# Word of Mearls: Official Player races will not get Oversized Weapons. Forked Thread



## frankthedm (Nov 4, 2008)

Forked from:  Playing Minotaurs 



			
				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.


----------



## IncompleteUserNa (Nov 4, 2008)

Best news I've heard all day.


----------



## Nail (Nov 4, 2008)

It's a Good Thing(tm).


----------



## CubeKnight (Nov 4, 2008)

What about Goliaths?


----------



## infocynic (Nov 4, 2008)

Can you fix the link to the original thread?


----------



## questing gm (Nov 4, 2008)

Wow. Now this makes me want to see the Goliath.


----------



## Shroomy (Nov 4, 2008)

Its a good idea.  Personally, I think that the ability to wield over-sized weapons should be reserved for certain paragon paths, epic destinies, or higher tier feats.  It definitely should not be available to standard heroic tier characters.


----------



## Vael (Nov 4, 2008)

Sounds like a good idea. Bugbears and Minotaurs have been mainstays of weapon-based builds because of the over-sized bonus.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Nov 4, 2008)

Positive, with the caveat that it applies to the rules as they currently exist.

If someone can come up with a way to model oversized weapons for PCs that makes them cool, but not as uber as they are now, I'd be happy to see PCs able to get _that_. (Someone in the other thread had a pretty solid idea of just granting _small_ fixed bonuses that I wouldn't mind seeing playtested.)


----------



## Danceofmasks (Nov 4, 2008)

Vael said:


> Sounds like a good idea. Bugbears and Minotaurs have been mainstays of weapon-based builds because of the over-sized bonus.




Like the monster manual says, Bugbears and Minotaurs are not meant to be PCs.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Nov 4, 2008)

Darn.

(sigh) Well, it shouldn't nerf down my oversized weapon-wielding characters too hard.

But this does mean if I use a dagger on my bugbear, I have to roll d4s.  And that's irritating.

Brad


----------



## Anguirus (Nov 4, 2008)

Meh.  It's probably a good thing, but why did I have to come up with a bitchin' idea for a bugbear fullblade-using kensai TODAY of all days?  

Concept still works, of course, but I thought that was funny.


----------



## Danceofmasks (Nov 4, 2008)

Meh .. oversized fullblade is weak compared to oversized executioner axe.


----------



## evilgenius8000 (Nov 4, 2008)

My goliath-loving friend will be sorely dissapointed... However, as a DM, i'm quite happy with this.


----------



## Ibixat (Nov 4, 2008)

Danceofmasks said:


> Meh .. oversized fullblade is weak compared to oversized executioner axe.




And therein lies the problem with oversized weapons, there is no simple way to convert them to a larger die type without redoing brutal specs and a new chart for large weapons that have brutal, simply changing die types on a fixed progression will break with brutal 2's in there.   Less so with brutal 1's but enough that it matters.



cignus_pfaccari said:


> Darn.
> 
> (sigh) Well, it shouldn't nerf down my oversized weapon-wielding characters too hard.
> 
> ...




Uh, and? everyone else who uses a dagger has the same issue.


----------



## Stormtower (Nov 4, 2008)

*Applause*

Twinked out MM-race PCs everywhere (and by that, I mean bugbears and minotaurs) cry, and DMs rejoice.  I may not actually despise Goliaths in PHBII.

Good show.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Nov 4, 2008)

Pretty happy with that. Good decision.

Otherwise, oversized creatures would plainly overshadow all other races in a lot of classes, which can end up stupid.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Mengu (Nov 4, 2008)

I was quite jitter when I noticed the ommision of oversized weapons in the article. There are already plenty of reasons to play a melee class Minotaur over some other choices due to the stat bonuses. no reason for the oversized weapons.

I do like its replacement,  Heedless Charge.

I'm glad official races will not be able to wield oversized weapons.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 4, 2008)

" Hi I'm a bugbear and I'm a PC"  ( Holds up small axe)

" Hi I'm a bugbear and I'm a Mac" (Holds up oversized axe)


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 4, 2008)

Its incredibly positive.  Oversized weapon rules (as they currently stand) simply don't work mathematically.  They result in some oversized weapons being too good, and others being terrible.  You can't just create some dice progression, declare it to be your weapon size progression, and then include things like critical hits or the Brutal property.  If all that mattered was the average die roll, it would be fine, but that's not the case.

For some time I've been saying that I was really disappointed that no one at WOTC recognized just how flawed weapon size progression was.  I'm glad that someone there understands.


----------



## Milambus (Nov 4, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> " Hi I'm a bugbear and I'm a PC"  ( Holds up small axe)
> 
> " Hi I'm a bugbear and I'm a Mac" (Holds up oversized axe)




So are you saying that PCs have more Power(s) and are more durable(more healing surges)?  While Macs are designed to give a PC something to beat up on?

Maybe we should just stick to edition wars here, and not get into the whole PC/Mac thing


----------



## garyh (Nov 4, 2008)

I really, really don't like stripping powers from MM races.  And I don't think the minotaur in Dragon got enough in return to really make him on par with the PHB races.  A charge power?  Meh.  Fits thematically, but not particularly impressive.

Total nerf.  And that's coming from someone who hates nerf-related whining.

Warforged got a lot out of their Dragon article.  Gnolls got a bit.  Minotaurs got the shaft.

Full Disclosure - My Living 4th Edition character is a rapier-wielding bugbear brutal rogue.

L4WC:Hravoth Kortaga (garyh) - ENWiki


----------



## Starbuck_II (Nov 4, 2008)

Stormtower said:


> *Applause*
> 
> Twinked out MM-race PCs everywhere (and by that, I mean bugbears and minotaurs) cry, and DMs rejoice. I may not actually despise Goliaths in PHBII.
> 
> Good show.



 But Oversized weapons fit the Goliath (he had in 3.5). I'm ignoring the change myself.
Keep the over sized where they are.


----------



## Larrin (Nov 4, 2008)

Of course its a nerf...oversized weapon was deemed too powerful, you can't replace something thats too powerful with something of equal power.   Whatever they get to replace oversized weapons can't hope to live up to it, and thats the goal.  "How does it line up with other races?" thats the new question, and the answer should be 'low to medium rank.' (IMO)  Why?  Because its not a 'core' race, the awesomest PC races shouldn't be 'hidden' in dragons magazine or the back of the MM.


----------



## amysrevenge (Nov 4, 2008)

I betcha that Goliaths still get oversized weapons, but at the cost of any other good racial ability.


----------



## Larrin (Nov 4, 2008)

Given Mr. Mearls rather blatant "NO PC RACE EVER!" statement in the original post, i suspect that that is a very bad bet.


----------



## keterys (Nov 4, 2008)

garyh said:


> Warforged got a lot out of their Dragon article.  Gnolls got a bit.  Minotaurs got the shaft.




Are you claiming, then, that the version of the minotaur is completely horrible compared to the PHB races?

Because it doesn't seem too bad on quick skim to me. I'd consider playing one, but I'd also consider other races.

Whereas if you added Oversized Weapons, seems to me that it would be too good, especially for things like the executioners axe.


----------



## garyh (Nov 4, 2008)

keterys said:


> Are you claiming, then, that the version of the minotaur is completely horrible compared to the PHB races?
> 
> Because it doesn't seem too bad on quick skim to me. I'd consider playing one, but I'd also consider other races.
> 
> Whereas if you added Oversized Weapons, seems to me that it would be too good, especially for things like the executioners axe.




I wound't say "completely horrible," but it does stink that, for the minotaur, the race's big article in Dragon serves mostly to remove their coolest feature, while warforged and gnolls got big bags of goodies.

I like warforged a lot, way more than minotaurs, so that article was much more to my liking.


----------



## keterys (Nov 4, 2008)

Sure, but that doesn't mean minotaur is bad. If anything, it implies maybe warforged are bad (too powerful after the article), or just that the flavor isn't agreeable to you.

Now, when they get to bugbear I certainly hope they do more than just remove oversized weapon and call it a day because the race really lacks much otherwise.


----------



## amysrevenge (Nov 4, 2008)

Larrin said:


> Given Mr. Mearls rather blatant "NO PC RACE EVER!" statement in the original post, i suspect that that is a very bad bet.




We'll see.


----------



## DracoSuave (Nov 4, 2008)

garyh said:


> I really, really don't like stripping powers from MM races.  And I don't think the minotaur in Dragon got enough in return to really make him on par with the PHB races.  A charge power?  Meh.  Fits thematically, but not particularly impressive.
> 
> Total nerf.  And that's coming from someone who hates nerf-related whining.
> 
> ...




I wasn't aware they were handing out the 4th edition character creation cards yet.  Cause if they haven't, and you don't have one, that's not a legal LFR character.


----------



## garyh (Nov 4, 2008)

DracoSuave said:


> I wasn't aware they were handing out the 4th edition character creation cards yet.  Cause if they haven't, and you don't have one, that's not a legal LFR character.




My bugbear isn't for Living Forgotten Realms, it's for Living 4th Edition, an EN World-hosted fan-created setting.  See the link in my sig for more info!


----------



## DracoSuave (Nov 4, 2008)

Then I stand corrected.  The 'living' designation threw me off.


----------



## Ander00 (Nov 4, 2008)

Definitely good news. Balance issues aside, it's as silly now as it was in 3.5.


cheers


----------



## garyh (Nov 4, 2008)

DracoSuave said:


> Then I stand corrected.  The 'living' designation threw me off.




No worries.  If you enjoy Living worlds and are interested in Play by Post, we'd love to have you join us in L4W, though!

In any case, I worry that this will happen to my bugbear (though we haven't started evaluating non-PHB/MM/DMG rules for L4W inclusion yet).


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Nov 5, 2008)

Ibixat said:


> Uh, and? everyone else who uses a dagger has the same issue.




Real Men Don't Roll d4s.

Besides, seriously, they're annoying, and I try my darnedest to avoid having to roll them.

Brad


----------



## Eldorian (Nov 5, 2008)

cignus_pfaccari said:


> Real Men Don't Roll d4s.
> 
> Besides, seriously, they're annoying, and I try my darnedest to avoid having to roll them.
> 
> Brad




My roomate bought blank d12s and wrote 1 through 4 on them 3 times.  I think this is crazy.


----------



## Danceofmasks (Nov 5, 2008)

Well, I've used 1/2 D8 (round up) on occasion, as they're nicer to roll.


----------



## Derren (Nov 5, 2008)

As I don't like PCs and NPCs having different mechanics I don't see it as a good thing. Its similar to PX kobolds who are all nearly blind compared to other kobolds.

But in the gaming industry "Never" only means "Not in the next 6 months".


----------



## Victim (Nov 5, 2008)

cignus_pfaccari said:


> Real Men Don't Roll d4s.
> 
> Besides, seriously, they're annoying, and I try my darnedest to avoid having to roll them.
> 
> Brad




No one does.  That's because d4s don't actually roll.  They mostly just spin in the air before plopping down and remaining on the first side that hit bottom.


----------



## Ibixat (Nov 5, 2008)

Plenty of places sell the 12 sided D4's.

And honestly, on my rogue, at +13 to hit 1d4+10 + 2d8 sly flourish w/sneak vs a raper at +12 1d8+10 + 2d8... I'll take the better to hit for a few points less damage.  For multiple weapon dice attacks, the doublesword does start to have appeal, but I think giving bigger damage dice with the rogues virtual +4 proficiency with daggers just based on race alone without a feat would be broken.


----------



## Stormtower (Nov 5, 2008)

Starbuck_II said:


> But Oversized weapons fit the Goliath (he had in 3.5). I'm ignoring the change myself.
> Keep the over sized where they are.




In your home games, I encourage you to ignore this (much needed IMO) balance fix at your leisure.  That's the great thing about home campaigns, you can crank up the power level among friends who agree not to exploit the system too much.  I personally think bugbear and minotaur PCs are cheesy (and I stand by my dislike of the 3.5 goliath), but I realize that's not everyone's opinion.

However, I don't play 4E at my home table.  I'm exclusively an RPGA DM for Living Forgotten Realms, and the RPGA - for all its good points - is home to many a hardcore optimizer who would take serious advantage of the broken math involving oversized weapons and the Brutal property.  I'm glad WotC pushed this system fix out before an overabundance of oversized races became the norm in LFR.  The extra damage is just too good to ignore for many players, and it disrupts game balance (see also the preponderance of eladrin and genasi, arguably the two most powerful PC races, but that's for another thread).


----------



## James McMurray (Nov 5, 2008)

Derren said:


> As I don't like PCs and NPCs having different mechanics I don't see it as a good thing.




Do you play 4e at all, given that this is one of its design tenets?


----------



## keterys (Nov 5, 2008)

Well, there is a difference between 'PCs have classes and powers based on their level and NPCs have whatever powers are appropriate' and 'All NPC kobolds have darkvision, while PC kobolds don't'.


----------



## James McMurray (Nov 5, 2008)

Why?


----------



## King-Panda (Nov 5, 2008)

Well, for one, It makes absolutely no flavor sense. A Kobold without darkvision has lost their primary means of survival in their normal habitat. The only way this could make possible sense is if _all_ of the PC Kobolds lived long enough above ground that they lost their DV... but then they are almost no different from goblins, which is retarded.


----------



## Mengu (Nov 5, 2008)

keterys said:


> 'All NPC kobolds have darkvision, while PC kobolds don't'.




I don't see anything wrong with this. You have to be able to make PC races balanced. If this means ripping apart some racial bonuses, then be it. It's always possible to turn some of those bonuses and abilities into feats. So a PC Kobold has not lived in caves with his brethren in a long time, and has lost his ability to see in the dark. But he can pick a feat that lets him get used to it again.

I believe a similar design element was discussed for balancing drow in one of the design articles.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 5, 2008)

1. PC races have to be balanced against each other somehow.
2. If monsters and monster PCs are built with the same rules, that means that no monster race can have any ability that wouldn't be appropriate on a level 1 pc, nor any collection of abilities that wouldn't be appropriate on a level 1 pc.
3. That kind of sucks.
4. And really restricts monster creation.

So...


----------



## keterys (Nov 5, 2008)

Oh, definitely. I _love_ the decision to divorce these requirements, but I can empathize with those bothered by it. It's an essential disconnect in how you think the world should work that some people can't make.

Of course, if it does bother you, it's a simple matter to just change the monsters appropriately. For example, kobolds with darkvision might be only those blessed by a dragon or who undergo eating a regular supply of dangerous mushrooms, or whatever.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 6, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> 1. PC races have to be balanced against each other somehow.
> 2. If monsters and monster PCs are built with the same rules, that means that no monster race can have any ability that wouldn't be appropriate on a level 1 pc, nor any collection of abilities that wouldn't be appropriate on a level 1 pc.
> 3. That kind of sucks.
> 4. And really restricts monster creation.
> ...




So..... A simple solution is to give creatures whatever they have and go with it. If an ability is too powerful for a 1st level PC then it can't be a PC race. Balance is preserved and the world stays consistent.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Nov 6, 2008)

I'm pretty much okay with the change regarding PC minotaurs and the lack of oversized.  I've seen it lead to some pretty broketastic conceptual builds, such as the two-weapon ranger with oversized battleaxes, and could see a similar issue with a minotaur or bugbear barbarian with an oversized two-handed weapon, such as the maul or greataxe or worse yet, the executioner's axe.


----------



## Imban (Nov 6, 2008)

Donovan Morningfire said:


> such as the two-weapon ranger with oversized battleaxes




Those are called Waraxes from the Adventurer's Vault. (and oversized Waraxes are worthless, so you're not really even losing anything there)


----------



## Drakhar (Nov 6, 2008)

2d6 > 1d12 so how exactly are oversized Waraxes worthless?


----------



## WhatGravitas (Nov 6, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> So..... A simple solution is to give creatures whatever they have and go with it. If an ability is too powerful for a 1st level PC then it can't be a PC race. Balance is preserved and the world stays consistent.



Well, it is that way right now, no? The MM appendix is for NPCs, i.e. monsters.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## DracoSuave (Nov 6, 2008)

keterys said:


> Well, there is a difference between 'PCs have classes and powers based on their level and NPCs have whatever powers are appropriate' and 'All NPC kobolds have darkvision, while PC kobolds don't'.




Is there a difference?  The MM race description is for making monsters similiar to those already written about, not for making player characters balanced with the rest of the party.  If darkvision doesn't balance out with the other kobold gifts, then it doesn't.  Let's face it, Shifty IS really powerful.


----------



## keterys (Nov 6, 2008)

DracoSuave said:


> Is there a difference?




Absolutely. It's a flavor difference rather than an intrinsically mechanical one. PC Kobolds are blind in the environs of NPC kobolds.

If they'd made Shifty an encounter ability instead, the flavor would be equivalent despite the mechanical difference.

I mean, I'd _rather_ lose darkvision than shifty if I'm playing one, but that's a world flavor altering change rather than just 'And I do 1 less damage than an NPC... but I get to use these other powers and enhancement bonuses, etc to more than make that up'


----------



## DracoSuave (Nov 6, 2008)

keterys said:


> Absolutely. It's a flavor difference rather than an intrinsically mechanical one. PC Kobolds are blind in the environs of NPC kobolds.
> 
> If they'd made Shifty an encounter ability instead, the flavor would be equivalent despite the mechanical difference.
> 
> I mean, I'd _rather_ lose darkvision than shifty if I'm playing one, but that's a world flavor altering change rather than just 'And I do 1 less damage than an NPC... but I get to use these other powers and enhancement bonuses, etc to more than make that up'




PC Kobolds aren't cut from the same cloth as NPC kobolds, however.  They probably have different upbringing and lifepaths.  Perhaps living above ground has muted their darkvision?

Besides, when you look at kobolds, shifty-at-will is FAR more iconic to their identity as kobolds than the darkvision.  As an emotional attachment, what do your parties say they find the most annoying/awesome about them?  Shifty.  Darkvision doesn't even show on the player radar.  Thusly, it is far more important to make PC Kobolds -definitively- Kobolds by giving them shifty, rather than Darkvision which has no emotional attachment.

Same with Minotaurs, actually.  People remember the goring with horns and the charging.  The oversized weapons don't get as much of an emotional response from Minotaur monsters.  The only emotional attachment it got was from Character Optimizers, and that's sort of missing the point of them.


----------



## elecgraystone (Nov 6, 2008)

DracoSuave said:


> If darkvision doesn't balance out with the other kobold gifts, then it doesn't.



It's balanced for drow but way to powerful for kobolds? 



DracoSuave said:


> Same with Minotaurs, actually. People remember the goring with horns and the charging. The oversized weapons don't get as much of an emotional response from Minotaur monsters.



I actually remember the huge maul that hit me several times upside my head WAY more than a gore that only happens once per combat. We must remember things differently.


----------



## James McMurray (Nov 6, 2008)

elecgraystone said:


> It's balanced for drow but way to powerful for kobolds?




Yep, when put up alongside the race's other traits.


----------



## elecgraystone (Nov 6, 2008)

James McMurray said:


> Yep, when put up alongside the race's other traits.



Your going to have to point those out because I don't see it.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Nov 6, 2008)

elecgraystone said:


> I actually remember the huge maul that hit me several times upside my head WAY more than a gore that only happens once per combat. We must remember things differently.




"Yeah that minotaur really smacked me hard with that oversized weapon of his."

"What are you talking about? That was a bugbear."

If something is a trait shared by multiple races ... especially ones that aren't really related ... it isn't exactly iconic.


----------



## keterys (Nov 6, 2008)

DracoSuave said:


> PC Kobolds aren't cut from the same cloth as NPC kobolds, however.  They probably have different upbringing and lifepaths.  Perhaps living above ground has muted their darkvision?




I already made a similar suggestion. 



> Besides, when you look at kobolds, shifty-at-will is FAR more iconic to their identity as kobolds than the darkvision.




And? There are people who hate the 4e style of PC vs NPC separation because on an emotional level they need things to 'make sense' to them. If a PC kobold loses darkvision compared to an NPC kobold, it breaks things for them. It's not a game balance question, it just breaks the immersion or -something- for them.

I'm not one of those people, but I've witnessed enough of the complaints that no amount of balance reasoning is going to change it.

Now, on the more direct topic of minotaurs and bugbears with oversized weapons... they just shouldn't have gotten them in the first place, nor should other races. Poof, no balance problems with PCs, no disconnect for NPCs, and since they're monsters they can do whatever damage we want them to do anyways.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 6, 2008)

Shifty.  It doesn't look like much, but in reality, its incredibly huge.  Its like giving 3e style auto-tumble to a character, at will, except even better.


----------



## avin (Nov 6, 2008)

This is an example of a 4E good design decision.

A 4E bad design decision is not including Modrons.

Or a Rogue Modron miniature.

What? Have I said this before?


----------



## elecgraystone (Nov 6, 2008)

WalterKovacs said:


> "Yeah that minotaur really smacked me hard with that oversized weapon of his."
> 
> "What are you talking about? That was a bugbear."
> 
> If something is a trait shared by multiple races ... especially ones that aren't really related ... it isn't exactly iconic.



So trace isn't iconic even though multiple races get it? Charging is more iconic? Was that a gnoll or a minotaur that charged? Lets look at teleporting once. Was it a Eladrin or a Shadar-kai? Many of the iconic traits aren't unique at all.



Cadfan said:


> Shifty. It doesn't look like much, but in reality, its incredibly huge. Its like giving 3e style auto-tumble to a character, at will, except even better.



Shifty is awesome no question. But IMO shifty+trap sense-small looks pretty close to Lolthtouched and trance. I don't see the need to drop the Darkvision from only one. Just how powerful IS darkvision really? Unless the whole party has it or your a lone scout, how powerful is it? Not very.


----------



## James McMurray (Nov 6, 2008)

Shifty


----------



## Doctor Proctor (Nov 6, 2008)

Here's the main reason why Darkvision should be dropped: It leaves the other PC's in the dust.

One of our players decided to roll up a new character because he totally broke his Warlord (He didn't even use all of the point buy points for RP purposes, and did nothing but Commander's Strike...).  So he came up with a Kobold Rogue character.

This worked out well at first, since the extra striker really added some damage dealing potential to our party.  We're doing KotS right now, and during the above ground bits it was a lot of fun.  Now that we're in the dungeons though, it's really boring.  Every session is "Well, I have Darkvision, so I'm just going to scout ahead for the next 10 rounds until I find some monsters.  Then I'll come back to where you've been waiting with your thumbs up your butt so you can save me from getting filleted by the 8 zombies following me."

Without Darkvision though he wouldn't have that sort of massive advantage over the rest of us, and we could actually move around as a party.  Sure, it might take away some of the flavor of the Kobolds, but it makes for a better group dynamic.

(I can't speak about Drow though, since we aren't using any in our campaign.  Plus, aren't they Forgotten Realms only now?  I think there's a lot more going on with the FR stuff that might balance it's inclusion a bit more.)


----------



## elecgraystone (Nov 6, 2008)

Doctor Proctor said:


> "Well, I have Darkvision, so I'm just going to scout ahead for the next 10 rounds until I find some monsters. Then I'll come back to where you've been waiting with your thumbs up your butt so you can save me from getting filleted by the 8 zombies following me."



So let him get filleted if he keeps scouting on his own. If your party is waiting with "thumbs up your butt" it's not darkvisions fault.



Doctor Proctor said:


> Without Darkvision though he wouldn't have that sort of massive advantage over the rest of us, and we could actually move around as a party. Sure, it might take away some of the flavor of the Kobolds, but it makes for a better group dynamic.



What you missed is he doesn't have an advantage over the MONSTERS. He get attacked and trapped by them and how is the party going to find him in time? Look for the light from his torch?  Group dynamic keeps people alive and people like the scouting kobold are asking to not make it out of the adventure alive. It's the same thing as a halfling rogue always scouting ahead above ground. It's the scouting that's the problem, not the darkvision. If you took it away would the scouting stop if you weren't in a dungeon?



Doctor Proctor said:


> (I can't speak about Drow though, since we aren't using any in our campaign. Plus, aren't they Forgotten Realms only now? I think there's a lot more going on with the FR stuff that might balance it's inclusion a bit more.)



Drow is in the same book with the kobold, the MM and it had Darkvision there.



James McMurray said:


> Shifty



Awesome argument. Thanks for sharing. 

The less melee the character does, the less useful this power is. Take a ranger. (not a bad pick with +2 dex and +2 con.) He has to use a shortbow and his main uber-awesome power helps him very little since he'll be at range most times. He'd get more mileage out of an encounter power like lothtouched. 

Let's look at a Kobold warlock (+2 con, makes for a good one.). Well you're going to be cursing, so your minor action is used up so when is shifty that useful? I don't see it any more useful that Lothtouched.

Only the rogue gets a big boost from shifting 2 before attacking but is this enough of a boost to take away Darkvision. Not for me.


----------



## James McMurray (Nov 6, 2008)

Doctor Proctor said:


> This worked out well at first, since the extra striker really added some damage dealing potential to our party.  We're doing KotS right now, and during the above ground bits it was a lot of fun.  Now that we're in the dungeons though, it's really boring.  Every session is "Well, I have Darkvision, so I'm just going to scout ahead for the next 10 rounds until I find some monsters.  Then I'll come back to where you've been waiting with your thumbs up your butt so you can save me from getting filleted by the 8 zombies following me."
> 
> Without Darkvision though he wouldn't have that sort of massive advantage over the rest of us, and we could actually move around as a party.  Sure, it might take away some of the flavor of the Kobolds, but it makes for a better group dynamic.




His first run-in with a controller and or some skirmishers will cure him of that, because he'll be dead. Sneaking off on your own is a bad idea in a system where 1/5 of the monsters can hamper your movement or ignore terrain, and another 1/5 are faster than you.



> (I can't speak about Drow though, since we aren't using any in our campaign.  Plus, aren't they Forgotten Realms only now?  I think there's a lot more going on with the FR stuff that might balance it's inclusion a bit more.)




It's the opposite. The goal this time around is apparently to make everything usable with the core. So if you want to adventure in FR you can, but if you just want to add Swordmages to your Eberron game that'll work too.


----------



## King-Panda (Nov 6, 2008)

I hate to be that guy who says "We're going off topic!" and then just _has_ to add in his last two bits... but I'm going to anyways.

For one, at least for me, Kobolds' shifty quality is not a kobold-defining idea; Kobolds have been around a lot longer than 4th edition, which is when "shifty" came into play. When I think Kobold, I think trap-making, dragon-worshiping, quick-to-retreat guerrilla warfare monsters. Not shifty.

My main problem about the Darkvision balancing is that it creates a slippery slope. Saying that every kobold who takes up arms, leaves his cave, and goes adventuring (ergo, a PC) loses a basic ability of their physiology makes no sense at all, and that ruins any sense of immersion (thanks Keterys) I have invested in the game. Where the slippery slope comes into play is this; why stop there? Minotaur PCs have to be medium, and Minotaur NPC's are large! Every race must have the same number of bonuses, because if they didn't, it wouldn't be fair! Am I making sense?

The only major thing that bothers me about 4th edition is the homogeny. Even just back in 3.5, dwarves had DV and Elves had LLV. Human PC's didn't complain, and if they did, tough for them. Having everyone be super balanced wasn't _that_ necessary in a cooperative game. We shouldn't base our rules off of the chance that anything we might do could make a loophole for power-hungry gamers.


----------



## Tale (Nov 6, 2008)

King-Panda said:


> When I think Kobold, I think.... quick-to-retreat guerrilla warfare.





> Not shifty.




I see a contradiction here.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 7, 2008)

I'm of two minds on this one.

First, balance!  yay!

Second, isn't the problem here exactly what we had been promised wouldn't happen in 4th edition: something comes out that has a synergy with existing rules that breaks stuff?  The Oversized ability was in the MM, with the strong implication (behind the "carefully consider" language) that it was to be used for player characters...because if you're making a monster, don't you decide its damage using the rules on page 185 of the DMG?  That observation seems to make the question of the size of a minotaur's axe a flavour question rather than a mechanics question, and makes the Oversized ability apply only to characters that don't get their damage figured for them based on their level and role...i.e. Player Characters.

Now, given that the Oversized ability was in the core books from day 1, it comes as something of a surprise to me that the very first splatbook to be released contains something (the Brutal property) that breaks this ability.  This seems to me to be a problem with the design of Brutal, rather than a problem with Oversized, given that it comes in a later book than Oversized.  Now, perhaps Oversized is broken on its own merits (it's essentially +1 to weapon damage rolls), but that's another question entirely.

I get the impression that "no oversized weapons for PCs" is something of a hasty patch applied in retrospect after they noticed that they had broken something so early in this edition.  And so I don't like it as a position.  A better position would be "we ought to very carefully make sure we don't break anything every time we release a new book."  At the time, having released 1 new book, they had a 100% rate of failure with respect to that position.  Not that I don't like the book, and it's really a minor issue; it's just that I look at this sort of thing and wonder whether it's the beginning of a trend.


----------



## keterys (Nov 7, 2008)

Gauntlets of Devastation already included brutal 1 in the game system from the beginning, and I don't think they'd really 'run the math' on 2d8 two-handed weapons in the hands of PCs.


----------



## SableWyvern (Nov 7, 2008)

cignus_pfaccari said:


> Darn.
> 
> (sigh) Well, it shouldn't nerf down my oversized weapon-wielding characters too hard.
> 
> ...




Bugbear Dagger: Military, +3 Prof, 1d6, Light Blade, Off-hand, 2lbs, 10gp.

Savage Bugbear Dagger: Superior, +3 prof, 1d8, Light Blade, 2lbs, 25gp.

Irritation ended (although, they wouldn't apply for Rogue Weapon Talent, so if you're after a bugbear rogue, you lose out there).


----------



## James McMurray (Nov 7, 2008)

I'm 99%+ certain that they never even thought to playtest weapon properties with anything but PHB and Dragon-only characters fighting against MM monsters (likely in Dungeon Magazine encounters).


----------



## eleventh (Nov 7, 2008)

amysrevenge said:


> I betcha that Goliaths still get oversized weapons, but at the cost of any other good racial ability.



This makes sense to me. Just like how they compensate the halfling size restraint on two-handed weapons... only opposite-like.


----------



## DracoSuave (Nov 7, 2008)

James McMurray said:


> I'm 99%+ certain that they never even thought to playtest weapon properties with anything but PHB and Dragon-only characters fighting against MM monsters (likely in Dungeon Magazine encounters).




And why would they, seeing as they didn't intend the MM stuff for player characters? 

'You never tested how the acid in these pickles react when you stick them in milk.'
'That's because we never intended anyone to stick them in milk.'
'Well it curdles.  You should fix that.'
'We did.  By not intending pickles and milk being mixed.'
'It's broken.'
'We knew that without testing.  Why are you mixing pickles and milk?'
'Just sayin you should have tested that.'


----------



## MrMyth (Nov 7, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:


> Second, isn't the problem here exactly what we had been promised wouldn't happen in 4th edition: something comes out that has a synergy with existing rules that breaks stuff? The Oversized ability was in the MM, with the strong implication (behind the "carefully consider" language) that it was to be used for player characters...because if you're making a monster, don't you decide its damage using the rules on page 185 of the DMG?




Not if you are using the NPC rules on DMG pages 187-188, which is what the MM Race write-ups are specifically for. 

Now, I do see what you are saying, and would have been happy with Oversized never having existed at all - but they do have a strong argument for considering the MM Race write-ups to not be intended for PCs, and thus have various issues when they are. The MM is very clear on that. 

Personally, my actual issue is with the weapon system itself, how the dice 'scale', and how this overly penalizes small characters and overly rewards large weapons. Removing Oversized from PC hands mitigates the issue, but I do see it as one of the few big weak points of 4E in general.


----------



## DracoSuave (Nov 7, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:


> I'm of two minds on this one.
> 
> First, balance!  yay!
> 
> ...




They never intended that MM races be used as balanced player characters.  You know this, because at the beginning of the MM Race section it says, explicitly, that they are not intended nor tested as player character races.  To accuse them of 'breaking' something they admit from day one is not balanced PC country is unfair, seeing as they admitted it in the very initial text.

The failure here is in assuming that those stats were obviously meant for PCs when there is text that blatantly contradicts that assumption.

I can't understand how that isn't clear.


----------



## Larrin (Nov 7, 2008)

DracoSuave said:


> I can't understand how that isn't clear.





The reason it isn't clear is because of two different ways of reading the opening blurb:

1) Blah blah PC blah blah.  

see it says PC, its written like PC races, its obviously meant for PC's, they're just bare bones because there is no feat support. Why would you read the opening blurb anyway


2)WE HAVEn't TESTED THESE. YOU SHOULDn't MAKE PC CHARACTERS WITH THESE. *WINK*WINK* 

obviously if you read between the lines, these are meant for PC's to be played, they just say all that opening stuff for liability issues, like the "NO DIVING" signs at kiddie pools.

Yeah, its just a case of WoTC taking back a lollipop that was never ours anyways, its hard for people who were holding it to let go.


----------



## Stormtower (Nov 7, 2008)

keterys said:


> Now, on the more direct topic of minotaurs and bugbears with oversized weapons... they just shouldn't have gotten them in the first place, nor should other races. Poof, no balance problems with PCs, no disconnect for NPCs, and since they're monsters they can do whatever damage we want them to do anyways.




This, this, this a hundred times over.  Bye bye to oversized weapons for PCs an all the cheesy bugbear and minotaur PCs.  If 4E is going to be the "balanced edition" it's important to keep this stuff in line.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 7, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:


> I get the impression that "no oversized weapons for PCs" is something of a hasty patch applied in retrospect after they noticed that they had broken something so early in this edition.  And so I don't like it as a position.  A better position would be "we ought to very carefully make sure we don't break anything every time we release a new book."  At the time, having released 1 new book, they had a 100% rate of failure with respect to that position.  Not that I don't like the book, and it's really a minor issue; it's just that I look at this sort of thing and wonder whether it's the beginning of a trend.



I basically agree.  Weapon progression is, in my opinion, inherently broken.  I've been saying that for a long time, and I still believe it.  I personally wouldn't blame Brutal- I like Brutal, I think it has a lot of potential as a mechanic, and it only really fails when it interacts with another mechanic that was already kind of lousy.  While we're looking at things in retrospect, I'd rather we didn't have the lousy mechanic instead of having to give up on the new, cool one.

Weapon progression and hand jives are the two things that I really think 4e should have noticed and fixed.

That and chromatic dragons, but that's never going to happen so I might as well stop complaining.  But I won't.


----------



## DracoSuave (Nov 7, 2008)

Larrin said:


> The reason it isn't clear is because of two different ways of reading the opening blurb:
> 
> 1) Blah blah PC blah blah.
> 
> ...




Heh.  Yeah.  Pretty much.



> Yeah, its just a case of WoTC taking back a lollipop that was never ours anyways, its hard for people who were holding it to let go.




Exactly.  Honestly, I think they -did- test them, and that's why they came up with the 'what the- no, this oversized crap ISN'T good in the hands of PCs.'  That's the sort of thing that leads to such introductory blurbs like 'This not balanced for PCs, mkay?'

Also, about Stunty.

Ranged attackers love stunty.  Shift away from a meleer, move action, plink them with arrows.  The making that shift a minor rather than a move action -really- opens up the tactics.  A melee attacker with Shifty benefits a rogue, period.  Doesn't matter if the rogue doesn't have Shifty or not.

I've yet to see a battle where I didn't wish for Shifty.


----------



## DracoSuave (Nov 7, 2008)

Dupepost baleeted


----------



## 77IM (Nov 7, 2008)

Why do people feel that oversized weapons are inherently imbalanced and should never be allowed?  There are plenty of ways to balance them.  The most obvious is an attack penalty:

*Oversized:*  You can use weapons of your size or one size larger than you as if they were your size.  However, when using a weapon that is one size large than you, you take a -2 penalty on attack rolls using that weapon.


I voted "negative" in the poll not because I like oversized weapons (they're OK, but not absolutely necessary for the monster races they apply to) but because I think absolute fiats like "we will never do X" or "we will always do X" are bad design guidelines that led to many of the problems with 3.X.  (For the record, I have confidence that Mearls understands this and would backpedal on his statements if somebody came up with a really good and balanced concept involving oversized weapons.)

 -- 77IM


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 7, 2008)

Larrin said:


> The reason it isn't clear is because of two different ways of reading the opening blurb:
> 
> 1) Blah blah PC blah blah.
> 
> ...




Circa early 2008:

Players: Hey, you took gnomes out of the game!  What gives?

WotC: No, they're right there in the back of the MM.  If you're playing a gnome, use those rules.  We'll eventually publish a more fleshed out version, but we can't think of anything good right now.  For now, the MM gnome is the official PC gnome.  Also, for all you guys who insist on playing kobolds or misunderstood good-aligned drow elves that fight with twin scimitars but certainly aren't derivative of iconic characters from spin-off fiction, the stats for a bunch of other monster races are there too.

Also, as some people have suggested, I don't see Oversized as a particularly broken ability, except in synergy with other things.  And anyway, if it's borked, why publish it, if you could just write a balanced version instead?  Now we're stuck with it.  Given that the suggestion is there, albeit behind police tape, to use these races as characters, why were they written with broken abilities in the first place?

Personally, I'm don't care one way or the other.  I like balance, as I noted above.  However, this whole scenario smacks of poor foresight and bad design.  And, as I already said, we were promised that 4e was positively hewn from the still-beating heart of a foresight elemental, and tempered in the fires of careful game design.


----------



## Mercule (Nov 7, 2008)

I have a strongly negative reaction to this statement.  Personally, I don't care whether PCs can wield oversized weapons or not.  What I really, really dislike is any ability that an NPC can have that is expressly prohibited to PCs.  I hated this in 1e and 2e, and it was one of the reasons I was attracted to 3e and its "build 'em the same" mechanics.

Even though 3e NPC builds turned out to be a bust, I thought 4e was going to hit the sweet spot of having streamlined stats for the DM, but model the same thing.

I can get the idea that some abilities (mostly magical or divine) take years of practice, service, or just plain luck to attain and PCs are intended to be played, not spend 27 years navel-gazing, so they're unlikely to attain such things.  It just depends on the "why".

In this case, the "why" of an NPC goliath wielding oversized weapons is because he is a goliath.  If my PC spends the same amount of practice and luck in being a goliath, I expect a way to model the NPC's ability to wield an oversized weapon.  I don't care one bit if it is statistically the same.  But, there should be a way to model it.  Make it a feat, a weapon multiclass path, make them take a -1 to-hit for a +1 damage, or something else if there needs to be a balance.

IMO, this is answering "no" to the wrong question.  Goliaths have the ability to wield large weapons.  If this is unbalancing to PCs, then the request that gets denied is "Can I play a goliath?"  If you can have PC goliaths, they get to wield big weapons.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 7, 2008)

Mercule said:


> In this case, the "why" of an NPC goliath wielding oversized weapons is because he is a goliath.  If my PC spends the same amount of practice and luck in being a goliath, I expect a way to model the NPC's ability to wield an oversized weapon.  I don't care one bit if it is statistically the same.  But, there should be a way to model it.  Make it a feat, a weapon multiclass path, make them take a -1 to-hit for a +1 damage, or something else if there needs to be a balance.



It seems almost trivial to fix this problem in retrospect.  Just giving a +1 to weapon damage is pretty much mechanically equivalent to advancing the die type, but doesn't break the system when you start throwing in rules that interact with die type and number.  Why, then, was it designed to be problematic when used by PCs?


----------



## keterys (Nov 7, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:


> It seems almost trivial to fix this problem in retrospect.  Just giving a +1 to weapon damage is pretty much mechanically equivalent to advancing the die type, but doesn't break the system when you start throwing in rules that interact with die type and number.  Why, then, was it designed to be problematic when used by PCs?




Beats me. That's the same solution I'd had for size changes in 3.x


----------



## elecgraystone (Nov 7, 2008)

Personally I think this was WOTC using everyone to playtest Oversized. They knew and expected people to play minotaurs and bugbears out of the MM and they got to see how the power worked before they made an 'official' race with it, like the goliath. All they had to do was watch the forums to see how people were using it. Now it seems that Mearls has made up his mind on it.

I can see that Oversized has some issues, but like some of the others I'm not in favor of removing it from PC's and leaving it for NPC's. Better to errata how the ability works than to remove it from PC's.


----------



## eamon (Nov 7, 2008)

I'm indifferent.  It's good new that brutal and oversized won't mix, but it's bad news that you might get players asking "can I play race X using stats from source Y?"  

Having short MM summaries and extended PC writeups is fine since you don't lose anything by going to the PC version.  Having two different writeups is annoying.

Finally, the problem with oversized weapons lies firmly with brutal, and not so much with the weapons themselves.  So... it's good they fixed it, but this isn't a pretty solution.  It pretty much means it'll never be possible to play a giant, even though that might sometimes be amusing.


----------



## keterys (Nov 7, 2008)

eamon said:


> Finally, the problem with oversized weapons lies firmly with brutal, and not so much with the weapons themselves.




They were a problem before brutal came out. Brutal just highlights the problem further.

2d8 just isn't a good 'W' value, no matter how you shake it.


----------



## Larrin (Nov 8, 2008)

One thing struck me today as i was crusing the D&D boards.

I'm glad oversized is removed from the PC realm because it means that every example of "damage builds" won't be a Minotaur/bugbear with a brutal weapon.

Someone asks a damage question and invariably some one chimes in with "Well a minotaur with an executioners axe...."

So basically, you get a bunch of people using a back of the MM race for 90% of calculations regarding how to make a damaging character.  This alone should be a clue that oversized somehow tips the scales a little more than just the "it boils down to +1 damage for most weapons".  You never hear about dragonborn or dwarven fighters anymore! 

In the end, oversized is an oversized ability, and it just gets everywhere when its allowed.  The PHB races should be the stars of the show, dangit!  Monster races should be playable, fun and mostly only appealing for those that want to play one in the first place.  When they start hogging up the spotlight pretty consistently due to ONE 'little' ability, that ability needs to go!

Okay, rant over....i'm done....


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 8, 2008)

Larrin is absolutely right.  If nothing else, the sudden surge of interest in bugbear and minotaur pcs should be a clue.


----------



## DracoSuave (Nov 9, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:


> It seems almost trivial to fix this problem in retrospect.  Just giving a +1 to weapon damage is pretty much mechanically equivalent to advancing the die type, but doesn't break the system when you start throwing in rules that interact with die type and number.  Why, then, was it designed to be problematic when used by PCs?




This mechanic has always existed.  It's called +2 Strength.


----------



## Runestar (Nov 9, 2008)

> The PHB races should be the stars of the show, dangit!




I can't be the only one who grew sick of core races 2+ years ago and has played nothing but exotic LA races/monster PCs (savage species style) almost exclusively ever since...


----------



## Doctor Proctor (Nov 9, 2008)

I do have one question though....

The new Eternal Defender epic destiny from the Martial Power book is supposed to grant the ability to use oversized weapons.  So how _would_ that stack with a brutal weapon?  Say, the Craghammer or Executioner's Axe?

Additionally, I think it's probably in part _because _of the Eternal Defender epic destiny that this had to die...otherwise people would want to try stacking them, and that would get crazy really fast.


----------



## Runestar (Nov 9, 2008)

At any rate, I doubt multiple abilities to use oversized weapons would stack anyways. It would be like 3e monkey grip meets powerful build, the latter simply supersedes the former.


----------



## Cam Banks (Nov 9, 2008)

One of my players is playtesting a new 4e race that I'd originally given Oversized to. We've replaced that with a new racial feature that gives him +1 to damage with versatile weapons, which he likes very much.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Stalker0 (Nov 9, 2008)

Let me just say. Minataur's get +2 strength and +2 con, and the most important part....+2 to perception checks!!

I think they are just fine powerwise as a race.


----------



## Runestar (Nov 9, 2008)

How do the revised minotaurs stack up with warforged now? I am wondering what incentive there is to play a minotaur now (stat-wise, not fluff wise).


----------



## Lizard (Nov 9, 2008)

This is rather depressing, because it points to (again) a very limited palette of possibilities due to the dread fear of anyone anywhere being better than anyone else at anything -- apparently this is the End Of Gaming As We Know It, even though grossly unbalanced games have been around for 30+ years and people still manage to have fun with them.

And why is it NOT unbalanced for Halflings to be stuck with undersized weapons? 

One of the best things about 3x was that, pretty much, ANY creature could be a PC race or an NPC -- you didn't need to wait around for an "official PC version" that may or may not look anything like the default for the race. 

This seems to imply that there will NEVER be playable large-size creatures in 4e, unless they have to wield undersized weapons, or else have some typically ham-fisted rule which says "Well, the weapons they wield LOOK like they're large size, but, in fact, they do damage as if they were normal." (Maybe they do +1 or something, or, once per encounter, function as if they were ACTUALLY large size.)

I understand a lot of the mechanical reasoning -- when you start getting things like [6W] attacks and each [W] is 2d6 or more, especially with criticals, brutals, etc, it quickly scales ludicrously. I consider this a problem with 4e design, and its very mainstream focus. Instead of saying, "How can we make a system to handle anything anyone might want to do?" (Which was the 3e approach, even if often badly implemented), the 4e designers seemed to say "How can we make a system to handle what we will define as the 'standard' for play?"


----------



## Lizard (Nov 9, 2008)

Runestar said:


> I can't be the only one who grew sick of core races 2+ years ago and has played nothing but exotic LA races/monster PCs (savage species style) almost exclusively ever since...




Nope. We're just wrapping up an all-SS campaign which took us from 1st to 16th level with the strangest menagerie imaginable...


----------



## Ibixat (Nov 9, 2008)

Lizard said:


> This is rather depressing, because it points to (again) a very limited palette of possibilities due to the dread fear of anyone anywhere being better than anyone else at anything -- apparently this is the End Of Gaming As We Know It, even though grossly unbalanced games have been around for 30+ years and people still manage to have fun with them.
> 
> And why is it NOT unbalanced for Halflings to be stuck with undersized weapons?
> 
> ...





OK, so you understand why giving oversized weapons is bad. You make that clear.

Then you indicate that 3.5 often poorly handled the exceptions it was so happy to give out so that it could have the anything goes attitude.

And you consider a system designed to handle the races who are made to conform to a certain standard as a problem?

Making races "standard" and interchangeable does not mean that one can't be better than another, at certain things.  Oversized weapon and str/con makes them better at every other race possible, in too many ways.

If you don't like the design philosophy of 4, keep playing 3.5 really.  Play the powerbroken savage species characters who are all far better than anything in any core book before them.  This is the effect they are trying to avoid in 4, where every time we release a race we all but invalidate the previous ones.

If everyone in the campaign was playing a savage species race that's fine, the power level balances out more or less, but if everyone is playing them and one lone guy is playing a dwarf or halfling they are going to be so outclassed in most ways.  4E makes it so that every race remains a viable choice, and you pick based on what you want to play to have fun, not what you should play to be effective.


----------



## Safari (Nov 9, 2008)

What i don't understand is that people need 'official rulings' from a wotc guy before accepting these things. People in my campaign got to choose any race in the players handbook, because they were designed an balanced for it. If they wanted anything else, homebrew or any other source, they had to check with me. 
Not because i want to be in control of the choices they make, but because of the before mentioned balance concerns. When i read the oversized weapon rules, i came to the immediate conclusion it was to strong. When i looked on the forums, it was like people treated all the MM races as legitimate options, as if they were in the PH. Did none of you read this section before the MM races?

_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 only use one of the following races to
create a character 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.
_
And even if your Dm let you play those characters, why does it change now all of a sudden? Mike mearls isn't going to show up to your game and slap you around if you still play a Bugbear. D&d is not set in stone, if you dont like a 'nerf' you dont have to use it.

And in the spirit of being constructive, why dont you replace the oversized race feature with a free superior weapon feat? This still allows your character to wield a big weapon, like a bastard sword or fullblade, but perfectly balanced with the rules. Very easy fix, and i use it in my campaign.


----------



## Lizard (Nov 9, 2008)

Ibixat said:


> OK, so you understand why giving oversized weapons is bad. You make that clear.
> 
> Then you indicate that 3.5 often poorly handled the exceptions it was so happy to give out so that it could have the anything goes attitude.
> 
> And you consider a system designed to handle the races who are made to conform to a certain standard as a problem?




When the option was to learn from the mistakes in 3e and provide BETTER rules for non-standard races? Yes.



> If you don't like the design philosophy of 4, keep playing 3.5 really.  Play the powerbroken savage species characters who are all far better than anything in any core book before them.  This is the effect they are trying to avoid in 4, where every time we release a race we all but invalidate the previous ones.




You've obviously never played an SS campaign. The monster races are horribly UNDERpowered for their ECL. Our Ogre Mage didn't get iteratives until he was about 12th level, and he was our main healing sponge because his hit dice sucked. My raven humanoid Blood Magus had more hit points than him!



> 4E makes it so that every race remains a viable choice, and you pick based on what you want to play to have fun, not what you should play to be effective.




Pretty much everyone I know plays "what's fun". I honestly feel the folks who haunt the char op boards don't actually PLAY, they just make builds. Most of the stuff I see there is based on ignoring "What would make this character fun/interesting/unique?" and instead embraces "How can I squeeze one more +1 out of this?", resulting in characters who make absolutely no sense. But that's another thread.

ECL may have been a clumsy solution, and worked better for non-caster classes, but at least provided a means by which non-standard races could introduced into the campaign and "feel" proper. The only way I can see it working in 4e is if you had "multiclass races" -- you would spend a feat (your only one, at first level) to gain a "racial class", and then you could buy additional "racial powers" with more feats.

By basically capping races at Medium, I think a lot of possibilities are cut off. I'm pretty sure the 4e system is not so delicate and fragile that some solution could not be found. As it is, I get the impression from 4e fans that 4e is a precious flower of spun glass, and you musn't push it at all, lest the perfect and sensitive 'balance' be shattered for all time. 

If a system can't take a couple of good hard kicks, what good is it?


----------



## 77IM (Nov 9, 2008)

Lizard said:


> This seems to imply that there will NEVER be playable large-size creatures in 4e, unless they have to wield undersized weapons, or else have some typically ham-fisted rule which says "Well, the weapons they wield LOOK like they're large size, but, in fact, they do damage as if they were normal." (Maybe they do +1 or something, or, once per encounter, function as if they were ACTUALLY large size.)




I have been wondering about this too.  There are several ways they could do it.

*1.*  Bring back racial penalties.  -2 to attack will more-or-less balance oversized weapons, and the extra surface area of large creatures is a sort of hidden defense penalty (since more creatures can attack you and it's harder to have cover).

4e has a "races don't carry penalties" dictum that seems fine as a general guideline, but if they stick to it like gospel it will lead to much stoopid, especially when designing wacky racial concepts.  4e threw out a lot of sacred cows so I hope the designers aren't instituting new ones.

*2.*  Partial abilities.  Maybe the oversized weapon counts as a normal-sized weapon for Encounter and Daily powers?  That way your At-Wills are still a bit better than the other guy's, but your 4[W] Encounter attack isn't disgusting.  Or maybe oversize is just a flat +1 or +2 damage -- not as good as monster weapons but not terrible (there are feats that do that and no one considers them underpowered).

This is the sort of hand-waving you mention above, but any sort of playable monster rules will require a certain amount of hand-waving.  One of the main reasons _Savage Species_ sucked so bad is that they refused to impose any hand-waving at all, and tried to balance the monsters exactly as written, which doesn't work very well.  I think it's a lot more important for the monster races' rules to capture the flavor of their _MM_ counterparts than to match up exactly.

*3.*  Feats/Multiclassing.  Maybe the PC ogre starts out as Medium sized (he's a young ogre) and needs to take a feat to become large and another to wield oversized weapons.  Or worse, you need to power-swap your Utility powers to do it.  More elaborate races could power-swap their attack powers (for example, a mind flayer wouldn't start with _mind blast_ but could trade an Encounter power to get it).  This is sort of like 3.x's monster classes or racial classes translated into 4e terms.


I'm convinced that we will see a 4e _Savage Species_ eventually and that it will be a lot better than the 3.x one.  Even if Wizards announces that "no, it would be too imbalanced, we're going to stick with medium humanoids and just trickle them out through DDI," then you know a third-party publisher would snatch up that gauntlet real quick.

 -- 77IM


----------



## keterys (Nov 9, 2008)

You could easily handle really wacky races with special rules in paragon tier. Ie, so you can't play a mind flayer unless you start at 11th level and some of your feats/powers and maybe path are pre-spent for you. Still works in the same system.


----------



## Runestar (Nov 10, 2008)

> Play the powerbroken savage species characters who are all far better than anything in any core book before them. This is the effect they are trying to avoid in 4, where every time we release a race we all but invalidate the previous ones.




Please, I advise you to at least have some idea about what you are ranting about before you go shooting your mouth off. With a few exceptions, most monster races are fairly underpowered for their ECLs because wotc assigned too high LAs to them (likely because they over-estimated how useful their abilities would be, or because they were compared against unoptimized PCs as yardsticks). 



> ECL may have been a clumsy solution, and worked better for non-caster classes, but at least provided a means by which non-standard races could introduced into the campaign and "feel" proper.




I agree - a crappy solution was better than no solution at all. It didn't make sense how a baby ogre could quickly progress to a fully-grown ogre after a few weeks of adventuring, but if you were willing to close one eye to this, you could at least still be able to play a monster race from 1st lv onwards.

However I look at it, it is still more favourable than the alternative - having to wait until lv6 before I could play an ogre. At least the option was there if I felt so inclined.

I look forward to the day when 4e will let me play a dragon PC as per the monster in the MM, not some watered down variant which retains none of its features save its name.


----------



## James McMurray (Nov 10, 2008)

Doctor Proctor said:


> I look forward to the day when 4e will let me play a dragon PC as per the monster in the MM, not some watered down variant which retains none of its features save its name.




Why look forward, when you can look backward?


----------



## Lizard (Nov 10, 2008)

keterys said:


> You could easily handle really wacky races with special rules in paragon tier. Ie, so you can't play a mind flayer unless you start at 11th level and some of your feats/powers and maybe path are pre-spent for you. Still works in the same system.




This is very likely what we'll end up with a year or two down the road when all the core race splats are exhausted.


----------



## daveb22 (Nov 10, 2008)

if people want to include oversized weapon and make it as players are now saying "balanced", then why not make a strength prerequisite? like str 18 or something.

if you don't want to have oversized weapon then don't.

or am i in the wrong for believing that D&D can still be made homebrew?


----------



## Runestar (Nov 10, 2008)

Why then even bother having discussions like this, when we could just play our own games and not about how others run theirs?


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 10, 2008)

James McMurray said:


> Why look forward, when you can look backward?



 You quoted the wrong person.  That aside, I for one don't look forward to the same day.  It will severely clutter up an otherwise clean ruleset with unneeded garbage from my perspective.  Like SS, it should be a totally separate rulebook that would allow you to balance-out MM races.


----------



## Ibixat (Nov 10, 2008)

Runestar said:


> Why then even bother having discussions like this, when we could just play our own games and not about how others run theirs?




People want their game/home rules to be "official", they want to be able to do it in RPGA settings to have an undue advantage etc.

And thanks for you guys personally attacking me in my response to the savage species stuff, I made sure my response was not personal, way to raise the bar in your replies to me.

You say most of them are underpowered and some are overpowered, well that sounds like a craptastic approach to race selection balance.  And you're telling me that some races in the book were so bad they didn't compare well to standard races from the PHB?  And if they didn't compare well, guess what, that's still broken, just in the wrong power direction.

I happen to agree with the 4E version of races compared to 3.5, if it limits your options then homerule it and move on, don't flog wotc for not using your version of the game as the official version and in tournament/rpga style play.


----------



## Runestar (Nov 10, 2008)

> And you're telling me that some races in the book were so bad they didn't compare well to standard races from the PHB?



Yes and no. 

Savage species allowed you to play powerful races with a high ECL from 1st lv by breaking it down into a class level format. For example, a fire giant (ECL19) could be broken down into a 19-lv progression table. At each lv, you get some features, and at lv19, you are effectively a fully-fledged fire giant. There was no such thing as a base LA+0 fire giant race, because you had to finish the progression before you could take your 1st class lv. 

So in theory, a fire giant should be on par with a lv19 fighter using a core race (say either human or dwarf) in terms of how meaningfully it can contribute in a standard 4-PC party. Though in actual gameplay, it appeared to be much weaker. 

However, this appears more an issue of the designers failing to assign appropriate LAs/ECLs to the monsters, rather than any inherent flaw in the concept of a savage species progression. It was rare that a monster PC broke the game. So if those inflated LAs could be revised, it would be possible to have a balanced PC that was still a blast to play.

The allure in using them was for the unique gaming experience of being able to access special abilities normally reserved for monster adversaries (and normally unavailable to PCs) and the chance of playing an unusual race/monster (and the accompanying roleplaying rammifications). 

For an example, I refer you to this thread - Such Tangled Webs They Weave: Assault upon the Abyssal Fortress [Archive] - Wizards Community, which involved a small group of celestials on a mission in the abyss.

It doesn't really have anything to do with the current discussion, that much I admit. I had simply made that statement I did earlier more as a passing remark about my incredulity as to just why so much emphasis had to be placed on the core races, and so little attention on more monstrous/exotic races. But then you tried to link the use of Savage Species to powergaming, and I felt that I just had to clarify this common misconception that monstrous PC = munchkinism.

The same scenario seems to be replaying itself in 4e. When you cite the MM provision and disallow a monstrous race as a result, are you doing it because you know for a fact that said race really is overpowered, or are you doing it simply because it is a monstrous race (and you assume that all such exotic races must surely be overpowered by default)? 

Lets set aside the minotaur, since it has already been revised. The warforged for instance, was actually underpowered (since it received a boost in the dragon article).

Because if the race really is too strong, you would have a valid reason for not allowing it in your games, even without having to cite that clause. Conversely, if you use that clause as an excuse to disallow a particular race, than you really wouldn't care even if said race was perfectly balanced now, would you?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 10, 2008)

Larrin said:


> I'm glad oversized is removed from the PC realm because it means that every example of "damage builds" won't be a Minotaur/bugbear with a brutal weapon.
> 
> Someone asks a damage question and invariably some one chimes in with "Well a minotaur with an executioners axe...."
> 
> So basically, you get a bunch of people using a back of the MM race for 90% of calculations regarding how to make a damaging character.  This alone should be a clue that oversized somehow tips the scales a little more than just the "it boils down to +1 damage for most weapons".  You never hear about dragonborn or dwarven fighters anymore!




Again, doesn't this indicate that Oversized was broken right out of the gate?  There's nothing wrong with allowing characters to be big, and have access to big weapons.  The mechanics for doing so should, however, be universally applicable and easy to use.

Because Oversized was poorly conceived, Brutal breaks it, and now they have to pretend like they never intended anyone to use the MM race write-ups for PCs.

But just go back a few months and look at some of the threads complaining that there were no gnomes in the 4e PH.  Look at what the response was.  It was, "what are you even complaining about?  They don't get a full write-up, but they're right there in the back of the MM!  They're totally in the core books from day one!"  So which is it?  We've now been told that gnomes are and aren't intended to be used as PCs.  And the reason why gnomes aren't intended to be used as PCs is because Oversized is broken.  Not that gnomes even have that, but since the races in the back of the MM are intended for use as NPCs only, because Oversized is broken, gnomes are now NPC-only, retroactively from Mearls's post.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 10, 2008)

Safari said:


> And in the spirit of being constructive, why dont you replace the oversized race feature with a free superior weapon feat? This still allows your character to wield a big weapon, like a bastard sword or fullblade, but perfectly balanced with the rules. Very easy fix, and i use it in my campaign.




Why isn't this the text of Oversized, then?  Or any of the other balanced fixes that myriad posters in this thread have proposed?  Why did they go with the broken implementation?


----------



## Ibixat (Nov 10, 2008)

Thank you Runestar for the much more civil response =)

I always look at the results we end up with when playing with savage species as the characters they end up having are more powerful, but maybe it's a lower level viewpoint (5-12 range) and maybe the players are not picking weak races (well, they definately are not picking weak races but that's normal usually)

I suppose everyone has differeing views on how things work out from that book.  

Honestly the biggest stretch I'd want to see for oversized as a class feature would be to allow the use of a two hander as a one handed versatile weapon, I think that is close to going too far as it is.

If larger races are given full oversized then I hope DM's willing to penalize their size when apropriate as well.  One square wide doors, buildings designed for "human" sized folks, lots of squeezing and I don't mean the charmin =)


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 10, 2008)

Lonely Tylenol said:


> Because Oversized was poorly conceived, Brutal breaks it, and now they have to pretend like they never intended anyone to use the MM race write-ups for PCs.



Basically, yes.  It annoys me too, because I could have told WOTC that oversized didn't work.  But regrettably, I, and my sheer awesomeness, are not on the WOTC design staff.  And so we have at least two major flaws carried over from 3e- oversized weapons, and the hand jive.*

If 4e were actually a wargame like its detractors like to claim, WOTC would officially announce, "ERRATA!  Oversized doesn't work.  Here's a new set of rules for Oversized." and that would be the end of that.  But unfortunately its an RPG, and we're going to be stuck with the same rules for Oversized for a long, long time.


Lonely Tylenol said:


> But just go back a few months and look at some of the threads complaining that there were no gnomes in the 4e PH.  Look at what the response was.  It was, "what are you even complaining about?  They don't get a full write-up, but they're right there in the back of the MM!  They're totally in the core books from day one!"  So which is it?  We've now been told that gnomes are and aren't intended to be used as PCs.  And the reason why gnomes aren't intended to be used as PCs is because Oversized is broken.  Not that gnomes even have that, but since the races in the back of the MM are intended for use as NPCs only, because Oversized is broken, gnomes are now NPC-only, retroactively from Mearls's post.



I think you're overdoing it a bit.  The rules were back there for those who wanted them, with the caveat that they weren't fully balanced.  "Oversized" is apparently a specific example of that being the case.

*Hand jive- what you get when you have two hands, but three held items, and you want to use them all in the same round at various times and for various purposes.  See, eg, a multiclass warlord/wizard.


----------



## Doctor Proctor (Nov 10, 2008)

I'm not sure if this has already been mentioned, but one of the Epic Destinies in the Martial Power book allows for the use of oversized weapons.  I think that this was part of the reason that it was eliminated as well...because it begs the question of "If I have a Minotaur Fighter with oversize and then I take the Eternal Defender Epic Destiny that allows you to use oversized weapons, can I move up two die tiers?"

To my knowledge, the oversized feature hasn't been removed from this Epic Destiny (although it could be errata'd right after coming out), which would mean you still have the option to go for it.  It's just at the Epic tier of play, which would make it a lot easier to deal with.  When you have it as part of a class feature, it's available from level 1, and this makes it a lot harder to balance.


----------



## Runestar (Nov 10, 2008)

If oversized breaks brutal, why not just rework brutal, rather than oversized? Is it such a big deal to be able to reroll any 1s or 2s you roll, that brutal's inclusion as is must stay no matter what? After all, it is simply the mathematical equivalent to an extra 2 points of damage.

Saying that an ability has to be removed just because it interacts poorly with a new splatbook material seems counter-intuitive. 



> as the characters they end up having are more powerful, but maybe it's a lower level viewpoint (5-12 range) and maybe the players are not picking weak races (well, they definately are not picking weak races but that's normal usually)




Hmm...odd, I never felt they were stronger than core races, but maybe because my group runs fairly optimized PCs to begin with. Still, that ghaele PC was a blast to play. Ah...fun times...


----------



## DracoSuave (Nov 10, 2008)

Runestar said:


> Saying that an ability has to be removed just because it interacts poorly with a new splatbook material seems counter-intuitive.




Oversized Weapon was questionable before Brutal came out.  Brutal just made the question have a more definate answer.  Saying an ability that is meant for NPCs needs to be preserved for PCs' use despite material being overpowered with it is counter-intuitive.


----------



## Runestar (Nov 11, 2008)

> Saying an ability that is meant for NPCs needs to be preserved for PCs' use despite material being overpowered with it is counter-intuitive.




Well, for starters, I don't quite believe that they would forget to give an NPC kobold darkvision (which is what you would get if you used the MM kobold race to create an npc).

I still believe that the races were meant for PC usage right from the very start. That clause was probably inserted at the last minute as some sort of excuse to cover their backsides (eg: if a race did turn out to be overpowered, they could simply say "I told you so"). It sounds so patronizing that I don't believe for a moment their excuse about those races being npc-only.


----------



## James McMurray (Nov 11, 2008)

Runestar said:


> Well, for starters, I don't quite believe that they would forget to give an NPC kobold darkvision (which is what you would get if you used the MM kobold race to create an npc).
> 
> I still believe that the races were meant for PC usage right from the very start. That clause was probably inserted at the last minute as some sort of excuse to cover their backsides (eg: if a race did turn out to be overpowered, they could simply say "I told you so"). It sounds so patronizing that I don't believe for a moment their excuse about those races being npc-only.




Oh, definitely. I mean, if they'd actually said in the MM that the races were intended for creating NPCs and that DMs should carefully consider whether to use them or not, then I'd believe them now.

Oh... wait...


----------



## 77IM (Nov 11, 2008)

Monster Manual said:
			
		

> 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.
> ...
> The DM should carefully consider which monster races, if any, to allow as PCs in his or her campaign.




That seems pretty clear to me.  I don't buy the "I thought 'no' meant 'yes'" argument.  Even when the designers were telling people to use the gnome stats in the _MM_, they depicted these stats as a stop-gap measure until the _real_ gnome stats could be released.

D&D rules are not scientific laws or sacred gospel -- they are guidelines that the DM needs to interpret and adjust as needed.  4e has done a pretty good job explaining the rationale for various rules to help the DM make good decisions, and the above statements from the _MM_ tell me:  "These monster racial stats are a rough draft.  Use at your own risk."

Getting upset over the massive Stealth errata or the totally broken Skill Challenge system seems reasonable to me, but the half-baked monster races? in the appendix?  We should have all seen this one coming.

 -- 77IM


----------



## Imban (Nov 11, 2008)

77IM said:


> Getting upset over the massive Stealth errata




Well, at least the Stealth errata wasn't stealth errata.


----------



## DracoSuave (Nov 11, 2008)

Runestar said:


> Well, for starters, I don't quite believe that they would forget to give an NPC kobold darkvision (which is what you would get if you used the MM kobold race to create an npc).
> 
> I still believe that the races were meant for PC usage right from the very start. That clause was probably inserted at the last minute as some sort of excuse to cover their backsides (eg: if a race did turn out to be overpowered, they could simply say "I told you so"). It sounds so patronizing that I don't believe for a moment their excuse about those races being npc-only.




You are free to believe what you will.

Said belief is irrational in the face of presented evidence, but you are free to believe as you will.


----------



## Runestar (Nov 11, 2008)

Well then, if the monster races were indeed meant for npc creation, then can someone enlighten me as to why the heck they did not give the kobold darkvision?


----------



## Squizzle (Nov 11, 2008)

Runestar said:


> Well then, if the monster races were indeed meant for npc creation, then can someone enlighten me as to why the heck they did not give the kobold darkvision?




Since all you need to generate new monstrous NPCs is a good look at the stat blocks of existing members of that monstrous race, I took the appendix write-ups as rough draft PC race stat blocks, obviously not playtested (or, in many cases, even finished), but there as a sort of "Here's what we have so far; feel free to run with it. Subject to revision" to allow people to play a wider variety of races until a good inventory of them built up in the published materials.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 11, 2008)

Imban said:


> Well, at least the Stealth errata wasn't stealth errata.



_Zing!_


----------



## DracoSuave (Nov 11, 2008)

Runestar said:


> Well then, if the monster races were indeed meant for npc creation, then can someone enlighten me as to why the heck they did not give the kobold darkvision?




Because darkvision isn't a function of the race per se, but a function of the individual monsters that comprise the kobold race in the MM?

Not everything they share in common necessarily carries over to the racial description.  That's inherent in how monsters are designed as monsters, as well as how they are designed as NPCs.  If the DM needs a monster to have darkvision, he just gives it to them.  There's no hard and fast rule for that, except 'Give the monster the tools it needs to do its job.'

And if it's an above ground/day light encounter, darkvision is unnecessary, so why bother noting it?

That said, I feel it's an oversight, but such a minor one that it's not exactly a thorn in any half-assed DM's side.


----------



## Herschel (Nov 11, 2008)

cignus_pfaccari said:


> Real Men Don't Roll d4s.
> 
> Besides, seriously, they're annoying, and I try my darnedest to avoid having to roll them.
> 
> Brad




I'd much rather roll 2d4 than a standard, boring d8 any day.


----------



## Sonny (Dec 9, 2009)

Squizzle said:


> Since all you need to generate new monstrous NPCs is a good look at the stat blocks of existing members of that monstrous race, I took the appendix write-ups as rough draft PC race stat blocks, obviously not playtested (or, in many cases, even finished), but there as a sort of "Here's what we have so far; feel free to run with it. Subject to revision" to allow people to play a wider variety of races until a good inventory of them built up in the published materials.




Isn't that pretty much how they were being represented before the books even came out? I recall hearing that there would be write-ups for some monsters, but they would be incomplete and not heavily tested, but given as an option for people who *really* wanted more choices from the get-go.


Anyways, I have no problem with different rules for pcs and npcs. It's better than having all the powers of a monster race but having ECL's which can end up gimping a character more than they could ever benefit from a set of racial powers.


----------



## YourSwordIsMine (Dec 9, 2009)

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander....


They are still geese...


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Dec 9, 2009)

Arise. AriiiiiiIIIIIIiiise! I summon thee back from the grave!


----------

