices?

[evilbob]

I have been told multiple times in this forum that it does not. Specifically, for example: "the MM is meant for NPCs not PCs as stated in the MM entry," "there isn't a PC race 'minotaur' in the MM there is an NPC race," "these [races] were not put there for PC's to be able to use to make characters," and "the Monster Manual is not a player resource."

Here is the text at the beginning of the "racial traits" chapter:

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 only use one of the following races to
create a character 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 took the fact that the MM says "This information can also be used as guidelines for creating player character (PC) versions of these creatures" along with the fact that the character builder - beta, mind you - allows for these choices as well to mean that this was a viable source choice for creating PCs. Others insist that this information is only to be used to make NPCs.

I am simply wondering what it is that I am missing. I don't really read the gleemax forums so perhaps there was another update that I have missed? Please enlighten me.

 

[Thanee]

Not entirely sure what the actual question is... but yes, the racial traits are, of course, available as PC races (as long as the DM approves); it says so right there. They are not available by default, but most DMs would surely allow them in most cases (unless they are completely inappropriate for the campaign).

Bye
Thanee

 

[Fundin Strongarm]

The Character Builder will use the latest rules from sources that WotC publishes, updated monthly (more or less). The current beta version was released before the Dragon article on Minotaurs came out. The final version of the Character Builder will include the Dragon article version.

All of this only matters to people who are playing within the RPGA/LFR rules. There, only player resources are allowed for creating PCs. The MM isn't a player resource. Further the MM quite clearly states that it is only a guideline for racial powers and the DM needs to carefully consider allowing them in his/her game and that they need DM approval. (As Thanee says, they are not the default rules.)

The "DM" (in the form of WotC) of the LFR has NOT given their approval. A DM in a home game can certainly do so.

Characters created for LFR using the Character Builder must comply with the latest CCG.

 

[77IM]

You're not missing anything. A lot of players missed the two paragraphs of "use at your own risk" text which you quoted. Consequently, they got really upset when articles in Dragon magazine present monsters as PC races using slightly different (and weaker) stats than what is in the Monster Manual. A popular counter-argument arose, that those racial stats in the MM were for NPCs only, but that is only half-correct.

The D&D rules aren't an immutable law of nature to be analyzed and understood, like gravity. They are a set of guidelines for having fun, for you to use however you want. Some people, for various perfectly fine reasons, don't want to have to make decisions like "are oversized weapons balanced?" They'd prefer to have the rules be very clear and set in stone, and so they don't do as well with wishy-washy language like "in general," "guidelines," "within reason," and "carefully consider."

I sound like I'm really knocking a certain game play preference, but I don't mean to. The MM should have used clearer language. For example, "These racial stats are for use by the DM when creating NPCs. As a house rule, the DM may allow a player to create a PC using one of these races, but should carefully consider doing so, as some of these racial powers may not be balanced for player characters. Also, be aware that official versions of these races for use as PCs may be published in a future product."

-- 77IM

 

[evilbob]

Thanks for the replies.

So, am I to understand that per the RPGA/LFR rules, the MM is not allowed for creating PC races, but otherwise, it is? And I know the character builder is supposed to allow you to create "legal" or "homebrew" versions of characters; will MM race characters automatically be considered "homebrew," or is there some step delineating between legal and RPGA/LFR legal? If that is the case, how do we keep track between those two standards? And how can we keep people on the forum from getting upset/snippy/confused when they are talking about one brand of "legal" verses another, or insulting each other by saying that what someone is talking about is "homebrew" and would not be "legal"?

And since this is an obviously related question, is there an official word from WotC that they will, in fact, be giving updates to the MM through Dragon magazine, which you have to pay for, and not through normal errata which is free? In other words, do you have to pay to get updates? I have seen a quote from a WotC staff member stating that the most recent publications are intended to update others, but how would you know unless you were a paid subscriber? Or will update information also be available online somewhere for free? And if so, why is it not included in the errata?


Does it seem reasonable that this is confusing? On one hand, we have two versions of certain races, such as the minotaur. The most recent version, which is apparently intended to update the other, is behind a paid service. So there's a question there on which one is "legal." Then we have some folks saying that you can't use a minotaur to be "legal" regardless because it's not legal in some standard common gaming rules that apparently exist somewhere outside of the core books. And some folks even seem to be advocating that the MM minotaur is not actually being replaced by the Dragon article, but that in fact the Dragon article is what is "legal" and the MM is simply only for NPCs, despite the words preceding that information in the MM itself.

Don't get me wrong: I understand that as a DM and a player I can use whatever, and that's fine and great. Personally, this is easy to accept, just like anything else about 4.0 that I want to use for my own games. But I am really getting frustrated by folks on the forum telling me down their noses that something isn't "legal" and I am talking about a "homebrew" choice and all that. What version of "legal" are we talking about? Are there even multiple versions? And if not, why are we arguing about what's legal and what isn't?

 

[MarkB]

Thanks for the replies.

So, am I to understand that per the RPGA/LFR rules, the MM is not allowed for creating PC races, but otherwise, it is?

A more accurate way of putting it would be "Per the RPGA/LFR rules, the MM is not a player resource, full stop. If you're not playing LFR, the monster races in the MM are available if your DM says they are. As the text you quoted from the MM states, it's up to your DM if he wants to allow their use.

And since this is an obviously related question, is there an official word from WotC that they will, in fact, be giving updates to the MM through Dragon magazine, which you have to pay for, and not through normal errata which is free? In other words, do you have to pay to get updates? I have seen a quote from a WotC staff member stating that the most recent publications are intended to update others, but how would you know unless you were a paid subscriber? Or will update information also be available online somewhere for free? And if so, why is it not included in the errata?

The monster race writeups in the MM are, as stated, primarily used for the creation of NPCs. Dragon Magazine writeups of those same monsters as PC races are not updates of the MM, because their intended use is different.

Dragon magazine articles are officially part of the core rules once compiled, so monster races written up there are available for use as PCs by default, though of course individual DMs may veto them.

Does it seem reasonable that this is confusing? On one hand, we have two versions of certain races, such as the minotaur. The most recent version, which is apparently intended to update the other, is behind a paid service. So there's a question there on which one is "legal." Then we have some folks saying that you can't use a minotaur to be "legal" regardless because it's not legal in some standard common gaming rules that apparently exist somewhere outside of the core books. And some folks even seem to be advocating that the MM minotaur is not actually being replaced by the Dragon article, but that in fact the Dragon article is what is "legal" and the MM is simply only for NPCs, despite the words preceding that information in the MM itself.

It is not "despite" the words in the MM, it is because of them. The MM specifically says that those race writeups are not intended for PC use, and anyone wishing to put them to that use should seek DM permission first.

Don't get me wrong: I understand that as a DM and a player I can use whatever, and that's fine and great. Personally, this is easy to accept, just like anything else about 4.0 that I want to use for my own games. But I am really getting frustrated by folks on the forum telling me down their noses that something isn't "legal" and I am talking about a "homebrew" choice and all that. What version of "legal" are we talking about? Are there even multiple versions? And if not, why are we arguing about what's legal and what isn't?

The only meaningful definition of "legal" here is as applied to RPGA Living games. Anywhere else, you could play a buck-toothed green dragon with butterfly wings for all anyone cares.

 

[Kordeth]

Thanks for the replies.

So, am I to understand that per the RPGA/LFR rules, the MM is not allowed for creating PC races, but otherwise, it is? And I know the character builder is supposed to allow you to create "legal" or "homebrew" versions of characters; will MM race characters automatically be considered "homebrew," or is there some step delineating between legal and RPGA/LFR legal? If that is the case, how do we keep track between those two standards? And how can we keep people on the forum from getting upset/snippy/confused when they are talking about one brand of "legal" verses another, or insulting each other by saying that what someone is talking about is "homebrew" and would not be "legal"?

The RPGA has additional restrictions on what can and cannot be played in RPGA games, which has little or nothing to do with what's "legal" in the sense of "official rules from D&D rulebooks." Basically, the RPGA has universally applied the "DM's discretion" part about using the racial write-ups in the MM for PC races and said "no."

And since this is an obviously related question, is there an official word from WotC that they will, in fact, be giving updates to the MM through Dragon magazine, which you have to pay for, and not through normal errata which is free? In other words, do you have to pay to get updates? I have seen a quote from a WotC staff member stating that the most recent publications are intended to update others, but how would you know unless you were a paid subscriber? Or will update information also be available online somewhere for free? And if so, why is it not included in the errata?

Because Dragon articles about monstrous PC races are not errata. The racial write-ups in the MM are primarily for NPCs, and they're written with the assumption that that's how they'll be used. They can be used for PCs if you really want to, but it's not what they're designed for. PCs and NPCs follow different rules in 4E, and an article detailing PC-appropriate stats for a monster race is no more "errata for the MM" than the tempest fighter in Martial Power is errata for the fighter class.

Does it seem reasonable that this is confusing? On one hand, we have two versions of certain races, such as the minotaur. The most recent version, which is apparently intended to update the other, is behind a paid service. So there's a question there on which one is "legal." Then we have some folks saying that you can't use a minotaur to be "legal" regardless because it's not legal in some standard common gaming rules that apparently exist somewhere outside of the core books. And some folks even seem to be advocating that the MM minotaur is not actually being replaced by the Dragon article, but that in fact the Dragon article is what is "legal" and the MM is simply only for NPCs, despite the words preceding that information in the MM itself.

Don't get hung up so much on the definition of what's "legal." New products add new options, or expand old ones--they'd be pretty lousy new products if they didn't. If you have access to the Dragon magazine content, it will probably make for a better monster PC build--just like if you have Martial Power, it will probably make a better two-weapon fighter. That doesn't mean a two-weapon fighter built without MP is illegal, it just means you're making due with the best you have access to.

Don't get me wrong: I understand that as a DM and a player I can use whatever, and that's fine and great. Personally, this is easy to accept, just like anything else about 4.0 that I want to use for my own games. But I am really getting frustrated by folks on the forum telling me down their noses that something isn't "legal" and I am talking about a "homebrew" choice and all that. What version of "legal" are we talking about? Are there even multiple versions? And if not, why are we arguing about what's legal and what isn't?

Frankly, people like that are being rude and unhelpful and are best ignored. In fact, dismissing people's arguments by saying "oh, you can play that way if you want, but it would be a house rule" is against ENWorld's code of conduct--so I wouldn't bother worrying about them too much.

 

[77IM]

But I am really getting frustrated by folks on the forum telling me down their noses that something isn't "legal" and I am talking about a "homebrew" choice and all that.

This sometimes bugs me too, but then I remind myself that people are just trying to be helpful.

There's a lot of value in having a shared, common set of rules that we can all agree on; it's extremely useful for setting expectations and settling disputes. So when discussing something rules-related, the most helpful thing is to make sure everyone understands the common rules. When someone says, "that's not legal," they are just trying to point out that it's a house rule, not part of the common rules.

(And in this particular case, using the MM races for PCs is a house rule. That's why it requires special DM permission, while playing an eladrin or dwarf does not. I think a lot of confusion could have been avoided if Wizards had simply used the words "house rule" in reference to using those races for PCs.)

What version of "legal" are we talking about? Are there even multiple versions?

Two kinds: What's generally legal in the standard, common rules set, (the Rules As Written, or RAW) and what's legal at your table according to your DM. Any rules discussion should clearly distinguish which they are talking about.

It's usually most helpful to establish what's legal by the standard, core rules (which we all have in common) before moving on to discussing your DM's house rules and what effect they will have on game play. Many debates drag on because one side is trying to explain what the RAW says, and the other side is trying to explain why their particular house rule is a good idea, so they talk past each other...

In short, there's nothing wrong with house rules, but it's useful to identify them as such.

-- 77IM

 

[evilbob]

Thanks for the additional replies, although I'm afraid most of them illustrate nicely why this is so confusing. To be honest, I am now more confused.

Perhaps this is a better way to ask this question: does the MM include non-houserule PC race choices? Or to put it another way: do you believe the race choices in the MM are houserule-only, or do they count as "legal" - but not "RPGA legal", as we know they are not that - races?

Again, I am seeing two different definitions of "legal" here: "common(?) legal" and "RPGA legal," so that's already getting bad. And frankly, I have to go back to my original thought, which is that the quote: "This information can also be used as guidelines for creating player character (PC) versions of these creatures" means that creating PC versions of these races is not a house rule but a completely viable choice that is totally "legal" in every since of the word. (Except when you mean "RPGA legal," because that's different. Obviously. ) AND if this is the case, then it leads me right back to the question of why would the Dragon article (that requires a fee) stealth-update a "legal" PC race choice, and there not be an errata (for free) available online?

 

[abyssaldeath]

Thanks for the additional replies, although I'm afraid most of them illustrate nicely why this is so confusing. To be honest, I am now more confused.

Perhaps this is a better way to ask this question: does the MM include non-houserule PC race choices? Or to put it another way: do you believe the race choices in the MM are houserule-only, or do they count as "legal" - but not "RPGA legal", as we know they are not that - races?

Again, I am seeing two different definitions of "legal" here: "common(?) legal" and "RPGA legal," so that's already getting bad. And frankly, I have to go back to my original thought, which is that the quote: "This information can also be used as guidelines for creating player character (PC) versions of these creatures" means that creating PC versions of these races is not a house rule but a completely viable choice that is totally "legal" in every since of the word. (Except when you mean "RPGA legal," because that's different. Obviously. ) AND if this is the case, then it leads me right back to the question of why would the Dragon article (that requires a fee) stealth-update a "legal" PC race choice, and there not be an errata (for free) available online?

The Racial Traits at the back of the MM are "legal" or a better term would be "official". They just may or may not be balanced for PC use. Their primary purpose was to give DM's the ability to make NPC's from these races easier. Since a DM using the racial traits will balance the NPC's themselves using the guidelines in the DMG the developers didn't have to worry to much about creating balanced stats. That is why they are to be used for PC's with DM approval. Balance!

The Dragon articles are a complete PC write up with feats. They are not updates because the MM racial traits are still appropriate for NPC use.