# Revisionist game publishing



## blargney the second (Dec 7, 2009)

I was mucking about with a friend's copy of the character builder recently.  I made the minotaur fighter I've been playing since 4e began to plan out his next level.  I'm not a DDI subscriber, so I was dismayed to discover that minotaurs lost oversized somewhere along the line in a Dragon magazine.  Honesty had a Pyrrhic victory over powergaming and I told my DM about it today to my detriment.

We haven't been using Dragon magazine as a source for player options, but we have bought the printed books and kept an eye on errata.  If this change was so important that it supersedes the previous printing of the race, why was it buried in a different product that you have to purchase, rather than freely available in errata?

I'm not a big fan of revisionism at the moment.
-blarg


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 7, 2009)

Were this to happen to me- assuming it wasn't a typo/omission- I'd try to assert that the one with the different mechanics was a separate subspecies.


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 7, 2009)

blargney the second said:


> If this change was so important that it supersedes the previous printing of the race, why was it buried in a different product that you have to purchase, rather than freely available in errata?




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.


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 7, 2009)

The Little Raven said:


> 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.






			
				mearls said:
			
		

> The Monster Manual racial descriptions were never intended to be the canonical mechanics for those races. As the MM itself states, those stats are for DMs to create NPCs. You can use them as PCs, but a DM allows them at his own peril.
> 
> Thus, you'll see things like giving monsters oversized weapons and not giving them to official PC races. As others have pointed out, oversized weapons in PC hands are simply too good. It makes those races strictly better with weapons. If a PC race somehow gets it, expect it to be errata'd as soon as I see it.




d-d-4th-edition-rules/244316-word-mearls-official-player-races-will-not-get-oversized-weapons


----------



## Dragonbait (Dec 7, 2009)

My Warforged fighter was affected by revisionis. He used to be able to take 10s with Death Saves and now he can't. No more undying juggernaut. poo.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 7, 2009)

The Little Raven said:


> 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.





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.


----------



## amysrevenge (Dec 7, 2009)

Dragonbait said:


> My Warforged fighter was affected by revisionis. He used to be able to take 10s with Death Saves and now he can't. No more undying juggernaut. poo.




?

*Warforged Resilience:* You have a +2 racial bonus to saving throws against ongoing damage.  Also, when you make a death saving throw, you can take the better result of your die roll or 10.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 7, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> 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.



Kudos for the honesty.  Though I expect most DMs would assume that their players would come clean about something like this if they found out.

There may be two versions of the race _for DMs_, but for PCs there is only one intended version, the version in the PHB2 and Dragon.

If you want to play a minotaur, you get to play a minotaur.  The one in my game's PC party certainly isn't looked at as a "junior".  He's a serious bad-a**.

The version in the MM wasn't intended for players, and it was made quite clear from in the MM, and was even followed up with clarification from Mearls (linked in a previous post).

I am not sure what the problem is...


----------



## Dragonbait (Dec 7, 2009)

amysrevenge said:


> ?
> 
> *Warforged Resilience:* You have a +2 racial bonus to saving throws against ongoing damage.  Also, when you make a death saving throw, you can take the better result of your die roll or 10.




*phwah* You mean they want people to read pas the first sentence? Ridiculous!
...


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 7, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> Kudos for the honesty. Though I expect most DMs would assume that their players would come clean about something like this if they found out.
> 
> There may be two versions of the race _for DMs_, but for PCs there is only one intended version, the version in the PHB2 and Dragon.
> 
> ...




The race is the race. If there are substancial differences between what an NPC/monster member of the race can do and what a PC member of a race can do (as a result of racial traits) there is a difference and thus at least 2 different races.  In this example we have the minotaur and the mini-taur who cannot handle the grownup weapons. 

My point is that I would rather the DM tell me " no you can't play a minotaur" than offer mini-taur as an option.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 7, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> 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 (Dec 7, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> 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 (Dec 7, 2009)

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


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 7, 2009)

MrMyth said:


> 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 (Dec 7, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> 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 (Dec 7, 2009)

The Little Raven said:


> 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 (Dec 7, 2009)

Snoweel said:


> 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 (Dec 7, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> 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 (Dec 7, 2009)

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 (Dec 7, 2009)

Umbran said:


> 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.


----------



## AntiStateQuixote (Dec 7, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> 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.




The minotaur gains the ability to take a PC class and gain levels which more than out weighs the ability to wield over-sized weapons.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 7, 2009)

Brent_Nall said:


> The minotaur gains the ability to take a PC class and gain levels which more than out weighs the ability to wield over-sized weapons.




What if it worked the other way?

Eladrin are a PC race. Thier teleport ability is inherent to the race. What if NPC Eladrin couldn't teleport because they were NPC's?


----------



## billd91 (Dec 7, 2009)

Umbran said:


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




He is if he had to lose the leg to become a PC rather than an NPC. PC versions of races should not be like the NPC race with physical disabilities tacked on.


----------



## Obryn (Dec 7, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Is a human with only one leg less of a human?



By weight, at least!

-O


----------



## AntiStateQuixote (Dec 7, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> What if it worked the other way?
> 
> Eladrin are a PC race. Thier teleport ability is inherent to the race. What if NPC Eladrin couldn't teleport because they were NPC's?




Actually, Eladrin have several PC-race specific advantages that their NPC versions don't typically get.  Fey Step is not one of them, but the following things are:

+1 to will defense
+2 to arcana and history skill checks
+2 Dex and +2 Int
bonus trained skill
proficiency with the longsword

The "inherent to the race" power that minotaur characters get is their charge power.

Anyhow, comparing rules for the DM and rules for the players just doesn't work in 4e, and that's a good thing.  The players' rules focus on game balance between PCs and a baseline of expected "power" by level.  The DM's rules focus on making interesting, fun and challenging encounters for the PCs.

Apparently someone thought letting a PC wield an over-sized weapon was a bad idea.  Based on some of the nightmare builds I can recall from 3e, I'd guess that someone was right.


----------



## Obryn (Dec 7, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Eladrin are a PC race. Thier teleport ability is inherent to the race. What if NPC Eladrin couldn't teleport because they were NPC's?



There may, indeed, be Eladrin who can't teleport.  If we see any, I won't throw rocks at WotC.

Unlike in 3e, there's no real way to make a monster PC in 4e, without jumping through some hoops or reskinning.  And neither monsters nor NPCs are generally built in the same way as PCs.  The stuff at the back of the MM is to help DMs make monster NPCs, and (probably) to satisfy people who wanted to play gnomes before PHB2.  They weren't playtested, and there's a big warning at the front of the section cautioning against using them for PCs.

Now, _if there were_ an assumption that PCs, NPCs, and monsters are built in the same way - like there is in 3.5 - this would be a perfectly valid complaint.  Since this isn't a 4e assumption, you can no more make a giant-weapon-wielding minotaur than you can a Ghaele of Winter or a Kobold Dragonshield.  Players simply don't make their characters using the same rules as DMs do when making monsters and NPCs.

-O


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 7, 2009)

Brent_Nall said:


> Actually, Eladrin have several PC-race specific advantages that their NPC versions don't typically get. Fey Step is not one of them, but the following things are:
> 
> +1 to will defense
> +2 to arcana and history skill checks
> ...




It may very well be too powerful an ability to give a PC. In that case a DM has the right to disallow minotaurs as PC's or rule that certain abilities only become available at level X (roughly equal to the creature's normal level).

So perhaps a 1st level PC minotaur isn't beefy enough to use the grownup toys but by level 9 or 10 might be able to do so.


----------



## AntiStateQuixote (Dec 7, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> So perhaps a 1st level PC minotaur isn't beefy enough to use the grownup toys but by level 9 or 10 might be able to do so.




Sounds like a paragon tier feat to me!


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 7, 2009)

Brent_Nall said:


> Sounds like a paragon tier feat to me!




A workable solution. Also in keeping with the advice in the 1E DMG regarding the monster as a player character. 



............and a whole lot better than a mini-taur.


----------



## renau1g (Dec 7, 2009)

As an FYI, I believe Goring Charge was added as well as some skill bonuses to the full write-up so it's not like they lost oversized without compensation, plus they now have access to a bunch of cool racial feats that weren't around before.


----------



## MrMyth (Dec 7, 2009)

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.


----------



## Romtos (Dec 7, 2009)

Is the reason the MM write up of races is for DM reference only that it doesn't fully function in the character builder? I tested and it seems that the Oversized Weapon property is not taken into account in the character builder. Or you're supposed to select a Large weapon but this doesn't seem to be possible.


----------



## AntiStateQuixote (Dec 7, 2009)

On the preferences screen in the CB there's an option to show Large weapons.


----------



## Romtos (Dec 7, 2009)

Brent_Nall said:


> On the preferences screen in the CB there's an option to show Large weapons.



Cool, new stuff.
My bad.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Dec 7, 2009)

So if you had to  play a human instead of an insane noble or other high level human, you would play a different race? The MM is not PC territory. I think 4E is clear on that.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 7, 2009)

MrMyth said:


> 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.







renau1g said:


> As an FYI, I believe Goring Charge was added as well as some skill bonuses to the full write-up so it's not like they lost oversized without compensation, plus they now have access to a bunch of cool racial feats that weren't around before.







Obryn said:


> Now, _if there were_ an assumption that PCs, NPCs, and monsters are built in the same way - like there is in 3.5 - this would be a perfectly valid complaint.  Since this isn't a 4e assumption, you can no more make a giant-weapon-wielding minotaur than you can a Ghaele of Winter or a Kobold Dragonshield.  Players simply don't make their characters using the same rules as DMs do when making monsters and NPCs.



This was my point, basically better presented.  

There isn't a "mini-taur" as you claim.   There are monster minotaurs in the MM, Dungeon Mag, Dungeon Delve, some uniques in Elder Evils, Eberron, and Exemplars of Evil.  And there is an NPC MM write up in teh back of the MM.

The PC race is in PHB2 and it has the racial abilities that monster minotaurs have (Goring Charge), even the monsters in the MM don't use Oversized weapons.  Just because it doesn't use Large weapons (no other PC race does) doesn't make it a mini-taur, nor does it mean that they don't get "grownup toys".  

What about the PC race makes them lesser than the monsters in the MM (and not the NPC racial writeup in the back, but the actual monsters)?


----------



## Shemeska (Dec 7, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Unlike in 3e, there's no real way to make a monster PC in 4e, without jumping through some hoops or reskinning.




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.


----------



## AllisterH (Dec 7, 2009)

Brent_Nall said:


> Sounds like a paragon tier feat to me!



 No it's not.

Oversized completely eclipses any other possible racial feat at that level.


----------



## Shroomy (Dec 7, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> No it's not.
> 
> Oversized completely eclipses any other possible racial feat at that level.




To add to this, I believe the only way you can currently wield large weapons is via the 24th level epic destiny feature of the Eternal Defender.


----------



## blargney the second (Dec 7, 2009)

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


----------



## Asmor (Dec 7, 2009)

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 (Dec 7, 2009)

MrMyth said:


> 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 (Dec 8, 2009)

Asmor said:


> 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 (Dec 8, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> 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 (Dec 8, 2009)

Umbran said:


> 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 (Dec 8, 2009)

Shemeska said:


> 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 (Dec 8, 2009)

Asmor said:


> 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 (Dec 8, 2009)

tomBitonti said:


> 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 (Dec 8, 2009)

blargney the second said:


> 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 (Dec 8, 2009)

Rechan said:


> 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._


----------



## DracoSuave (Dec 8, 2009)

Shemeska said:


> 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.




Funny, Humans do it all the time.

Here's the thing.  A minotaur's racial traits that define it are those bull horns, and that ability to gore you with them.  If the PC minotaur didn't have that, I'd call shinanegans.

BUT

The size of the weapon is not a defining trait of minotaurs.  It doesn't call to their minotaurness.  All it is, is a big sword.

Here's a hint, the only effect that does is Moar Damage.  Does your +2 Strength and +2 Constitution already not encapsulate your bigness for you?

Goliaths, which are bigger, don't get oversized weapons either.

Quit whining.



> 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.




But, again, oversized weapons don't define minotaurs.  No one goes 'Oh, you can tell it's a minotaur by the large axe in its hand.'  BS.

You can tell it's a minotaur, because it has a bull's head.



> 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.




Well... bladelings -do- have a PC right up in 4e.

But, the very fact you think that the lack of a big axe gimps a minotaur exposes that you think 'Minotaur' means 'big combat damage' when in fact, it means 'Dude with a bull's head.'

Always has.

Always will.

They preserved the defining minotaurness, while getting rid of a balance issue that actually did not impact the identity of the race.

Besides, and this is something you must remember.

Monsters don't use the normal weapon damage tables for PCs anyways--they use their own rules for damage dealing in their powers that have nothing to do with weapons.  So it's even a moot point to say the monster minotaurs have 'oversized weapons' and therefore you can too.  It doesn't even -make sense- given the game design.


----------



## DracoSuave (Dec 8, 2009)

Asmor said:


> 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_






			
				DMG said:
			
		

> 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 use one of the following races to create a character only 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 believe the DMG over you, sir.

Repeated for emphasis:



> *In general, these traits and powers are provided to help Dungeon Masters create nonplayer characters (NPCs).*




If you refuse to believe the source material itself, then nothing anyone says to you will have any effect.  Continuing to impress upon you the stone-cold fact written in that very book is an episode of futility.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 8, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> Monsters don't use the normal weapon damage tables for PCs anyways--they use their own rules for damage dealing in their powers that have nothing to do with weapons. So it's even a moot point to say the monster minotaurs have 'oversized weapons' and therefore you can too. It doesn't even -make sense- given the game design.




Exactly. The actual root of the problem revealed.


----------



## Snoweel (Dec 8, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Exactly. The actual root of the problem revealed.




What problem?

If NPC *X* does *y* amount of damage on a hit does it really matter how *y* was arrived at?

Do your PCs audit your NPCs' stat blocks?

The only *problem* is between your ears - your NPCs have to follow *the rules* even though you're the only person who'll ever notice.

Let it go mate. D&D isn't a simulation.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 8, 2009)

The amount of antagonism in this thread is unacceptable.

Chill out, people.  This isn't something worth getting mad about, or insulting other people over.  People will be convinced by your reasoning, or not.  And that's okay.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 8, 2009)

Snoweel said:


> What problem?
> 
> If NPC *X* does *y* amount of damage on a hit does it really matter how *y* was arrived at?
> 
> ...




A simulation of what? If I want detailed combat simulation then I have GURPS handy with more detail than D&D provides.

Wanting mechanics that follow some sort of logic or common sense isn't trying to simulate anything. An attempt at realism means that a large chunk of the world dissappears in a puff of smoke. 

Logic and common sense do not need to try and simulate anything specific to be desired. 

There are some who may not recognize these elements when they are missing and they tend to get upset when others point that out. 

A failure to recognize a lack of common sense on your part does not constitute any problem with me.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 8, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> A simulation of what? If I want detailed combat simulation then I have GURPS handy with more detail than D&D provides.
> 
> Wanting mechanics that follow some sort of logic or common sense isn't trying to simulate anything. An attempt at realism means that a large chunk of the world dissappears in a puff of smoke.
> 
> ...



Why does it violate common sense that PCs get to use game rules that do not lead to broken results? Does it violate common sense that a game master that needs to create or control uses simpler rules for creating and controlling his "characters" then a player that only needs to create or control a single character?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 8, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Why does it violate common sense that PCs get to use game rules that do not lead to broken results? Does it violate common sense that a game master that needs to create or control uses simpler rules for creating and controlling his "characters" then a player that only needs to create or control a single character?




Common sense says that if creature X in the game world can do Y simply by virtue of being creature X then logically the formula is X=Y.

If X does not equal Y under certain conditions then those conditions should make sense _within the framework of the game world. _If they do not then there will be common sense issues. 

"Broken" has no meaning within the framework of the milieu. Broken would thus need a translation that has meaning from within to avoid the logic errors.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 8, 2009)

"Excuse me, Mr. Yes, you with the bull horns on the left, with the Fury-In-The-Slaughterhouse T-Shirt".
"Yeah? What do you want?"
"I happen to notice that you and your friends are wearing really big swords and axes. I don't think I could carry them. Why would this be?"
"Well, look at these muscles and at my hands! Why do you think?"
"So, you don't think it is some kind of racial ability?"
"Huh? Never thought of it. I mean, we're not born with these weapons... But we're are pretty large, eh?"
"Yup. But then... what's with the guy over there. His weapons seem to be smaller than yours."
"You mean Padrin? He just doesn't have the build for it. But it doesn't seem to matter much, because he's really brutal with it. Never seen a more fearsome warrior in my life."
"But you don't think he could not be a "real" Minotaur?"
"You think he's a Changling?"
"No, maybe just a ... Minitaur?"
"Well, you could ask him yourself that... Of course, I am not sure you'd like the answer. But that would be a creative yet also painful form of suicide..."
"Ahahaha. Nevermind then."


----------



## Obryn (Dec 8, 2009)

Shemeska said:


> 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.



I think some others have covered some similar ground, but I'd rather, as a DM, be able to say "Yes, but..." than "No."

One of the fundamental changes in 4e was that NPCs/Monsters and PCs are created differently within the system.  It's a core element to 4e which some folks love and some folks hate.  If you want your NPCs and PCs to be built with the same rules, 4e is not the game for it.  A side-effect of this is that it's incoherent to build a PC using a monster as a baseline - which we're kinda running into here. (Unless I broke out the DMG2 Companion rules, which may or may not keep things interesting enough for a full-time character.)

So if a player wanted a minotaur, and there were no rules for it, I'd work with them on a character that hit on the essential features of minotaur-ness while remaining balanced in play.  For 4e, this would be a new race.  3.5, otoh, kept the balance with level adjustments and racial hit dice, with occasional... mixed results *cough*



Spoiler



Yak-Folk


*cough*.

This is an inevitable side-effect of how PCs and NPCs work under 4e.  IMO, it's handled very, very well and makes my job easy.  It's not to everyone's tastes, is all.

-O


----------



## mudbunny (Dec 8, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Common sense says that if creature X in the game world can do Y simply by virtue of being creature X then logically the formula is X=Y.
> 
> If X does not equal Y under certain conditions then those conditions should make sense _within the framework of the game world. _If they do not then there will be common sense issues.
> 
> "Broken" has no meaning within the framework of the milieu. Broken would thus need a translation that has meaning from within to avoid the logic errors.




One of the central conceits of 4E is that PCs and NPCs/monsters are built using different rules. Given that, of course the abilities and powers of PCs are going to be different from that of NPCs and monsters.

Not accepting that is, of course, going to introduce all sorts of problems with the game.


----------



## Phaezen (Dec 8, 2009)

Mkay,

A quick search through the compendium shows that of the 13 minotaurs listed as monsters, not one has a large weapon listed in thier equipment.  

So there is no reason for PC minotaurs to feel jealous of thier npc counterparts.  

True, the damage expressions of some of those npc minotaurs are higher than what thier weapon would suggest, but that is down to appropriate monster damage for level and role.  NPC equipment is windowdressing in 4e.

Basically, at the end of the day some pc races given in the Monster Manual, which are flagged as not neccessarily being balanced, had oversized weapons as a race feature.  Since then Mike Mearls has come out with a statement that oversized weapons are not easy to balance and no race has that racial feature.  I expect the Gnoll to be errated sooner or later.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 8, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> "Excuse me, Mr. Yes, you with the bull horns on the left, with the Fury-In-The-Slaughterhouse T-Shirt".
> "Yeah? What do you want?"
> "I happen to notice that you and your friends are wearing really big swords and axes. I don't think I could carry them. Why would this be?"
> "Well, look at these muscles and at my hands! Why do you think?"
> ...




 Points for dah funny and Padrin has the right to choose lighter weapons but this tale just emphasizes my point. Why do the others have larger weapons? Strength? Size? Both?  If there were a STR requirement that Padrin has not met then we don't _need _the artificial "broken" reasoning.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 8, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Points for dah funny and Padrin has the right to choose lighter weapons but this tale just emphasizes my point. Why do the others have larger weapons? Strength? Size? Both?  If there were a STR requirement that Padrin has not met then we don't _need _the artificial "broken" reasoning.



I think the real issue is that the entire "Oversized Weapon" ability is superflous. It is not reflected in the actual Minotaur equipment list. Sure, their damage dice are larger, but it basically "has" to be because of their level, not because of their equipment. A PC will reach similar damage at those levels, even if the expression of that damage will differ. 

In the end, one of the good reasons to want to play a Minotaur is not because his race gets the "Oversized Weapon Trait", or to play a Kobold because he has "Darkvision"*. It is because of the visual, the feeling and the story. Damage values are not inherent racial abilities.


*Though I might give a Kobold "Darkvision". It makes sense from a story-perspective that they can see in utter darkness... Thought here might also be a story reason why a PC Kobold would just have Low-Light Vision. Since he is a PC, he probably is more on the surface than other Kobolds, and thus his "darkvision" sense is underdeveloped. Or maybe more his "bright-seeing" sense is overdeveloped.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Dec 8, 2009)

blargney the second said:


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




That's because the Bugbear hasn't been revisited in any other book yet, it only appears in the Monster Manual.  Rest assured that at some point in the future, it'll appear either in Dragon or a book somewhere and it'll no longer have that ability.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 8, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> That's because the Bugbear hasn't been revisited in any other book yet, it only appears in the Monster Manual.  Rest assured that at some point in the future, it'll appear either in Dragon or a book somewhere and it'll no longer have that ability.



I take it this means you are writing the "Winning Races: Goblins" article just now?


----------



## JPL (Dec 8, 2009)

I'm skeptical of players' appeals to verisimilitude which, if implemented, would coincidentally confer a major game advantage to the PCs.

Personally, I would have no problem with minotaurs all wielding big honking weapons, but leaving the "size" (in game terms) of those weapons rather indeterminate and dependent upon who is holding them.  

In other words, NPC minotaurs are using big honking axes that have the game effect of being Large weapons.  If my PC minotaur picks one up, he can use it as though it's a Medium weapon.  No more strange than the fact that my 50 pound halfling fighter can take more punishment that an ox.

And if someone smallish picks one up, I'd most likely treat them as non-proficient for the first encounter or two, until they get the hang of what is, after all, a big honking axe.  Just because that's cool, isn't it?  A slender half-elf struggles to swing a huge minotaur halberd, because it's the only weapon at hand . . . but once he gets used to it, stand back.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 8, 2009)

Pardon my ignorance, but in 4e, if you kill a minotaur, can you use its weapons? What about an ogre, or a hill giant?


----------



## Dragonbait (Dec 8, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Pardon my ignorance, but in 4e, if you kill a minotaur, can you use its weapons?



Yes.



> What about an ogre, or a hill giant?



As long as you can wield it.

All equipment that the monster carries is listed at the bottom on the monster's sheet. If they are wielding a longsword that is appropriate for a medium-sized character (and again, like Phaezen said, minotaurs wield weapons appropriate for medium-sized characters and not large despite their ability to use large weapons. They are underachievers, I guess, and don't utilize this) the PCs can use it.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 8, 2009)

Phaezen said:


> Mkay,
> 
> A quick search through the compendium shows that of the 13 minotaurs listed as monsters, not one has a large weapon listed in thier equipment.
> 
> So there is no reason for PC minotaurs to feel jealous of thier npc counterparts.




Well, if the other minotaurs are using regular weapons too then the PC isn't missing anything. For me a simple expression of higher damage wasn't the issue. A monster doing more damage with the same weapons because of its powers/abilities isn't a problem. 

The issue was purely logical.


----------



## MrMyth (Dec 8, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I take it this means you are writing the "Winning Races: Goblins" article just now?




Possibly not, but he well may have seen this quote: 



> The Monster Manual racial descriptions were never intended to be the canonical mechanics for those races. As the MM itself states, those stats are for DMs to create NPCs. You can use them as PCs, but a DM allows them at his own peril.
> 
> Thus, you'll see things like giving monsters oversized weapons and not giving them to official PC races. As others have pointed out, oversized weapons in PC hands are simply too good. It makes those races strictly better with weapons. If a PC race somehow gets it, expect it to be errata'd as soon as I see it.
> __________________
> Mike Mearls - Lead Designer, RPG R&D


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 8, 2009)

MrMyth said:


> Possibly not, but he well may have seen this quote:



Meh, I was just hoping he had something in the pipeline on DDI. The quote is old news to me.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Dec 8, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I take it this means you are writing the "Winning Races: Goblins" article just now?




Heh.  I don't have the motivation to start writing articles.  Maybe someday.

No, I just mean that the people from R&D have stated that PCs won't have Oversized Weapons ever.  So, if Bugbears get remade, they won't have them.  And given that they've been released as an NPC race in the MM, they are high on the list of possible races to see in future articles.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 9, 2009)

Dragonbait said:


> Yes.
> 
> 
> As long as you can wield it.
> ...




That takes a little sting out of it, but doesn't really address the basic problem. I care less about game balance, a lot less actually, than about PC minotaurs being able to pick weapons off of fallen NPC minotaurs, or PC kobolds having darkvision to see in the caverns where they grew up.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 9, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> That takes a little sting out of it, but doesn't really address the basic problem. I care less about game balance, a lot less actually, than about PC minotaurs being able to pick weapons off of fallen NPC minotaurs, or PC kobolds having darkvision to see in the caverns where they grew up.



Minotaurs can pick up weapons of their fallen comrades. The equipment list in the stat block does not indicate the weapons are large.

PC Kobolds have just been too much on the outside, exposed to regular daylight. Their darkvision has simply been lost to them. It's a little like pigmentation for human skin...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 9, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> PC Kobolds have just been too much on the outside, exposed to regular daylight. Their darkvision has simply been lost to them. It's a little like pigmentation for human skin...




Speaking as a caramelized-American, that's just silly.

By that analogy, they should get their darkvison back after a while.

Permanent loss of darkvison would be more likely to be the result of permanent retinal damage, like a surface native who stared at the sun.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 9, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Speaking as a caramelized-American, that's just silly.
> 
> By that analogy, they should get their darkvison back after a while.
> 
> Permanent loss of darkvison would be more likely to be the result of permanent retinal damage, like a surface native who stared at the sun.



Hmm. Maybe that's it? Too long exposure to normal daylight and your Kobold goes blind low-light.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 9, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Speaking as a caramelized-American, that's just silly.
> 
> By that analogy, they should get their darkvison back after a while.
> 
> Permanent loss of darkvison would be more likely to be the result of permanent retinal damage, like a surface native who stared at the sun.




Yeah this sounds ridiculous. A race that evolved into having darkvision as a survival trait should have darkvision. In earlier editions certain races with the best night/underground vision also took penalties when operating in bright light which would kind of self balance for a PC who operated in both environments. 

In this case being above ground too long might reduce the vision to low light but negate any penalties for bright light. 

Either way "being a PC " is an insufficient excuse to recode the genome.


----------



## JPL (Dec 9, 2009)

I don't need a reason why every possible kobold PC lacks darkvision . . . I just need an explanation for the particular kobold PC that comes to my game table.

So for that character, it could be a birth defect, the result of an injury, a variant bloodline, or too much daylight over the years.  And any of those is also a half decent explanation as to why this particular kobold isn't just living in a hole waiting to be killed by 1st level adventurers like everyone else.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 9, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Yeah this sounds ridiculous. A race that evolved into having darkvision as a survival trait should have darkvision. In earlier editions certain races with the best night/underground vision also took penalties when operating in bright light which would kind of self balance for a PC who operated in both environments.
> 
> In this case being above ground too long might reduce the vision to low light but negate any penalties for bright light.
> 
> Either way "being a PC " is an insufficient excuse to recode the genome.



Evolution? Genome? 

That's 21st century common sense. It has nothing to do with pseudo-medieval settings.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 9, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Evolution? Genome?
> 
> That's 21st century common sense. It has nothing to do with pseudo-medieval settings.




Heh. 

Common sense and truth are timeless. I could go back in time and call an ancient farmer a proto-agronomist. The fact that the individual wouldn't understand the term would not make it less true.


----------



## Garthanos (Dec 9, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Evolution? Genome?
> 
> That's 21st century common sense. It has nothing to do with pseudo-medieval settings.




Sure the particular character in question just lost his racial connection to the goddess of the dark... and that is permanent you can expect to just re-woo Nyx... by spending more time in the dark.


----------



## Mark (Dec 9, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> proto-agronomist





Shhh.  PH4 spoilers are not appreciated.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Dec 9, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Common sense and truth are timeless. I could go back in time and call an ancient farmer a proto-agronomist. The fact that the individual wouldn't understand the term would not make it less true.




Except that this "truth" _isn't_ true in D&D settings. Creatures didn't evolve; they were shaped by the primordials/gods/whatever. Genetics _don't_ work as we understand them. Hell, _physics_ doesn't work as we understand it, not all the time.

To say that a race's development must follow modern understandings of genetics is simply ignoring the nature of the setting itself.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 9, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Except that this "truth" _isn't_ true in D&D settings. Creatures didn't evolve; they were shaped by the primordials/gods/whatever. Genetics _don't_ work as we understand them. Hell, _physics_ doesn't work as we understand it, not all the time.
> 
> To say that a race's development must follow modern understandings of genetics is simply ignoring the nature of the setting itself.




All very possible in fantasy setting to be sure, heck anything completely bizarre could always be attributed to a mad wizard's experiment gone wrong. 

It still looks better for a system to be able handle racial traits in a logical consistent manner. How many aberrations can there be before such creatures become the norm?


----------



## JPL (Dec 9, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> All very possible in fantasy setting to be sure, heck anything completely bizarre could always be attributed to a mad wizard's experiment gone wrong.
> 
> It still looks better for a system to be able handle racial traits in a logical consistent manner. How many aberrations can there be before such creatures become the norm?




Again, I think that since PC rules only apply to PCs, the chances of there being even a single darkblind kobold in the whole campaign world are pretty low.  

In D&D, PCs are always exceptional.   Usually superior to the typical member of their race, but sometimes, for game balance, they have a disadvantage.  

The alternative is to just make the race in question unavailable as a PC.  Seems odd to say a kobold is just too darn powerful, but there it is.

And the third alternative is to just give the kobold his darkvision and move along.

Reminds me of my reaction to "Savage Species."  Great, I can play a stone giant!  Except he's medium sized!  And not particularly stone-like!  And he's gonna die before 2nd level!  Or I can play a genie that . . . is pretty much a regular guy in MC Hammer pants, at first level.


----------



## Asmor (Dec 9, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Evolution? Genome?
> 
> That's 21st century common sense. It has nothing to do with pseudo-medieval settings.




In particular, it makes no sense given the context that most races are implicitly or explicitly assumed to have been created whole-cloth by deities and other entities. Evolution in D&D is the exception, not the norm. All I can think of off the top of my head are subraces (e.g. drow, and even that's kind of iffy to call it evolution since they were changed by a deity).


----------



## Asmor (Dec 9, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Hell, _physics_ doesn't work as we understand it, not all the time.




How can you expect physics to work when _math_ in D&D is fundamentally different?

Pi = 4! Firecubes for the win!


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 9, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Minotaurs can pick up weapons of their fallen comrades. The equipment list in the stat block does not indicate the weapons are large.




So the weapons are definitely not large? Halflings can use them?



> PC Kobolds have just been too much on the outside, exposed to regular daylight. Their darkvision has simply been lost to them. It's a little like pigmentation for human skin...




Most of my games would be more likely to feature kobold delvers than kobold farmers. Maybe I'm wacky that way. And what if your campaign is set in the side of a mountain riddled with caverns? What if the party always travels by night? What if the kobold wears a poncho, a straw hat, and sunglasses? It's a contrived explanation. We know why it's contrived. We know it has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with justifying a game construct. Kobolds lack darkvision because they are PCs. 

Sure, every kobold could be darkblind, spent too much time in the sun, an obscure subspecies, and so forth. And they can go adventuring with an albino human, a one-legged dwarf, a halfling with pituitary gigantism, and a pixie who lost their wings tragically in a game of tag. 

Essentially, not giving kobolds darkvision says, "This is too powerful or causes problems." Which amounts to, "There is not very much good play experience to be gained from a group in which one party member has darkvision... having an actual, real kobold in a party could not possibly be interesting enough to justify figuring out some way to balance it." 

I don't think the way to handle monstrous PCs is to turn the party into adventurers from the Land of Misfit Toys.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 9, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> .
> 
> I don't think the way to handle monstrous PCs is to turn the party into adventurers from the Land of Misfit Toys.




You must spread some XP around...........


----------



## blargney the second (Dec 10, 2009)

Asmor said:


> How can you expect physics to work when _math_ in D&D is fundamentally different?
> 
> Pi = 4! Firecubes for the win!




"You must spread some XP around..."

Awesomeness, Asmor. 
-blarg


----------



## Inyssius (Dec 10, 2009)

You know, I'm willing to bet that if the MM was printed today, the NPC kobold stat-block would grant darkvision. Opinions have apparently changed on the matter; FRPG drow have it, MM2 duergar have it, and there are several low-level magic items which give a limited version of it. If it bugs you that much, and you insist on using that stat-block for a PC, you might as well just change it.


----------



## JPL (Dec 10, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Sure, every kobold could be darkblind, spent too much time in the sun, an obscure subspecies, and so forth.




Except you don't need to cover every kobold . . . just every kobold PC.  And I can't imagine there are such huge swarms of those in any campaign that the players and DM can't come up with some sort of satisfying explanation regarding the PC's impaired vision.

Other alternatives would be to either ban PCs of the offending race, or try to gimp them in some other respect to balance out that darkvision.  Kobolds are the classic cannon fodder --- why not limit them to half the normal starting HPs?  That's the sort of approach taken in "Savage Species" (although not with kobolds specifically), and it just didn't work too well . . . you ended up with pixie PCs who could fly and turn invisible at will and had 2 HPs.


----------



## AntiStateQuixote (Dec 10, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> You must spread some XP around...........






blargney the second said:


> "You must spread some XP around..."
> 
> Awesomeness, Asmor.
> -blarg




covered and covered


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 10, 2009)

JPL said:


> Except you don't need to cover every kobold . . . just every kobold PC.  And I can't imagine there are such huge swarms of those in any campaign that the players and DM can't come up with some sort of satisfying explanation regarding the PC's impaired vision.




Really? I cannot come up with a satisfying explanation for a renegade kobold adventurer being darkblind. I can wrap my head around the "genetic mutant" concept, but that's a pretty limited range of archetypes. It's way outside, "I would like to play a kobold." A kobold with some kind of visual disability is a much more specific image that does not go well with a number of archetypes. For instance, if you want to play the last survivor of a slaughtered band of kobolds, a champion of his people, that just doesn't work. It seems doubtful that a kobold clan defender would have such a disability.



> Other alternatives would be to either ban PCs of the offending race, or try to gimp them in some other respect to balance out that darkvision.  Kobolds are the classic cannon fodder --- why not limit them to half the normal starting HPs?




"Kobolds are overpowered." Still trying to wrap my head around that one. I don't think that's the case, really. I have a suspicion that some of the design team just felt it was a pain to have some of the party have darkvision and some not, so decided that in YOUR game, it just wouldn't be permitted.



> That's the sort of approach taken in "Savage Species" (although not with kobolds specifically), and it just didn't work too well . . . you ended up with pixie PCs who could fly and turn invisible at will and had 2 HPs.




What, a 1st level "Uncommoner?" Even a pixie sorcerer would have 4 hp, assuming an average Con, which is probably unlikely. Actually, pixies are probably not the best example, since with flight and invisibility, they can often get away with low hit points. I've never seen a PC monster go wrong if you abide by two basic guidelines:

- If you want to play a frontline combatant, no more than 1/4 of your ECL should be LA. Period. Even, and perhaps especially, if you are a vampire.
- If you want to play something for roleplaying purposes, you should still not go beyond 1/2 your ECL as LA or your numbers will be too small. Classic example being the pixie 1st level rogue, who while quite dangerous and capable, can be instantly destroyed by a caster level 3 magic missile. 

In any case, we are not debating between Savage Species type monsters and normal races. We are discussing various creatures roughly equivalent to a human, like a kobold, minotaur, or warforged. The problem 4e presents in this case is not balance, but homogenity. In 4e, everyone gets the same number of dailies, uses roughly the same numbers to hit and do roughly the same damage, within some variation for role. Thus, darkvision is not readily available as a special ability, item, spell, etc. Thus, kobolds have something most characters just don't have. My reaction is basically, "And? That's kind of the point of having diverse PCs." Sure, the kobold will trump in some situations while being disadvantaged in others (due to opportunity costs). Sometimes the game is sort of rock-paper-scissors. 4e actively resists that dynamic, even though it crops up anyway. 

In balance terms, darkvision is not substantially different than "teleport, one per scene." Both allow one character to easily deal with certain problems other characters don't handle nearly as well.


----------



## JPL (Dec 10, 2009)

Actually, I agree on the point that giving a kobold PC darkvision would be just fine.  Doesn't seem like a dealbreaker to me at all.  I might impose a feat tax --- regular PC kobold has low-light, but there's a racial feat that upgrades it to darkvision.  Or it might be something that could be overcome with time --- treat it as a boon (a la DMG2).  

But if the DM insists on RAW, your tribal champion might've been hit by some radiant energy when the tribe was killed, or his darkvision might fade or become unreliable once he's on the surface most of the time.  

This game requires some imagination, and any player who can come up with a compelling backstory for a kobold adventurer can surely find an adequate explanation for why he's darkblind.

If we were talking about a 4th Edition pixie PC and the DM said, OK, you can play one, but he can't fly or turn invisible or make people dance, for the sake of game balance . . . as a player, I would find that unsatisfactory, since I'm left with a gnome with ornamental wings.  A pixie in name only.  But a kobold without darkvision still seems pretty koboldy to me.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 10, 2009)

I'm part of the- make the game work first, and if I (as the player of the game) want to change things I'll change them. When WoTC keeps things "standardized" it lets me know what the numbers mean more easily, and a better idea of what will happen when I change them.

I've never REALLY seen a compelling argument to why something like this is a problem. So a PC kobold doesn't have darkvision... What's the real issue? The "genetics" answer is lame- my wife has a better sense of smell then I do, I have a friend who is color blind- do we not exist as members of the human race? Are we some weird new sub species of human? The color blinded smellless??

As for story, I'd say my imagination is sparked MORE by the Kobold lacking darkvision... Maybe that's why he was always ostrasized, and decided to leave his clan- No one wants to hang out with Torch Carry'n Yarpy!

Almost ALWAYS these arguments boil down to, OHHH X Ability would give me a leg up, so I need to find a way to get it!!! Cleverly disguised as an offense to someone's precious verisimilitude. 

Can't see in the dark? Carry a torch.

The few times someone has managed to give me a somewhat compelling story reason they needed X ability, I've let them have it, but kept tabs on what they did with it. Almost always the real truth came out quickly enough.

Really the idea that every member of the race should be cookie cutter with the exact same abilities is the REAL offense to MY verisimilitude.  Real life is full of suprises, uniqueness, and it's THOSE differences that make it interesting.


----------



## Obryn (Dec 10, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Really? I cannot come up with a satisfying explanation for a renegade kobold adventurer being darkblind. I can wrap my head around the "genetic mutant" concept, but that's a pretty limited range of archetypes.



Once again, you're looking for simulation of reality in a game which fundamentally ignores simulation of reality.  I'm not unhappy with saying, "This is what's required for you to play X monster race."  If you are unhappy with this, it's just one of those places where your preferences and the game rules diverge.

If you must have some kind of evolutionary reasoning, I think there are plenty of examples of divergent evolution wherein "useful" traits disappear.  Just as cave fish lose their eyes over generations because it's a wasteful feature, surface- or shallow-cave-dwelling kobolds may lose their darkvision.  If you need an evolutionary reason, they're not hard to invent.

Outside of that, and we're in house-rule territory - which is still wide-open and vast.  But without some kind of kludgy rule like a level adjustment, you simply won't see it published.



> "Kobolds are overpowered." Still trying to wrap my head around that one. I don't think that's the case, really. I have a suspicion that some of the design team just felt it was a pain to have some of the party have darkvision and some not, so decided that in YOUR game, it just wouldn't be permitted.



Kobolds' "power" doesn't come from darkvision.  It mainly comes from one of their racial features which makes them annoying and ... well, kobold-like ... to fight.  It's a feature which most enemy kobolds should have, but it's not a genetic trait by any means.  (If there's a PC kobold race, I'd expect it to have a cost of some sort, either feat or power-swap.)



> Thus, darkvision is not readily available as a special ability, item, spell, etc. Thus, kobolds have something most characters just don't have. My reaction is basically, "And? That's kind of the point of having diverse PCs." Sure, the kobold will trump in some situations while being disadvantaged in others (due to opportunity costs). Sometimes the game is sort of rock-paper-scissors. 4e actively resists that dynamic, even though it crops up anyway.



I know you haven't been keeping up to date, but there are tons of ways for PCs to gain darkvision, for short or long times.  There are several races with it, there are quite a few magic items that provide it, there are more than a few Utility powers which grant it, and there's even a way to pick it up with a feat if you're using the Spellscarred rules from Forgotten Realms.  I have no doubt that a PC kobold race would, right now, have Darkvision.

The 4e designers started out very conservative.  That changed pretty quickly, though.

-O


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 10, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Once again, you're looking for simulation of reality in a game which fundamentally ignores simulation of reality. I'm not unhappy with saying, "This is what's required for you to play X monster race." If you are unhappy with this, it's just one of those places where your preferences and the game rules diverge.




The divergence comes when the cart is put before the horse, when the game is designed to serve the rules instead of the opposite.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 10, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> The divergence comes when the cart is put before the horse, when the game is designed to serve the rules instead of the opposite.




I would argue that what you want is the cart before the horse. Sure you've tried your best to make the rules fall in line in your mental fantasy ant farm... but now game play suffers as a result. 

I say make the rules work first. I don't need help with my imagination I'm just fine on that, but numbers... I like it when some other dude figures all those things out ahead of time so I don't have to.


----------



## Obryn (Dec 10, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> The divergence comes when the cart is put before the horse, when the game is designed to serve the rules instead of the opposite.



No, the rules are still defined to serve the game, 100%.

If a player wants to play a high-powered race, there are only a few reasonable approaches to it.

(1) The Savage Species route, which is kind of insane and which I'd love to hear justified in any kind of simulation sense. 

(2) Level Adjustments, which are a pure intra-party balance kludge, and which break down any time you involve spellcasters.  This showed up (IIRC) in the FRCG, and was greatly expanded by 3.5.

(3) "Just play the monster" - as in, take it right out of the MM and drop it into play.  Which is a little odd to me, since it assumes that all monsters are basically identical in ability to one another.  (4e supports this with the Companion rules in the DMG2, if you're interested.)

(4) You get a powered-down monster, revised to be suitable for a PC.  This is apparently 4e's default, if you take the back of the MM as suitable for player use.  Other than minotaurs, I can't think of another actual published example.

(5) Don't allow it.  This was, basically, the advice in the 1e DMG.

(6) Make something up.  You don't need rulebooks for this one.


In all of those cases, the rules are serving the game.  And, in particular, they're largely concerned with balance - either intra-party (so the minotaur fighter doesn't overshadow the dwarf) or game-based (so the DM knows appropriate challenges to throw), and usually both.

Why would this be the game serving the rules, instead?  They're just a lot of different paths towards the same basic goals.

-O


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 10, 2009)

Obryn said:


> (1) The Savage Species route, which is kind of insane and which I'd love to hear justified in any kind of simulation sense.




(1a) Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed/Arcana Evolved method, which refined the SS route, works better.

The rationale is that the creature in the MM is a typical exemplar, but not the only way such a creature can be.

The AU/AE racial classes let you start off at a certain point of development in the creature's lifespan- call it a juvenile, if you want, but that's not quite it- and then the player chooses how "typical" his PC will be.

Take me for example.  Mentally, according to tests, I just barely qualify as a "genius."  Physically, I have certain attributes that could have made me money in (a certain small number of) pro sports.  I chose to emphasize the former, so now I've got a small collection of advanced degrees...and I'm *ahem* _a tad fluffy._  I'm atypical.

A Minotaur using AU/AE style racial classes could be a physical brute...if he so chose to emphasize the aspects of his heritage that led to his becoming such.  But, OTOH, if he becomes a Wizard, he's going to be spending a lot of time in the stacks of the libraries, and simply won't be as physically imposing.

He'll still be bigger and more formidable than his elf classmates, though.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 10, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Why would this be the game serving the rules, instead? They're just a lot of different paths towards the same basic goals.
> 
> -O



 It would really be determined by the the participant's definition of what is most important in a game. In earlier editions the default design goals were aimed at the adventure and the shared world in which they took place. The current default design goals are centered around the implementation of exacting mechanical balance used in such adventures. 

The game serving the rules is thus determined by the what the primary design goals are. 

Scribble says: 
"I say make the rules work first. I don't need help with my imagination I'm just fine on that, but numbers... I like it when some other dude figures all those things out ahead of time so I don't have to. "

For him, what he looks for first in "the game" are in fact precise rules. Other folks have different priorities.


----------



## Obryn (Dec 10, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> (1a) Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed/Arcana Evolved method, which refined the SS route, works better.



Yeah, I really like the Arcana Evolved method.  It's a very good way to make "level adjustments" work well.  It's borderline sensible, too, and doesn't totally hose casters.  It's just predicated on the assumption that gaining experience can allow you to become stronger, smarter, or evey _larger_ - a leap which I, personally, didn't mind making at all, but which is a stretch for simulation.  I think it's the cleanest implementation of powerful races under the 3.x rule-set, and probably my favorite innovation in Arcana Unearthed/Evolved.



ExploderWizard said:


> It would really be determined by the the participant's definition of what is most important in a game.



So, in other words, "It's just that I would have done it differently"?  In that case, I _really_ don't understand what's the cart and what's the horse in your analogy.



> In earlier editions the default design goals were aimed at the adventure and the shared world in which they took place. The current default design goals are centered around the implementation of exacting mechanical balance used in such adventures.
> 
> The game serving the rules is thus determined by the what the primary design goals are.



I don't really see that - at least here.  In all of the above cases, it's a matter of balance, as far back as I can see.  It's a way to balance powerful races - with abilities and characteristics beyond the norm - either with the rest of the party, or with adventures, or usually both.  IIRC, as far back as the 1e DMG, Monster-as-PC balance was cited as a legitimate concern.

-O


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 10, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I don't really see that - at least here. In all of the above cases, it's a matter of balance, as far back as I can see. It's a way to balance powerful races - with abilities and characteristics beyond the norm - either with the rest of the party, or with adventures, or usually both. IIRC, as far back as the 1e DMG, Monster-as-PC balance was cited as a legitimate concern.
> 
> -O




Game balance has always been considered in the design process. The key factor is what priority it has over other elements such as flavor and even fun. 

The vorpal sword from 1E was not a balanced item in the modern sense but man was it fun.

Balance for such wacky stuff had to come from the DM/players.


----------



## Obryn (Dec 10, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Balance for such wacky stuff had to come from the DM/players.



...because _there were no rules for it._

If you'd rather have no rules for it, I don't know why you're arguing about the specifics of existing rules.  You're house-ruling it either way.

-O


----------



## JPL (Dec 10, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> It would really be determined by the the participant's definition of what is most important in a game. In earlier editions the default design goals were aimed at the adventure and the shared world in which they took place. The current default design goals are centered around the implementation of exacting mechanical balance used in such adventures.




As to "adventure and the shared world in which they took place," I would take the non-crunch portions of DMG 4.0 and DMG2 4.0 over anything that was ever published for first edition.  4th Edition provides both players and DMs a wealth of advice about how to actually run an entertaining game.  Maybe some people found those 1st edition DMG lists of different titles of nobility or purported magical properties of different semi-precious stones more conductive to a fun game than the 4th edition DM advice . . .  

Whether the "shared world" is better than in previous editions is sort of a matter of taste.  I would note that there has been a conscious effort to tie mechanics to the background of the world --- the relationship between gods and primordials and primal spirits, the streamlined cosmology, the origins of various monsters and races.  1st Edition, bless its heart, gave us Deities and Demigods without really explaining what use we might make of the stats for the Egyptian pantheon.  I guess you could call it a toolbox approach, but there were a lot of tools you didn't need and no instructions as to how to use the tools you DID need.

As I see it, it's an unfair comparison, because 4th Edition stands on the shoulders of giants.  It's the first edition that really embraces that D&D is D&D --- not a weird hybrid wargame / improvised theatre with everything Gygax had on his bookshelf slapped together, but rather, the experience that evolved from those origins.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 11, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Yeah, I really like the Arcana Evolved method.  It's a very good way to make "level adjustments" work well.  It's borderline sensible, too, and doesn't totally hose casters.  It's just predicated on the assumption that gaining experience can allow you to become stronger, smarter, or evey _larger_ - a leap which I, personally, didn't mind making at all, but which is a stretch for simulation.  I think it's the cleanest implementation of powerful races under the 3.x rule-set, and probably my favorite innovation in Arcana Unearthed/Evolved.




Its my fave, too.  (For the record, #2 were some of the changes he made in the magic system- lesser & greater forms, alternative material component effects, and feats that are essentially a broader form of metamagic.)

IMHO, though, the predicate assumption that gaining XP makes you more _________ isn't that far fetched as a simulation, though.  The more football you play, the bigger and stronger you get, the more marathons you run, the better your endurance, the more books you read, the smarter you get (generally).  The more you practice an instrument, the better you play.

In nature, even getting MUCH larger can be a matter of "experience."  When the male wrasse in a given area dies, the alpha female in the area actually gets bigger & brighter as it turns into the new male.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 11, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Once again, you're looking for simulation of reality in a game which fundamentally ignores simulation of reality.  I'm not unhappy with saying, "This is what's required for you to play X monster race."  If you are unhappy with this, it's just one of those places where your preferences and the game rules diverge.




Well, yeah!

But seriously, maybe this is my perspective from having played GURPS, Hero System, Rolemaster, WFRP, D6, and dozens of other games but, why is it that so many other games find satisfying resolutions to situations like these, but D&D 4e falters? How is that Mutants & Masterminds can deal with characters who could literally be anything from a two-fisted detective to an angel to a superfast robot, and yet 4e rests on the assumption that this level of homogenity is problematic?

So, yes, it is a matter of play preference. All the arguments that have been made thus far on the basis of balance are essentially moot, because it hasn't been established there is an inherent play imbalance between characters with different trumps. It is simply a matter of play style preference.



> If you must have some kind of evolutionary reasoning, I think there are plenty of examples of divergent evolution wherein "useful" traits disappear.  Just as cave fish lose their eyes over generations because it's a wasteful feature, surface- or shallow-cave-dwelling kobolds may lose their darkvision.  If you need an evolutionary reason, they're not hard to invent.
> 
> Outside of that, and we're in house-rule territory - which is still wide-open and vast.  But without some kind of kludgy rule like a level adjustment, you simply won't see it published.




Why would I be motivated to invent surface-dwelling kobolds, if 4e didn't ask me to? How do I reconcile the idea of a surface-dwelling creature with this thing whose main connection to real world mythology is that it lives underground?



> Kobolds' "power" doesn't come from darkvision.  It mainly comes from one of their racial features which makes them annoying and ... well, kobold-like ... to fight.  It's a feature which most enemy kobolds should have, but it's not a genetic trait by any means.  (If there's a PC kobold race, I'd expect it to have a cost of some sort, either feat or power-swap.)
> 
> 
> I know you haven't been keeping up to date, but there are tons of ways for PCs to gain darkvision, for short or long times.  There are several races with it, there are quite a few magic items that provide it, there are more than a few Utility powers which grant it, and there's even a way to pick it up with a feat if you're using the Spellscarred rules from Forgotten Realms.  I have no doubt that a PC kobold race would, right now, have Darkvision.
> ...




So was I right, were the 4e designers wrong? Are you saying PC kobolds should have darkvision?


----------



## Squizzle (Dec 11, 2009)

I think it's really swell that these threads bitch about the loss of Oversized (which isn't actually represented in any minotaur stat block), but never the wholly player-centric, unknown-in-the-Manual additions of Danger Sense, Defended Mind, and Shifting Fortunes to the Githzerai. Sauce for the goose, right?


----------



## Obryn (Dec 11, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Why would I be motivated to invent surface-dwelling kobolds, if 4e didn't ask me to? How do I reconcile the idea of a surface-dwelling creature with this thing whose main connection to real world mythology is that it lives underground?



I have no idea why you would want to.  I wouldn't.  If it bothers you that a given PC kobold didn't have darkvision, there are ways to address it.  Some of which may even be fruitful and interesting enough for development into a campaign.



> So was I right, were the 4e designers wrong? Are you saying PC kobolds should have darkvision?



They were very conservative right after 4e came out.  They are less so now, and darkvision is a clear area of increased PC availability.  If you want to classify that as they were wrong and you were right, you can go with your bad self.

If you follow 4e, there's a pretty clear and obvious refinement that's come with later products that wasn't there in the first PHB.  A-shaped classes rather than V-shaped, experiments with the power structure like the Monk and Psion, better-siloed feats, greater availabilty of power-swapping outside the multiclassing system, skill-based powers...  It's more or less everywhere.  The newer materials - like PHB2 and the previews for PHB3 - are tighter, more experimental, and developed with a better eye towards the system as it's played rather than the system as it was originally envisioned.

So yeah, their original conception of darkvision probably doesn't match what we're seeing in newer releases.  You learn a lot with a few years of experience.

-O


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 11, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Well, yeah!
> 
> But seriously, maybe this is my perspective from having played GURPS, Hero System, Rolemaster, WFRP, D6, and dozens of other games but, why is it that so many other games find satisfying resolutions to situations like these, but D&D 4e falters? How is that Mutants & Masterminds can deal with characters who could literally be anything from a two-fisted detective to an angel to a superfast robot, and yet 4e rests on the assumption that this level of homogenity is problematic?



They might deal with that well. But do they deal with everything else equally well? 

Does GURPS point buy system really give you a way to measure relative character power, for exampe? Or power compared to NPCs? How quickly can you build an NPC with the desired traits within a given budget? 

Like in most design challenges, there are always trade-offs to be considered, conflicting goals you want to optimize for. 

4E didn't see it as an important goal to have a unified "creation" mechanic for creatures. PCs and NPCs are different. But while they have different rules behind them, they still share a common "interface" that allows them to interact with each other. Defenses, Attacks, Hit Points, Ability Scores, Skill Modifiers, Initiative, Speed and Movement Modes, Languages, Alignment, Conditions.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 11, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> They might deal with that well. But do they deal with everything else equally well?




Dealing with everything else equally well is not a realistic goal. They deal with most things well enough. Unlike, IMO, D&D 4e.



> Does GURPS point buy system really give you a way to measure relative character power, for exampe? Or power compared to NPCs?




Yes. In fact, comparing attack-defense and damage-defenses is very easy in GURPS. It woudl not be difficult to calculate the outcome of most GURPS battles in a hypothetical situation where each character used mostly standard attacks.



> How quickly can you build an NPC with the desired traits within a given budget?




About the same as 4e. If you can re-skin an existing template, seconds. If you're working from scratch, longer. And of course there is no reason to keep a point budget for most NPCs, although you can if it's useful.



> Like in most design challenges, there are always trade-offs to be considered, conflicting goals you want to optimize for.
> 
> 4E didn't see it as an important goal to have a unified "creation" mechanic for creatures. PCs and NPCs are different. But while they have different rules behind them, they still share a common "interface" that allows them to interact with each other. Defenses, Attacks, Hit Points, Ability Scores, Skill Modifiers, Initiative, Speed and Movement Modes, Languages, Alignment, Conditions.




Of course. You are absolutely right about that. But that is not at all a defense of things 4e does badly. Your argument makes sense in comparing 4e with other games, but it doesn't have a lot of merit when comparing 4e to a 4e-that-might-have-been with basically the same design goals. Somehow, many other games, including D&D, have been able to handle kobolds with darkvision for years now, but D&D 4e falters in this area. 

Anyone who's spent time with an AD&D 2e knows this "minotaur-lite" approach to monstrous PCs has been tried before. It was dissastisfying and clumsy then, it is the same now. This isn't a play style difference; this is D&D 4e being notably inferior at certain kinds of PCs than previous editions of the game have been. It is not simply a matter of system trade-offs, but of the designers being unwilling or unable to grapple with some basic issues of game world logic.


----------



## keterys (Dec 11, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> But seriously, maybe this is my perspective from having played GURPS, Hero System, Rolemaster, WFRP, D6, and dozens of other games but, why is it that so many other games find satisfying resolutions to situations like these, but D&D 4e falters? How is that Mutants & Masterminds can deal with characters who could literally be anything from a two-fisted detective to an angel to a superfast robot, and yet 4e rests on the assumption that this level of homogenity is problematic?




I think 4e has done a better job here than GURPS, Hero, Rolemaster, WFRP, and many other games. 

Can't speak for D6 though.

It's _trivial_ to break HERO games, and they even thoughtfully provide examples for how to do so as a helpful way to make sure you don't accidentally do so (ie, Landlord who owns the earth and has 6 billion servants, the guy who explodes destroying the universe whenever desired, etc). So, yeah, you can have whatever you want, but it's a totally different problem, and I'm content not having to _every game_ go 'Okay, I'm about X for my attacks, defenses, and misc... where you guys. Okay, let's get ourselves a little closer together to not break the game'. I mean, as experienced RPGers, we managed, but I'm quite fine _not_ doing so. Life as a 4E DM is much easier for me that way.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 11, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Anyone who's spent time with an AD&D 2e knows this "minotaur-lite" approach to monstrous PCs has been tried before. It was dissastisfying and clumsy then, it is the same now. This isn't a play style difference; this is D&D 4e being notably inferior at certain kinds of PCs than previous editions of the game have been. It is not simply a matter of system trade-offs, but of the designers being unwilling or unable to grapple with some basic issues of game world logic.




Monsters as PCs being slightly different then monsters as monsters didn't bother me before, and it doesn't bother me now. The whole LA thing just never worked for me. It never felt like it appropriately handled the situation at all. The Monstrous PCs were either way too powerful or way to inferior.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Dec 11, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Well, yeah!
> 
> But seriously, maybe this is my perspective from having played GURPS, Hero System, Rolemaster, WFRP, D6, and dozens of other games but, why is it that so many other games find satisfying resolutions to situations like these, but D&D 4e falters? How is that Mutants & Masterminds can deal with characters who could literally be anything from a two-fisted detective to an angel to a superfast robot, and yet 4e rests on the assumption that this level of homogenity is problematic?




  Overly coarse-grained and narrow options for character differentiation, I'd suggest. The level system is part of the problem, with so many variables being anchored to a single yardstick, as well as the 'one size fits all' requirements for costing feats and skills. And with 4E, you've got the 'siloing' going on--the game won't let you give up an encounter power for anything but another encounter power, for example.

  It has the benefits of uniformity and simplicity, but it doesn't seem to cope well with anything outside its frameworks. Of the other systems you mention, HERO, GURPS and M&M use one currency for _everything_, and while Rolemaster had some siloing, it also used varying cost structures to encourage balance. (I'm far out of date on D6, and my knowledge of WFRP is practically nonexistent.)


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 12, 2009)

keterys said:


> I think 4e has done a better job here than GURPS, Hero, Rolemaster, WFRP, and many other games.
> 
> Can't speak for D6 though.
> 
> It's _trivial_ to break HERO games, and they even thoughtfully provide examples for how to do so as a helpful way to make sure you don't accidentally do so (ie, Landlord who owns the earth and has 6 billion servants, the guy who explodes destroying the universe whenever desired, etc). So, yeah, you can have whatever you want, but it's a totally different problem, and I'm content not having to _every game_ go 'Okay, I'm about X for my attacks, defenses, and misc... where you guys. Okay, let's get ourselves a little closer together to not break the game'. I mean, as experienced RPGers, we managed, but I'm quite fine _not_ doing so. Life as a 4E DM is much easier for me that way.




So the fact that a PC option is possible makes it problematic? I'm not following. As trivial as it is to break some subsystems, it's equally trivial to identify the problem. Also, 4e's design doesn't make it any less vulnerable to exploits. So far, the designers have mostly avoided pitfalls, and mainly by not offering options. 

"4e doesn't have broken combos" to whatever extent it is true is equivalent to "4e does not offer lots of options." Any day now, the wrong power could be published, and result in some infininitely damaging combination unforseen at this point. There is nothing about siloing that prevents this phenomenon. 

Also, Landlord with 6 billion servants is an example of what is possible to do with unlimited Disadvantages points. He serves as an example of why this should be not allowed, not as an example of standard play. There are broken things that can be done on normal budgets, but nothing to that scale, and virtually of them involve "Stop Sign" elements. I have never had problems of that sort in any Hero games, even playing with some pretty hardcore powergamers.


----------



## Phaezen (Dec 12, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> "4e doesn't have broken combos" to whatever extent it is true is equivalent to "4e does not offer lots of options." Any day now, the wrong power could be published, and result in some infininitely damaging combination unforseen at this point. There is nothing about siloing that prevents this phenomenon.




FOrtunately they seem to be keeping an eye out for this at the moment, publishing regular errata and updates to the rules.

With any luck SOlar Enemy will get looked at with the next update.


----------



## keterys (Dec 12, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> So the fact that a PC option is possible makes it problematic?




Depending on the campaign. YES. 



> As trivial as it is to break some subsystems, it's equally trivial to identify the problem.



The egregious ones, of course. But, HERO is riddled with warnings with good reason, and even if you don't use any of those you can still sit down and have one person in a group with a 16d attack standard and another with a 2d standard, or have someone who needs to be hit by 21 body to notice an attack at all and another who potentially dies from 12. Depending on the game you're looking for those are strengths or weaknesses, but if I'm choosing to play a level-based game (which I am, when I play D&D), I don't want to deal with point buy's problems.

So, yes, I'm quite happy that folks can't play Balors in 4e, cause frankly I didn't like most of 3e's attempts at handling monster races. And I've done enough GURPs and HERO (especially GURPs) that I don't think they do them all that well either. So, an argument that 4E is missing something that all these games have done well, I'm not buying it. They've had possible solutions, sure. And if you really like any particular solution, more power to you. I don't think that, for instance, saying that a character should be able to use weapons that do more damage than anyone else because they're overconfident, have a fear of sea monkeys or enjoy killing people is particularly warranted. Similarly, I'm okay with things not doing more damage because you're using a particular unique indestructible weapon, or can only use it at full power, or require a steady diet of chocolate. 

I'm very happy to go 'Bugbear isn't a PC race so I don't have to care how it works' and 'Hey, Githzerai PCs get a bunch of minor bonuses to make them more interesting than the MM version' and rest easy knowing that _someone_ inspected them for validity as PC races and figured they wouldn't harm things, either too strong or too weak.

And if I want to play a Minotaur, I can just ask a DM if it's okay for their campaign and go ahead, without worrying if it's balanced. 



> There is nothing about siloing that prevents this phenomenon.



Siloing isn't supposed to prevent this phenomenon. What siloing lets you do is make RP choices without impacting your combat choices. Like Phantom Steed or Tongues instead of Fireball. Or choosing to be a master brewer without impacting your guns and acrobatics skills. And I so wish there was even more than there already is in 4e, splitting utility powers into combat vs non and feats into combat vs non.


----------



## Garthanos (Dec 12, 2009)

keterys said:


> They've had possible solutions, sure. And if you really like any particular solution, more power to you. I don't think that, for instance, saying that a character should be able to use weapons that do more damage than anyone else because they're overconfident, have a fear of sea monkeys or enjoy killing people is particularly warranted.




Games like fate and a few others said that a disadvantage when you are limited or restricted by it in some fashion becomes a source for fate points... or most likely action points (or establish a milestone?)  in 4e or a similar limited use one off benefits... in other words there are solutions that to my mind work well. GURPS and Hero are still very old school in that regards.


----------



## keterys (Dec 12, 2009)

Yeah, I'm just referring to the systems he specifically chose as having 'fixed' the problem. There are plenty of systems that cope, in different ways.

Like Amber or Theatrix, for example, to pick out a couple older systems  All depends on what you're actually gaming about.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Dec 12, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> Games like fate and a few others said that a disadvantage when you are limited or restricted by it in some fashion becomes a source for fate points... or most likely action points (or establish a milestone?)  in 4e or a similar limited use one off benefits... in other words there are solutions that to my mind work well. GURPS and Hero are still very old school in that regards.




  Actually, HERO 6E includes that as an optional rule for Complications (formerly Disadvantages).



			
				HERO System 6th Edition said:
			
		

> A more radical approach might be to do away with the Character Point value of Complications altogether and instead link the Complications system to Heroic Action Points. A character would simply get his full Total Points “for free,” with no requirement to take any Matching Complications at all. However, if he takes some Complications for his character, whenever one of them comes into play and he overcomes it (or triumphs in spite of it), he gets an extra HAP. If he voluntarily brings the Complication into play in a genre-appropriate manner (“I’m going to take my DNPC with me while I investigate the haunted house!”), perhaps he gets 2 HAPs for contributing to the story.


----------



## Garthanos (Dec 12, 2009)

keterys said:


> Yeah, I'm just referring to the systems he specifically chose as having 'fixed' the problem. There are plenty of systems that cope, in different ways.
> 
> Like Amber or Theatrix, for example, to pick out a couple older systems  All depends on what you're actually gaming about.




I think the GURPSian and HERO model says

"If a player takes fear of Goblins frequently limiting.. for his characters means you the DM have a responsibility to knock on him with goblins ... frequently."

And if you think it would warp your campaign just say no to the disad.


----------



## Garthanos (Dec 12, 2009)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> Actually, HERO 6E includes that as an optional rule for Complications (formerly Disadvantages).




Figured they would get around to it... you could do some weird hoops to get something like it before...


----------



## Garthanos (Dec 12, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> Figured they would get around to it... you could do some weird hoops to get something like it before...




It is sort of a patchy after the fact thing where the standard is you get points at the beginning for something which may not really come up that often so the GM and players either get wired in to or have to reinvest those complications points so they mean something  (do they recommend re-envisioning characters ;-)).


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 12, 2009)

keterys said:


> The egregious ones, of course. But, HERO is riddled with warnings with good reason, and even if you don't use any of those you can still sit down and have one person in a group with a 16d attack standard and another with a 2d standard, or have someone who needs to be hit by 21 body to notice an attack at all and another who potentially dies from 12. Depending on the game you're looking for those are strengths or weaknesses, but if I'm choosing to play a level-based game (which I am, when I play D&D), I don't want to deal with point buy's problems.




That's what mystifies me most about 4e's design. In a system like 4e, you can predict the range of numbers you would expect to see at each level. Something like flight or darkvision, then, is just a trump; it shouldn't mess with anything related to balance in the sense of "being able to affect or go to toe with an appropriate opponent." Either darkvision is going to break the game or it isn't, flight will or it won't. You could probably distribute such abilities willy-nilly if you wanted, provided the players were satisfied with the distribution. 

Take a look at Fantasy Craft. It's d20-based and level-based. Yet somehow, it manages to present Unborn (warforged, golems, and the like) as PCs, along with Drakes (small dragons - not dragon-like humanoids, but dragons), giants, and regenerating trolls, all without breaking the system. Further, it also uses a different system for PC generation versus NPC generation, and PC races may differ slightly from NPC templates used for quickly generating members of that race. Yay, Fantasy Craft. So yes, there are system tradeoffs, but a good system should be able to handle some very basic variation in PC abilities. 

Again, Hero system. If you use the standard design guidelines, you have ranges for to-hit, damage, and the like, and powers are allowed or not based on the GM's campaign design guidelines...  essentially, Fantasy Hero characters are level X characters, where X = whatever power level established by the GM.

And Mutants & Masterminds, too. They recently released a swords-and-sorcery campaign book, too. And guess what? Kobolds with darkvision, no problem. Minotaur PCs, no problem. And usually with less fuss and mess than in 4e, to boot.


----------



## Wik (Dec 12, 2009)

I guess I should weigh in on this.  Because, well, I am the GM that caused Blargney's initial concerns.  

So, we have a rule at our table that basically amounts to "When using the Character Builder, we do not use anything from DRAGON magazine".  While you can say that's unfair or whatever, I just figure it saves me from one major headache.  And we've been pretty good with it - people have accidentally taken dragon feats, and then corrected the problem with a heads-up to me.  

The big problem came when Blargney put his minotaur PC through the CB, and realized he lost Oversized.  Since he was playing a fighter that was built towards offence over defence, it kind of hurt his bottom line.  However, at this point, I was kind of thinking that oversized had been errata'd out of the MM, and felt that there was a good reason for it (also, that it made sense - the minotaur fighter does a lot more damage than the Dragonborn Paladin).

To compensate though, because the minotaur lost a big "power", I offered Blargney the Iron Armbands of Power, a previously "no" item - essentially, balancing things out a little bit.  Which I thought was a fair trade.  

When we realized that the new minotaur was from DRAGON, though, I Had to repeal that rule, because it'd be kind of lame for me as a GM to say "you can't use any of the good stuff from dragon, but anything that screws you guys over has to be adopted".  So, I took back my initial ruling, and went from there.  

Really, I have NO problem with PC races being different mechanically than non-PCs of the same the race.  Because, really, the only person who will notice (most of the time) is the GM.


----------



## AllisterH (Dec 13, 2009)

I think people are forgetting that the designers "change" their viewpoints with more experience and feedback of the system.

As mentioned, Darkvision at one time seemed like it was too powerful an ability but now there are way more means to get it which I believe is an acknowledgement that it isn't as unbalancing as they originally thought AND you would likely see darkvision as a racial ability.

Personal Flight (all the time) is still too problematic at heroic level and thus I doubt you will see it in a PC race.


----------



## blargney the second (Dec 14, 2009)

Wik said:


> However, at this point, I was kind of thinking that oversized had been errata'd out of the MM



This is fundamentally what sparked me to start this thread.  The MM race was never actually errataed, just reprinted and sold with alterations.  Since we haven't been using Dragon articles, I'd never noticed that the official race had changed.

Am I alone in thinking that it's _weird_ that some products get corrected with other products?  Especially given the fact that WotC does, in fact, issue errata for their products?  One error will be fixed for free, while another is only fixed for money.

If you're paying for and using the compendium or the character builder, errata and bought changes will be transparent and essentially the same.  If you're not, you're basically running around with a partially fixed game that's out of sync with everybody else's copy.



> it'd be kind of lame for me as a GM to say "you can't use any of the good stuff from dragon, but anything that screws you guys over has to be adopted".



As your player, I really appreciate this attitude!
-blarg


----------



## Jhaelen (Dec 14, 2009)

blargney the second said:


> Am I alone in thinking that it's _weird_ that some products get corrected with other products?  Especially given the fact that WotC does, in fact, issue errata for their products?  One error will be fixed for free, while another is only fixed for money.



You're not alone but it's not _really_ an error that MM1 minotaurs get to use oversized weapons. Just like the semi-functional solo monsters in MM1 aren't in error. They work - they just don't work as well as they could.

In your case there's even a disclaimer right in the MM: Intended for npc's only. So, you've been warned (kind of). It's also fine that both versions are in the CharBuilder. It's up to the DM to define campaign-settings and verify the pcs don't violate them.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 14, 2009)

blargney the second said:


> This is fundamentally what sparked me to start this thread.  The MM race was never actually errataed, just reprinted and sold with alterations.  Since we haven't been using Dragon articles, I'd never noticed that the official race had changed.
> 
> Am I alone in thinking that it's _weird_ that some products get corrected with other products?  Especially given the fact that WotC does, in fact, issue errata for their products?  One error will be fixed for free, while another is only fixed for money.
> 
> If you're paying for and using the compendium or the character builder, errata and bought changes will be transparent and essentially the same.  If you're not, you're basically running around with a partially fixed game that's out of sync with everybody else's copy.



But, as I understand it, the PC write-up of the Minotaur is neither an errata, nor is it a reprint with alterations.

It is simply a version specifically intended for PCs, unlike the Bugbear (for example) that doesn't have a PC version.  The MM entries are intended for DMs and NPCs, but because they aren't official PC races yet, they offer up some stats in case a player REALLY wanted to play it.

The PC writeup wasn't a fix.  It was simply a PC write-up.

There are many examples of PC materials being added in later books after seeing the light in other books.  How many people made a 1e (or 2e) drow PC before we every saw official PC stats?  In the minotaur's case, (IMHO) WOTC simply gave some guidelines so that players wouldn't have to make their DM jump through hoops to come up with some stats.

Personally, I think this whole mess is because the gnome wasn't going to be in the PHB and WOTC was worried and put some PC stats in the back of the MM for gnome, then added other potential PC races to fill in some space and just in case they decide to do a real PC race for other monsters.


----------



## keterys (Dec 14, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Something like flight or darkvision, then, is just a trump; it shouldn't mess with anything related to balance in the sense of "being able to affect or go to toe with an appropriate opponent." Either darkvision is going to break the game or it isn't, flight will or it won't.




Drow get darkvision. You can get goggles of night. Who knows if PC kobolds will get it or not, since they never really made a way to do PC kobolds like they did the other races.

But, flight? You don't see how flight can break the game? Here's the relevant hint: give the flyer a ranged attack and see what happens against melee only enemies. You can search up some 3rd edition threads about it if you want. If I recall, one of the good examples is something like the Mountain Giant that a flying 10th level caster can kill - I think it's CR26 or something, though that's clearly wrong too. Though some of the convoluted kill the Tarrasque plans out there fall into the same bucket.



> Take a look at Fantasy Craft. It's d20-based and level-based. Yet somehow, it manages to present Unborn (warforged, golems, and the like) as PCs, along with Drakes (small dragons - not dragon-like humanoids, but dragons), giants, and regenerating trolls, all without breaking the system.




I'll see your Fantasy Craft and raise you Rifts. Because clearly a game system containing disparate elements is always a good thing. And hey, in Rifts you can pretty much play whatever you want. Again, obviously a feature. That way Joe can play a homeless guy who wanders from city to city looking for food and a toy bear he lost during the apocalypse, while Barry plays Thor, but wearing full power armor and a fusion rifle. 



> So yes, there are system tradeoffs, but a good system should be able to handle some very basic variation in PC abilities.




Thankfully, 4e does that. Humans != Eladrin != Genasi != Kalashtar, etc. You just have a more extreme qualifier for 'very basic variation' that apparently includes flight. An ability I'm fine with dnd never giving to its base PCs, frankly. 



> And Mutants & Masterminds, too. They recently released a swords-and-sorcery campaign book, too. And guess what? Kobolds with darkvision, no problem. Minotaur PCs, no problem. And usually with less fuss and mess than in 4e, to boot.




Mutants and Masterminds is point-buy... you pay for every racial ability you get in the currency that directly impacts your other abilities. D&D is level-based. We've tried the 'pay levels for abilities' route before in 3e, in several different ways, and it mostly came up short in public opinion. Which means that playable races shouldn't be things that go too far beyond the other races. That's as much a feature of level-based games as M&M's flexibility is one of its features.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 14, 2009)

keterys said:


> But, flight? You don't see how flight can break the game? Here's the relevant hint: give the flyer a ranged attack and see what happens against melee only enemies.




Melee only enemies have a number of issues, dealing with flyers being but one of them.



> I'll see your Fantasy Craft and raise you Rifts. Because clearly a game system containing disparate elements is always a good thing. And hey, in Rifts you can pretty much play whatever you want. Again, obviously a feature.




I fail to see how I presented that argument. I've already stated that a game with a level-based approach (4e) can do something badly that another (Fantasy Craft) does well. Diverse character options can be done badly or well.

But even Rifts has its advantages. I don't have to _do anything_ to offer exotic PC options. As long as the players are satisfied that everyone has the character they want, there's a lot to be said for that.



> Thankfully, 4e does that. Humans != Eladrin != Genasi != Kalashtar, etc. You just have a more extreme qualifier for 'very basic variation' that apparently includes flight. An ability I'm fine with dnd never giving to its base PCs, frankly.




By "very basic variation" I was referring to darkvision. Flight is a more substantive variation, but is also, IME, very much in the realm of good play experiences for characters on a basically human level, not just for superheroes. 



> Mutants and Masterminds is point-buy... you pay for every racial ability you get in the currency that directly impacts your other abilities. D&D is level-based. We've tried the 'pay levels for abilities' route before in 3e, in several different ways, and it mostly came up short in public opinion. Which means that playable races shouldn't be things that go too far beyond the other races. That's as much a feature of level-based games as M&M's flexibility is one of its features.




Mutant & Masterminds is a level-based system... BAB, Fort, and the rest are all limited by Power level. Within those limits, every character is numerically balanced against other characters. While it is possible to purposefully create a character weak in one area, as a general rule, M&M characters are fairly formulaic when it comes to basic stats. 

All the darkvision, flight, and so forth is a side dish. In M&M, darkvision simply comes out of your budget, it has no bearing on how strong your magic missile is allowed to be.


----------



## AllisterH (Dec 14, 2009)

Um, pawsplay, you do realize that the very first PC race after the PHB (Drow in the FRplayer's guide) HAS darkvision right?

Not sure where this idea that darkvision would be too strong originated from since, as mentioned by WOTC, the races at the back of the MM were simply stop-gap measures until/if proper writeups were given.

re: Flight

Flight not only has combat specific issues a DM has to deal with...It has non-combat specific issues a DM has to deal with it.

One of the things about 4e is that it tries to help DMs by having things in a tier system. By the time you hit EPIC, the bog standard monster OR encounter should be written with the understanding that PCs can fly.

At Heroic, encounters both combat and non-combat flying should be rare to nonexistent. Certainly not to the extent that it's at-will....

(Again, it should be noted that PCs CAN fly in Heroic. They simply can't have PERSONAL flight. Want to fly, do what most people in literature/mythologe do. Get an animal/device such as a hippogriff or a witch's broom

Personal powered flight is more akin to superheroics IMO)


----------



## keterys (Dec 14, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Melee only enemies have a number of issues, dealing with flyers being but one of them.




Melee only enemies are a strict staple of the genre. The system needs to be able to cope with them.



> I fail to see how I presented that argument. I've already stated that a game with a level-based approach (4e) can do something badly that another (Fantasy Craft) does well. Diverse character options can be done badly or well.




And we're just disagreeing on definitions for the terms badly and well. It's a subjective personal thing - you like one thing, I like another. That doesn't make the system bad. It means you want something else. What _is_ bad is saying the system is bad when it's just different in a way you don't prefer. 



> By "very basic variation" I was referring to darkvision.




You're going to continually harm your case if you harp on darkvision, since you can get darkvision as a PC in 4E. 



> Flight is a more substantive variation, but is also, IME, very much in the realm of good play experiences for characters on a basically human level, not just for superheroes.




And here we can disagree. I've played a lot of Earthdawn and D&D in my day, and I feel safe in saying that flight is not a racial characteristic that I need ever see at 1st level in D&D. As a paragon path thing or epic destiny, or via magic item, or transport mechanism? Sure, whatever. But I'm totally fine with monsters and adventures that don't assume flight. The popular example being the Lord of the Rings where they do an eagle assisted drop of the ring in the first chapter 



> Mutant & Masterminds is a level-based system... BAB, Fort, and the rest are all limited by Power level. Within those limits, every character is numerically balanced against other characters. While it is possible to purposefully create a character weak in one area, as a general rule, M&M characters are fairly formulaic when it comes to basic stats.




Mutants and Masterminds is a point-based system with level-induced maximums. You can get the same effect from other point-buy systems, such as saying 'You guys can have a maximum of one die of damage per 25 CP' - but, yes, the maximum is low enough that everyone caps out on the combat capable stuff. Cause why not.



> flight, and so forth is a side dish.




Flight is hardly a side dish even in M&M, where it's a staple trope. Darkvision is also basically inconsequential in the setting.

Either way, you have one core pool of points and can have things like '45 point races' which in D&D (any edition) would be more trouble than it's worth.


----------



## coyote6 (Dec 14, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Mutant & Masterminds is a level-based system... BAB, Fort, and the rest are all limited by Power level. Within those limits, every character is numerically balanced against other characters. While it is possible to purposefully create a character weak in one area, as a general rule, M&M characters are fairly formulaic when it comes to basic stats.




Power Levels in M&M is not really equivalent to levels in D&D (any version). They have similar characteristics (M&M PL means "this character is this powerful", and level in D&D also indicates power levels), but they are also very disimilar (in 4e, you're going to go through tiers -- not so in M&M; heck, you might never change PL in M&M -- I certainly don't use the "raise PL every 15 xp" thing). 

It's also very easy to create overpowering characters in M&M, sometimes unintentionally (i.e., Concealment + Insubstantial + Subtle attacks). I think D&D 4e aims to make that not so possible.

M&M and D&D are different games, so they do things differently. 

(FWIW, given a choice between the two, I'd probably rather play M&M; I'm not trying to run either game down.)


----------



## keterys (Dec 14, 2009)

Anecdotally, I'd also play M&M or 4E, though for different types of games  For example I found it much easier in M&M to make characters that were relatively indestructible to certain types of threats (ie, lower powered ones) so I'd want less 'teeming hordes of enemies' and more 'The archvillain and his lieutenants'

I'm less enthused, at the moment, by 3E, GURPS, or HERO. I'd be quite enthused to try some stuff that is new to me, like Fate or Burning Wheel, though I don't know if they're any good personally. Which is part of why I'd be enthused to play them


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 15, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Um, pawsplay, you do realize that the very first PC race after the PHB (Drow in the FRplayer's guide) HAS darkvision right?
> 
> Not sure where this idea that darkvision would be too strong originated from since, as mentioned by WOTC, the races at the back of the MM were simply stop-gap measures until/if proper writeups were given.




So explain to me again why kobold PCs lack darkvision, when other kobolds have it, if it's not "balance."


----------



## AllisterH (Dec 15, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> So explain to me again why kobold PCs lack darkvision, when other kobolds have it, if it's not "balance."




Honestly?

Because I think WOTC just threw them out there and didn't realize that their kobold didn't have darkvision.

It needs to be repeated. The PC stats at the back of the MM were never intended to be longterm solutions but simply for those that NEEDED them right this minute. I also think they thought people would realize "Hey, these are subject to change when we get around to it".

Again, the very first product after the MM is the Forgotten Realms Player Guide and right there we see drow have darkvision. And as mentioned, there are magic items in practically the first DRAGON after 4e launched that give Darkvision.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 15, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Yeah this sounds ridiculous. A race that evolved into having darkvision as a survival trait should have darkvision. In earlier editions certain races with the best night/underground vision also took penalties when operating in bright light which would kind of self balance for a PC who operated in both environments.
> 
> In this case being above ground too long might reduce the vision to low light but negate any penalties for bright light.
> 
> Either way "being a PC " is an insufficient excuse to recode the genome.




What is ridiculous is that you actually think that a species that grows up in the dark will spontaneously develop the ability to see in the dark, rather than being totally blind like EVERY OTHER creature that lives underground.

And then complain about how it's so unbelievable that PC kobolds can't see in the dark as well as other kobolds.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 15, 2009)

Hussar said:


> What is ridiculous is that you actually think that a species that grows up in the dark will spontaneously develop the ability to see in the dark, rather than being totally blind like EVERY OTHER creature that lives underground.
> 
> And then complain about how it's so unbelievable that PC kobolds can't see in the dark as well as other kobolds.




Its only ridiculous if the the rest of the kobold nation has it and the PC doesn't.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 15, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Its only ridiculous if the the rest of the kobold nation has it and the PC doesn't.




But that wasn't your complaint.  Your complaint was that it doesn't make scientific sense that PC Kobolds lack and ability that other kobolds have.  The fact that the ability doesn't make any scientific sense in the first place apparently doesn't matter.

Simple answer - kobold shamans grant darkvision from their god(dess) through daily rituals.  PC kobolds do not have access to a kobold shaman therefore they lose darkvision.

There, end of problem.


----------



## keterys (Dec 15, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> So explain to me again why kobold PCs lack darkvision, when other kobolds have it, if it's not "balance."




A racial writeup for kobold PCs has not yet been published (nor has one for bugbears, hence them having oversized weapons). So first you have to show that kobold PCs actually lack darkvision.

Now, I wouldn't be surprised if the final kobold PC writeup lacks _shifty_ in its current incarnation, moving to something less at-will.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 15, 2009)

Hussar said:


> But that wasn't your complaint. Your complaint was that it doesn't make scientific sense that PC Kobolds lack and ability that other kobolds have. The fact that the ability doesn't make any scientific sense in the first place apparently doesn't matter.




Yes. The problem isn't scientific, it instead a consistency issue. 



Hussar said:


> Simple answer - kobold shamans grant darkvision from their god(dess) through daily rituals. PC kobolds do not have access to a kobold shaman therefore they lose darkvision.
> 
> There, end of problem.




So now every little kobold encampment will have to include a shaman if the little buggers want access to darkvision. This bass ackwards type of justification just makes more work for the DM. 

Simpler answer- all kobolds have darkvision. End of problem. 

New problem: DM doesn't want to permit PC races with darkvision.
Player: " Can I play a kobold?"
DM: " No"

End of problem.


----------



## Garthanos (Dec 15, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Yes. The problem isn't scientific, it instead a consistency issue.
> 
> 
> 
> So now every little kobold encampment will have to include a shaman if the little buggers want access to darkvision. This bass ackwards type of justification just makes more work for the DM.





nyeah the shaman idea is far cooler....it creates a culture for them (or actually starts you thinking about one) and the rituals effects might last till the rise of a new moon...or till some other condition like being in bright sunlight at noon..

Some times cool is far better than simple ... if I liked kobolds enough to have them in my game world I would like them enough to jot that down.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 15, 2009)

Maybe the Kobolds themselves don't really know why, but when a Kobold leaves the clan, he looses certain attributes... Dark Vision being one of them. 

The clan is strength, safety... Abandoning the clan is dangerous not only for yourself, but it weakens the clan as a whole (one less Kobold to help build the rock slide traps...) Therefore, the Shamans say it's a curse from the gods to punish the one who would hurt the clan. 

Personally I love the little "inconsistencies." They leave more room for imagination. People that get hung up over this stuff amuse me in a weird way.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 15, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Maybe the Kobolds themselves don't really know why, but when a Kobold leaves the clan, he looses certain attributes... Dark Vision being one of them.
> 
> The clan is strength, safety... Abandoning the clan is dangerous not only for yourself, but it weakens the clan as a whole (one less Kobold to help build the rock slide traps...) Therefore, the Shamans say it's a curse from the gods to punish the one who would hurt the clan.
> 
> Personally I love the little "inconsistencies." They leave more room for imagination. People that get hung up over this stuff amuse me in a weird way.




I am likewise amused by the "oh noes we can't let a PC do that!" gyrations that people need to come up with in order to justify inconsistencies. 

Can I play a kobold?
Sure.
Nice. Shifty lil bugger with nightvision will be awesome!
Well......
What?
You won't get the shifting ability or the darkvision.
.......
Ok then I guess I'll play a gnome who wears a kobold mask.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 15, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> I am likewise amused by the "oh noes we can't let a PC do that!" gyrations that people need to come up with in order to justify inconsistencies.
> 
> Can I play a kobold?
> Sure.
> ...




I think you're looking at things backwards there...


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 15, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Maybe the Kobolds themselves don't really know why, but when a Kobold leaves the clan, he looses certain attributes... Dark Vision being one of them.
> 
> The clan is strength, safety... Abandoning the clan is dangerous not only for yourself, but it weakens the clan as a whole (one less Kobold to help build the rock slide traps...) Therefore, the Shamans say it's a curse from the gods to punish the one who would hurt the clan.
> 
> Personally I love the little "inconsistencies." They leave more room for imagination. People that get hung up over this stuff amuse me in a weird way.



Early editions of D&D were chock-full of these little inconsistencies and they unintentionally added a load of flavor.  I don't mind them at all.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 15, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> Early editions of D&D were chock-full of these little inconsistencies and they unintentionally added a load of flavor. I don't mind them at all.




I don't mind flavor added for its own sake but having to paint it over a lame justification such as game balance handed down from the corporate machine kind of stinks.


----------



## MrMyth (Dec 15, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> So explain to me again why kobold PCs lack darkvision, when other kobolds have it, if it's not "balance."




Because it was in the MM, released when they were still feeling out the power of certain abilities, and felt limiting it was useful for balance - and if they were to write the rules for that race at the current point in time, with what they have learned in the interim, they would almost certainly give the kobold PCs darkvision.

Here's my question - what _other_ examples of this PC/NPC dichotomy actually bug you? The kobold darkvision one was really the only one that got to me, since it changed a fundamental element of the race. But as mentioned - it is also something they probably wouldn't do now, and it was pretty much a solitary example. 

Yes, lots of other monster races are different from the NPC/PC versions... in ways that are completely irrelevant to the core of the race itself. A PC minotaur feels like a minotaur, despite not operating identically to a minotaur monster. 

So, are there any other cases that actually come to mind of this being a problem, or were kobolds it? Cause if so, I don't think you have anything to worry about, since that 'issue' will likely be fixed whenever they have an offical PC race.


----------



## MrMyth (Dec 15, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> So now every little kobold encampment will have to include a shaman if the little buggers want access to darkvision. This bass ackwards type of justification just makes more work for the DM.
> 
> Simpler answer- all kobolds have darkvision. End of problem.
> 
> ...




So, as it currently stands, the only problem is requiring some minor justification on the DMs part when dealing with kobold camps, and/or just ignoring the issue unless someone asks about it. 

You would prefer to replace this with the problem of creating DM/player conflict and actively hindering a player from using the character they want to play. Not because the DM doesn't want the player using kobolds, but because the DM doesn't want them having darkvision and finds it easier to shut down the player than risk _possibly_ having to come up with some minor imaginative answer _if_ the players ever come into conflict with other tribes of kobolds. 

Yeah, great solution.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 15, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> I don't mind flavor added for its own sake but having to paint it over a lame justification such as game balance handed down from the corporate machine kind of stinks.




Huh...

Maybe that's the difference? 

1. I don't see it as "having to" do anything... I just do. It's one of the reasons I really love reading the WW stuff- the little gaps in the story they leave make my brain wander. Same thing with rules like this... It doesn't feel like a chore, it's fun. Shrug.


I also don't have any notions of the evil corporation being responsible for an unwanted game balance. 

I see game balance as a tool- it allows me, the DM (usually) to look at my campaign and watch for things that will cause issues. It's a baseline that I can start from and adjust as I see fit (to promote a good time at the table.)

When I see something like this X ability is not part of the PC version for game balance reasons I know that the designers are informing me that if the PC has this ability, in the "base level perfect situation" of the game it will be overly powerful, and possibly problematic. I can then make an informed decision about whether or not to allow it as a house rule.


----------



## Woas (Dec 15, 2009)

Is it guaranteed that PC kobolds also have two arms and two legs? Or is that in the realm of NPC kobolds only?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 15, 2009)

MrMyth said:


> So, as it currently stands, the only problem is requiring some minor justification on the DMs part when dealing with kobold camps, and/or just ignoring the issue unless someone asks about it.
> 
> You would prefer to replace this with the problem of creating DM/player conflict and actively hindering a player from using the character they want to play. Not because the DM doesn't want the player using kobolds, but because the DM doesn't want them having darkvision and finds it easier to shut down the player than risk _possibly_ having to come up with some minor imaginative answer _if_ the players ever come into conflict with other tribes of kobolds.
> 
> Yeah, great solution.




How is removing racial characteristics for PC use not hindering a player from using the character they want to play? As a player I would appreciate an up front "no" rather than have the DM say that I only get to wear a race X jumpsuit. As we all know, players never want to choose a race based on any abilities it might have.

So how is denying the player certain racial benefits not shutting them down without being up front about it?

I just love how "using your imagination" to support the dictates of a mechanics heavy system is acceptable but doing the same with a rules light system isn't good enough.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 15, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> So how is denying the player certain racial benefits not shutting them down without being up front about it?




They get other benefits Kobold NPCs don't get to compensate. Like healing surges and action points and stuff. 

So if changes to the race to be PC friendly are problematic, would you rather just play a monster and be done with it? No PC abilities, just straight monster stats. 

Or as someone stated above is it only a problem when they take one of your toys away?



> I just love how "using your imagination" to support the dictates of a mechanics heavy system is acceptable but doing the same with a rules light system isn't good enough.




Who said that?


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 15, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> So how is denying the player certain racial benefits not shutting them down without being up front about it?
> 
> I just love how "using your imagination" to support the dictates of a mechanics heavy system is acceptable but doing the same with a rules light system isn't good enough.




Maybe, as Scribble said, the way to handle a player wanting to play a kobold is to just let them do it.

Play a kobold, just like all the other kobold monsters out there. Get darkvision, shifty and all that cool stuff and then they'd be like all other kobolds out there.  Because that's the issue right?  They want to have all the kobold stuff that other kobolds get.

Great!  Problem solved!

But... then then wouldn't get action points, surges, extra powers as they level (wait, do kobold monsters get to level?) and they won't have any feats.

So is it about being balanced with the world?  Or balanced against the other PCs? Or is balance not a concern?


----------



## MrMyth (Dec 15, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> How is removing racial characteristics for PC use not hindering a player from using the character they want to play? As a player I would appreciate an up front "no" rather than have the DM say that I only get to wear a race X jumpsuit. As we all know, players never want to choose a race based on any abilities it might have.
> 
> So how is denying the player certain racial benefits not shutting them down without being up front about it?




Because they still get to play a balanced and unique race. Even if it is a limitation, it is still far better than being deprived of the class entirely. You say you, as a player, would rather be told 'no' than allowed to play a 'limited' version of a monster race. I'd say it is _terrible_ DMing to then _make that choice for your players_, rather than let them choose whether they want the race or not.

Especially when there are other ways to resolve it if it is _actually_ a problem. Like coming up with an in-character reason for it. Or just giving them the power, if it isn't game-breaking. 

We seem to be stuck on the kobold-darkvision thing, despite it being clear that isn't likely to be an issue when the race gets its proper PC write-up. Does your opinion remain the same in other situations? Is it upsetting to play a PC Dragonborn who can only breath fire once a fight, rather than a monster dragonborn or dragon who have a rechargable breath weapon? Do you feel that is a reason to ban dragonborn from your game? Because I don't think that's a very good solution to me....



> I just love how "using your imagination" to support the dictates of a mechanics heavy system is acceptable but doing the same with a rules light system isn't good enough.




I don't know what you are trying to say here.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 15, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> Maybe, as Scribble said, the way to handle a player wanting to play a kobold is to just let them do it.
> 
> Play a kobold, just like all the other kobold monsters out there. Get darkvision, shifty and all that cool stuff and then they'd be like all other kobolds out there. Because that's the issue right? They want to have all the kobold stuff that other kobolds get.
> 
> ...




The will be possible drawbacks to go with the benefits. Perhaps they take a penalty for operating in bright light? 

Some monsters when played as a PC might not get a character class at all. Standard class selection/advancement is only a given for the races in the PHB or equivalent.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 15, 2009)

Here's a question for you...

Do you feel it's wrong for say, The Invoker to have access to powers that the fighter doesn't, and vice versa?


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 15, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> The will be possible drawbacks to go with the benefits. Perhaps they take a penalty for operating in bright light?
> 
> Some monsters when played as a PC might not get a character class at all. Standard class selection/advancement is only a given for the races in the PHB or equivalent.



Using your argument, though, kobolds don't get drawbacks for operating in bright light, why should the PC be gimped?

It's my opinion that until a PC race is written up that is balanced for play with other races, the players shouldn't be able to run with the MM entries.  But that's just my opinion and I am sure that others want their game play different.  That's cool with me.

The whole "minotaur without oversized is a minitaur" just doesn't make any sense in light of the arguments that are being placed regarding the PC write-ups vs the MM NPC writeups.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 15, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Here's a question for you...
> 
> Do you feel it's wrong for say, The Invoker to have access to powers that the fighter doesn't, and vice versa?




Nope. 

Class and race are not equally interchangeable bags of abilities. A class is your job. A human is a human, he or she can get a new job if desired. Racial traits are inherent. A human does not swap out of humanity unless some kind of transformation (magical or otherwise) takes place.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 15, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> Using your argument, though, kobolds don't get drawbacks for operating in bright light, why should the PC be gimped?
> 
> It's my opinion that until a PC race is written up that is balanced for play with other races, the players shouldn't be able to run with the MM entries. But that's just my opinion and I am sure that others want their game play different. That's cool with me.
> 
> The whole "minotaur without oversized is a minitaur" just doesn't make any sense in light of the arguments that are being placed regarding the PC write-ups vs the MM NPC writeups.




The bright light thing may or may not be true for a given campaign world. The point is that if such a thing does exist specifically as a racial trait then it applies to all members of that race. 

Players shouldn't be able to just pick any MM race and use it simply because the writeup exists.The DM does need to use care in making the decision about allowable races and which ones will be acceptable.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 15, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> It's my opinion that until a PC race is written up that is balanced for play with other races, the players shouldn't be able to run with the MM entries.  But that's just my opinion and I am sure that others want their game play different.  That's cool with me.




A major point of the thread is the objection to having different physical racial characteristics for the PC vs NPC version of a D&D critter in the first place. If you need to prune back the creature to make it PC-appropriate, what's the point of doing so? To hell with "say yes" in this case because it's really "yes (sort of)" and not a full yes anyway. Save the effort, the hemming and hawing, and just say no outright. Frankly, I'd prefer the clarity of minotaur rather than have NPC minotaurs and PC faux-minotaurs/ minitaurs/ ersatz-minotaurs/ whathaveyou.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 15, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Nope.
> 
> Class and race are not equally interchangeable bags of abilities. A class is your job. A human is a human, he or she can get a new job if desired. Racial traits are inherent. A human does not swap out of humanity unless some kind of transformation (magical or otherwise) takes place.




Sure they are. It's a game we're talking about for one thing, but for another, there are plenty of class abilities, and feats and such that let you gain things that are also race features. 

In the PHB lowlight vision is one feat that adds a racial ability for instance.  A Dragonborn who takes Low Light vision... is no longer a Dragonborn? (None of the dragonborn in the MM have lowlight vision!)

Since the MM class/race combos don't have things like feats, you just let the monster have whatever powers are within the right power range, and "assume" it has all the necessary feats and such to do whatever you need it to.

So, since there are feats that enable a character to gain Darkvision...

You can't just assume that everything in a MM stat block you want is gained because of its race- It could very well be a class feature, or a feat, or a power.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 15, 2009)

billd91 said:


> A major point of the thread is the objection to having different physical racial characteristics for the PC vs NPC version of a D&D critter in the first place. If you need to prune back the creature to make it PC-appropriate, what's the point of doing so? To hell with "say yes" in this case because it's really "yes (sort of)" and not a full yes anyway. Save the effort, the hemming and hawing, and just say no outright. Frankly, I'd prefer the clarity of minotaur rather than have NPC minotaurs and PC faux-minotaurs/ minitaurs/ ersatz-minotaurs/ whathaveyou.



There are no "unclassed" monsters in the Monster Manual. Or should I say there are no classed monsters? 

Essentially, they all have special abilities, levels and all that. There is no "pure" or "base" Kobold without any of that, unlike it was in 4E. They always come with powers, roles and so on. It is not possible to distinguish between "nurture" and "nature" for a monsters abilities. It's only possible to identify "theme". Kobolds are evil shifty buggers living underground. 

Wether I give them a Shift At Will Ability and Darkvision for that or not is not relevant to fill in the theme, just as it is unnecessary for the PC Kobold to be evil and live underground.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 15, 2009)

I kind of look at monsters in the 4e MM as kind of a "snippet" of a full race/class combo. Like if you were to take a level human fighter and only show parts of his stat block. 

Since he's only going to exist somewhat briefly, and the numbers work you really don't need the extra info a full class writeup would show you.

A level three Kobold Wyrmpriest has darkvision because of some combination of powers/features/feats a level 3 Kobold Wyrmpriest gets.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 15, 2009)

Scribble said:


> You can't just assume that everything in a MM stat block you want is gained because of its race- It could very well be a class feature, or a feat, or a power.




I never mentioned such a thing. 

*The point is that if such a thing does exist specifically as a racial trait then it applies to all members of that race. *

Boldface in the event it was missed earlier. 

Lets say a beastie has a natural attack that is rather nasty. If the attack is a function of its class/role, being a brute for example, then there is no reason to conclude that such an ability is a racial trait and a player would then have to play a brute to gain such an ability as opposed to a member of that race. 

Of course in a game where you can change your race with a feat ( and even untrain it later) there isn't much of a game world to worry about anyway.


----------



## keterys (Dec 15, 2009)

Out of curiosity. If kobolds have access to a feat to upgrade from low light to darkvision, does that make it still horrible that don't have darkvision or not, cause they could, and all the kobolds in the mm might have taken it?

Though I still wish people would stop arguing about race stat blocks that were never intended to be used for PCs. Though the minotaur example is the best one, where the published minotaurs don't even use oversized weapons, yet the PC version is a 'minitaur' somehow.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 15, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> I never mentioned such a thing.
> 
> *The point is that if such a thing does exist specifically as a racial trait then it applies to all members of that race. *
> 
> ...




Where does it say it exists as a racial trait?

(And also I disagrees in principle to your it exists in all members of that race mantra. As I said earlier, I have a friend who is colorblind... yet we still consider him human. )


----------



## billd91 (Dec 15, 2009)

Scribble said:


> (And also I disagrees in principle to your it exists in all members of that race mantra. As I said earlier, I have a friend who is colorblind... yet we still consider him human. )




That wouldn't be the same as every DM-run kobold having darkvision while every player-run kobold being required to not have it because of "rules balance".


----------



## Scribble (Dec 15, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Of course in a game where you can change your race with a feat ( and even untrain it later) there isn't much of a game world to worry about anyway.




In your opinion... 

In mine thats part of the fun of fantasy worlds and TTRPGs. With a little imagination and creativity, + a human being moderating the thing instead of lines of code, you can come up with and do just about anything.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 15, 2009)

billd91 said:


> That wouldn't be the same as every DM-run kobold having darkvision while every player-run kobold being required to not have it because of "rules balance".




Why not?


----------



## billd91 (Dec 15, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> There are no "unclassed" monsters in the Monster Manual. Or should I say there are no classed monsters?
> 
> Essentially, they all have special abilities, levels and all that. There is no "pure" or "base" Kobold without any of that, unlike it was in 4E. They always come with powers, roles and so on. It is not possible to distinguish between "nurture" and "nature" for a monsters abilities. It's only possible to identify "theme". Kobolds are evil shifty buggers living underground.
> 
> Wether I give them a Shift At Will Ability and Darkvision for that or not is not relevant to fill in the theme, just as it is unnecessary for the PC Kobold to be evil and live underground.




And yet, all of the kobolds in the MM1 have darkvision, shifty, and trapsense. That suggests to me that there is a set of standard kobold abilities to work from. And the Racial Traits section covers them as well with the explicit mention of using them as starting points for PCs with DM permission.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 15, 2009)

billd91 said:


> And yet, all of the kobolds in the MM1 have darkvision, shifty, and trapsense. That suggests to me that there is a set of standard kobold abilities to work from. And the Racial Traits section covers them as well with the explicit mention of using them as starting points for PCs with DM permission.




Actually the Kobold racial writeup thing has them with normal vision.


----------



## keterys (Dec 15, 2009)

I suspect this moved away from the OP/title into some sorta odd pro-Simulation argument. Which is kinda shame, cause I think how much people are willing to accept a game that revises itself via patches and updated rules is actually interesting.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 15, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Actually the Kobold racial writeup thing has them with normal vision.




I would submit that as evidence that they were intending for players and DMs to really use those critters as PC race versions of the creatures in the MM. They had already handicapped a few just for that purpose.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 16, 2009)

keterys said:


> I suspect this moved away from the OP/title into some sorta odd pro-Simulation argument. Which is kinda shame, cause I think how much people are willing to accept a game that revises itself via patches and updated rules is actually interesting.




Yes it is interesting. Constant updating isn't a new thing. Back in the Basic game days  we were constantly adding and updating things into the game. The biggest difference between what was happening then and now is that the patching and revising isn't being done by those playing in the game. 

Highly integrated complex rules systems tend to give the pronouncements of the rule gawds more power. Way back when, we laughed at "official" rules updates. No dictated changes needed to be adopted when released. 

Unearthed Arcana is a great example. We jumped on that book and played with a lot of it but after the newness wore off more and more of it got dropped. 

The new patch method works only because of the involved complexity. I'll be the first to admit that I wouldn't want to play 4E at all without either a pregen or the character builder. I'm not about to hand write out a dozen or more powers that all have to be tweaked and adjusted at least every other level. DMing? Without the monster builder or pre-written modules it just ain't happening. This reliance on the convenience of such tools all comes back to the ruleset that makes them indispensable. Living with constant tweaks and adjustments seems like a small price to pay for the work these tools save. 
So our games are held hostage by the rules gawds unless we wish to abandon our helpful tools. 

 Back with old basic set if someone said that I had to use certain rules or I would have to do everything by hand it would be easy to laugh at them and tell them to stick it. Looking at a typical statblock now is enough to take the fight right out of you.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 16, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Where does it say it exists as a racial trait?
> 
> (And also I disagrees in principle to your it exists in all members of that race mantra. As I said earlier, I have a friend who is colorblind... yet we still consider him human. )




Having color sight isn't an intrinsic part of being human.  It isn't essential to human-ness, and doesn't have a significant impact on survival in a typical human environment.

Being blind in the dark without some compensatory senses when the rest of your race is perfectly at home in the dark IS a significant barrier to survival- the kind of distinction that would, in the RW, denote either a significant mutation if not a separate species or subspecies.

IOW, kobolds without darkvision would likely either be "Surface Kobolds," and have a lifestyle completely different from their subterranean, darkvision-equipped cousins, or be outcasts who were abandoned at cave mouths due to their being severely incapacitated in the warrens- useless mouths to feed, if you will, that the tribe cannot afford to support- and thus the possible first members of what would become "Surface Kobolds."


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 16, 2009)

keterys said:


> A racial writeup for kobold PCs has not yet been published (nor has one for bugbears, hence them having oversized weapons). So first you have to show that kobold PCs actually lack darkvision.
> 
> Now, I wouldn't be surprised if the final kobold PC writeup lacks _shifty_ in its current incarnation, moving to something less at-will.




Lacking shifty is not a problem. All that means is that the kobold will have slightly different moves in combat. Not being able to see in the neighborhood where you supposedly grew up is a problem. In that case, we have to explain why the PC kobold lacks darkvision, when seemingly other kobolds do not. Even if the kobold writeup is only used for NPCs, it's still a problem if you apply it literally, and suddenly you have NPC kobolds who also cannot see in the kobold tunnels. 

The minotaur thing is less of an issue, but it's still annoying. PC minotaurs should be able to use weapons off of dead NPC minotaurs. Apparently, that's not a problem since the MM minotaurs use normal-sized weapons. However, if they are led by an NPC minotaur with an oversized weapon, the PC can't use it. If it's an ability unique to that NPC, that's not a problem. Strong minotaur, I guess. But the ability applies to all NPC minotaurs. How is it, then, that all NPC minotaurs, regardless of role or other abilities, have this ability, but PCs do not? It also raises an interesting question... do you allow monster minotaurs to wield oversized weapons? If not, the only problem is inconsistency. Minotaur brutes, apparently, are not as boss as minotaur rogues. If you do... then we're back to square one. Why does the PC minotaur appear to suffer from some sort of disability, even if he is a fantastically powerful minotaur barbarian?

Someone asked for more examples... Sorry. I haven't really kept up with 4e. I'm curious from a design standpoint, and I like to stay current on useful topics of geekly conversation, but since I don't actually play it, I don't have a good grasp for the PHB and MM from memory.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 16, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Why not?




Because he's not a PC in a role playing game made to be color blind because full color vision would have made him "too good" to play.  Unless someone out there really is playing "Pencils and Paychecks", but frankly, given the diversity of our experiences, I'm guessing we're more reflections of a generic point-buy system and your friend bought a 1 or 2 point quirk.


----------



## Xris Robin (Dec 16, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> How is it, then, that all NPC minotaurs, regardless of role or other abilities, have this ability, but PCs do not?




I note that you said you don't have a good grasp of the MM and don't play 4e.  This is interesting, because it explains why you just asked a question that has no meaning.  No NPC minotaurs have the Oversized ability, or use large weapons.

So, in fact, you have it in reverse.  If the PC minotaur were using the MM stats (instead of the Dragon ones), rather than a minitaur... he's more of the mightytaur, since he can use larger weapons than NPC versions.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 16, 2009)

Christopher Robin said:


> If the PC minotaur were using the MM stats (instead of the Dragon ones), rather than a minitaur... he's more of the mightytaur, since he can use larger weapons than NPC versions.



I like to call these oversized using dudes  MegaTaurs.   But I think I like MightyTaur instead!


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 16, 2009)

Christopher Robin said:


> I note that you said you don't have a good grasp of the MM and don't play 4e.  This is interesting, because it explains why you just asked a question that has no meaning.  No NPC minotaurs have the Oversized ability, or use large weapons.
> 
> So, in fact, you have it in reverse.  If the PC minotaur were using the MM stats (instead of the Dragon ones), rather than a minitaur... he's more of the mightytaur, since he can use larger weapons than NPC versions.




My impression is that monsters don't have weapon sizes at all... weapons are whatever size is described in their treasure. This may be another question without an answer, but how much damage does a monster do if you hand it one of the PCs' weapons?


----------



## billd91 (Dec 16, 2009)

Christopher Robin said:


> No NPC minotaurs have the Oversized ability, or use large weapons.




I believe you are wrong there. In the MM, the basic medium-sized minotaur warrior may have a basic battleaxe for his size, but the medium cabalist has a great mace that does the same damage as a large-sized mace. The large savage minotaur has a greataxe that does the same base damage as a huge-sized greataxe. So, not using oversized weapons? I think use of oversized weapons is _exactly_ where the designers got the base weapon damage from.


----------



## Xris Robin (Dec 16, 2009)

billd91 said:


> I believe you are wrong there. In the MM, the basic medium-sized minotaur warrior may have a basic battleaxe for his size, but the medium cabalist has a great mace that does the same damage as a large-sized mace. The large savage minotaur has a greataxe that does the same base damage as a huge-sized greataxe. So, not using oversized weapons? I think use of oversized weapons is _exactly_ where the designers got the base weapon damage from.



The Savage Minotaur does indeed do 2d8+7 damage with it's Greataxe. However, if you check the DMG, under the handy Creating Monsters section... the damage table says a level 16 monster should do... 2d8+7 damage.  And the Cabalist's Great Cursed Mace does 1d10+6... exactly correct for a level 13 monster.  Actually, to be entirely fair, the DMG suggests the Savage should be using High damage instead of Medium, because it's a brute.  So it's damage should actually be 3d8+7.  But it does 4d8+23 on a crit, so I think it still works out.  Minotaurs do level appropriate damage, not weapon-based.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 16, 2009)

keterys said:


> I suspect this moved away from the OP/title into some sorta odd pro-Simulation argument. Which is kinda shame, cause I think how much people are willing to accept a game that revises itself via patches and updated rules is actually interesting.



I find this interesting. 

I think it's problematic from a partical point of view usually. Incorporating all the errata and revisions into my own books is almost impossible. 

But thanks to the Character Builder or Monster Builder, it is really easy to deal with in 4E. 

Overall I think a game greatly benefits when the designers are able to go back and fix mistakes they made quite a while ago. It allows to evolve the game continually with shorter cycles, without needing to put out new editions or "sub"editions (aka 3.5). Of course in the end you are still doing what you did with those, but you don't have to do it in big stacks. You don't have to worry about invalidating your old source books. You just update them as you go along. 

Of course, the print version are kinda out-of-date. But 4E has all the tools you need to not have to refer to those books during play. You can print out your character sheet along with power cards that describes everything your character can do. DMs now have the monster builder to get up-to-date stat blocks. 

And it's not as if they would "revise" the flavor text or the world description. This part remains.


----------



## Garthanos (Dec 16, 2009)

Christopher Robin said:


> The Savage Minotaur does indeed do 2d8+7 damage with it's Greataxe. However, if you check the DMG, under the handy Creating Monsters section... the damage table says a level 16 monster should do... 2d8+7 damage.  And the Cabalist's Great Cursed Mace does 1d10+6... exactly correct for a level 13 monster.  Actually, to be entirely fair, the DMG suggests the Savage should be using High damage instead of Medium, because it's a brute.  So it's damage should actually be 3d8+7.  But it does 4d8+23 on a crit, so I think it still works out.  Minotaurs do level appropriate damage, not weapon-based.




Yup and further Fluff != stuff... it could sometimes be because of grunches humongous weapon and other times because of gargh hunts for vulnerable places  and its all up to those playing the game.  (Savagery implies the latter to me).


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 16, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Overall I think a game greatly benefits when the designers are able to go back and fix mistakes they made quite a while ago. It allows to evolve the game continually with shorter cycles, without needing to put out new editions or "sub"editions (aka 3.5). Of course in the end you are still doing what you did with those, but you don't have to do it in big stacks. You don't have to worry about invalidating your old source books. You just update them as you go along.




Of course this reasoning assumes that everyone considers all changes and updates to be improvements. The issue with these upgrades being in electronic form is that they must be adopted 100% or not at all. One can pick and choose what to use from printed errata. The electronic updates work differently. You cannot adopt a change you like that came out in patch 4.019 without accepting patches 4.001-4.018 as well. 

This factor contributes to the MMO feel. The MMO rules change at the behest of the designers. Players either accept these changes and upgrade or stop playing. D&D is a tabletop game and players are always welcome to use printed material only. The ponderously involved statblocks and character sheets make this choice impractical for many players so accepting the rules from on high is the path of least resistance.


----------



## Garthanos (Dec 16, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> The issue with these upgrades being in electronic form is that they must be adopted 100% or not at all.




Excluding or including "content"  (even based on sources) those are easy and can be maintained and saved... or loaded for new characters. (this is different than changing the nature of content.

I agree not all changes are "enhancements" 

I am annoyed by having to hunt through the whole bloody list of illegal feats to find the few that I house ruled to be legal for my campaign for instance on characters who have the Reapers touch feat who are not shadarkai.   

Does that mean I cant do it? no but it means I have to go out of my way a little it makes the tool a little less useful and the more divergent I get from the "norm" and over time the tool gets less useful.... Unless over time they also change the tool to be better at adapting to house rules and customizations. Which I dont think they have succeeded on (yet).


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 16, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> Excluding or including "content" (even based on sources) those are easy and can be maintained and saved... or loaded for new characters. (this is different than changing the nature of content.
> 
> I agree not all changes are "enhancements"
> 
> ...




Yeah.  The subscription model without super customization support would eliminate the only real advantage that tabletop RPG's have over computer games. The traditional RPG doesn't have the cool graphics, and the nature of the material provides less of an instantaneous gratification fix than consumers generally want these days. The ability to customize and get exactly what you want for your play group is the greatest strength of the product.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 16, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Yeah.  The subscription model without super customization support would eliminate the only real advantage that tabletop RPG's have over computer games.



It doesn't eliminate it. You are still able to create a game world however you see fit. You just lose your ability to easily house rule. 

Of course I would not mind more or better house rule features in the Character Builder. I want to build my own powers, feats and paragon pathes, classes. (In that order).


----------



## Garthanos (Dec 16, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> It doesn't eliminate it. You are still able to create a game world however you see fit. You just lose your ability to easily house rule.




Right it isnt black and white...




Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Of course I would not mind more or better house rule features in the Character Builder. I want to build my own powers, feats and paragon pathes, classes. (In that order).




In fact you can do your own of most of those (they just need improved).

What I want is more ability to rename and reskin while maintaining the same hardware (mechanics on the backside). 

I can do it with items.. why not powers?


----------



## Scribble (Dec 16, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Having color sight isn't an intrinsic part of being human.  It isn't essential to human-ness, and doesn't have a significant impact on survival in a typical human environment.
> 
> Being blind in the dark without some compensatory senses when the rest of your race is perfectly at home in the dark IS a significant barrier to survival- the kind of distinction that would, in the RW, denote either a significant mutation if not a separate species or subspecies.
> 
> IOW, kobolds without darkvision would likely either be "Surface Kobolds," and have a lifestyle completely different from their subterranean, darkvision-equipped cousins, or be outcasts who were abandoned at cave mouths due to their being severely incapacitated in the warrens- useless mouths to feed, if you will, that the tribe cannot afford to support- and thus the possible first members of what would become "Surface Kobolds."




That's fine. I also know a guy who is completely blind; so he's no longer human? I think he might find that amusing- Or more likely insulting. 

The point really is that genetic differences don't automatically = a new race. Sure you can use this as the back story to a new race if you want, I won't argue that it's your game do whatever you find cool... A race of surface Kobolds might be fun to explore actually, but arguing that Kobold PCs not having darkvision automatically makes them an new race based on science??? That's just, well, piss poor science. 

But as others said it's probably that whole simulationist vrs not simulationist thing. I'm far from what people say a simulationist is. In fact I'm pretty anti simulationism.  For me the stats don't define what an element of the game "is." They only answer whether or not it can do something at any given moment, and how that particular manifestation of a game element reacts with others.

So for me, taking a away darkvision doesn't change the essence of what a Kobold is. It's still a little scaly dog lizard thing that  may or may not yell "Bree-Yark...


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 16, 2009)

Scribble said:


> So for me, taking a away darkvision doesn't change the essence of what a Kobold is. It's still a little scaly dog lizard thing that  may or may not yell "Bree-Yark...




... and bumps into the walls in a kobold warren? I agree that darkvision isn't intrinsic to the concept of kobolds in general, but if it's a characteristic of kobolds in a given game world, it's hard to understand how a PC can lack it without having some kind of disability.


----------



## Garthanos (Dec 16, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> ... and bumps into the walls in a kobold warren? I agree that darkvision isn't intrinsic to the concept of kobolds in general, but if it's a characteristic of kobolds in a given game world, it's hard to understand how a PC can lack it without having some kind of disability.




Not being a worshipper of an evil god who has put there soul into the care of that evil... could be seen as a disability with repercussions by the kobolds.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 16, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> Not being a worshipper of an evil god who has put there soul into the care of that evil... could be seen as a disability with repercussions by the kobolds.




What has that got to do with anything?


----------



## Garthanos (Dec 16, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> What has that got to do with anything?




Why one of the repercussions of not being a "real" kobold is just as you reject it you are rejected by the goddess of the dark and you dont have darkvision.


----------



## Obryn (Dec 16, 2009)

billd91 said:


> I believe you are wrong there. In the MM, the basic medium-sized minotaur warrior may have a basic battleaxe for his size, but the medium cabalist has a great mace that does the same damage as a large-sized mace. The large savage minotaur has a greataxe that does the same base damage as a huge-sized greataxe. So, not using oversized weapons? I think use of oversized weapons is _exactly_ where the designers got the base weapon damage from.



Monster damage isn't based on the specific weapon the monster is using.  Monster-building in 4e is results-driven, rather than process-driven...  The monster's role and level determine its HPs, attacks, defenses, and damage, rather than the other way around.  Again, it's a complete departure from simulationism that you will either like or dislike.

A PC minotaur can certainly pick up any weapon that an NPC minotaur uses.  They're not even oversized in their stat blocks.  This is a tempest in a teapot.

I mean, is it unreasonable to hope that someone arguing about a game's rules should have at least a little idea what the rules actually are?  I mean, the two bones of contention are (1) a mistaken idea that a PC minotaur can't use the weapons dropped by an NPC minotaur, and (2) speculation that kobolds (if they receive a full racial writeup) won't have darkvision, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.

-O


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 16, 2009)

Scribble said:


> So for me, taking a away darkvision doesn't change the essence of what a Kobold is. It's still a little scaly dog lizard thing that may or may not yell "Bree-Yark...





A kobold yelling Bree-Yark would be something of a rarity for his kind. It would mean that he had been raised by goblins, or was a student of thier language (quite an accomplishment for the typical kobold).


----------



## Scribble (Dec 16, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> A kobold yelling Bree-Yark would be something of a rarity for his kind. It would mean that he had been raised by goblins, or was a student of thier language (quite an accomplishment for the typical kobold).




Hey man give me a break- it's been like 19 years since I read the module... I thought it was the Kobolds. 


Oye... I'm old now.


----------



## rjdafoe (Dec 16, 2009)

billd91 said:


> That wouldn't be the same as every DM-run kobold having darkvision while every player-run kobold being required to not have it because of "rules balance".




But it still goes with the theme that I think trumps everything being talked about here - PCs are special and not like others of their own race.  That specialness can be alot of things, including not having darkvision.


----------



## rjdafoe (Dec 16, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Having color sight isn't an intrinsic part of being human. It isn't essential to human-ness, and doesn't have a significant impact on survival in a typical human environment.
> 
> Being blind in the dark without some compensatory senses when the rest of your race is perfectly at home in the dark IS a significant barrier to survival- the kind of distinction that would, in the RW, denote either a significant mutation if not a separate species or subspecies.
> 
> IOW, kobolds without darkvision would likely either be "Surface Kobolds," and have a lifestyle completely different from their subterranean, darkvision-equipped cousins, or be outcasts who were abandoned at cave mouths due to their being severely incapacitated in the warrens- useless mouths to feed, if you will, that the tribe cannot afford to support- and thus the possible first members of what would become "Surface Kobolds."




What you just said - they are PCs becuase they are inherently different from their race.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 16, 2009)

rjdafoe said:


> But it still goes with the theme that I think trumps everything being talked about here - PCs are special and not like others of their own race. That specialness can be alot of things, including not having darkvision.




Oh don't we know. Another "special" feature includes having a multi-million gold piece economy all operating for the benefit of a few people.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 16, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Oh don't we know. Another "special" feature includes having a multi-million gold piece economy all operating for the benefit of a few people.




The united states doesn't use gold pieces... err.. wait...


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 16, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> Why one of the repercussions of not being a "real" kobold is just as you reject it you are rejected by the goddess of the dark and you dont have darkvision.




What does being a PC have to do with being an apostate?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 16, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> What does being a PC have to do with being an apostate?




Its what happens when the fluff has to be reverse engineered to connect with the mechanics. That is the new definition of using your imagination.


----------



## rjdafoe (Dec 16, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Oh don't we know. Another "special" feature includes having a multi-million gold piece economy all operating for the benefit of a few people.




It boils down to this is a different game. It also boils down to the same fact that monsters/npcs are built differently than PCs.

The assumptions are something that you may not like. 

History is riddled with species that have examples of being special, and not forming another species entirely.

Are you saying that by having 1 PC (or even a handfull of them) kobold in the world that is different is somehow unbelieveable? I think the opposite.

Maybe having darkvision is one of the reasons WHY they are not with the other Kobolds. It doesn't matter. Or it just could be an oversight or mistake in the original entry that is not fixed.   Is a kobold with a 20 or 22 strength a problem?  it is outside their racial abilities after all.  

The fact is that there are not PCs walking around in the default assumption of the game. PC Kobolds, Minotaurs, or whatever non default race you would like are even a lot less.

If you want to change the default assumptions, feel free. It is, after all, a Role Palying Game, and one of the staples is that your game is different than mine, on some kind of scale.

Now the Character Builder, to me is a fail by having 2 Minotaur races that PCs can take. The one from the MM should be replaced in favor of the other one. In fact, I like that things get updated on a regular basis with the application. That way, we can apply the fixes evenly.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 17, 2009)

rjdafoe said:


> It boils down to this is a different game. It also boils down to the same fact that monsters/npcs are built differently than PCs.




How does that logically conclude with PC kobolds, or even just NPC kobold characters, being unable to see in kobold communities? 



> Are you saying that by having 1 PC (or even a handfull of them) kobold in the world that is different is somehow unbelieveable? I think the opposite.




Who has said that? Point to the post, exactly, in which anyone says it's unbelievable for one or more kobolds in the world to lack darkvision.


----------



## Garthanos (Dec 17, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> What does being a PC have to do with being an apostate?



Intentionally obtuse?
Something about being a PC != evil
makes it very likely a Kobold PC would be extremely different
religiously don't you think....

There can be any of a dozen reasons but since
there isnt even a pc write up for kobolds just a 
half jotted off MM entry (with warnings to that effect)
...  shrug you are still just arguing non-entities as far as I am
concerned.. The PC could have no Darkvision... not saying
they will (there is precedence for PC's having it) and still
make perfect sense


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 17, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> Intentionally obtuse?
> Something about being a PC != evil
> makes it very likely a Kobold PC would be extremely different
> religiously don't you think....




I was under the impression that in 4e, being an Unaligned worshipper of an evil deity was no problem.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 17, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> How does that logically conclude with PC kobolds, or even just NPC kobold characters, being unable to see in kobold communities?



Let's talk principles, instead of continously harping on the usual examples.

The PC/monster divide is more an issue for the "game" part of D&D. While the specifics may vary from campaign to campaign, some abilities which are okay for monsters are considered to be not okay for PCs. This is not something new to 4E. Even in 3E, some monsters were not given an official level adjustment, and those which had a positive level adjustment could not be played from 1st level without mechanical changes that effectively made them weaker versions of the base race (at least, until the PC gained enough levels to "catch up"). In even earlier editions of D&D, it was suggested that players who wished to play monsters would have to make do with lesser versions: for example, players who wanted a giant or ogre character would have to play one who was smaller and weaker than typical for its kind.

Because of this, "monster" PCs tend to turn the "PCs are exceptional" dial up to 11. If racial ability X is too good for a PC (or a PC of level below Y) to have, than a PC will almost by definition have a weaker version of racial ability X (or, where this is level-dependent, until he reaches level Y). Now, how the DM and players choose to flavor this to make it reasonable and plausible in-game is another matter entirely. Making the PC a typical member of an alternate race/sub-race/crossbred race is one way of doing this, but it adds yet another shade of color to the already fairly crowded racial palette of D&D. Hence, many DMs and players simply make the PC a member of his race, but with special characteristics (those which make him suitable as a PC) which are different from a typical member of his race.

Actually, now that I've typed this all out, I wonder what the fuss is about.


----------



## Garthanos (Dec 17, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> I was under the impression that in 4e, being an Unaligned worshipper of an evil deity was no problem.




You can be....  but are you most likely to be? The most likely storyline for  a PC kobold will be both isolated from and rejected by and rejecting the culture of evil of their birth... it is entirely reasonable that Kobold darkvision is a mystical phenomena and something gained and supported by their community resources and culture, lifestyle and religion.  Maybe all in combination... the magic initiated by a religious leader and requiring ongoing time in the dark and maintenance by acts of evil.  We hide from the sun and do human sacrefices each new moon to maintain our connection to the dark goddess and she blesses us ... care to join in?

And generically speaking it is entirely plausible for a PC to be dramatically different than other members of their race... especially if that race has a dramatically non-heroic nature and a dramatically different life style. 

And in magical universes...an internal/psychological transformation... very reasonably may have an impact on the physiology of the individual. (its a primary law of magic)


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 17, 2009)

rjdafoe said:


> It boils down to this is a different game. It also boils down to the same fact that monsters/npcs are built differently than PCs.




That concept has never been a problem. A monster is a monster. It does not need class/levels or anything like that. 



rjdafoe said:


> History is riddled with species that have examples of being special, and not forming another species entirely.




I could really care less about the "real" scientific examples of such things. Logic and consistency _within the game world_ is the goal. We have owlbears created by an insane wizard's experiment and thats good enough of an explanation for me. 



rjdafoe said:


> Are you saying that by having 1 PC (or even a handfull of them) kobold in the world that is different is somehow unbelieveable? I think the opposite.




A PC anything _can_ be different from the norm for its kind. Heck, even NPC monsters can be different from the norm sometimes. The problem issue arises from a claim that _all_ PC versions of a given race _have_ to be different _simply by virtue of being a PC._ "Being a PC" has no meaning as far as the fictional environment is concerned. 

So differences in individuals is not unbelieveable at all. Differences in individuals simply for the sake of metagame claptrap isn't unbelieveable either its just stupid.



rjdafoe said:


> Maybe having darkvision is one of the reasons WHY they are not with the other Kobolds. It doesn't matter. Or it just could be an oversight or mistake in the original entry that is not fixed. Is a kobold with a 20 or 22 strength a problem? it is outside their racial abilities after all.
> 
> The fact is that there are not PCs walking around in the default assumption of the game. PC Kobolds, Minotaurs, or whatever non default race you would like are even a lot less.




The monster as a PC should be rather rare. There might be disadvantages to playing one that outweigh the benefits. The DM and the player should think about the effect of playing one and how the campaign will change because of it. Once all that gets worked out to the satisfaction of both parties then a monster PC is born. Playing a monster should be substantially _different _than just playing another PC race. If the choice of playing a kobold were essentially the same as playing a halfling then just play a halfling and wear a kobold mask, the end result is pretty much the same so the choice is really meaningless.



rjdafoe said:


> If you want to change the default assumptions, feel free. It is, after all, a Role Palying Game, and one of the staples is that your game is different than mine, on some kind of scale.




I do. Which leads us to........



rjdafoe said:


> Now the Character Builder, to me is a fail by having 2 Minotaur races that PCs can take. The one from the MM should be replaced in favor of the other one. In fact, I like that things get updated on a regular basis with the application. That way, we can apply the fixes evenly.




The problems with this I have posted earlier upthread. I would like to change the default assumptions. In order to make the game my own I have to abandon the software tools (until more customization is possible). 
Once that is done, all the convenience of prepping for play has been lost and there is no good reason to keep using such a rules heavy set.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 17, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> The problem issue arises from a claim that _all_ PC versions of a given race _have_ to be different _simply by virtue of being a PC._ "Being a PC" has no meaning as far as the fictional environment is concerned.



As mentioned in my post above, this is a _game_ consideration. Within the fictional environment of the game, it is also more plausible for the direction of cause and effect to be reversed: the monsters aren't exceptional because they are PCs; they may be used as PCs because they are exceptional. This can mean better than the norm (in the case of most of the PH races) or weaker than the norm (in the case of the "monster" races).

EDIT: Incidentally, within the fictional evironment of the game, there is no "PC version of a race" since, as you have pointed out, "being a PC" has no meaning. There is simply a member of a monster race with characteristics which are (presumably) weaker than most of the rest of his kind. Whether the individual is unique or the defect is fairly common is something that can vary from campaign to campaign.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 17, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> rjdafoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't understand.  If some of your players like the CB and find the existing options perfectly acceptable for making PCs why would you need to abandon 4e just because you can't fully customize the CB?  If you are having the problem because of a particular PC that can't be created, then do that one PC by hand and be done with it.  People have been making PCs that way for years.

As stated, you can customize the CB a bit.  For example, if you want a human to have darkvision, just add it as a custom racial feat in CB and then add it to the human.  There's no known mechanical modification necessary, so just add it and you are good to go.

And as a DM, I rarely use CB for prep, and the other DDI tools are extremely helpful, so I don't know why the CB's limitation in customization would make you want to quit 4e?  In my experience, the convenience of prepping for play hasn't been lost at all.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 17, 2009)

FireLance said:


> As mentioned in my post above, this is a _game_ consideration. Within the fictional environment of the game, it is also more plausible for the direction of cause and effect to be reversed: the monsters aren't exceptional because they are PCs; they may be used as PCs because they are exceptional. This can mean better than the norm (in the case of most of the PH races) or weaker than the norm (in the case of the "monster" races).
> 
> EDIT: Incidentally, within the fictional evironment of the game, there is no "PC version of a race" since, as you have pointed out, "being a PC" has no meaning. There is simply a member of a monster race with characteristics which are (presumably) weaker than most of the rest of his kind. Whether the individual is unique or the defect is fairly common is something that can vary from campaign to campaign.




So a player who is actually interested in playing a monster as an adventurer can just take a hike because the system will have a fatal exception error?

If its about the cosmetic qualities then a costume or simple disguise ritual works fine. The assumptions that the PC will _have_ to be the same level as everyone else, playing a regular class, and no "better" or "worse" than any other PC are just that -assumptions.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 17, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> So a player who is actually interested in playing a monster as an adventurer can just take a hike because the system will have a fatal exception error?
> 
> If its about the cosmetic qualities then a costume or simple disguise ritual works fine. The assumptions that the PC will _have_ to be the same level as everyone else, playing a regular class, and no "better" or "worse" than any other PC are just that -assumptions.



And I think we have finally hit on the key reason why our views diverge. I am okay with PC versions and monster versions of the same type of creature because balancing the PCs is of primary importance to me (and, I would assume, to the designers of 4E as well). Within this framework, I will of course try to ensure that there is a plausible reason for the difference within the fictional environment of the game.

However, if it is not of primary importance that the PCs are balanced with each other, then of course there would be no need for PC and monster versions of the same type of creature.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 17, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> You can be....  but are you most likely to be? The most likely storyline for  a PC kobold will be both isolated from and rejected by and rejecting the culture of evil of their birth...




Why? Most PCs are highly skilled and capable, suggesting they have been a well-integrated member of society. I find your suggestion highly improbable.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 17, 2009)

FireLance said:


> Hence, many DMs and players simply make the PC a member of his race, but with special characteristics (those which make him suitable as a PC) which are different from a typical member of his race.




If PCs of a certain race all possess or lack a certain characteristic, it is not a special characteristic. It is the common characteristic of the sub-population of a race from which the PCs derive. For instance, if a PC kobold lacks darkvision because he was cursed by a deity, and that is the standard for PC kobolds, then the game framework suggests kobolds are, if not frequently, then not infrequently cursed to lack darkvision by the gods. The PC version of a race should be "plug and play;" it should not only provide the balanced, PC version of the race, but the necessary background for incorporating them into a game.

Imagine, for instance, I designed a writeup for Bugs Bunnyans to appear in D&D. Bugs Bunnyans are anthropomorphic rabbit-like humanoids who can instantly disguise themselves, move with sudden bursts of speed, and have exceptional Charisma. They eat carrots and sing pop favorites. Imagine I do a pretty good job of balancing their special ablities, and the race appears in Dragon magazine. Yet the race is probably not suitable for most D&D games, whether as a PC or NPC, for reasons that have nothing to do with balance. The basic problem is that the backstory is problematic. Most D&D campaigns do not have animated cartoons as a player character race. So either I can exclude the race from my game, or I can adjust the backstory so that Bugs Bunnyans fit into the gameworld. By the time I have decided Bugs Bunnyans are not cartoon characters, were created by wizardry, are called Lagamorfs, and have a distant relation to Changelings... they are not Bugs Bunnyans any more. Whatever concept spawned their creation in the first place has (perhaps fortunately for us all) perished.

Nerfed PC kobolds present the same problem. As written, they do not belong in the game setting. There may be one kobold lacking darkvision, there may be several. However, writing up kobolds, publishing them sans darkvision, and saying, "Look, here is your kobold," is not a workable PC race because we don't know WHY they lack darkvision. Reasons can be manufactured by the GM and players, but the PC version of kobolds should explain why they are a viable PC option in the first place. There must be some darkblind kobold phenomenon of which they are a part. For most campaign settings, this is going to involve altering the setting to some degree. Perhaps kobolds commonly (90%+) qualify for darkvision but PCs must take a feat, perhaps being underground does it, perhaps there are "surface kobolds," but any of those suggestions involves, for any campaign that has already featured kobolds in any numbers, probably making some alterations. 

Imagine there is a kobold city... is there a "dayblind kobold" section? Do dayblind kobolds carry lanterns and tin cups about? Do dayblind kobolds pay a tax for burning oxygen with their light sources? Are they a scorned ethnic minority? At least one of these things, or some other arrangement, would have to be true... and we have no idea, based on any published campaign guide, which of them is likely true. You might as well call them PC_Race001 as "kobold" because we don't know how they fit in as kobolds, much less the wider world.


----------



## Eldorian (Dec 17, 2009)

Asmor said:


> How can you expect physics to work when _math_ in D&D is fundamentally different?
> 
> Pi = 4! Firecubes for the win!




Pi is still Pi.  DnD has a discrete topology, and in this topology, a ball is what we call a square from a Euclidean topology point of view.


----------



## rjdafoe (Dec 17, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Nerfed PC kobolds present the same problem. As written, they do not belong in the game setting. There may be one kobold lacking darkvision, there may be several. However, writing up kobolds, publishing them sans darkvision, and saying, "Look, here is your kobold," is not a workable PC race because we don't know WHY they lack darkvision.




That's where we differ I guess. I don't want or need a book explaining to me why this is different. It is different because as a PC (who incidentally are usually the only PCs in the world at the time) are already different from the other members of their race. It is a one off and can be explained in the character background if neccessary. There are no handfull of other PCs - 

Rag the Kobold fighter is an adventurer because, as an infant he was exposed to a source of bright magical light. As a small child, it was obvious to the other kobolds that he was a detriment being blind in the dark. He was cast out of their clan, and hence is now an adventurer (PC). He considers himself an individual who is not dragged down by the normal limititions of his race.

There are lots of possibilities - an oportunities for those that care to explain it.  It only has to be explained as an individual, not as race - if needed. There is usually an explanation of why he is an adventurer anyways, otherwise Rag the kobold would be happily doing kobold-y things in the dark with the other kobolds.

It is just fluff to me at this point. If a PC (a PC is RARE anyways in the default assumption) wants to be a xyz monster race, they are going to have to come up with their own reasons why they want to play that and why it should exist in the GMs world - if they care to explain it.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 17, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Nerfed PC kobolds present the same problem. As written, they do not belong in the game setting.



Wait a sec... when did we get a PC kobold write-up?

We have one for NPCs in the MM, but we have one for PCs too?  I must have missed this because I have been assuming we are talking about a hypothetical, potential PC write-up and making a bunch of assumptions.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 17, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> Wait a sec... when did we get a PC kobold write-up?
> 
> We have one for NPCs in the MM, but we have one for PCs too?  I must have missed this because I have been assuming we are talking about a hypothetical, potential PC write-up and making a bunch of assumptions.




We are. No cause for alarm.


----------



## Obryn (Dec 17, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> Wait a sec... when did we get a PC kobold write-up?
> 
> We have one for NPCs in the MM, but we have one for PCs too?  I must have missed this because I have been assuming we are talking about a hypothetical, potential PC write-up and making a bunch of assumptions.



In case you haven't noticed, all this hand wringing is about...

(1) Completely non-existent and speculative Kobold PC writeups which don't include darkvision
(2) Concern that PC minotaurs can't pick up weapons dropped by NPC minotaurs, despite the fact that they can pick up any weapon in any minotaur stat block published to-date
(3) Several misunderstandings of 4e rules and an outdated idea of 4e design philosophy, mainly from people who generally don't know 4e rules and haven't kept up to date on 4e design philosophy.

It's basically a blueprint for an RPG messageboard thread.

-O


----------



## MrMyth (Dec 17, 2009)

Obryn said:


> In case you haven't noticed, all this hand wringing is about...
> 
> (1) Completely non-existent and speculative Kobold PC writeups which don't include darkvision
> (2) Concern that PC minotaurs can't pick up weapons dropped by NPC minotaurs, despite the fact that they can pick up any weapon in any minotaur stat block published to-date
> ...




Sadly, I must spread some experience points around before awarding them to Obryn again. But this post right here is absolute win, with an perfect summary of the thread.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 17, 2009)

4) People ignoring that the same problem in the NPC kobold is just as problematic for making NPCs
5) People continuing, seemingly, to defend darkblind kobolds and mini-taurs as good design, despite their nonexistence, and the likilihood the current design team would consider them bad design
6) Mass confusion over what the NPC minotaur is supposed to be, since it does not resemble a monster minotaur or a PC minotaur
7) People shocked and baffled why other people are annoyed or confused about things that do not bother them, perhaps even extending to a disbelief that other people exist at all


----------



## keterys (Dec 17, 2009)

Nah, I think Obryn's more accurate there. Haven't run into any problems with kobolds or minotaurs in any of my games.

Have other people? In actual games, that they've run, I mean. Ie, no infinite oregano situations?


----------



## Obryn (Dec 17, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> 4) People ignoring that the same problem in the NPC kobold is just as problematic for making NPCs



I, for one, am utterly unconcerned that some DM somewhere is brazenly making darkblind NPC kobolds without regard to setting integrity.  I am also unconcerned that a DM somewhere is "cheating" by adding darkvision in blatant disrespect to the Rule of RAW.  Is this something I, as a 4e DM and player, should be concerned about?



> 5) People continuing, seemingly, to defend darkblind kobolds and mini-taurs as good design, despite their nonexistence, and the likilihood the current design team would consider them bad design
> 6) Mass confusion over what the NPC minotaur is supposed to be, since it does not resemble a monster minotaur or a PC minotaur
> 7) People shocked and baffled why other people are annoyed or confused about things that do not bother them, perhaps even extending to a disbelief that other people exist at all



I'll try and address all of these, but I'd love to see a quote where someone doubts your existence.

In short.  You're arguing non-simulationist rules from a simulationist perspective, and taking extremely loose (and IMO rushed and poorly-edited) guidelines meant for DM use as rules equal to, say, opportunity attacks or hit points.  Much like happens with minions, _of course_ they end up looking nonsensical.

Don't take, "I have a different gaming philosophy, and it doesn't bother me" to mean, "You have a different gaming philosophy, and are therefore wrong to be concerned."  The latter does not follow from the former.  What you're seeing is, "You have a different gaming philosophy, and therefore are wrong to _tell me to be _concerned."

_I'm not going to argue that this way of approaching NPCs and PCs would work equally well for 3.5, or any other game which values simulation_.  I haven't seen anyone else do so, either.  I'm arguing that this way of doing things is fine, particularly in the following context: how the 4e rules work, how they compartmentalize PCs and NPCs, and how they encourage results-oriented abstraction when it comes to NPC/monster stats.  If you don't approach the 4e PC/NPC divide from these principles, you are not making a coherent argument as to why a 4e player/dm should share your concern, or even accept it as valid or meaningful for their game.

-O


----------



## mudbunny (Dec 17, 2009)

Obryn said:


> _I'm not going to argue that this way of approaching NPCs and PCs would work equally well for 3.5, or any other game which values simulation_.  I haven't seen anyone else do so, either.  I'm arguing that this way of doing things is fine, particularly in the following context: how the 4e rules work, how they compartmentalize PCs and NPCs, and how they encourage results-oriented abstraction when it comes to NPC/monster stats.  If you don't approach the 4e PC/NPC divide from these principles, you are not making a coherent argument as to why a 4e player/dm should share your concern, or even accept it as valid or meaningful for their game.
> 
> -O




If I am understanding you right, all of the discussion about internal consistency that is being tossed around here is ignoring one of the basic conceits of 4E: NPCs and PCs follow completely different rules.


----------



## Obryn (Dec 17, 2009)

mudbunny said:


> If I am understanding you right, all of the discussion about internal consistency that is being tossed around here is ignoring one of the basic conceits of 4E: NPCs and PCs follow completely different rules.



That's it, and a lot more concisely than I put it. 

-O


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 17, 2009)

mudbunny said:


> If I am understanding you right, all of the discussion about internal consistency that is being tossed around here is ignoring one of the basic conceits of 4E: NPCs and PCs follow completely different rules.



You are correct, sir!

So, basically, we have some hand-wringing and teeth gnashing about a problem that either:

1. doesn't exist yet
2. only exists in a vacuum without taking into account 4e design methodology.

I like lists.


----------



## MrMyth (Dec 17, 2009)

mudbunny said:


> If I am understanding you right, all of the discussion about internal consistency that is being tossed around here is ignoring one of the basic conceits of 4E: NPCs and PCs follow completely different rules.




Now, as much as I find the concerns put forward in this thread completely absurd and out of touch with the game itself, I do feel obligated to play devil's advocate for a moment. 

I think the concern is not that NPCs and PCs are different mechanically, but that some of those mechanical differences go beyond the boundaries of the mechanics and rules alone. The objections are when the differences result in NPC and PC being physically different, rather than simply different ways to portray the same species. 

Now, it's a silly concern since it only has come up in two specific instances, both of them the NPC races in the back of the MM as compared to the monster versions of those races, and both situations that will clearly no longer be an issue when the races get a proper PC write-up. 

So I don't think there is anything at hand for these folks to actually be concerned about... but I do think their complaints are a bit more involved than just being about the 4E divide between NPC and PC rules.


----------



## Garthanos (Dec 18, 2009)

MrMyth said:


> Sadly, I must spread some experience points around before awarding them to Obryn again. But this post right here is absolute win, with an perfect summary of the thread.




Got it covered.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 18, 2009)

Obryn said:


> In short.  You're arguing non-simulationist rules from a simulationist perspective,




What is a non-simulationist rule? That sounds like Forge-talk while huffing glue. I have never seen it coherently argued anywhere that non-simulationist (*shudder*) games are immune to concerns about simulation. GNS and the like only talk about gaming priorities, not gaming characteristics. Non-simulationist games do not lack simulation. 

Great, now I've just discussed Forgie concepts and feel like my brain needs a bath.  Thanks, Obryn, thanks so much for that.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 18, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I, for one, am utterly unconcerned that some DM somewhere is brazenly making darkblind NPC kobolds without regard to setting integrity.  I am also unconcerned that a DM somewhere is "cheating" by adding darkvision in blatant disrespect to the Rule of RAW.  Is this something I, as a 4e DM and player, should be concerned about?




Oh, yeah! No, no you should not. If you are going to claim the existing state of things on the kobolds matter is good design, however, I'm afraid it's time for more frog pills.


----------



## keterys (Dec 18, 2009)

I'm not sure there _is_ an existing state on the kobold matter. Every time I've made a kobold, I've just made it based on whatever I wanted it to be based on balance and appropriateness. 

That little stat block in the back of the MM is largely useless for _anyone_. Trying to argue rules about it is like trying to argue about how silly the brawling table was in 2nd edition -for a game that wasn't even using it-  WotC gave us all these tools for actually making monsters, then left in these 'oh, you can use these to make NPCs' rules and they're downright awful. Don't use them. Ever. For kobolds or tieflings or anything. Problem solved.


----------



## Obryn (Dec 18, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> What is a non-simulationist rule? That sounds like Forge-talk while huffing glue. I have never seen it coherently argued anywhere that non-simulationist (*shudder*) games are immune to concerns about simulation. GNS and the like only talk about gaming priorities, not gaming characteristics. Non-simulationist games do not lack simulation.



I'm not really using it in a Forgie fashion, as far as I know! And if it's GNS, it's largely because those are just actual useful terms for discussion like this, that people on ENWorld largely use in similar ways. 

Anyway, if it helps to frame it this way, 4e is perfectly willing to let world simulation be trumped by game concerns, and perfectly willing to let some things be outside of the players' ability. 3e is largely *un*willing to let world simulation get trumped, but tries to make it expensive and/or hard. 

In 3e, players are almost encouraged to say, "Hey, how did that guy do that? I want to do that" and then work towards doing it. Hardly anything is outside the players' purview; even the monster manuals are geared towards an assumption that players can and will play members of monster races. Because 3e - and more 3.5 than 3.0 - uses the same design for PCs, NPCs, and monsters, this works fine, other than some cost issues (like with yak-folk, and any caster).

The 4e approach is to pick what works in the game, then justify it after the fact. There's also no default assumption that the players can do stuff the monsters can do; NPC casters have their own list of special whammies that PCs don't necessarily have any access to. And yeah, if your arguments don't take that into account, you're not really addressing any concern a 4e player is likely to have. It took a month or two, but after some flailing around, I learned to stop worrying and love the ...um... NPC rules.



> Great, now I've just discussed Forgie concepts and feel like my brain needs a bath.  Thanks, Obryn, thanks so much for that.



If it helps any, I think these terms have moved waaaay beyond their GNS roots and stand for almost completely different things on ENWorld than they do on the Forge.  And, from what I understand, the Forge is basically dying; indie RPGs are coming from other places, now.



			
				keterys said:
			
		

> That little stat block in the back of the MM is largely useless for _anyone_. Trying to argue rules about it is like trying to argue about how silly the brawling table was in 2nd edition -for a game that wasn't even using it- WotC gave us all these tools for actually making monsters, then left in these 'oh, you can use these to make NPCs' rules and they're downright awful. Don't use them. Ever. For kobolds or tieflings or anything. Problem solved.



Oh yeah. And this, x100. Every time I need a unique Ogre or Troll, I start up the monster* builder, find one that's close, and change its role, damage, and powers accordingly. Those MM templates are not actually useful in practice.

-O

* whoops! monster, not character!


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 18, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Every time I need a unique Ogre or Troll, I start up the character builder, find one that's close, and change its role, damage, and powers accordingly.  Those MM templates are not actually useful in practice.



I am guessing that you mean that you fire up the Monster Builder. 

And, ditto on using the NPC rules in the back for Monsters.  I reskin, refluff, refit existing monsters with other similar/interesting powers often, and adding in the DMG guidelines for adding a class or template and we're good to go.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 18, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> I am guessing that you mean that you fire up the Monster Builder.
> 
> And, ditto on using the NPC rules in the back for Monsters.  I reskin, refluff, refit existing monsters with other similar/interesting powers often, and adding in the DMG guidelines for adding a class or template and we're good to go.




I very rarely use the class template stuff for NPCs... I just build a normal monster, and make it either elite or solo if I want it to be more powerful. I use the template stuff occasionally, but normally just swap powers and damage types and stuff to make it more "somethingy..."


----------



## AntiStateQuixote (Dec 18, 2009)

MrMyth said:


> Sadly, I must spread some experience points around before awarding them to Obryn again. But this post right here is absolute win, with an perfect summary of the thread.




covered


----------



## Garthanos (Dec 19, 2009)

Brent_Nall said:


> covered




ooh more than one for the same post ...


----------



## Obryn (Dec 20, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> ooh more than one for the same post ...



shhhhh! 

-O


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 20, 2009)

rjdafoe said:


> Rag the Kobold fighter is an adventurer because, as an infant he was exposed to a source of bright magical light. As a small child, it was obvious to the other kobolds that he was a detriment being blind in the dark. He was cast out of their clan, and hence is now an adventurer (PC). He considers himself an individual who is not dragged down by the normal limititions of his race.




Fine for the first guy who plays a kobold in a setting. What about the second, third, and fourth? When do the amazing coincidences that render _all of them_ unable to see in the dark just become too silly to believe?


----------



## Garthanos (Dec 20, 2009)

WayneLigon said:


> Fine for the first guy who plays a kobold in a setting. What about the second, third, and fourth? When do the amazing coincidences that render _all of them_ unable to see in the dark just become too silly to believe?




The way they get their Darkvision, simply has to be a temporary renewed thing dependent on the culture, lifestyle and religion maybe even alignment of Kobolds. And all are likely to be broken by a pc and any 1 could be the break so you have lots of freedom to decide.... and there is nothing coincidental about it.

If its silly its because somebody wants it to be silly. Put away your version bashing handbooks.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 20, 2009)

WayneLigon said:


> Fine for the first guy who plays a kobold in a setting. What about the second, third, and fourth? When do the amazing coincidences that render _all of them_ unable to see in the dark just become too silly to believe?




Meh, that's what players are for.

DM:  Your kobold is darkblind, why?
Player:  Well, 'cos the (currently hypothetical) rules say so.
DM:  Well, yeah, but, justify it.  It's your character.

Then again, I have zero problems passing this off on the players and letting it become their problem.  Every player, IME, is perfectly capable of coming up with a different explaination.

But, "fourth"?  Really?  How many kobold PC's do you actually see in the same group?   I'd be shocked, outside of some very specific campaigns (Hey, guys, let's ALL be kobolds!) if a given table sees more than a couple of kobolds over the lifespan of the group.  Same with most of the "monster" races outside of the PHB's.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 20, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Meh, that's what players are for.
> 
> DM:  Your kobold is darkblind, why?
> Player:  Well, 'cos the (currently hypothetical) rules say so.
> ...




I'm not a big fan of Bob II type characters, but it's understandable if, when a PC dies, they want to play a substantally similar character.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 20, 2009)

WayneLigon said:


> Fine for the first guy who plays a kobold in a setting. What about the second, third, and fourth? When do the amazing coincidences that render _all of them_ unable to see in the dark just become too silly to believe?




Same thing can be said about bonuses though, but we like those, so we ignore them more easily I guess.


----------



## rjdafoe (Dec 20, 2009)

WayneLigon said:


> Fine for the first guy who plays a kobold in a setting. What about the second, third, and fourth? When do the amazing coincidences that render _all of them_ unable to see in the dark just become too silly to believe?




It is really the player's resposibility to come up with a reason to play a monster type character - not the DMs.

Not all groups play in the same setting where the history of all other PCs are part of the setting history. A setting can be re-used, without all the baggage that the last PCs who played in it. There are other adventures to be had in every setting.

Even if there are 100 Kobolds without it, then it is a rare mutation. They all get cast out and put into a different world then the rest of the kobolds live in.

But really.  Is this really a problem?  I think every player that wants to play something out of the ordinary will be able to come up with a background that supports their race choice, if they would like.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 20, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Same thing can be said about bonuses though, but we like those, so we ignore them more easily I guess.




I'm not really sure what you mean.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 20, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Scribble said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Seems obvious to me.

If a racial writeup (or class or item or power or whatever) rattles someones sense of what is "right", it seems that the complaint is only about something that would nerf the PC and never something that would aid or provide a bonus.

Seems obvious to me.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 21, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> I'm not a big fan of Bob II type characters, but it's understandable if, when a PC dies, they want to play a substantally similar character.




Even then, you're still only talking two characters.  Hardly the fourth (or even more) that I was responding to.  I'm thinking that the idea that there's going to be hordes of a MM race in a given group is a bit off.  It certainly doesn't jive with my experience.

--------------

Really though, this gets back to the biggest difference with 4e D&D and that has been noted - monsters and PC's are fundamentally different.  But, there's an offshoot to this as well.  Monsters are no longer consistent and they aren't meant to be.

In earlier versions of the game, the Monster Manual was almost a biology textbook.  Creatures came in one type  and only one type and that's what the creature was.  There was a real sense that these creatures evolved into the world they exist in.  Look at the whole "Ecology" sections in the 2e Monster Manuals for an extreme version of this.

4e doesn't take this approach.  Monsters are just that - monsters.  Unnatural creatures out to make life miserable for those around them.  Kobolds IIRC in mythology are underground evil spirits.  So, why do they even need a species?  They are magical creatures.  Who says they even give birth?  Maybe they are spontaneously created, or whatever tickles your fancy.

Same with every other creature in 4e D&D.  There is no sense to 4e creatures that they are somehow natural creatures.  They are all magical or at least fantastical.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Dec 21, 2009)

I think the issue some might be having has to do with biology and not "skill". 

For instance, the idea that multiple monsters of a given type may all be different in their combat abilities/tactics/powers is an excellent idea. It really makes a lot of sense. 

The problem comes when you start changing abilities that should be based purely on biology. The aforementioned Darkvision would fall into that category. 

Not giving the PC version of a monster the same special "powers", sure, I'm fine with that. But saying that physically they must be different. That's where it becomes too much of a stretch unless its a one-time thing, not an every time thing. 

"I want to play a Kobold"
"Okay, but you have to be hairy, and you don't have a tail." 
"Whu-, why?"
"Well, because PC's are different from Monsters." 


But honestly, there hasn't been too much of this in reality. There is no official PC write-up of the Kobold, the Minotaurs in the MM don't have the over-sized weapons, and the write-ups in the back of the MM do clearly say: "use at your own risk". 

So really, it's not a problem until they start officially creating PC versions of monsters that radically depart from the baseline monster versions.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 21, 2009)

Drkfathr1 said:
			
		

> The problem comes when you start changing abilities that should be based purely on biology. The aforementioned Darkvision would fall into that category.




See, to me, darkvision has zero to do with biology.  For one, creatures that grow up in total darkness don't spontaneously develop the ability to see in the dark, rather, they lose all vision completely.  Darkvision isn't biological at all.  It's a magical ability.  Thus, it doesn't have to conform to any sorts of logic or realism.

Now, my question would be, why does my kobold have to be hairy and not have a tail?  Tails and body hair are not particularly magical in nature.  You can make a pretty good arguement for a biology issue here.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Dec 21, 2009)

Not sure on this, but is Darkvision a magical ability by RAW? Or do they still distinguish between EX, SP, and SU in 4e? 

But isn't Darkvision essentially infravision? Which real world animals have.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 21, 2009)

Drkfathr1 said:


> I think the issue some might be having has to do with biology and not "skill".




Mentioned this before but I think it bears repeating- The "problem" with this line of thought is that D&D does this in a lot of different areas. The fact that there's a feat that allows you to gain dark vision (a couple different ones actually) in my opinion sort of negates the whole argument.  

Monsters in 4e are abstract representations of a wholly formed class/race construct; how you built them is less important then the outcome.  Since they aren't built using feats, the PC power system, the PC class system, or paragon paths, it's kind of impossible to say a PC version of a monster "has" to have anything.  The ability the monster has could have come from anywhere really, a class bonus, a race bonus, a feat- whatever. 

Furthermore, monsters in 4e are NOT built to be representations of the whole group. A 4e goblin blackblade no more represents the entire race of goblins then a single human fighter represents the entire race of humans. It's entirely possible to create a new kobold monster that lacks darkvision (because it doesn't need it for whatever you're doing) and it would be perfectly fine.

So a PC version of a Kobold not having darkvision is a moot point. Do you want it to have darkvision like those kobolds you fought in the mines? Give it a feat/power/class/path that has darkvision, and voila. Is it gained in a different way then the Monster? Mechnically? sure, but you're a differen't class/power/feat/path combo then it is to begin with. (Just like the way a mage gains the ability to do some stuff is different then the way a fighter does because they're different classes to begin with.). Storywise? who knows- that's up to you.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 21, 2009)

Drkfathr1 said:


> Not sure on this, but is Darkvision a magical ability by RAW? Or do they still distinguish between EX, SP, and SU in 4e?
> 
> But isn't Darkvision essentially infravision? Which real world animals have.




Sorry, wasn't clear.  I didn't mean magical in the rules sense, but magical in the "this doesn't really occur in nature" sense.  

Insects have something that kinda/sorta approximates infravision.  As do a few reptiles (pit vipers come to mind).  But, I'm scratching my head for anything other than that.  Low light vision?  Oh, sure, lots of stuff can see better than humans in low light.  But seeing in the infra-red (or ultra-violet for that matter) isn't all that common.

And, for that matter, darkvision is not infravision.  It doesn't see heat.  You get perfect, if black and white, vision in total darkness.  In other words, you can read a book with darkvision.  You generally can't with infravision.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Dec 21, 2009)

I guess it does all boil down to individual player expectations and perceptions of how a game does/should work! 

But as has been said, it is a moot point.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 21, 2009)

rjdafoe said:


> But really.  Is this really a problem?  I think every player that wants to play something out of the ordinary will be able to come up with a background that supports their race choice, if they would like.





Yes, yes it is. It's one (small) reason I haven't played 4E: the concept that two  creatures have a difference -- especially a biological difference like size or darkvision -- based on whether or not they are a PC is a game-breaking problem for me.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 21, 2009)

Hussar said:


> But, "fourth"?  Really?  How many kobold PC's do you actually see in the same group?   I'd be shocked, outside of some very specific campaigns (Hey, guys, let's ALL be kobolds!) if a given table sees more than a couple of kobolds over the lifespan of the group.  Same with most of the "monster" races outside of the PHB's.




Up until recently, it was a common thing for us to have game settings lasting five, seven, ten years. Over that period of time, you can bet that more than one person wants to play Race x.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 21, 2009)

WayneLigon said:


> Yes, yes it is. It's one (small) reason I haven't played 4E: the concept that two  creatures have a difference -- especially a biological difference like size or darkvision -- based on whether or not they are a PC is a game-breaking problem for me.



I feel the need to ask as well.... How is darkvision biological?  Is this something stated somewhere that I missed?

We assume it is because in the Real World, vision is part of one of our biological senses.

But darkvision has no Real World equivalent, being perfectly clear grayscale vision in total darkness (up to a specific distance, like a torch).  If it was biological, wouldn't it extend to the natural vision range of the creature?  Wouldn't it be more like infravision?

Since this is one of the things that turned you off of 4e, what other examples (like darkvision) do you have for monsters having different attributes than their PC equivalent (I am not talking about MM NPC options -- these are NOT supposed to be PC writeups).  

Maybe this particular issue is one that doesn't actually exist?


----------



## rjdafoe (Dec 21, 2009)

WayneLigon said:


> Yes, yes it is. It's one (small) reason I haven't played 4E: the concept that two creatures have a difference -- especially a biological difference like size or darkvision -- based on whether or not they are a PC is a game-breaking problem for me.




Could you point out in the books, where this happens on a regular basis?

We are talking hypethetical - it hasn't happened as the race has not been written up for a PC yet.

And biological abnormalities happen all the time in various species and could even be attributed to outside influences and have a higher percentage change of happening in a given area....


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 21, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> Seems obvious to me.
> 
> If a racial writeup (or class or item or power or whatever) rattles someones sense of what is "right", it seems that the complaint is only about something that would nerf the PC and never something that would aid or provide a bonus.
> 
> Seems obvious to me.




That would explain why I am having trouble seeing the relationship between that statement and this conversation. We are not talking about nerfs or bonuses. We are talking about a character having a typical racial trait versus not. Darkvision is not a "plus to." Kobolds lacking darkvision would be like an elf without pointed ears.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 22, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> That would explain why I am having trouble seeing the relationship between that statement and this conversation. We are not talking about nerfs or bonuses. We are talking about a character having a typical racial trait versus not. Darkvision is not a "plus to." Kobolds lacking darkvision would be like an elf without pointed ears.



But where is it said kobold PCs WON'T have darkvision? There hasn't been a kobold PC writeup yet!

This is like getting all puffed up because I think that my wife will get me the wrong something for my birthday next year, even though I haven't even talked to her about it and I haven't even defined what that something will be in the first place.

And, IMHO, darkvision is most definitely a "plus to".  Why else would it cost a feat to get in another way?  Seeing in the dark?  Sounds like a plus to me.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 22, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> But where is it said kobold PCs WON'T have darkvision? There hasn't been a kobold PC writeup yet!
> 
> This is like getting all puffed up because I think that my wife will get me the wrong something for my birthday next year, even though I haven't even talked to her about it and I haven't even defined what that something will be in the first place.




Who's puffed up?



> And, IMHO, darkvision is most definitely a "plus to".  Why else would it cost a feat to get in another way?  Seeing in the dark?  Sounds like a plus to me.




Darkvision is not being brought up because it's useful, but because kobolds have it and NPC kobolds do not. "I want darkvision" is a completely separate discussion, and as has been pointed out, PCs can certainly get darkvision if they want it.

The implication, now a stated premise, that people are upset about darkvision because it's the loss of an ability for PCs, even though no current PC writeup is under discussion, does not make a lot of sense to me. On the subject of kobolds, the issue is that the monster and the NPC do not seem to describe the same creature (the assumption being that they all live in kobold communities). On the subject of minotaurs, the issue seems to be a total lack of cohesion, as if PC minotaurs, NPC minotaurs, and monster minotaurs might or might not be the same kind of creatures, and it's all very hard to tell what was intended. I tend to assume that the PC versions and monster versions of a race have some relationship, but I could be wrong.

I'm not feeling oppressed... I don't play kobolds and I don't play 4e. I'm criticizing the writeups because, in my view, they are not very good or useful.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 23, 2009)

WayneLigon said:


> Yes, yes it is. It's one (small) reason I haven't played 4E: the concept that two  creatures have a difference -- especially a biological difference like size or darkvision -- based on whether or not they are a PC is a game-breaking problem for me.




As was mentioned, how is darkvision biological?  It certainly doesn't exist in nature, unlike pointed ears or a tail.  Why not say that kobolds who live with their tribes are granted darkvision as a dark blessing from their diety?  



WayneLigon said:


> Up until recently, it was a common thing for us to have game settings lasting five, seven, ten years. Over that period of time, you can bet that more than one person wants to play Race x.




Fair enough.  However, do you think the game should cater to you or not?  Do you think that game settings, and groups for that matter, lasting that long are the norm or a rarity?  

If something comes up five times in TEN YEARS, I still don't think that rules need to be specific to that in any case.

But this inspires a Thread of its own


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Dec 23, 2009)

As far as Darkvision not being biological, but being a magical gift or trait...

Wouldn't it then be dispellable with Dispel Magic?


----------



## smetzger (Dec 23, 2009)

eh, I thought all this was known up front when you played 4e.
4e's premise for monsters is that they follow different rules than PCs and WOTC and the DM can just make up stuff for monsters withouth being saddled with the same rules that PCs have.

So, yeah your Minotaur, kobold whatever that you play is gonna be different from the one that is encountered and even follow different rules.
This even applies for humans, DM can make a human Large sized or give it Darkvision if he wants and not do the same for the PCs.

IMO this is the drawback of being able to handwave monster creation.  You have to deal with the "Why can't my kobold PC have darkvision?"  "Why isn't my Minotaur Large like the others?"
"Why can't I learn/use X special power?"
"Hey, thats cheating we could never be able to do that?"

This is one of the things I don't like about 4e, 2e, and 1e and even some monsters in 3e (is it bullywugs that have the sticky shields, and are flind bars in 3e???).

If your gonna play 4e, you need to recognize and accept this up front.


----------



## MrMyth (Dec 23, 2009)

Hussar said:


> As was mentioned, how is darkvision biological? It certainly doesn't exist in nature, unlike pointed ears or a tail. Why not say that kobolds who live with their tribes are granted darkvision as a dark blessing from their diety?




I really hate to come to the defense of those dragging out the nonsensical complaints in this thread, and yet... 

Yes, darkvision doesn't _have_ to be biological. It also doesn't _have_ to be fantastic. While I encourage DMs to use their imagination to resolve differences like this, DMs are perfectly entitled to have a setting where such elements _are_ biological, and not feel forced into changing that background to resolve a contradictory mechanic. 

(In which case I'd recommend giving PC kobolds darkvision if it is really a big deal. Since that is pretty much certainly what will happen when they get a PC write-up. Since this entire debate is an exercise in hypothetical situations that have never actually come up in actual gaming, used to provide people more reasons to lobby unreasonable complaints against 4E. Sigh.)


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 23, 2009)

Scribble said:


> The fact that there's a feat that allows you to gain dark vision (a couple different ones actually) in my opinion sort of negates the whole argument.




I agree. There is also a feat that allows you to change your race, and being a feat, you can retrain it later.

Darkvision is trivial to compared to that level of silliness.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 23, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> I agree. There is also a feat that allows you to change your race, and being a feat, you can retrain it later.



In all seriousness, I really did miss that one.  Which feat lets you change your race?  If that's true, that is lame and I would personally houserule it out.
Are you talking about the sub-race feats in for FR book, like _Wild Elf Luck_ and _Wood Elf Agility_, where you can only have one or the other?

I would DM these as you get the skill of a wood elf or wild elf, not that your race changes, but then the one-or-the-other thing doesn't work out right.

Either way, a simple house rule clarification would do.  I would say that once you choose one of these feats, you cannot choose the other for the lifetime of the PC, you can retrain in and out of your original choice, but once you pick "wood elf" that is your subrace.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 23, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> In all seriousness, I really did miss that one. Which feat lets you change your race? If that's true, that is lame and I would personally houserule it out.
> Are you talking about the sub-race feats in for FR book, like _Wild Elf Luck_ and _Wood Elf Agility_, where you can only have one or the other?




Nope. Dragon 382-The Dusk Elf.  A regular elf can become one with a feat and switch back if they feel like it.


----------



## Echohawk (Dec 23, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Nope. Dragon 382-The Dusk Elf.  A regular elf can become one with a feat and switch back if they feel like it.




I think this is probably a slightly unfair characterization of how dusk elves work.



			
				Dragon Magazine 382 said:
			
		

> Dusk elves are represented *mechanically* by taking the Dusk Elf Stealth feat. Otherwise, dusk elves are *mechanically* identical to normal elves.




Note my emphasis on the word mechanically.

An elf taking the Dusk Elf Stealth feat does not suddenly gain the pale complexion and blue/violet eyes that separate dusk elves from ordinary elves. Similarly, a dusk elf character who retrains the the "Dusk Elf Stealth" feat does not suddenly lose those physical characteristics. They would lose the mechanical benefit of the feat (which is actually only a benefit to allies in any case), but they would still be a dusk elf.

The dusk elf feats just provide a simple way of emphasizing aspects of that sub-race in game mechanics terms. They do not cause a character to change race.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 23, 2009)

Echohawk said:


> The dusk elf feats just provide a simple way of emphasizing aspects of that sub-race in game mechanics terms. They do not cause a character to change race.




How so? The race itself is represented as a feat. Other feats have the basic dusk elf feat as a prerequisite. Since PC's and NPC's use different rules, there can ONLY be PC dusk elves because NPC's do not get feats and cannot choose to spend one on _being_ what they were born.

What happens if the PC takes the feat at a higher level?


----------



## Echohawk (Dec 23, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> How so? The race itself is represented as a feat.




No it isn't. The race is represented *mechanically* by a feat (or rather a chain of feats). But the race itself is also represented by the physical characteristics of dusk elves, and a whole bunch of other background fluff described in the article.



> What happens if the PC takes the feat at a higher level?




A PC taking the Dusk Elf Stealth feat at any level simply gains the mechanical benefit of that feat, which is: "All allies within 6 squares of you that do not have this feat gain a +1 racial bonus to Stealth checks." There is nothing whatsoever in the feat description to indicate that an elven PC taking that feat suddenly changes race. The feat does not say "Gain the physical characteristics of dusk elves," which it would need to in order for it to be a feat which changes the PC's race.

It is clearly the intention of the article to provide mechanical options which are thematically suited to a dusk elf PC, but that the feat is not actually restricted to dusk elves. It can be taken by any elf, so an ordinary elf taking it would gain the same benefits as a dusk elf, but won't magically change race. Similarly, a dusk elf that does not take that feat doesn't magically cease being a dusk elf, they are just a dusk elf without the mechanical benefits of that feat.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 23, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> How so? The race itself is represented as a feat. Other feats have the basic dusk elf feat as a prerequisite. Since PC's and NPC's use different rules, there can ONLY be PC dusk elves because NPC's do not get feats and cannot choose to spend one on _being_ what they were born.
> 
> What happens if the PC takes the feat at a higher level?



That's not how it works. For a PC to signify being a dusk elf, he takes the feat. (That doesn't mean he couldn't be one without, but there would be no mechanical things notable).

NPCs don't have feats but that doesn't mean they can't be Dusk Elves. It just means they do it differently. (PRobably by giving them thematically appropriate powers and abilities and then call them Dusk Elf Mangler or whatever  ). 

The rules present _one_ way to do something. They do not necessarily present the only way.


----------



## MrMyth (Dec 23, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> How so? The race itself is represented as a feat. Other feats have the basic dusk elf feat as a prerequisite. Since PC's and NPC's use different rules, there can ONLY be PC dusk elves because NPC's do not get feats and cannot choose to spend one on _being_ what they were born.




Since PCs and NPCs use different rules, there can _totally _be NPC dusk elves because NPCs _don't need feats_ to mechanically represent their origin. Just like if I really want an NPC to use a Spiked Chain, I can just declare it so, rather than needing them to take a feat for proficiency! Seriously, you can't use "NPCs and PCs use different rules" as an excuse to _limit_ how NPCs can be designed. 



> What happens if the PC takes the feat at a higher level?




1) The player takes the feat, gaining some mechanical benefits to represent a character that, from the start, they had played as a Dusk Elf. And no one even notices the difference.

2) The player realizes that the Dusk Elf concept really fits his character, and takes the feat, and says, "Hey guys, my character has actually always been a Dusk Elf, and he just never really talked about it until now." And everyone acknowledges it and moves on. 

3) The player decides that a Dusk Elf would make a really cool character, and takes the feat for their character (currently a Wood Elf). He asks is everyone will pretend nothing weird happened in game, and assume the character has always been like that, for the sake of letting him continue to enjoy his character. The DM works out any minor inconsistencies this might cause in the plot, and everyone moves on. 

4) The player things the feat will give him a powerful mechanicaly benefit, and so takes it purely for optimization purposes. The rest of the table never even realizes the character has the feat. If it does get noticed and people think it a weird feat for him based on the character's behavior or background, he comes up with some random explanation for it. And everyone moves on.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 23, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> How so? The race itself is represented as a feat. Other feats have the basic dusk elf feat as a prerequisite. Since PC's and NPC's use different rules, there can ONLY be PC dusk elves because NPC's do not get feats and cannot choose to spend one on _being_ what they were born.
> 
> What happens if the PC takes the feat at a higher level?




I think again you're arguing something from a standpoint the game doesn't take.

Your argument seems to imply with the feat you ARE that race, without it you aren't...  Indicating that the rules inform the concept. Correct?

The game doesn't take this stance, and neither do many of the players.

The article indicates dusk elves are represented mechanically by these feats sure, but that's where it stops.  What the feats "mean" in the context of the imaginary world is entirely up to the players at the table using them.

Do they mean if you have them you ARE a dusk elf? Sure they can mean that. Would it be silly if they can be retrained? Maybe, that's up to the players.

They can also mean that the character has just learned abilities associated with dusk elves. Maybe flavor wise he was trained in the art by dusk elves... Who knows that's up to the players.

They can also be completely disassociated with the dusk elf flavor and be used to gain certain benefits. Up to the player.

I think really what 4e strives to do (and does pretty well for the most part) is remove the idea of flavor and rules needing to be directly tied together. It gives you balanced rules and then lets you decide how best they fit into your imaginary world.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 23, 2009)

MrMyth said:


> Since PCs and NPCs use different rules, there can _totally _be NPC dusk elves because NPCs _don't need feats_ to mechanically represent their origin. Just like if I really want an NPC to use a Spiked Chain, I can just declare it so, rather than needing them to take a feat for proficiency! Seriously, you can't use "NPCs and PCs use different rules" as an excuse to _limit_ how NPCs can be designed.




You could but it would make about as much sense as creating a race as a feat in the first place. 



MrMyth said:


> 1) The player takes the feat, gaining some mechanical benefits to represent a character that, from the start, they had played as a Dusk Elf. And no one even notices the difference.
> 
> 2) The player realizes that the Dusk Elf concept really fits his character, and takes the feat, and says, "Hey guys, my character has actually always been a Dusk Elf, and he just never really talked about it until now." And everyone acknowledges it and moves on.
> 
> ...




With all these options the player realizes that all characters in the game world are mutable, customizable toons and moves on. 

If the feat represented a sect, such as a secret ninja clan it would make a lot more sense. The flavor of the article goes out of its way to portray dusk elves as separate race with distinguishing characteristics and then proceeds to package that into mutable form as a feat. 

If I decide to train out the feat later do I get to keep my dusky complexion? 

Why was the cancel christmas option edited out? It was kind of funny.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 23, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> With all these options the player realizes that all characters in the game world are mutable, customizable toons and moves on.



I am pretty sure he was listing example explanations, not different options.  I could be wrong though.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 23, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> I am pretty sure he was listing example explanations, not different options. I could be wrong though.




I believe they are examples of possible explanations. They are all attempts to rationalize the dictated effects of mechanics upon the campaign.

When one is expected to create an explanation to justify the mechanics even when the mechanics may be so stupid that just thinking about it causes a headache it is certainly a case of the game attempting to serve the rules.


----------



## MrMyth (Dec 23, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> With all these options the player realizes that all characters in the game world are mutable, customizable toons and moves on.




Yeah, but I just don't see scenarios coming up where people 'accidently' take the feat and have their character's race change without their intention to do so. That really does just strike me as a contrived scenario. Either the character is already playing a Dusk Elf, and the feat just enhances that, or they suddenly want to be a Dusk Elf, and they work with the DM to figure out how to explain that. Or they are playing a game that is entirely about min/maxing, and they take the feat without worrying about any logical inconsistency. 



ExploderWizard said:


> If the feat represented a sect, such as a secret ninja clan it would make a lot more sense. The flavor of the article goes out of its way to portray dusk elves as separate race with distinguishing characteristics and then proceeds to package that into mutable form as a feat.
> 
> If I decide to train out the feat later do I get to keep my dusky complexion?




Do you still consider your character a Dusk Elf? That's the question. Why are you retraining it out? Because you wish to no longer be a Dusk Elf, and have some reason for it? Or do you wish to remain a Dusk Elf and just want to use the feat slot elsewhere?

The thing is, the feat is intended to represent a way to mechanically enhance the background choices you have already made, or are in the process of making. This isn't the first such feat to do so. Feats that build on regional backgrounds from FR, the Wood Elf/Wild Elf/Sun Elf/Moon Elf feats, the Dhampyr or Deva bloodline feats, the Vistani feat, etc. 

With all of these, the idea isn't that taking the feat alters your character to something new. No, the idea is that _you_ are altering your character, and the feat provides a way to represent that mechanically. You can declare yourself a Vistani before taking the Vistani feat! And, similarly, if you take the feat and later retrain it out, you don't 'lose' your Vistani ancestry, unless you specifically want to change your character background and are working with the DM to do so. 

Yes, sometimes you might lose a power or ability that it would seem strange to suddenly lack - but all retraining carries that element. Why am I suddenly less skilled with a sword when I train out my proficiency? Is that any stranger than your concerns? And if we can accept that level of character alteration for the benefit of character mutability, why is it not acceptable elsewhere?

If you really find it an issue, the rules have an excellent solution for you: Backgrounds. Create a Background: Dusk Elf. Make it a prerequisite for the Dusk Elf Feat. Same for the Vistani, and Dhampyr, and all the others. This way, the character doesn't have to take the _feat_ at level 1 (when doing so might be a burdensome cost) - however, they do have to make that racial or cultural _choice _at level 1, and will have their character defined as such whether they have the feat or not. And they aren't even mechanically limited by doing so, since you are allowed to choose multiple background options, you just only get _mechanical_ benefits from one. 

So you can be a Dusk Elf Dhampyr from Luskan who is a Traveling Missionary, and have the Traveling Missionary benefit, but still qualify to take the Dusk Elf feat and the Dhampyr feats and any Luskan feats. Problem solved. 

I think the rules are written as they are on the assumption that characters will be writing in those background elements without _needing_ to define them by mechanical means (especially since backgrounds remain an optional rule). And as I tried to demonstrate above, I really don't see any legitimate possible scenarios in which a character takes or trains out the feat and finds themself _forced_ into having their race change in the process of doing so...



> Why was the cancel christmas option edited out? It was kind of funny.




After rereading it, I felt it might have come across as more harsh than I intended, so decided to veer on the side of politeness. Should have stuck with my first instinct!


----------



## MrMyth (Dec 23, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> I believe they are examples of possible explanations. They are all attempts to rationalize the dictated effects of mechanics upon the campaign.
> 
> When one is expected to create an explanation to justify the mechanics even when the mechanics may be so stupid that just thinking about it causes a headache it is certainly a case of the game attempting to serve the rules.




I don't see any of that at all. They aren't explanations to justify the mechanics - they are examples of who might take the feat and why. The mechanics don't need justifying, and I'm not even sure what you mean by implying that. A character takes the feat to help mechanically show they are a dusk elf - what is stupid about that?


----------



## Echohawk (Dec 23, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> The flavor of the article goes out of its way to portray dusk elves as separate race with distinguishing characteristics and then proceeds to package that into mutable form as a feat.




This statement just doesn't make any sense to me. The full text of the feat you are referring to is:

*Dusk Elf Stealth*
*Prerequisite*: Elf
*Benefit*: All allies within 6 squares of you that do not have this feat gain a +1 racial bonus to Stealth checks.

To me, it does not seem at if this feat can possibly be described as "packaging" the "distinguishing characteristics" of the dusk elf race. What about the physical characteristics described in the article? What about the advice on playing a dusk elf? What about the dusk elf backgrounds the article describes? The Dusk Elf Stealth feat says nothing about any of those, and they seem far more relevant to defining a member of the race than one feat.

I guess I'm just not understanding why you think one feat is the *only* defining characteristic of dusk elves. I don't think it is at all.


----------



## keterys (Dec 23, 2009)

Is this still the same 'I object to 4e's departure from simulation' attached to a 'Wait, my race didn't get a PC writeup then it did' discussion? Shouldn't it have forked more productively a while ago? 

I had a different, though similar, problem to the OP the other day. I went to make a bard in a 'no Dragon magazine' game and the character builder identified my character as illegal after I unchecked Dragon. Cause I took 'Focused Expertise', their fix for one of the problems with implement and weapon expertise.

I guess when the PH3 goes out, it'll stop being illegal, but... eh.


----------



## Turtlejay (Dec 24, 2009)

So another productive discussion gets sidelined into an edition warring mess.  Do you see the surprised look on my face?

I have actually thought about some of the issues brought up here, with the Minotaur, and the Kobold, and the Dark Elf, and have a really good solution for you guys:

Don't play a game you don't enjoy.

Seriously, if so much bugs you about these little things, then play what you want.  And notice, I said a game you don't *enjoy*.  I like playing 3.5 just fine, and would play it again.  I doubt I'd enjoy it as much as some of the other systems I've played since we quit, though.

Add to that a request to not knock over my sandcastle because you think something is wrong with it.  Admissions of a lack of system knowledge come quick, but so does criticism based on that lack of knowledge.  I fail to see how this makes your opinion valid.

The OP has my sympathies.  Nothing brings a session down than having to play a newly nerfed character.  In the end, that's what this is all about.  WotC re-evaluated Minotaurs and found them unbalanced as is, so they gave them a full PC writeup.  This had the effect of reducing the OP's damage.  This totally sucks, but it happens.  In return, he gets an LFR legal race (whatever that does for him) and some feats he may or may not use.  His frustration is understandable.

Unfortunately, I can't really fault WotC for how they did it.  As has been pointed out, the article was not really an errata so much as it was a debut.  Minotaurs existed in a proto-PC form, and with the debut they emerged as a more finely balanced race.  Any time a player is using such material, such as playtest classes or Dragon Magazine feats that have yet to be finalized (Reaper's Touch) they run the risk of being nerfed.  It is just part of the game.

Jay


----------



## Garthanos (Dec 24, 2009)

Turtlejay said:


> So another productive discussion gets sidelined into an edition warring mess.  Do you see the surprised look on my face?



Ahhh such an optimist.



Turtlejay said:


> Any time a player is using such material, such as playtest classes or Dragon Magazine feats that have yet to be finalized (Reaper's Touch) they run the risk of being nerfed.  It is just part of the game.
> Jay




I have been playing whatever game I was playing in house ruled form...   since shortly after the dawn of D&D... the difference now some of my house rules maintain something in its "original" form ... the game is far more alive


----------



## Hussar (Dec 26, 2009)

Drkfathr1 said:


> As far as Darkvision not being biological, but being a magical gift or trait...
> 
> Wouldn't it then be dispellable with Dispel Magic?




In 3e, SU fixes that entirely.  Although it wouldn't function in an anti-magic sphere.  EX ability would do it as well.

But, again, please don't mix the D&D definition of magical with what I was talking about.  To me, darkvision, or whatever you want, is a non-natural abiliity, and to argue for or against based on concepts like consistency or biology just don't apply.


----------



## Coldwyn (Dec 26, 2009)

I don´t think there´s anything revisionist about flashing out placeholders (which weren´t meant for use by players to begin with) later on and changing some details along the way.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 28, 2009)

Turtlejay said:


> So another productive discussion gets sidelined into an edition warring mess.  Do you see the surprised look on my face?
> 
> I have actually thought about some of the issues brought up here, with the Minotaur, and the Kobold, and the Dark Elf, and have a really good solution for you guys:
> 
> Don't play a game you don't enjoy.




You know what sucks worse then people pretending they are better because they play X game? People pretending they are better because they are so aloof from all the bitter edition warring, yet dive right into already testy threads with unsupported and poorly thought out pronouncements about how to solve everyone else's problems and make them better people. Turtlejay, no one asked you if you thought this was a topic worth discussing. At the risk of being glib, may I suggest: Don't post in a thread you don't enjoy.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 28, 2009)

Echohawk said:


> This statement just doesn't make any sense to me. The full text of the feat you are referring to is:
> 
> *Dusk Elf Stealth*
> *Prerequisite*: Elf
> ...




It is not the only characteristic. That is the problem. If the stealth and related feats were tied to some sort of training or membership in a secret society then it would make more sense. Having a paragon tier wood elf just wake up one morning with a deep tan and other new physical features is kind of funny, especially if he decides to become a wood elf again at epic tier because he found a better feat.


----------



## Coldwyn (Dec 28, 2009)

The retraining booth - line up here for some cosmetic surgery and a hint of brainwashing


----------



## Scribble (Dec 28, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> It is not the only characteristic. That is the problem. If the stealth and related feats were tied to some sort of training or membership in a secret society then it would make more sense.




To you I guess? 



> Having a paragon tier wood elf just wake up one morning with a deep tan and other new physical features is kind of funny, especially if he decides to become a wood elf again at epic tier because he found a better feat.




And exactly where does this feat indicate that any change to the character's physical appearance takes place upon taking/loosing this feat?

This comment is akin to saying- "Man it's so silly when a PC takes the whirlwind attack feat that he suddenly sprouts fuzzy purple wings and giant razor sharp bucked teeth!"


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 28, 2009)

Scribble said:


> And exactly where does this feat indicate that any change to the character's physical appearance takes place upon taking/loosing this feat?




1)Dusk elves are represented mechanicallly by taking the dusk elf stealth feat.

2) Physical Qualities:
Dusk elves are a slight folk,and they look almost identical to thier elf counterparts. *Where they differ is in complexion.* Although common elves favor tans and browns, *dusk elves are as pale as moonlight with fair hair and light blue or violet eyes.*

Ok, so woody the wood elf wakes up one morning,takes a feat and is now a dusk elf. If he doesn't change, why not? 

I have no problems with feat. Attaching the feat to a demi race is the dumb part.


----------



## AllisterH (Dec 28, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> 1)Dusk elves are represented mechanicallly by taking the dusk elf stealth feat.
> 
> 2) Physical Qualities:
> Dusk elves are a slight folk,and they look almost identical to thier elf counterparts. *Where they differ is in complexion.* Although common elves favor tans and browns, *dusk elves are as pale as moonlight with fair hair and light blue or violet eyes.*
> ...




I think that's what everyone is trying to get.

You can BE a Dusk elf without the actual feat itself.

If I say "my character is a dusk elf", I don't HAVE to take the feat to represent that character. It's the same way with the Sun and Moon elves feat in Forgotten Realms.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 28, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> 1)Dusk elves are represented mechanicallly by taking the dusk elf stealth feat
> 
> Ok, so woody the wood elf wakes up one morning,takes a feat and is now a dusk elf. If he doesn't change, why not?




Because you're misreading the sentence. 

The sentence indicates that you represent a dusk elf by taking the feats- It does NOT indicate that anyone that takes the feat IS a dusk elf. 



> I have no problems with feat. Attaching the feat to a demi race is the dumb part.




I think a lot of people playing the game see flavor/mechanics combos and then get kind of "stuck," because they can't see past the written flavor idea. Suddenly the rule can only be used in conjunction with that flavor idea, and becomes useless if the flavor doesn't fit their concept. 

I feel 4e tries to remedy this by separating a lot of the flavor from the actual mechanics.

Sure we get a whole lot of flavor about dusk elves, but when you get down to the actual rules, no where does it indicate that taking that feat = your complexion changes, and you suddenly become a dusk elf. All it does is grant you a bonus to stealth. That's it.

Do YOU want it to mean the character is a Dusk elf? You can do that if you want, and there's even a bunch of flavor to run with. The choice is ultimately yours though, and how to work that into your game is also yours. 

If you choose to do so in a way that makes no sense to yourself... well that's an issue for another time man...


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 28, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Because you're misreading the sentence.
> 
> The sentence indicates that you represent a dusk elf by taking the feats- It does NOT indicate that anyone that takes the feat IS a dusk elf.




So the stealth and related feats really have nothing to do with dusk elves then. Got it.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 28, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> So the stealth and related feats really have nothing to do with dusk elves then. Got it.




Confusingly named, over-flavoured feat concepts are a core design ... remember Golden Wyvern Adept, anyone?


----------



## Scribble (Dec 28, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> So the stealth and related feats really have nothing to do with dusk elves then. Got it.




The mechanics are separate from the flavor.  Do you like the flavor and want that to be a part of your game? Then YOU can choose to link them. If not, there's also a bunch of feats you can use in any way you want. 

Thats what 4e does well in my opinion. It gives you an idea on how you can thematically use the rules in the game, but doesn't lock the rules to that theme.

(The feat also doesn't give any indication as to how or why the stealth bonus comes about. It could easily be just a ritualistic training that all dusk elves traditionally learn. Someone who's not a dusk elf could also learn the skills if they want. In the real world I can learn to speak German, but that doesn't make me German.)


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 28, 2009)

Scribble said:


> (The feat also doesn't give any indication as to how or why the stealth bonus comes about. It could easily be just a ritualistic training that all dusk elves traditionally learn. Someone who's not a dusk elf could also learn the skills if they want. In the real world I can learn to speak German, but that doesn't make me German.)




It does indeed give an indication: prerequisite-Elf.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 28, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> It does indeed give an indication: prerequisite-Elf.




No, that only indicates that only elves can take the feat, not how or why it happens in the first place. 

The article gives you a whole lot of flavor you can use to explain it if you like it... Otherwise, again since the rules are not locked into the flavor, you can explain it any way you want.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 28, 2009)

Scribble said:


> No, that only indicates that only elves can take the feat, not how or why it happens in the first place.
> 
> The article gives you a whole lot of flavor you can use to explain it if you like it... Otherwise, again since the rules are not locked into the flavor, you can explain it any way you want.




Heck, maybe elves can go to a special school where orcs beat them with pillows until they learn to hide. Maybe Dusk Elf Stealth is a real gameworld term used by elves that has nasty racial connotations to dusk elves. Of course, none of that is useful or makes sense, but you can certainly do that.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 28, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Heck, maybe elves can go to a special school where orcs beat them with pillows until they learn to hide. Maybe Dusk Elf Stealth is a real gameworld term used by elves that has nasty racial connotations to dusk elves. Of course, none of that is useful or makes sense, but you can certainly do that.




Well again that's on you- if you're making up associations in the game that are problematic for you, and then getting upset that those associations exist... I think there are deeper issues at stake.


----------



## Turtlejay (Dec 31, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> You know what sucks worse then people pretending they are better because they play X game? People pretending they are better because they are so aloof from all the bitter edition warring, yet dive right into already testy threads with unsupported and poorly thought out pronouncements about how to solve everyone else's problems and make them better people. Turtlejay, no one asked you if you thought this was a topic worth discussing. At the risk of being glib, may I suggest: Don't post in a thread you don't enjoy.




I did (and do, in parts) enjoy this thread.  Game theory and design is something I enjoy reading about.  I don't pretend to be a rules lawyer or designer, so I generally stay out.  I post if I feel my gut feeling is helpful.

In this case, my gut feeling is that you and some others decided that an edition war and some blatant trolling was what you wanted out of the thread.  I disagreed, and said so.  You continue to troll, though I have taken a few days off to try and let it blow over.  You continue to troll.  So perhaps you should find a thread that does not bring the need to troll out in you.

On topic?:

It would be a shame, in the digital age, to not take advantage of instant gratification, and worldwide communication.  If the designers, in an office in Washington, find that community feedback and their own playtesting has shown a problem with their product, they can change it worldwide, with minimal effort.

The danger, that it can lead to a videogame-like release then patch mentality is certainly there, but I don't see that *yet* with 4e's releases.  If that changes, and 4e starts into that downward spiral?  Well, I still have my 3.5 stuff, so I'm set!

Jay


----------



## keterys (Dec 31, 2009)

Heck, you still have your 4e stuff and you can just decide to stop using their updates.


----------

