Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 mangled_mike Sep 16, 2010 22:31:12	Any theories or credible rumors on what the variable stats for dragonborn or tiefling might be?
#2 GMforPowergamers Sep 16, 2010 22:52:22	well if I were incharge of R&D (wait let me live this fantasy for a moment)... I would say Teifling +2 INT, and +2 CON/CHA makes them kick but warlocks, and sheilding swordmages... Dragonborn +2 CHA, and +2 STR/CON I just hope they are not yet another Con/Str race now...
#3 mangled_mike Sep 16, 2010 23:01:26	dragonborn images from darksun seem less hulking and more bendy.  wouldnt scream if dex got put in there somewhere.  Doubt that is the direction though.
#4 Andrelai Sep 16, 2010 23:19:19	This is actually pretty important to me, as one of my groups has a new campaign starting up soon. I NEED to know those stats!
#5 Chiba_Monkey Sep 16, 2010 23:48:52	Well, I would make CHA the Dragonborn's static stat boost. I don't think DEX fits the race, but if it did, they'd be ideal fo all sorceror builds. As for Tieflings, I've been saying this since the PHB3 came out and we all predicted the new variable stats race mechanic.  INT with CHA/CON would be nice, but Tiefling locks have had some other pptions come their way for Infernal Pact.  They have a feat (from the races book) which gives them extra damage when using warlock powers that use CON.  Or there's an entire list of encounter powers (and an at-will) for INfernal locks that uses CHA instead of CON.  I just don't think CON fits the race.  Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE to see Tieflings be A+ Helllocks, but CON doesn't seem to fit the race.  I see CHA as being the static stat. Of course, having at least ONE INT/CON race would be nice. However, I also think that drow will have CHA as a primary, and 3 races with CHA as primary seems unlikely.  So maybe Tieflings WILL be INT.  BAck to drow, I see CHA, and DEX/WIS, thus reflecting the race's natural tendency towards the divine. Half-orc, I think STR, just because of the precedent by earlier editions of half-orcs.  I think STR defines the race, however, 4e half-orcs look pretty spry. DEX wouldn't surprise me.  Maybe DEX with STR/CON  or STR with DEX/CON.  With toughness being a part of the race's makeup, I think CON is likely. Half-Elves I normally would also say CHA, since being personable is one of the race's defining characteristics.  However, my thoughts so far have a had a LOT of the races in this book having CHA as a primary.  So, maybe CON with CHA/WIS or CHA/INT?  1/2 elves make great warlocks already, so who knows?
#6 Andrelai Sep 17, 2010 0:18:03	There is no question in my mind that tieflings will be INT and CHA/CON.  Mearls has been itching to fix the hell-lock snafu for a long time now. Dragonborn, I would say STR and CHA/INT.  That's right, INT!  Reptilian cunning and all that.  I would be very surprised to see DEX here, and there are already too many STR + CON races. Half-elves are definitely CHA first.  Probably CHA and CON/DEX. Drow could easily be either CHA or DEX first, I can't decide, but WIS does seem a likely third stat.  I guess I'd say DEX and CHA/WIS to give the book more diversity.  (And Drizzt is a ranger after all, albeit the melee flavor.) Half-orc has got to be STR first, probably with DEX/CON as surmised by Chiba above.
#7 Chiba_Monkey Sep 17, 2010 1:15:00	There is no question in my mind that tieflings will be INT and CHA/CON.  Mearls has been itching to fix the hell-lock snafu for a long time now. Dragonborn, I would say STR and CHA/INT.  That's right, INT!  Reptilian cunning and all that.  I would be very surprised to see DEX here, and there are already too many STR + CON races. Half-elves are definitely CHA first.  Probably CHA and CON/DEX. Drow could easily be either CHA or DEX first, I can't decide, but WIS does seem a likely third stat.  I guess I'd say DEX and CHA/WIS to give the book more diversity.  (And Drizzt is a ranger after all, albeit the melee flavor.) Half-orc has got to be STR first, probably with DEX/CON as surmised by Chiba above. I think with the half-orc and the goliath out there (both races with a STRONG argument for STR as primary), that what really sets the dragonborn apart is the CHA.  The majesty of draconic creatures. Drow I strongly feel will be CHA first because Elves are DEX first, and Eladrin are INT first.  So since elves are the elven subrace with DEX first, CHA seems more likely to me.  Plus, CHA+WIS makes for a better cleric (especially under Essentials) than DEX+WIS. There is a part of me that hopes you're right about tieflings though.
#8 mangled_mike Sep 17, 2010 2:19:17	As I mentioned previously, DS dray seem so much more mobile and less beefy than vanilla dragonborn.  I would actually love to see dex but wouldnt scream if it were int.  There was mention abou them being able to be good for all sorceror types if dex, that would make sense for the 4e fluff for their sorcerous inclinations.  Im just bucking for it because I have a rogue hybrid build I want to make thats fairly infeasible without dex, althought int could make it work a  little better than it is now.  Also, I am not so sure how much another rule set should influence the core book's vision of a race.  I am down for more varied types of dragon born though.
#9 KoboldAvenger Sep 17, 2010 9:10:15	Con never had anything to do with past Tiefling flavour but Dex did.  So I hope the Tiefling is +2 Int, +2 Cha/+2 Dex.  As Tieflings were supposed to be good Rogues.  Con is probably never going to be used for Warlocks in the Essentials series, and therefore there's no need for them to have a Con bonus.
#10 Nyarlathotep Sep 17, 2010 9:53:36	I think DEX would be a good choice for Tieflings becuase  Rogue and Assasin fit so well with tiefling thematically yet so poorly mechanically.  It would be nice to see the option a little more viable.  If it were up to me, they'd have +2 CHA/+2 INT or DEX.
#11 Crimson_Concerto Sep 17, 2010 11:19:59	Dragonborn: +2 CHA and either +2 STR or +2 CON CHA makes the most sense as their static modifier, and a big deal is already made both mechanically and thematically about how tough they are. Tiefling: +2 CHA and either +2 DEX or +2 INT I don't care about your Infernal Warlock. Tieflings already make perfectly acceptable Infernal Warlocks. There's nothing to fix. Give them a stat that actually makes sense instead.
#12 celticmutt Sep 17, 2010 11:34:07	I have to agree with Crimson - Teiflings have to be Cha as the fixed stat, with the variable either being Dex/Int (for Rogues and Assassins, the sneaky classes they are already flavored to be for), or Con/Int. Tieflings should not ever be Int +Con/Cha.
#13 battles14 Sep 17, 2010 11:50:08	As a thematic issue, I find it hard to believe that Half-Elves aren't going to be CHA, CON/INT. Charisma is fairly iconic, since half-elf attractiveness reflects their semi-fey origin. But IMO, Constitution isn't sufficient on its own to reflect the versatility of the human element. Along with being hardy, humans can be amazingly ingeneous. And I think the choice of Intelligence is a good representation of that. Also, I've always thought it was a shame that Half-elves don't make good swordmages. In the same way that half-elves are a blend of heritage, swordmages are a blend of martial and arcane progress.
#14 Janx_14 Sep 17, 2010 11:50:18	I have to agree with Crimson - Teiflings have to be Cha as the fixed stat, with the variable either being Dex/Int (for Rogues and Assassins, the sneaky classes they are already flavored to be for), or Con/Int. Tieflings should not ever be Int +Con/Cha. +1
#15 justarius Sep 17, 2010 13:05:16	I'd like to see half-elves +2 CHA and maybe a choice of +2 CON / +1 to any stat (except CHA which already gets the +2). Would be a whole new option to not put a flat +2 to a race like all the others and make half-elves very good for any class that needs CHA - so they become somewhat more flexible. And flexibility and adaptability is all that makes humans human in D&D - so why not go that route for half-humans? The same method of course applies for the half-orc too (as he's just another half-human) - +2 STR and +2 DEX/+1 any. Tieflings: I'd love them to have +2 DEX as in 3.X - seems very fitting if you ask me - even though in most 4.0 artworks they look kinda bulky with their thick tails and horns. Drow: +2 CHA and +2 DEX/WIS or +2 CHA and +2 DEX/INT as they are always described as pretty cunning, even though the WIS would make more sense for the strong divine tendencies.
#16 Andrelai Sep 17, 2010 16:07:19	Bonuses from previous editions have no bearing on what a race should get in 4E.  Gnomes used to get a CON bonus, remember? Also, sneaky doesn't necessarily equal DEX.  The description for tieflings says they are "good at tricking, intimidating, or persuading others," which is clearly the CHA kind of sneaky, not the DEX kind. And a tiefling might make an acceptable infernal warlock (debatable), but it's silly that a goliath or a dwarf makes a better one. Anyway, in my previous post I wasn't talking about what I want.  I was talking about what I expect. There is absolutely no point in talking about what you want at this late date, as the book is already in the hands of the printer, or at least it had better be.
#17 Haldrik Sep 17, 2010 16:35:13	I dont know why Shadarkai got Dex-Int. They personify 'diehard' so Con would seem a given. Then Int seems too ... scholarly ... or at least too calculating for their bleak, berserker, edge-of-death flavor. Dex? Is it to be stealthy? Besides living in the gloom of Shadowfell, the official flavor doesnt describe them as stealthy. Nor acrobatic. Nor thieving. On reflection, their mechanics seem surprising. I guess Dex-Con/Int Shadarkai is a reasonable design, despite the need for an Int-Con race. And Dex-Con favors the Bleak Disciple Assassin, which seems perfect. Any race with Int-Con inevitably becomes a *scholarly* race ... because of favoring Wizard, Artificer, and Swordmage flavor. Im not sure Shadarkai flavor suits this. I would rather see a Con-Int/Str Warforged as one of the Int-Con races because they need Int-Con Artificers to reproduce as a race and can handle tireless robotic logic flavor. Int-Con/Cha Gnome also makes an Int-Con race and suits an 'earthy' 'tinkerer' Artificer flavor. Unfortunately, LOL, I cant handle the favoring of the Int-Con Gnome Swordmage ... my apologies to all you Yoda fans. Too bad Int-Wis/Cha for Int-Wis Artificer and Illusionist Mage Wizard, would be redundant with the Shardmind, but it still remains a reasonable design. I disfavor Gnomes with Dex, because I like the way their stealth currently derives from illusion flavor rather than camouflage flavor. Moreover, Int-Dex/Cha is too problematic because it is identical to the Eladrin whose enchanting Fey flavor is already too close for comfort. Similarly, Cha-Dex/Int would be identical to the Changeling - problematic - but would share the same either-illusion-or-camouflage 'hidden' flavor. On reflection, none of these choices are easy. I expect, Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdom will make the Essential Warlock subclass friendly to any 'infernal' Tiefling, no matter what abilities they end up with. So Con may or may not be relevant. Notice, if Tiefling did become Int-Con/Cha. The Int-Con would make them a civilized race of scholars, with diabolical legal contracts, no less. Relentless clever seductive researchers - LOL, they would become a race of lawyers. So be careful what you wish for. Anyway, the designers probably decided their abilities already, and whatever difficult choice they made, Im sure it will at least be reasonable.
#18 celticmutt Sep 17, 2010 17:40:43	Anyway, in my previous post I wasn't talking about what I want.  I was talking about what I expect. There is absolutely no point in talking about what you want at this late date, as the book is already in the hands of the printer, or at least it had better be. I do not expect Tieflings to become Int +Cha/Con.  I do expect that everyone who does is in for a disappointment.  I do expect that Cha will be their fixed stat.  I do expect them to get either Dex or Con, but as a replacement for Int, not Cha. Why?  Because word out of GenCon was that WotC does not want to give a race Int +Con just to fill some niche, and because it sounds like they have no plans for an Int +Con race.
#19 Andrelai Sep 17, 2010 18:04:31	Well, see?  That wasn't so hard.  Your post makes a lot more sense framed as an expectation.  And with supporting hearsay, no less!
#20 DavidArgall Sep 17, 2010 18:12:38	We do need a con-intell race or two.  We have several classes that want that combination.
#21 Haldrik Sep 17, 2010 18:55:13	Any opinions on Genasi? They can go almost any direction except Wis. Im not even sure if their Str should be primary as physical Elementals, or their Int should be primary as magic wielders. Cha? They seem expressive, passionate, and flamboyant. Str-Cha favors Warlord and Cosmic Sorcerer. Seems fine. There now seems disproportionately too many Int-Cha races, so doubtful. Con? Persistence of elements, especially earth element? Hardy and able to wield damage types? Int-Con could be one of the missing Int-Con races and would be a reasonable-enough Arcane scholar race. Str-Con would be an elemental smash-em race. Probably not Dex? On the plus side, the lightning-speed and fluidity seems good for Air, Water, Fire, and Storm flavor. But Str-Dex? Meh, too much Ranger and Brawny Rogue, for my impression of Genasi. Int-Dex? Too much like arcane Eladrin-Elf. Wis just seems too ... alert ... for a race that personifies a physical element. Also I dont see Genasi as a goto race for Wis-Int Invokers or Avengers nor Str-Wis Paladins. Genasi should be on the Primordial side of the Immortal-Primordial divide, even if Genasi reject their Primordial progenitors. So Genasi ... Str - Con/Int Str - Int/Cha Int - Str/Con Any preferences?
#22 battles14 Sep 17, 2010 19:28:16	We do need a con-intell race or two.  We have several classes that want that combination. Completely agree. As far as classes go, swordmages get a serious shaft. There's no int-con race, and only one int-str race (genasi). The other classes have a lot more versatility as far as race selection.
#23 Lord_Ventnor Sep 17, 2010 20:11:22	I could see Genasi as Int - Str/Con I'd also like to see Revenants redone too. Possibly as Con - Dex/Int.
#24 Haldrik Sep 17, 2010 20:35:59	Ventnor, whats your hope for the Dragonborn? They could go almost any direction too. Dragons are ... Fascinating and terrifying, courageous, or seductive and deceptive with a serpentine tongue: Cha Huge, ferocious, predatory: Str Perceptive, with the unblinking eyes of a snake: Wis Cunning, and per D&D tradition ancient scholars: Int Tough and thick-skinned: Con Even agile in a lizardlike way: Dex I like the fact the current Dragonborn is 'knightly' as a Paladin. Whats your take?
#25 Garthanos Sep 17, 2010 20:54:55	Ventnor, whats your hope for the Dragonborn? They could go almost any direction too. Dragons are ... Fascinating and terrifying, courageous, or seductive and deceptive with a serpentine tongue: Cha Huge, ferocious, predatory: Str Perceptive, with the unblinking eyes of a snake: Wis Cunning, and per D&D tradition ancient scholars: Int Tough and thick-skinned: Con Even agile in a lizardlike way: Dex I like the fact the current Dragonborn is 'knightly' as a Paladin. Whats your take? I would go for anything but Con... just too bored with Str Con combos... snoozey
#42 Nai_Calus Sep 21, 2010 7:01:56	How does that complete anything, other than ignoring the established fluff and mechanics that drow are technically closer to Eladrin than to Elves? Hell, drow still *trance*. Elves don't even manage that. :P (Though I'll cheerfully note that I despise the way the pointy-ears have been handled in 4E. Though not as much as I despise Half-Elves. There's not a single damned thing elven about them, and screw you if you want to have an Eladrin or a Drow as a parent. It made so much more sense in 3.5 when the only major difference between Elven subraces was different stat modifiers and there were even actually a few different half-elf variants so it was ludicrously easy to claim yourself to be what you needed to be without feeling stupid for it.)
#43 praion Sep 25, 2010 16:01:47	How does that complete anything, other than ignoring the established fluff and mechanics that drow are technically closer to Eladrin than to Elves? Hell, drow still *trance*. Elves don't even manage that. :P (Though I'll cheerfully note that I despise the way the pointy-ears have been handled in 4E. Though not as much as I despise Half-Elves. There's not a single damned thing elven about them, and screw you if you want to have an Eladrin or a Drow as a parent. It made so much more sense in 3.5 when the only major difference between Elven subraces was different stat modifiers and there were even actually a few different half-elf variants so it was ludicrously easy to claim yourself to be what you needed to be without feeling stupid for it.) Maybe human can just breed with Elves but not with Eladrin/Drow.