Revisionist game publishing

[Asmor]

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.

The vast majority of those races are ones which are popular choices for PCs but not represented in the RAW. Gnomes, Warforged, Changelings, Goblins, Kobolds, Minotaur, Drow, etc.

It's a bit shady/underhanded. It's like Mike Mearls is sitting at one side of the table, and the players of all those races are sitting on the other side. Mike says, "Look, I'm sorry, but we just can't support all those races right out of the gates. You're just going to have to wait. Now I'm going to set this book down on the table, which has racial writeups, but they're not meant for you guys, and then I'm going to turn my back. And hey, if the book should mysteriously disappear, well, I guess we'll never know what happened." And then he winks.

The idea that they're there for DMs to make NPCs is either misguided or a holdover from 3rd edition. If you are taking a PC race and adding PC levels to that PC race to make an NPC for 4th edition, you are doing it wrong. Even the DMG explicitly tells you the correct way to make "classed" monsters-- by using the class templates on non-classes monsters. And frankly, even that is stupid in my opinion, since if you want to make a monster with a "class" you just say it is that class.

But I digress.

Yes, the races in the back of the monster manual are meant for players, not DMs. The reason they've got all of those silly warnings is because they may not be balanced, they are not fully developed (e.g. they lack feats), and it's a lot easier for a DM with misgivings to say no to something from the MM which specifically says it's not for players than it is for him to say no to, say, a Goliath from PHB2. In other words, the MM races are basically "betas," in the software sense of the word.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Also, it's a really poor idea to start using the NPC versions of the races in the MM as the baseline for what power level is 'proper'. Some are weaker than the PHB races, and some (namely, those with Oversized) are stronger. They simply did not go through the same level of work that the PHB races did, and that is why they have the big disclaimer about needing DM approval.

Complaining that the balanced version of the race is worse than the interim measure just doesn't carry any weight.

Its not about comparing versions at all. Either version works just fine as long as the racial traits are consistent across minotaurs in general. Mini-taurs only exist when NPC/Monster minotaurs have natural racial traits that a PC minotaur doesn't.

 

[Rechan]

The idea that they're there for DMs to make NPCs is either misguided or a holdover from 3rd edition. If you are taking a PC race and adding PC levels to that PC race to make an NPC for 4th edition, you are doing it wrong.

And I think you're doing it wrong.

Open up your MM and go to the various monster entries for Dwarf, and Eladrin, and Elf, and Halfling. Do you know what you'll see?

You'll see that each of those NPCs has the race's racial powers. Elves have wild step and elven accuracy. Halflings have Second Chance. Dwarves are pushed around less. Eladrin can teleport.

These aren't NPCs with class levels. They are NPCs - but with racial abilities[/].

The stuff in the back of the MM are the racial abilities for those monsters. If you want to make more goblins, you give said goblins the Goblin Tactics racial, etc etc.

They are essentially racial templates.

 

[Xris Robin]

Its not about comparing versions at all. Either version works just fine as long as the racial traits are consistent across minotaurs in general. Mini-taurs only exist when NPC/Monster minotaurs have natural racial traits that a PC minotaur doesn't.

But monster minotaurs don't HAVE oversized weapons.

 

[tomBitonti]

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?

Umm, false analogy is a fallacy.

A member of a class which does not have one of the defining features of the class is not a member of the class.

The issue is how fundamental is the feature in question:

If a creature is envisioned which splices characteristics of a person (say, everything from the torso up) with another creature (say a horse), to give us a centaur, is that centaur a person?

 

[Dannager]

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.

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.

Most DMs are really uninterested in wasting time dealing with the "differences in inherent racial power" in an effort to make their campaign playable. It's a lot of unnecessary work when you can instead simply use the solution WotC offers. For most people, that's ideal. For the handful who are unable to suspend disbelief to the extent necessary to still enjoy the game, it's clearly less than ideal. And that's what other games are for.

 

[The Little Raven]

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.

So, screw what the book explicitly says or what the designers and developers say, some random dude on the internet knows better, eh?

It's a bit shady/underhanded.

Selling a lemon is shady. Being explicit about your intentions for particular elements of the game is not. Far from it. It's an explicit DM tool in an explicit DM book.

The idea that they're there for DMs to make NPCs is either misguided or a holdover from 3rd edition.

No, the idea that they're there for DMs to make NPCs follows directly from the DMG section on making NPCs.

If you are taking a PC race and adding PC levels to that PC race to make an NPC for 4th edition, you are doing it wrong. Even the DMG explicitly tells you the correct way to make "classed" monsters-- by using the class templates on non-classes monsters.

Maybe you should actually read the DMG's section on generating NPCs (pages 186-188), since it's apparent from your post that you haven't.

Yes, the races in the back of the monster manual are meant for players, not DMs.

Again, when it comes to what the book explicitly says and developer/design comments versus a random forumite who can't even be bothered to actually read the material, you know where I stand.

The reason they've got all of those silly warnings is because they may not be balanced, they are not fully developed (e.g. they lack feats), and it's a lot easier for a DM with misgivings to say no to something from the MM which specifically says it's not for players than it is for him to say no to, say, a Goliath from PHB2.

I guess noone ever taught you that it's rude to ignore people's explicit statements about intention and assign them intentions based on your own viewpoint, eh? Aside from just being rude, I'm pretty sure it's against the forum rules as well.

 

[The Little Raven]

A member of a class which does not have one of the defining features of the class is not a member of the class.

The fallacy is that "Oversized" is a defining feature of the minotaur race when, in fact, not a single minotaur monster writeup uses oversized weapons, but they all have the racial charge ability. People are taking a molehill and claiming its the most important mountain in the entire mountain range, when in fact, it's just a molehill.

 

[Inyssius]

By the way, oversized isn't gone from 4e. Bugbears still have it in the character builder.

Because they're ripped straight from the Monster Manual, just like the minotaur would have been if an actual PC version hadn't been made available before the Character Builder even came out.

 

[Snoweel]

These aren't NPCs with class levels. They are NPCs - but with racial abilities[/].

The stuff in the back of the MM are the racial abilities for those monsters. If you want to make more goblins, you give said goblins the Goblin Tactics racial, etc etc.

They are essentially racial templates.

True.

Want to make a new type of goblin to fill a certain role/throw something new at jaded goblin-hunters?

Follow the NPC creation rules (DMG pp. 186-188) and make sure you add these racial powers (DMG pp. 276-279) and it'll still fit feel like a goblin to your PCs.

NPCs are balanced against a challenge:reward ratio. PCs are balanced against each other.