does the MM include PC race choices?

[77IM]

If you really want to blow your mind: Are any of the rules in Dragon Magazine
"legal?" If they're optional rules, then the races they publish don't count as stealth errata, just variants. If they're not optional rules, then you run into the unpleasant situation of players showing up at the game bearing rules that the DM has never even seen before, and might not approve of.

Personally, I never use the term "legal." It sounds silly to me, like the D&D Police are going to come arrest you if you play a bugbear, or like the Supreme Court has ruled that DMs must allow every item from Adventurer's Vault now matter how game-breaking. (Reading glasses are only level 2???) Instead, I tend to think in terms of RAW vs. House Rules, because the term RAW (Rules As Written) is much clearer to me.

-- 77IM

 

[filthgrinder]

I think the main problem here is that you are using the term "legal" as some universal truth, when it isn't. It isn't in real life either. What is "legal" in one country is illegal in another. That even goes to what is legal in one state, is illegal in another. Hell, something can be illegal federally, but legal locally. In California, medical marijuna is legal, but yet it is against federal law. So medical marijuna dispensories are commonly raided by federal agents. Interesting stuff.

However, back to D&D. I think when someone says "legal", they usually either outright state the context, or imply it. So, they'll either state legal RAW ("rules as written") or RPGA legal.

RAW the stats in the MM can be used for PCs. RPGA, nope.

As for whether the minotaur rules in the MM or from DDI is RAW, well, thats really up to you.

A couple of things to keep in mind. D&D rules aren't static mandates. They are actually meant to be taken and played with and judacated not by a computer but by actual people. Also, as for what people on forums say, who cares? Don't listen to forum people. (present post included).

So is a DM fudging a die roll (for or against the players), is that legal?

 

[Jhaelen]

To answer the OPs question: "Does the MM include PC race choices?"

Generally: of course not! The MM includes NPC race choices.

The MM section on Racial Traits on page 276 advises caution regarding allowing any of the provided racial traits for player characters. Being a careful DM I wouldn't allow any of them as written.

The way the paragraph is written is especially interesting since the general consensus in 4E is to "say yes". Obviously, the developers have been aware of the brokenness of the racial traits - if used for PCs.

I see this section as nothing more than an attempt to appease the 4E critics clamouring that 4E is 'incomplete' because it doesn't have Gnomes as a player race...

Actually, I've been surprised they didn't include some guidelines to recreate the 3E classes that have been missing from the 4E PHB. Then again, they did have an article series on their site providing them.

As for the discussion about 'legality' - unless you're dealing with RPGA stuff it's completely meaningless. Just like the 'everything is Core' statement it doesn't matter at all if you're playing in a 'normal' group. In a 'normal' group the DM has the last word about what is allowed and what isn't.

 

[Runestar]

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.

I have never really understood this stance.

If I were to ask a question on the rules of dnd, I would naturally expect it to be answered or discussed in accordance with the RAW (or at least, individual interpretations of what RAW may entail if it proves to be ambiguous). Any replies should at least make an effort to reference dnd mechanics, and not be based off any houserules unless the question explicitly calls out for such provisions (eg: I don't like the way item creation is handed in 3e. Does anyone have a homebrew version they can share?).

Conversely, if I were to ask a question on how a particular aspect of item creation was to be handled in 3e, the last thing I would want is how you executed an item creation variant in your own game. I really couldn't care less if someone had ruled that crafting a particular item took only a fraction of the time it was supposed to take, as I don't see what impact that could have in my game, especially since I am likely not implementing said houserule.

One concession I would make is if it accompanies the reply along the line of "According to the rules, you would have to do XXX, but I think that it is problematic because of so-and-so reason, so I would recommend that you implement this-and-that, or at least keep my suggestion in mind".

Can anyone explain to me the significance of said rule for Enworld? Or am I misinterpreting its context? If it indeed is a houserule, why can't/shouldn't I call a spade a spade?

 

[MindWanderer]

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.

You mean monster, not monsters, I think. The minotaur took a huge hit, but the warforged from Dragon is a lot more powerful, and the gnoll is a bit more powerful (due to more options).

 

[Mistwell]

"This information can also be used as guidelines for creating player character (PC) versions of these creatures, within reason. "

guidelines /= rules.

 

[Dinkeldog]

In general, there are two ways to read the rules--the RAW (Rules as Written) and the RAI (Rules as Intended). One is taking into account only the letter of the law. The other concentrates on the spirit of the law. Both are acceptable here. It is not inappropriate to say that something happens by the RAW, but since we're all interpreting the game for ourselves at our own tables, the RAI are just as valid. It is inappropriate to sneer at other people that their game is inferior to someone else's because they're working off of a specific view of the RAI. If someone does that, let us know. Frequently we won't make overt statements, but that person will have earned a threadban and won't be able to post any more on that topic.

This does not take into account things like what is legal for play in sanctioned campaigns. For that, check out the campaign rules, as there are frequently small modifications.


For my games, anyone that wants a MM race will need to talk to me. Some will be acceptable (gnomes, in particular, play a large role in my campaign world) while others will not.

 

[evilbob]

Thanks again for the great replies.

So, I think you can replace "legal" with "RAW" in my above statements and it's pretty much the same question: do you consider PCs playing MM races RAW? And, in this very thread, we have answers ranging from "yes" to "of course not." Setting aside the RPGA entanglements that automatically create another set of rules (which, I think we all agree, it is a little more cut-and-dry that RPGA rules do not allow MM races) and even setting aside the "RAI" point that Dinkeldog brought up (although also clearly worth exploring), we still have the base problem that the wording of those two paragraphs in the MM lead perfectly reasonable people to two perfectly reasonable - but opposite - conclusions. ...So is the answer that we all agree to disagree? I have no idea.

If you really want to blow your mind: Are any of the rules in Dragon Magazine "legal?"

I asked that once too, and was told quite quickly that "everything is core." I know I sure didn't count Dragon as core in 3.5, and I also know I sure don't agree with having to pay for updates to books I've bought, but clearly WotC did not consult me. So the answer on this forum anyway is "yes." How that plays into the above question is still a mystery.

Runestar: Your question is for another thread, but the quick answer is that it's a way people use to insult each other. For example, if someone posted a rules clarification and someone else said "no, that's some houserule, the real rule is X" - well, it can get a lot snippier than that, but the point is that calling someone's rule call a houserule can and has been used as a thinly veiled insult. It happens often enough that there's a rule about it.

Mistwell: Actually, "guideline" and "rule" are synonyms. Whether or not that carries weight either way in this discussion I have no idea, but surely that makes sense as to why it's confusing? Technically I would call all of the PHB, DMG, and MM "guidelines." But it's really just semantics.

 

[Mistwell]

Mistwell: Actually, "guideline" and "rule" are synonyms. Whether or not that carries weight either way in this discussion I have no idea, but surely that makes sense as to why it's confusing? Technically I would call all of the PHB, DMG, and MM "guidelines." But it's really just semantics.

I disagree. A guideline is not a rule. It's guidance that can help form a rule, a skeleton outline that needs to be filled in and changed to make it work as a rule, but it isn't intended as the rule itself. I do not know of anywhere that WOTC uses the term "guideline" instead of "rule" where the words could be interchanged. WOTC uses the word "rule" all the time - what makes you think they are suddenly switching to "guideline" but mean rule?

I do not find that confusing at all. If I tell you "here are some guidelines to do this" it means something different and less strict and firm than "here are the rules for how to do this". Guidelines implies merely incomplete advice that is purely optional in nature, while rules implies a complete firm holdings that must be followed.

Also, the paragraph says they can be used as guidelines for "creating player character (PC) versions of these creatures, within reason. " A version is a variation, and not an identical thing.

To me, the clear intent is that these races be used as advice on creating a differing version for use by players in some circumstances, and Dragon listed one of those versions using the guidelines.

 

[77IM]

Here's a way to think about the issue that avoids semantics.

Portions of the rules are meant to be fully-specified. For example, can a halfling rogue wield a longsword? The answer is completely within the PHB: Yes, provided he is wielding it in two hands. He won't get the +3 proficiency bonus to attack, though, unless he takes Weapon Proficiency (longsword). And, he can't use it to execute rogue exploits, or add Sneak Attack dice to the damage with it, since longswords are heavy blades and those rogue features require light blades. These answers require combining rules from several areas of the book and understanding how those rules interact, but there's no DM discretion required. Obviously the DM could house-rule that longswords count as light blades or something, but that's clearly a house rule; the rules don't specifically call for DM adjudication and adjustment of weapon-wielding, they spell out what happens.

Portions of the rules are meant to require DM judgment. For example, can a halfling rogue use Acrobatics to somersault between the giant's legs and appear on the other side? The rules for acrobatic stunts are deliberately open-ended. There's no conclusive way to say whether somersaulting past a monster is "legal," because the question is unanswerable in the absence of a DM, because the rules specifically say that the DM decides.

The MM races are like that. The rules say that you should use them for creating NPCs; that part is fully-specified. But the question of whether you can use them for creating PCs is specifically left up to the DM. So it's impossible to say whether it's legal or not, unless your DM has already decided, and then the answer only applies to your particular game table. So if someone tells you "Your minotaur PC is not legal," you can say, "It's legal because my DM permits it, as allowed by the MM."

-- 77IM