Revisionist game publishing

[Umbran]

So why have two vesions of the race?

Because DMs work with races differently than players do. 4e dropped the idea that the NPCs and PCs work by the same rules. NPCs don't need to be designed to start at first level, and to advance along with other PCs and not be over and underpowered with respect to them.

Gimped versions of races specifically designed for PC use just suck. If I want to play a minotaur then I want to play an actual minotaur.

Well, hold on a second. Take a look at the monster description of the minotaurs in the MM. There are three different critters there - a soldier, a controller, and a brute. None of them have PC class levels. None of them are listed as having the ability to use oversized weapons in their writeup.

So, already there are several "actual" minotaurs out there. Are the monsters listed without that ability somehow not "actual" minotaurs? They're fake, pseudo-minotaurs, or something?

 

[MrMyth]

So why have two vesions of the race? Gimped versions of races specifically designed for PC use just suck. If I want to play a minotaur then I want to play an actual minotaur. If the DM says no I'm fine with that decision and would rather play another race rather than play as a junior minotaur.

Because monsters have abilities that aren't appropriate for PCs. It is as simple as that.

In terms of why have an NPC race and then later a PC version - that, I think, is because they wanted some options there for building those NPCs (and letting PCs be built with them subject to DM approval), and at the time, they had not realized how strong Oversized was. They could have, admittedly, avoiding putting those entries in the back of the MM, and waited until they could fully design and test each race. I don't think that would have been a better situation, nor do I feel anyone is hurt by the presence of a minotaur race specifically designed for PC use.

 

[Rechan]

You have two versions of the minotaur for the same reason you have a PHB and a DMG.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Because monsters have abilities that aren't appropriate for PCs. It is as simple as that.

Which is perfectly fine as is the DM saying no.

If the DM feels that monster races are not appropriate then don't permit them.

If a race has an ability that is universal to all members of that race than a player playing a member of that race should have that ability.

 

[Snoweel]

If a race has an ability that is universal to all members of that race than a player playing a member of that race should have that ability.

The ability itself is an abstraction.

Not having it doesn't make the character (PC or NPC) any less of a minotaur.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

Because it isn't errata or revisionism. It's two separate write-ups with different intentions. The "oversized" minotaur was in the MM, with the explicit intention of being there for NPC creation, with PC use dependent on DM approval, since it wasn't intended to be balanced with other PC races. The Dragon minotaur (and the PHB3 one) are intended for PC use, and thus are balanced with other PC races.

I hate to do that, but.. this. The mistake here (if you can call that) was to include only the Dragon version and not also the MM version of the minotaur in the Charbuilder - but i already suspected that they wouldn´t add both.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The ability itself is an abstraction.

Not having it doesn't make the character (PC or NPC) any less of a minotaur.

Its not an abstraction. It is a deliberate omission for mechanical balance reasons.

Is a drow without darkvision any less of a drow?

I say yes.

 

[Umbran]

Its not an abstraction. It is a deliberate omission for mechanical balance reasons.

It is both. The original Minotaur writeup is an abstraction, for quick and dirty use by a DM to get him to the general theme quickly and easily. Some of that abstraction was eliminated when they mechanically balanced it for PC use.

Is a drow without darkvision any less of a drow?

I say yes.

Careful there. That logic has weaknesses. Is a human with only one leg less of a human?

 

[Mythtify]

4e monsters are a different breed thon in previous editions. There isn't a single goblin, bugbear, or Orc anymore. Instead, there are many versions of each type of creature to meet monster "roles". The material in the back of the monster manual was put there (I believe) as a "place holder" until they got around to actually designing full versions of the creatures meant to be used as "playable" races.

 

[ExploderWizard]

It is both. The original Minotaur writeup is an abstraction, for quick and dirty use by a DM to get him to the general theme quickly and easily. Some of that abstraction was eliminated when they mechanically balanced it for PC use.



Careful there. That logic has weaknesses. Is a human with only one leg less of a human?

Less of a human being? No.

At a disadvantage? Yes. There are reasons that you can take that as a disadvantage in GURPS and get bonus points to spend in other areas.

As to the original issue there is no coresponding benefit gained to offset the inability to use oversized weapons so the player does indeed play a lesser version of that race.