Word of Mearls: Official Player races will not get Oversized Weapons. Forked Thread
- Thread starter frankthedm
- Start date
Lonely Tylenol
First Post
I'm of two minds on this one.
First, balance! yay!
Second, isn't the problem here exactly what we had been promised wouldn't happen in 4th edition: something comes out that has a synergy with existing rules that breaks stuff? The Oversized ability was in the MM, with the strong implication (behind the "carefully consider" language) that it was to be used for player characters...because if you're making a monster, don't you decide its damage using the rules on page 185 of the DMG? That observation seems to make the question of the size of a minotaur's axe a flavour question rather than a mechanics question, and makes the Oversized ability apply only to characters that don't get their damage figured for them based on their level and role...i.e. Player Characters.
Now, given that the Oversized ability was in the core books from day 1, it comes as something of a surprise to me that the very first splatbook to be released contains something (the Brutal property) that breaks this ability. This seems to me to be a problem with the design of Brutal, rather than a problem with Oversized, given that it comes in a later book than Oversized. Now, perhaps Oversized is broken on its own merits (it's essentially +1 to weapon damage rolls), but that's another question entirely.
I get the impression that "no oversized weapons for PCs" is something of a hasty patch applied in retrospect after they noticed that they had broken something so early in this edition. And so I don't like it as a position. A better position would be "we ought to very carefully make sure we don't break anything every time we release a new book." At the time, having released 1 new book, they had a 100% rate of failure with respect to that position. Not that I don't like the book, and it's really a minor issue; it's just that I look at this sort of thing and wonder whether it's the beginning of a trend.
First, balance! yay!
Second, isn't the problem here exactly what we had been promised wouldn't happen in 4th edition: something comes out that has a synergy with existing rules that breaks stuff? The Oversized ability was in the MM, with the strong implication (behind the "carefully consider" language) that it was to be used for player characters...because if you're making a monster, don't you decide its damage using the rules on page 185 of the DMG? That observation seems to make the question of the size of a minotaur's axe a flavour question rather than a mechanics question, and makes the Oversized ability apply only to characters that don't get their damage figured for them based on their level and role...i.e. Player Characters.
Now, given that the Oversized ability was in the core books from day 1, it comes as something of a surprise to me that the very first splatbook to be released contains something (the Brutal property) that breaks this ability. This seems to me to be a problem with the design of Brutal, rather than a problem with Oversized, given that it comes in a later book than Oversized. Now, perhaps Oversized is broken on its own merits (it's essentially +1 to weapon damage rolls), but that's another question entirely.
I get the impression that "no oversized weapons for PCs" is something of a hasty patch applied in retrospect after they noticed that they had broken something so early in this edition. And so I don't like it as a position. A better position would be "we ought to very carefully make sure we don't break anything every time we release a new book." At the time, having released 1 new book, they had a 100% rate of failure with respect to that position. Not that I don't like the book, and it's really a minor issue; it's just that I look at this sort of thing and wonder whether it's the beginning of a trend.
Last edited:
SableWyvern
Hero
Bugbear Dagger: Military, +3 Prof, 1d6, Light Blade, Off-hand, 2lbs, 10gp.
Savage Bugbear Dagger: Superior, +3 prof, 1d8, Light Blade, 2lbs, 25gp.
Irritation ended (although, they wouldn't apply for Rogue Weapon Talent, so if you're after a bugbear rogue, you lose out there).
James McMurray
First Post
I'm 99%+ certain that they never even thought to playtest weapon properties with anything but PHB and Dragon-only characters fighting against MM monsters (likely in Dungeon Magazine encounters).
This makes sense to me. Just like how they compensate the halfling size restraint on two-handed weapons... only opposite-like.
DracoSuave
First Post
And why would they, seeing as they didn't intend the MM stuff for player characters?
'You never tested how the acid in these pickles react when you stick them in milk.'
'That's because we never intended anyone to stick them in milk.'
'Well it curdles. You should fix that.'
'We did. By not intending pickles and milk being mixed.'
'It's broken.'
'We knew that without testing. Why are you mixing pickles and milk?'
'Just sayin you should have tested that.'
Not if you are using the NPC rules on DMG pages 187-188, which is what the MM Race write-ups are specifically for.
Now, I do see what you are saying, and would have been happy with Oversized never having existed at all - but they do have a strong argument for considering the MM Race write-ups to not be intended for PCs, and thus have various issues when they are. The MM is very clear on that.
Personally, my actual issue is with the weapon system itself, how the dice 'scale', and how this overly penalizes small characters and overly rewards large weapons. Removing Oversized from PC hands mitigates the issue, but I do see it as one of the few big weak points of 4E in general.
DracoSuave
First Post
They never intended that MM races be used as balanced player characters. You know this, because at the beginning of the MM Race section it says, explicitly, that they are not intended nor tested as player character races. To accuse them of 'breaking' something they admit from day one is not balanced PC country is unfair, seeing as they admitted it in the very initial text.
The failure here is in assuming that those stats were obviously meant for PCs when there is text that blatantly contradicts that assumption.
I can't understand how that isn't clear.
The reason it isn't clear is because of two different ways of reading the opening blurb:
1) Blah blah PC blah blah.
see it says PC, its written like PC races, its obviously meant for PC's, they're just bare bones because there is no feat support. Why would you read the opening blurb anyway
2)WE HAVEn't TESTED THESE. YOU SHOULDn't MAKE PC CHARACTERS WITH THESE. *WINK*WINK*
obviously if you read between the lines, these are meant for PC's to be played, they just say all that opening stuff for liability issues, like the "NO DIVING" signs at kiddie pools.
Yeah, its just a case of WoTC taking back a lollipop that was never ours anyways, its hard for people who were holding it to let go.
Similar Threads
