Post/Author/DateTime	Post
celestialkin 08-18-07, 11:54 AM	Hey guys. I know that this (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070816a) article says they originally intended to make some monster races easier to play (such as drow), but wouldn't this system of one race gaining new abilities as they level up, and often different ones depending on which class they choose, make it nearly impossible to play monsters straight out of the MM/whatever as players? I figure that each core race's entry will now be at least twice or three times as long as it's 3.5 version. Therefore, to do the same with each MM/whatever entry the book would be at least three or four times as thick and heavy, since their stats wouldn't fit in their current half-page entries. Hence they will probably be condensed sample entries, which will make them impossible to play as characters. Is there any merit to my theory?
GawainBS 08-18-07, 12:12 PM	On the contrary. You pointed out yourself with the Drow example. They can spread out the monster abilities over the course of 30 levels.
celestialkin 08-18-07, 12:41 PM	On the contrary. You pointed out yourself with the Drow example. They can spread out the monster abilities over the course of 30 levels. True, but I fear they will only do it for a select few races/monsters, due to the space needed.
Naderion 08-18-07, 12:45 PM	You could also do it yourself.
GawainBS 08-18-07, 12:46 PM	In the beginning, yes. I'm sure they'll explain in later books (or maybe as soon as the DMG or MM) how to do this with other monsters.
aotrscommander 08-18-07, 01:10 PM	Of note is this here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13460104&postcount=3). This would seem to be implying, that no, in the main, you won't be able to play monsters. Or at least not without a good deal of work. (I.e. it'll probably be much harder than in 3.5). While I can understand their logic from a game-design point of view, it is a popular option in 3.5, so it almost seems like a step back. One wonders if this also means that monsters and PCs will be generated in different ways ala 3.0 (which is a massive leap back if so, in my opinion).
celestialkin 08-18-07, 01:25 PM	Of note is this here. This would seem to be implying, that no, in the main, you won't be able to play monsters. Or at least not without a good deal of work. (I.e. it'll probably be much harder than in 3.5). While I can understand their logic from a game-design point of view, it is a popular option in 3.5, so it almost seems like a step back. One wonders if this also means that monsters and PCs will be generated in different ways ala 3.0 (which is a massive leap back if so, in my opinion). Thanks for the information and link. And I have to agree with you, it is a huge step back. They know a large portion of us enjoying taking monsters and using them as PCs, yet they purposefully make it harder to do?! People have enjoyed doing this since AD&&D, when the DM pretty much had to make up everything to get it to work, yet it seems they really aren't listening to the wants and needs of their fans. :( If it will be harder I just won't convert over to 4.0. You could also do it yourself. True, but that leaves a lot of balance problems, and a lot of arguing and dealing with the DM.
snakeman830 08-18-07, 01:30 PM	THis is one of the reasons I'm one of those people that's NOT excited about 4ed coming out. There's no possible way to have a simple, streamlined way of doing monsters as PC's anymore. It will be a hell of a lot of work, and you know that one person's Taruic Blick Dog (as an exmple) will be very different from anothers. I think I'll stick with 3.5.
Neutronium_Dragon 08-18-07, 01:36 PM	The way I read that, they're not trying to make it harder to play monster characters, they're trying to make it easier to have monster characters fit the standard race ruleset without needing kludges to do it. LA is a kludge to start with, but it also runs into the problem that, for most monsters which weren't designed specifically to be a playable race, it's impossible to give them an accurate LA as written because their abilities just don't sync up perfectly with a given level. Take hobgoblins as an example. As written they're certainly stronger than +0 LA, but they're pathetic at +1 LA. So instead, monsters will have two stat blocks. An "as monster" one and an "as PC" one. The first one doesn't have to worry about how LA-able it is, and the second one can be properly synced up with the other standard races without worrying about whether it's a perfect match for the first one. It may be more work, but it will ultimately make them more playable.
aotrscommander 08-18-07, 01:58 PM	So instead, monsters will have two stat blocks. An "as monster" one and an "as PC" one. The first one doesn't have to worry about how LA-able it is, and the second one can be properly synced up with the other standard races without worrying about whether it's a perfect match for the first one. It may be more work, but it will ultimately make them more playable. But of course this means you'll only be playing stuff WotC deems appropriate as PC classes. It's not likely to affect me personally, mind, since I've been creating monster classes for the nonhumanoid races in my latest camapign world, but I know some folks like to have a free reign.
Sylvaroth 08-18-07, 02:43 PM	Look at SWSE's Beast Class, this might be the road they are taking with the more popular monsters. They did state that the 30 level spread of racial abilities (for Core Races) was inspired by paragon classes and substitution levels (which are at least similar to racial classes), so it doesn't really seem that unlikely we will see Dragon, Goblinoid, XYZ Classes in the MM to give you the basics to play a race of a certain type. The specific monster entries will then continue to give you the stats of an average member of the creature's race (with a condensed and streamlined stat block, mind you) and the racial ability progression for a monstrous PC (remember the drow and githyanki have already been mentioned as an inspiration for scaling racial abilities).
Greco 08-18-07, 03:01 PM	Just take the ideas of Blood Lines from Unearthed Arcana if your that worried. I can see them scraping the Race mods while they still have a year left to work on it. By the sounds of the whole conference it will be exactly like D&D online. Long live 2e.
Lord_Of_The_Abyss 08-18-07, 07:06 PM	The way I read that, they're not trying to make it harder to play monster characters, they're trying to make it easier to have monster characters fit the standard race ruleset without needing kludges to do it. LA is a kludge to start with, but it also runs into the problem that, for most monsters which weren't designed specifically to be a playable race, it's impossible to give them an accurate LA as written because their abilities just don't sync up perfectly with a given level. Take hobgoblins as an example. As written they're certainly stronger than +0 LA, but they're pathetic at +1 LA. So instead, monsters will have two stat blocks. An "as monster" one and an "as PC" one. The first one doesn't have to worry about how LA-able it is, and the second one can be properly synced up with the other standard races without worrying about whether it's a perfect match for the first one. It may be more work, but it will ultimately make them more playable. When i first saw the new homepage, i'll have to admit i was almost depressed (mostly because now all the money i spent over the last 3 or 4 years was now wasted) but now i'm excited since i read what they're gonna do with the races and classes. Anyway what you said, Neutronium Dragon is exactly my point, what i think might happen and i think this is what WotC was trying to say in their races article is that the playable creatures are basically gonna have in a way their own racial classes which hopefully means that now races won't have LA.....hopefully.....what do you guys think they mean?
Gnome_Dragon_Disciple 08-18-07, 07:41 PM	So long as I can play a mindflayer with core-rule psionics and not have it cracked out one way or another, I'll be happy.
Hebitsuikaza 08-18-07, 07:48 PM	The WarCraft monster manual may well be a basis for the 4E Monster Manual. All of the races that seem very likely to be meaningful as PCs are given full racial progression charts like the core PCs. Mind you, I can basically guarantee that even the most simple, basic and common 'monster' human races will be horribly crippled. You still won't get to play them in all official games, such as living greyhawk, and 80% of other games, all core races will be ridiculously more powerful except for a few "designer favorite" races like the Drow, core races will get overpowered prestige classes and feats that no others can even hope to compare to and so on... Well, at least that's how I am left feeling after 3.5 and the crappy balance of Eberron. Maybe I am being too pessismistic, but... well... there you go.
Ecalsneerg 08-19-07, 09:30 AM	Admittedly, it might be a few months before significant, or even any, support for monster PCs happens, or it could be immediately. But in any case, when 4th edition first comes out, I think the priority is to likely learn all the rules changes, not start using 'exotic' PCs right away. I love a good Half-Dragon as much as the next man, but the fact is I'd rather have support for all the 'core' core stuff first, before moving on to cooler races. But that's my 2 cents, I'm not saying anyone else is wrong.
Witch 08-19-07, 09:36 AM	Abandoning of LA, which was a balancing mechanic, renders it so that one race is not inherently more powerful than another. I dislike abandoning this power divide. I also really dislike this new split between monsters & characters.
Derren S. 08-19-07, 09:40 AM	I'm interested in hearing which races will be covered in the core books to make them playable. From what I read it seems that Tieflings and Asimars will be core PC races and thus be detailed in the PHB. And I can imagine that Half-Dragons/Demons/Celestials will also be made into PC races in the core books or soon after that as they imo were also rather popular.
Sylvaroth 08-19-07, 10:43 AM	Since some Eberron stuff is said to be included in the Core Books, I could imagine Warforged and Changelings become new Core Races.
Spikes01k 08-19-07, 11:16 AM	I honestly heard from a good source that the Kender will become a core race, replacing the gnome.
MatthiasKaiser 08-19-07, 11:16 AM	Abandoning of LA, which was a balancing mechanic, renders it so that one race is not inherently more powerful than another. I dislike abandoning this power divide. I also really dislike this new split between monsters & characters. This seems to be largely your own imagination, as the bit about "no more LA" came right alongside news of a new balancing mechanic. One that doesn't make them overpowered at early levels, if you can even play them at that point, and doesn't cripple them as they advance in level. The only real concern is that monsters might not have PC advancement rules right out of the box - which we don't know for sure yet. If anything, 4E sounds designed to make playing monsters easier. This sort of thing will be the bane of the community, pre-4E. Someone will get an idea in their head, based on a misconception regarding the snippets we get, and make absurd statements based on those ideas, creating panic. EDIT: Okay, I see them saying that not all monsters will be available for play. Which only makes sense - it's easier to design monsters if you design them as monsters, and not as playable characters. Which is not the same thing as saying that 4E will limit you to vanilla PHB-standard races.
celestialkin 08-19-07, 02:00 PM	http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=905787&page=38 Monsters are not going to be designed with the idea that they might be used as PCs, as it was felt this limited monsters. Some monsters will be obvious choices as races; goblins and such. The goblin won't have as much support as a core PC race, but with enough interests, it might get more in online enhancements. Conscious avoidance of ECL- it was a kludge they want away from. Since they don't want everything to be playable, that should help. Yeah, this pretty much answers my questions. I just don't get it. They know we want the exact opposite of what they are doing, so why are they doing this? Is this somehow going to make them more of a profit? Or have they completely lost track of what their customers want? Or do they just not care anymore? I hope you guys enjoy 4ed, because I'm officially done with D&D. Sure I'll keep my old 3.5 books and minis around, but when people stop playing them at my local store I'll just switch over to something new.
fatchuck 08-19-07, 03:14 PM	I just don't get it. They know we want the exact opposite of what they are doing, so why are they doing this? Is this somehow going to make them more of a profit? Or have they completely lost track of what their customers want? Or do they just not care anymore? Sorry, but it sounds like the only issue here is with Rule 0 - if the monster doesn't have a built-in racial progression, your DM won't allow you to play it. If your DM will allow you to play it, you can model the monster's racial abilities on other "progressed" races and work to make it to both you and your DM's satisfaction. Nothing in 4.0 will prevent you from doing that. I hope you guys enjoy 4ed, because I'm officially done with D&D. Sure I'll keep my old 3.5 books and minis around, but when people stop playing them at my local store I'll just switch over to something new. In the sprit of being a smart***, it's too bad you won't be staying around to complain about 4.0. We'll really miss that.
asurademon 08-19-07, 10:53 PM	4th will initially be a step back from 3rd, because they can only have so much material done at once (it's not like everything for 3rd edition was published right away, far from it), and they clearly decided that they really needed to focus on the core races for PCs, and monsters that the PCs will be dealing with. I'm willing to bet that there will later be books published that deal with playing monsters, much like Savage Species. I'm also hoping that the way that more powerful races/monsters are dealt with as PCs is much better in 4th edition, than what we have to deal with now in 3rd edition (I hate LA). From what little I've heard so far, it sounds like playing a more powerful creature, such as a half-dragon, drow, etc... will not handicap the character like LA does. Plus they need to eventually have a guide to design your own races simply because so many people do their own custom worlds (almost every game I've ever played in was not in an official setting, and many had customized races and creatures). But it's not going to kill them to just get out their basic core material first, and then later release material to help those whom want to use custom content, and races other than those in the core (which I could be wrong, but I doubt it will be all that difficult to create your own races if you only have the core books if you really understand the rules, and use how the core races function to base your custom race/monster PC on)
MatthiasKaiser 08-20-07, 12:45 AM	4th will initially be a step back from 3rd, because they can only have so much material done at once (it's not like everything for 3rd edition was published right away, far from it), and they clearly decided that they really needed to focus on the core races for PCs, and monsters that the PCs will be dealing with. I'm willing to bet that there will later be books published that deal with playing monsters, much like Savage Species. I'm also hoping that the way that more powerful races/monsters are dealt with as PCs is much better in 4th edition, than what we have to deal with now in 3rd edition (I hate LA). From what little I've heard so far, it sounds like playing a more powerful creature, such as a half-dragon, drow, etc... will not handicap the character like LA does. Plus they need to eventually have a guide to design your own races simply because so many people do their own custom worlds (almost every game I've ever played in was not in an official setting, and many had customized races and creatures). But it's not going to kill them to just get out their basic core material first, and then later release material to help those whom want to use custom content, and races other than those in the core (which I could be wrong, but I doubt it will be all that difficult to create your own races if you only have the core books if you really understand the rules, and use how the core races function to base your custom race/monster PC on) Co-signed.
YabaTheWhat 08-20-07, 01:46 PM	They might be setting themselves up for the release of monster-to-PC conversion supplements. As demand for particular playable monster races catches the developers' attention, they will prepare and release supplemental material (either available via online subscription or in supplement books) making those races available as PCs with racial progressions. If they include a how-to guide, the gaming community might even do the developers' work for them, as people experiment with PC racial progression builds, critique each other, and iron out the kinks. One example I might like to see included in a PC conversion supplement (though I doubt it's all that popular in the community at large) is the medusa. The 3.x medusa had the feel of a ranger with a gaze attack. I could picture a medusa starting at first level with very minor bonuses, then gaining an evolving gaze attack as it goes up in levels. The gaze could start as something like Sleep 1/encounter, then gain more uses & more powerful gazes later. This would also clean up the continuously-active problem with the medusa's gaze (where a medusa PC had to wear special goggles or turn her allies to stone). The idea of races gaining abilities as they progress has a lot of merit. Raptoran (RotW) set the stage for racial ability progressions in official D&D material. Several templates use the same concept of progressive power advancement, as do racial paragons, substitution levels, and a number of third-party publications (and homebrew races).
jetpack 08-20-07, 04:45 PM	4th will initially be a step back from 3rd, because they can only have so much material done at once (it's not like everything for 3rd edition was published right away, far from it), and they clearly decided that they really needed to focus on the core races for PCs, and monsters that the PCs will be dealing with. I'm willing to bet that there will later be books published that deal with playing monsters, much like Savage Species. I'm also hoping that the way that more powerful races/monsters are dealt with as PCs is much better in 4th edition, than what we have to deal with now in 3rd edition (I hate LA). From what little I've heard so far, it sounds like playing a more powerful creature, such as a half-dragon, drow, etc... will not handicap the character like LA does. Plus they need to eventually have a guide to design your own races simply because so many people do their own custom worlds (almost every game I've ever played in was not in an official setting, and many had customized races and creatures). But it's not going to kill them to just get out their basic core material first, and then later release material to help those whom want to use custom content, and races other than those in the core (which I could be wrong, but I doubt it will be all that difficult to create your own races if you only have the core books if you really understand the rules, and use how the core races function to base your custom race/monster PC on) Wizards has specifically stated that in 4e monsters (from MM) will not be allowed as player characters and that if they wanted a race to be used as a player character they would publish it as so. So I doubtful that they will publish a system to convert MM monsters into playable races.
ToastedAmphibian 08-20-07, 05:18 PM	Now your just being narrow minded! They said they didnt want to spend the time to devlope them as player characters. However, if people want it, then its absurd to think that they wouldnt make another book where they eitehr do it for you, explain how to do it yourself, or both. They want to SELL BOOKS. If people want a book, they will BUY IT (Idealy.....). So WoTC is unlikly to NOT make a book that people WANT (in signifigant quantity) EVENTUALLY (After they have exhausted other more profitably uses of time) If people still want it, they will make it, because it will make them money.
Twylyght 08-20-07, 06:10 PM	I honestly heard from a good source that the Kender will become a core race, replacing the gnome. You know... I would dance a jig if Dragonlance became the core setting. I think its only about a 0.0002% chance, but still... a jig.
CelticMutt 08-20-07, 06:24 PM	I'm interested in hearing which races will be covered in the core books to make them playable. From what I read it seems that Tieflings and Asimars will be core PC races and thus be detailed in the PHB. And I can imagine that Half-Dragons/Demons/Celestials will also be made into PC races in the core books or soon after that as they imo were also rather popular. Tieflings have been confirmed I believe. No mention of Aasimars. Since some Eberron stuff is said to be included in the Core Books, I could imagine Warforged and Changelings become new Core Races. I think the same interview or whatever that confirmed Tieflings said Changelings were a possibility. Anyways, I fully expect a Savage Species 4E.
Kurama Youko 08-20-07, 06:58 PM	What if they do it so that rather than gain the full abilities of a vampire with a huge level adjustment, you gain certain aspects and flaws of being a vampire as you level up in away similiar to some of the ideas im listing below. Well a better example might be a creature with hit dice. Like maybe a Troll. Instead of trying to figure out what the LA should be, in which you'd gain no hit dice and all things related it. Take however many hit dice a troll has a fit all the abilities of the troll within a progression equal to its hit dice. I know it might sound powerful at first but i think it should have really always been like this, if they needed to balance it out because something like a pixie has little to no hit dice then just up the number of racial hit dice a pixie has to something like 4 or 5 with ever so small a hit dice. like 5d4 or 5d6 at best. Maybe templates could take a similiar action like for Half Dragons for example. Use the augmented racial hit dice of say a human which would go from d8's to d10's and spread out the abilities gained from the template over the number of hit dice equal to the 3.5 level adjustment. A Half Dragon has a 3.5 la of +3.. which means you would take 3 humanoid racial hit dice (something normal humans drop upon their first class level.) and the half dragon abilities are spread out over those 3 levels. This was one of the things I doubt should have been the case way back when in 3.0 You can do it with just about anything and I think both fixes are pretty fair in my opinion. I can just see it now a Vampire normal has a LA+8 in 3.5 assuming they keep it that way the LA+8 becomes 8 racial hit dice to which then the abilities of a vampire are spread out. Thats 8d12 no con bonus, with Undead BAB and Save progressions. Since Vampires don't have class skills or skills per level normally they'd use the base creatures racial hit dice progression for skills at first lv and each level there after. It's good that way but it still prevents them from going into their class right away and allows other party members to be powerful in their own right for continuing in a class progression. The only thing they'd have to look out for is making sure that monster entry's stay balanced in terms of hit dice per hit dice values with the classes they are made to match with. A Beholder should be roughly the equivalent to a mage of equal hit dice. So if a Beholder is meant to challenege a party who are on average 10th lv. Then the Beholder should have 14 or 15 hit dice and abilities appropriate to those many hit dice. (Am i getting this right on a DM challenging a party scale? I think the CR is supposed to be 4 points higher than the parties average level when considering a major challenge for them right? if not then please adjust.)
Kurama Youko 08-20-07, 07:06 PM	oh i forgot to mention it the case of races that usually have a class level at first hit dice, and trying to figure out what skills would be class skills for a race who took a large LA template like vampire. Then in my opinon you'd use the class skills of the racial paragons given the unearthed arcana. Humans for example could choose 10 class skills. Thus upon your first level of human vampire you'd pick 10 class skills to have as your class skills for your human vampire progression. You'd gain skill points like that of the racial paragon that applied to your base race. For humans I believe that was 6 int mod. ... however if humanoids as for the skelekal type themselves usually had a skill point per level type of thing prehapes going would that would be best since it wouldnt favor any one race over the other.
runestar 08-20-07, 11:01 PM	I am guessing that LA will effectively be distributed over the class lvs, rather than being thrown in your face in 1 large chunk. For example, as a troll, you may perhaps get fast healing at maybe 6th lv, and this will slowly improve ever few lvs. Same goes for its stat mods. In fact, I am wondering if this will go the way of the enhancement system in DDO. For example, drow is a LA+0 race there. The catch is that its sr does not automatically improve - to raise it, you need to devote an enhancement slot (each character has 4) to it. A drow is still slightly stronger than the other races (mainly due to its imbalanced stat mods), but the divide is now less. Maybe this will be the case for more powerful races. Their special abilities can only be accrued by devoting those enhancement slots to them. The opportunity cost will be the other abilities you are forgoing. In this way, perhaps a half-ogre fighter would be no more powerful than a human fighter, just different.:confused:
TheAnthroDM 08-20-07, 11:19 PM	Well this is how I see it. 4E is going to be superior, but if my campaign demands an option that is not found in it(such as playing monsters) I go 3.5 campaign. I mean, it's still DnD, just a different system. I don't think that it'll be easy to player monsters in 4E, at least not until they release a Savage Species type book.
CrimsonPhoenix 08-20-07, 11:31 PM	Wizards has specifically stated that in 4e monsters (from MM) will not be allowed as player characters and that if they wanted a race to be used as a player character they would publish it as so. So I doubtful that they will publish a system to convert MM monsters into playable races. Would you please be so kind as to link us to such a statement? I honestly hope there is a miscommunication there - as Wizards has surely thought out an entire new edition well enough to not cut out a major feature of the current edition... In any case, I'm going to disbelieve this until I see some evidence (no offense of course).
Greco 08-21-07, 01:48 AM	Changling, Goblin, Kenku, Kobold, Orc, Shifter, War Forge, War Forge Scout, and Plane touched or just NWN2 Races
BrotherDog 08-21-07, 02:22 AM	Changling, Goblin, Kenku, Kobold, Orc, Shifter, War Forge, War Forge Scout, and Plane touched or just NWN2 Races Do you mean legit Kenku or that bastardized one that insults the sacredness of Ravenkind, and the original Kenku ( a Hawk-headed prankish protector of nature)?
deathbane 08-21-07, 03:03 AM	I understand that getting rid of LA is easier than trying to figure out the correct LA of every monster, but monsters are stronger than humans, and how can they expect a drow(monster) to have all his abilities, but the adventuring drow(pc) can't do it. I will just have to house rule that nonsense and make my own level adjustments.
rampant 08-21-07, 03:41 AM	I think maybe you guys are coming at this the wrong way. Ok this progression thing means that it may be harder to play Minotaurs (my favorite) for example. My next move is to stat up a minotaur progression ala 4e by looking at the PHB races. So what if its not precisely the same as a MM Minotaur? It charges, it has hyped up senses, and it makes the enemy beg for mercy, I'm happy. Then again I always did take everything as a direct challenge.
Witch 08-21-07, 07:22 AM	How on earth does it make in-game sense for a PC minotaur to have different abilities from an NPC minotaur?
ORC_Paradox 08-21-07, 07:28 AM	All 4e posts belong on the 4e board. Thanks.