Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 the8bitdeity Dec 11, 2008 17:05:59	Closed beta had Dragon writeups for Gnoll, Warforged, and a few others. Open now only has Monster Manual versions. Do I need to include my D&DI account info in it?
#2 thecasualoblivion Dec 11, 2008 17:12:21	They're all still there. They even added Minotaur to the list. It just doesn't refer to their source as Dragon Magazine anymore, and in the case of Drow lists them as Monster Manual and not FRPG. The feats and racial features are still Dragon/FRPG for these races.
#3 misterfido_dup Dec 11, 2008 18:22:59	Minotaurs aren't oversized in dragon mag. This could be a bug/misprint. However, I would agree that most racial traits are taken from magazines, not the monster manual
#4 the8bitdeity Dec 11, 2008 19:36:22	Minotaurs aren't oversized in dragon mag. This could be a bug/misprint. However, I would agree that most racial traits are taken from magazines, not the monster manual The oversized is what triggered my thoughts on the matter.
#5 the8bitdeity Dec 11, 2008 19:58:40	Actually I cannot find any of the minotaur racial feats.
#6 ravennus Dec 12, 2008 2:29:11	It's interesting, because they include 'Heedless Charge', which was the Dragon Magazine's absolutely subpar racial feature substitution for Oversized.... and yet, they ALSO included Oversized. In the equipment section, you can even purchase Large weapons so that the races with Oversized can use them. I can't see the Minotaur feats either. So technically I can make a LFR/RPGA legal Minotaur character with Oversized, according to the character generator. Interesting. Personally, I don't see what the big deal is with Oversized. I think it's a knee jerk reaction to certain optimized builds that take full advantage of it. In that case, yes, it's great.... however, the Minotaur doesn't have much else going for it. That was the mitigating factor. They have two attribute bonuses that both boost Fort, which is a known way the devs balance slightly more powerful racial write-ups. They get to make a basic attack when they get brought down to zero HP.... great for NPCs, horrible for PCs. An encounter charge power which is 'meh', at best. Oh, and now +2 vs. OA's only when charging. Sorry, but.... I thought they already wrote up Gnolls as the charge monkeys, who are already better at it? And comparing the Minotaur writeup to the Warforged article.... the Warforged definitely got a boost in all regards, while the Minotaurs got shafted. I think another poster said it best when they pointed out that the opportunity cost of a Minotaur now is just too high. There are far better races out there that do everything better than the Minotaur, and unless you are a hardcore stickler and desperately want to create one for RP purposes... then it's now pretty much obsolete. What worries me isn't the minotaur though. It's what they are going to do to the Goliath in the upcoming PHB2. Most people were anticipating it having the Oversized racial trait.... in fact, ASSUMING it did. After all, part of the idea of Goliaths were a giant-like playable PC race. Wielding a bigger stick just seemed to make sense, and fit the flavor as well as past treatment. So what are they going to do now that the Goliath can't get Oversized? What will the appeal be? Stony wart growths that give you mystical powers?? Bah.... just sad that a creature over 7 and a half feet tall can't wield a larger weapon. Oh wells.
#7 DMaple Dec 12, 2008 8:21:33	They get to make a basic attack when they get brought down to zero HP.... great for NPCs, horrible for PCs. Our defenders wouldn't agree with you the number of times they drop to zero in the big fights they would probably get at least two extra attacks, if not more. But yes they should be removing the oversized weapons if they are a PC race.
#8 the8bitdeity Dec 12, 2008 13:52:12	I'm more concerned that I'm a D&DI subscriber and the open beta is essentially less content than the closed beta. I realize this is the "teaser" for people to subscribe, but I'd like to test the extents of the D&DI material in the newest beta.
#9 mdonais Dec 12, 2008 15:29:52	No data was intentionally removed from the open beta. There is a small data bug with the minotaur that is causing some confusion. The races in the character builder should be the newest version as those are the official versions. The minotaur should not have oversized, that is the data bug that will be fixed in the full release. We are trying to decide which book we should list races from. The book they originally appeared or the book that they most recently appeared. From this thread it seems like player's want it listed from the most recent book that it appears in.
#10 the8bitdeity Dec 12, 2008 16:09:53	Thanks on the correction of the minotaur data. I took some time and indeed saw the other races indeed had their Dragon feats available. As for source of data: absolutely. Please list the most recent data source for the particular race. Moving forward with the extensibility of the system you have designed, it it essential to know where the data is coming from for reference sake. Plus it adds observational value to the D&DI subscription when a user sees older (read: MM) races updated with D&DI content.
#11 DMaple Dec 12, 2008 18:30:17	We are trying to decide which book we should list races from. The book they originally appeared or the book that they most recently appeared. From this thread it seems like player's want it listed from the most recent book that it appears in. Ideally both would be nice, and if you select the most recent book as a valid source then it uses that information where it replaces the original info. Of course if that is a complete pain to code I'd rather the most recent.
#12 kave99 Dec 12, 2008 19:33:40	We are trying to decide which book we should list races from. The book they originally appeared or the book that they most recently appeared. From this thread it seems like player's want it listed from the most recent book that it appears in. I pointed out in a thread about compendium inaccuracies in the Swordmage entry that you need supply accurate notes as to source and date. this should include something like "up dated from Dragon #999 on 25/12/2000" as apposed to just "Dragon #999" when there is a difference between what you see in the compendium and what appears in the original source. then there needs to be a history *up dated from Dragon #999 on 25/12/2031 *Dragon #999 on 24/11/2031 *Monster Manual 3rd printing *Monster Manual 1st printing
#13 fissionessence Dec 12, 2008 21:15:41	We are trying to decide which book we should list races from. The book they originally appeared or the book that they most recently appeared. From this thread it seems like player's want it listed from the most recent book that it appears in. It would be best to include both versions, listed separately, possibly making a note as to which is 'more official' or more recent than the other one. If you're not including all the monster manual races, though, then definitely don't include any of the MM races that have been updated through D&DI. Only list the updated versions, and reference them as such. ~