I don't think anything is confirmed yet but you can bet there will be new options for both preE and essentials classes. New classes will most likely be presented in essentials format but that doesn't mean that if there is a new sorcerer build it can't use old sorcerer spells nor that your old sorcerer can't likewise enjoy using the new build's spell options.
That's not necessarily true since Essentials fighters and classic fighters aren't very compatible for instance.
weaponmasters and knights may share utility powers. a knight who wants a weaponmaster power may get a feat that allows them to exchange a second use of power strike for one. its a bit of a run around but it is possible.
Thats "not very compatible," yes.
The sorcerer isn't terribly fey, anyhow, more likely we'll see more fey-pact warlock (hexblade) stuff.
There will, of course, be new schools and/or builds for the Mage.
I have no doubts that if there were a new sorcerer build in the works it would be compatable with the old builds.
/If/ there's a sorcerer sub-class, there are no guarantees. The Sorcerer was a sort of alternate mechanical wizard, before. It's unlikely to be mechanically similar to the wizard, this time around. It might have a pre-chosen at will, multi-use encounter, standard daily structure, or it might even spam & modify some basic attack spell. It might have yet another entirely novel mechanic. The new design philosophy includes mechanically differentiating classes, afterall.
Gryphonclaw
That would probably be a good idea Obvious_Ninja. I would like to see those. However, I am still wondering if it will be in paperback and if it is what Wizards was thinking when they decided to go that route.
Purely a guess but if you look at the Amazon listing, the page count is 320 pages. This is the same (roughly) size count that the original entry for Hero's of Shadow-- Paperback, physical dimensions were the same as HotFG, RC, etc. It was, of course, adjusted to the hardback size and the page count was adjusted as the book was reformatted to fit the new physical size.
I can only assume they are doing the same... again, just a guess...
i'm not sure there will be much mage content in the book. what mage schools might a fey want to specialize in? enchantment? illusion? we already have both of those. perhaps some more spells for those schools but not more builds for mage i'm guessing.
as for sorcerers not being fey? i see your point however to me the sorcerer is a catch all blasty spell caster who's origins can come from nearly any source. i've refluffed dragonbloods into demonbloods and so on. when you're a sorcerer its what kind of magic courses through your veins. so ya i can see a sorcerer with a lil fey blood in him. it's powers may be preselected like all the new warlock builds but who cares odds are old sorcerers can choose those options too because that's the way its been with many essential classes. clerics can choose warpriest powers. wizards can choose mage spells. warlocks can choose some of the hexblade and binder spells too.
On a separate note, it's come to my attention that A Practical Guide to Faeries has a map of the Feywild, and details several areas of the plane. While I want a Feywild: Astrazalian and Beyond box set, ordering this might be able to tide me over.
Maybee from a pod cast or something.
On an older thread talking about feywild book most people figured it will be a Bard build.
I suppose it's theoretically possible a new build for the Bladesinger will be in HoF, but I wouldn't count on it.
- New Bard spells
- New Druid builds/powers
- New Feylock spells (binder)
- New Swordmage spells (Bladesinger)
- New Seeker evocations/builds(?)
- Warpriest Arcana domain
- New Ranger exploits (hunter/scout)
- Maybe a martial/Primal E-Barbarian?
Unfortunately, I don't see the artificer getting any love from the Feywild book. It's just not a good fit with that storyline.
Wilden, gnomes, elves, and Eladrin will likely get more support, with the possibility of support for Shifters (although I doubt it).
What I'm really hoping for is a DM's Feywild resource similar to the Gloomwrought set which was released after HofS. Probably somewhere around Feb. 2012.
On the OTHER hand, I expect Gnomes, Goblins, and one other race to be featured in the book. The third race will almost CERTAINLY be Fey Origin, and almost CERTAINLY be Medium.
I expect the Transmutation School for Mages to be in this book; Faeries like to have fun with Baleful Polymorph spells. And this school has been expected/10 since Red Box and Rules Compendium included it. I also expect more Enchantment School and Illusion School spells.
I expect either the Arcana or the Moon domain to be featured for Warpriests, leaning more on Arcana.
Binders could theoretically get a Fey Pact build here, and Hexblades would love more pact weapons for different courts.
I'm doubtful if Wilden, Seekers, or Runepriests will appear in the book, since these books are chiefly referencing lore that has been since Player's Essentials. That said, Heroes of Shadow references Warlords, but that's because Class Compendium: Warlords came out before the book.
Two new builds for the Sentinel Druid (Autumn and Winter) would be nice here, but I don't know if they make SENSE, since Druids relate primarily to the NATURAL WORLD, while this book is about people who draw on the power of the FEYWILD. Similar for Hunters/Scouts/Seekers.
Bards getting an Essentials+ version would be interesting, and if they want to jump the gun, they can release a new build of Bladesinger in this book, since Neverwinter comes out before it.
Another good bet would be a feat chain that gives the Fey subtype.
And the Winter Court of the Fey has had the most material out of any of the courts, and the Unseelie have a traditional connection to Fall and Winter.
So I don't think it would be at all out of place to have the Autumn and Winter seasons for Sentinels.
Unfortunately, I don't see the artificer getting any love from the Feywild book. It's just not a good fit with that storyline.
A bit off topic, and I have said this before, but I'd love to see a "Book of the Machine" or a Book of Black-powder" or something like that, that would deal with a (Martial Controller) Rifleman/Gunfighter and could deal with Alchemists and Artificers to greater detail. (Gun-Mage Artificer, anyone?)
As I've stated before, at the very minimum in FR Archfey can and do function as Primal Spirits, so it's not a stretch to say they could outside of FR.
And the Winter Court of the Fey has had the most material out of any of the courts, and the Unseelie have a traditional connection to Fall and Winter.
So I don't think it would be at all out of place to have the Autumn and Winter seasons for Sentinels.
That's because whoever designed FR doesn't understand the 4e Cosmological Balance of Great Powers. They gave Primordials deitic portfolios, for Selûne's sake. No, I don't think you can use FR's as a guide.
In Primal Power, there was a background about Primal Fey, and it talked about how you became a Primal Character because you discovered a place where the boundary between the Feywild and the Natural World was thin, and the arcane "buzz" was slightly replaced by the singing of the primal spirits.
This is a major flavour statement: the Feywild lacks the power of the spirits, and rather than having a spirit of nature in every rock, tree, breeze, and brook, is powered by arcane energy itself. The Archfey are fundamentally different from the Great Elders: the Archfey are the oldest of the Eladrin and other Fey entities that have become transformed by the magic of the Feywild into God-like beings in their age and knowledge. The Great Elders, on the other hand, are spirits of nature that have stood since the world was born, representing the first natural formations and concepts. The Great Elders are intangible entities; they do not exist in physical form; the Archfey are immortal fey being that very much do have a physical form. These are major differences. Just because FR made a statement early on in the edition to the contrary does not mean that's how it's meant to be. The developers of 4e FR do not seem to understand the main concepts of the World Axis and the fundamental assumptions of 4e, mostly because they're concerned with converting FR to the 4e module. That's okay, but I would NEVER take assumptions from another setting and copy-paste them here.
It's the same with other settings – you can't copy-paste the flavour-mechanics choices to the Core Setting. Take Eberron. The Ancestor Spirits of the Elves are worshipped as a deity there, with it's own religion and domains. But Ancestor Spirits are ALWAYS a form of Primal Spirit in the Core 4e Setting. In Dark Sun, Elemental Magic is entwinned with Primal Magic. As far we know in the Core Setting, Elementals are not the entities that Shamans ever make contact with, because the Elementals are not Primal Spirits, but entities of the Chaos representing builiding blocks.
In Primal Power, there was a background about Primal Fey, and it talked about how you became a Primal Character because you discovered a place where the boundary between the Feywild and the Natural World was thin, and the arcane "buzz" was slightly replaced by the singing of the primal spirits.
This is a major flavour statement: the Feywild lacks the power of the spirits, and rather than having a spirit of nature in every rock, tree, breeze, and brook, is powered by arcane energy itself. The Archfey are fundamentally different from the Great Elders: the Archfey are the oldest of the Eladrin and other Fey entities that have become transformed by the magic of the Feywild into God-like beings in their age and knowledge. The Great Elders, on the other hand, are spirits of nature that have stood since the world was born, representing the first natural formations and concepts. The Great Elders are intangible entities; they do not exist in physical form; the Archfey are immortal fey being that very much do have a physical form. These are major differences.
Loved this way of distinguishing them.
In Primal Power, there was a background about Primal Fey, and it talked about how you became a Primal Character because you discovered a place where the boundary between the Feywild and the Natural World was thin, and the arcane "buzz" was slightly replaced by the singing of the primal spirits.
This is a major flavour statement: the Feywild lacks the power of the spirits, and rather than having a spirit of nature in every rock, tree, breeze, and brook, is powered by arcane energy itself. The Archfey are fundamentally different from the Great Elders: the Archfey are the oldest of the Eladrin and other Fey entities that have become transformed by the magic of the Feywild into God-like beings in their age and knowledge. The Great Elders, on the other hand, are spirits of nature that have stood since the world was born, representing the first natural formations and concepts. The Great Elders are intangible entities; they do not exist in physical form; the Archfey are immortal fey being that very much do have a physical form. These are major differences.
Loved this way of distinguishing them.
agreed
anyhoo...
what sounds like might be in the HOF
I agree
the mage illusionist might get a build since the enchanter was in one of the other two books.
a druid sentinel( I hate the sentinel; no wildshape) winter and or autumn
new swordmage powers would be nice, but being that no other book had any I doubt it as HOS didnt have anyfor it.
fey warlock abilities
fey sorcerer build
some new mage powers dealing with charm and illusion spells
elf drow eladrin gnome wildling, powers though they got elf,eladrin and drow already did get new write ups
lots of things can be retconned between now and then..... and minds changed as what sounded cool two months ago..... may sound like trash now.
Not really - WotC has noted in the past that their development cycle for a new book is in excess of a year, so with 5 months to go the material should be in the late playtest, editing, and layout stages in preparation for going to print a couple months before its release date. There's not a lot they can pull in at this point; the only analogous instance would be the addition of the Vampire and conversion to hardback of Heroes of Shadow which pushed it back a month on the schedule. If Heroes of the Feywild is going to be released in November (as listed by Amazon, et al) then they've only got two or three months left for development on the material. Not enough time to be changing out whole sections of a book.
I expect bard (possibly a e-version) to show up here. I want some swordmage love, and could see a fey inspired build (fey liking teleporting and arcane magice, and swordmage has both). Likely fey pact warlock stuff (hexblade/binder/normal). Feywilds connection to arcane means both wizard and sorcerer could get some love.
What exactly is the connection between arcane magic and Feywild? Do arcanists somehow draw power from Feywild?
I expect bard (possibly a e-version) to show up here. I want some swordmage love, and could see a fey inspired build (fey liking teleporting and arcane magice, and swordmage has both). Likely fey pact warlock stuff (hexblade/binder/normal). Feywilds connection to arcane means both wizard and sorcerer could get some love.
What exactly is the connection between arcane magic and Feywild? Do arcanists somehow draw power from Feywild?
More the reverse, usually. Many of the Feywild denizens specialize in arcane magic. Eladrin, Gnomes, and Faeries are all known to use copius arcane abilities, and all originate in the feywild. There are plenty of other denizens that also love to use arcane magic.
Wilden, Gnome and I'll say it though I don't expect a Goblin racial revisions/expansions/general love
For the Bard a Courtier with a focus on the sorts of social skills that were always the class prerogative in the past, representing an Eladrin tradition of navigating the Fey Courts.
For the Thief/Scoundrel, a set of fey tricks specific to the Gnomes of the fey groves, reaching behind their own ear to reveal the evil wizards stolen amulet that was around his neck a moment before with a sly grin.
For the Mage the school of Transmutation (a witch of the feywild isn't complete without a copious set of powers that turn enemies into things a la Slimy T.)
For the Druid and the Seeker a selection of new seasons and spirits to call on.
A selection of feats to allow more mundane creatures access to the Fey Courts as a social hierarchy that grants certain powers (A Page, Knight, Noble progression prehaps)
A feyset class similar to Vampire, perhaps a Changeling defender that assumes a defense bonus specific to the enemy it mirrors and a power to knock enemies prone with a Tricker's Mark or Aura.
What exactly is the connection between arcane magic and Feywild? Do arcanists somehow draw power from Feywild?
Arcane magic permeates the entirity of exstence. However the place with the strongest concentration of arcane energy is the feywild. To put it one way, the feywild is an arcane reflection of the world. While not everyone in the feywild is able to access the "arcane power source" nearly everything in the feywild was either born of or draws upon arcane energy. That is why the realm is so fantastical and "magical".
lots of things can be retconned between now and then..... and minds changed as what sounded cool two months ago..... may sound like trash now.
Not really - WotC has noted in the past that their development cycle for a new book is in excess of a year, so with 5 months to go the material should be in the late playtest, editing, and layout stages in preparation for going to print a couple months before its release date. There's not a lot they can pull in at this point; the only analogous instance would be the addition of the Vampire and conversion to hardback of Heroes of Shadow which pushed it back a month on the schedule. If Heroes of the Feywild is going to be released in November (as listed by Amazon, et al) then they've only got two or three months left for development on the material. Not enough time to be changing out whole sections of a book.
From interviews and podcasts we know that HOF and Book of Vile Darkness are both not getting the 12+ month development cycle, the books werent even in planning until the dropping of the other 3 books due this year.
From interviews and podcasts we know that HOF and Book of Vile Darkness are both not getting the 12+ month development cycle, the books werent even in planning until the dropping of the other 3 books due this year.
Well, given where the other books that had accelerated schedules under the current R&D team (HotFL, HotFK, HoS) fell on the quality spectrum, I'd suggest everyone start setting their expectation level to "abysmally low"
so that the upcoming books have a chance to come in as better-than-expected. 
From interviews and podcasts we know that HOF and Book of Vile Darkness are both not getting the 12+ month development cycle, the books werent even in planning until the dropping of the other 3 books due this year.
Well, given where the other books that had accelerated schedules under the current R&D team (HotFL, HotFK, HoS) fell on the quality spectrum, I'd suggest everyone start setting their expectation level to "abysmally low" so that the upcoming books have a chance to come in as better-than-expected.
WAY ahead of ya!
My hope is that this means more tools for running fairy tale type adventures, especially for kids who have watched Disney movies. The #1 missing element for me is the ability to play a fairy. It would be awesome to have a player race of this type. I mean, look at the product WotC released for kids about the Feywild: A Practical Guide to Fairies!
I envision a Fairy as a small sized creature (shorter than any so far) with wings but who generally doesn't fly very high off the ground. The schtick could encompass shrinking down to fly around but losing any real combat ability (a-la the good fairies in Sleeping Beauty).
lots of things can be retconned between now and then..... and minds changed as what sounded cool two months ago..... may sound like trash now.
Not really - WotC has noted in the past that their development cycle for a new book is in excess of a year, so with 5 months to go the material should be in the late playtest, editing, and layout stages in preparation for going to print a couple months before its release date. There's not a lot they can pull in at this point; the only analogous instance would be the addition of the Vampire and conversion to hardback of Heroes of Shadow which pushed it back a month on the schedule. If Heroes of the Feywild is going to be released in November (as listed by Amazon, et al) then they've only got two or three months left for development on the material. Not enough time to be changing out whole sections of a book.
and by the time it took to post mine and for you to quote it, you should know that with each passing moment, I'm sure that the book has long finished passing its finishing developmentsmoments.
which makes both mine and your comments redundant.
as I said what sounded cool then may not now, by then I mean when it was first thought of, and by now I mean 4 months down the road from original thought.
and when we get the finnal product it wont matter as there will be people griping about it just the same.
dont deny it, you know it to be true....
My expectation is that Heroes of the Feywild will follow Heroes of Shadow at least in style. So where HoS took the opportunity to delve into more horror and anithero material, HotF can did into faerie tales and fantastical adventures.
My hope is that this means more tools for running fairy tale type adventures, especially for kids who have watched Disney movies. The #1 missing element for me is the ability to play a fairy. It would be awesome to have a player race of this type. I mean, look at the product WotC released for kids about the Feywild: A Practical Guide to Fairies!
I envision a Fairy as a small sized creature (shorter than any so far) with wings but who generally doesn't fly very high off the ground. The schtick could encompass shrinking down to fly around but losing any real combat ability (a-la the good fairies in Sleeping Beauty).
How about this: A Wizard or a Warlock can have an imp familiar, right? Fairy Familiar! That would be cool.
I don't see any reason why there couldn't be a Fey Sorcerer. Sorcerers draw power from their bloodline, right? Well, Fey are notorious cross-breeders. Makes sense to me.
I do love the idea of a Feytouched Rogue. Anywhere from dabbling to a full-on "thief-mage" "Arcane Trickster" style character.
My expectation is that Heroes of the Feywild will follow Heroes of Shadow at least in style. So where HoS took the opportunity to delve into more horror and anithero material, HotF can did into faerie tales and fantastical adventures.
My hope is that this means more tools for running fairy tale type adventures, especially for kids who have watched Disney movies. The #1 missing element for me is the ability to play a fairy. It would be awesome to have a player race of this type. I mean, look at the product WotC released for kids about the Feywild: A Practical Guide to Fairies!
I envision a Fairy as a small sized creature (shorter than any so far) with wings but who generally doesn't fly very high off the ground. The schtick could encompass shrinking down to fly around but losing any real combat ability (a-la the good fairies in Sleeping Beauty).
How about this: A Wizard or a Warlock can have an imp familiar, right? Fairy Familiar! That would be cool.
I don't see any reason why there couldn't be a Fey Sorcerer. Sorcerers draw power from their bloodline, right? Well, Fey are notorious cross-breeders. Makes sense to me.
I do love the idea of a Feytouched Rogue. Anywhere from dabbling to a full-on "thief-mage" "Arcane Trickster" style character.
i think a fairy familiar already exists, last time i played LFR a player at my table told me he had one. it must be dragon article content. judging by the cover there will be a fairy dragon familiar. i'm with you on the fey sorcerer but not sure how likely that is now that we know that the elemental book is going to have sorcerer stuff. still could happen i guess? your feytouched trickster interests me. isnt the gnome PP called fey trickster though? so this idea needs a new name. cant call it rouge unless its a subclass, that i can see. the more i think about it however the closer i get to fey hexblade so maybe i'll just back off.
As I've stated before, at the very minimum in FR Archfey can and do function as Primal Spirits, so it's not a stretch to say they could outside of FR.
And the Winter Court of the Fey has had the most material out of any of the courts, and the Unseelie have a traditional connection to Fall and Winter.
So I don't think it would be at all out of place to have the Autumn and Winter seasons for Sentinels.
That's because whoever designed FR doesn't understand the 4e Cosmological Balance of Great Powers. They gave Primordials deitic portfolios, for Selûne's sake. No, I don't think you can use FR's as a guide.
In Primal Power, there was a background about Primal Fey, and it talked about how you became a Primal Character because you discovered a place where the boundary between the Feywild and the Natural World was thin, and the arcane "buzz" was slightly replaced by the singing of the primal spirits.
This is a major flavour statement: the Feywild lacks the power of the spirits, and rather than having a spirit of nature in every rock, tree, breeze, and brook, is powered by arcane energy itself. The Archfey are fundamentally different from the Great Elders: the Archfey are the oldest of the Eladrin and other Fey entities that have become transformed by the magic of the Feywild into God-like beings in their age and knowledge. The Great Elders, on the other hand, are spirits of nature that have stood since the world was born, representing the first natural formations and concepts. The Great Elders are intangible entities; they do not exist in physical form; the Archfey are immortal fey being that very much do have a physical form. These are major differences. Just because FR made a statement early on in the edition to the contrary does not mean that's how it's meant to be. The developers of 4e FR do not seem to understand the main concepts of the World Axis and the fundamental assumptions of 4e, mostly because they're concerned with converting FR to the 4e module. That's okay, but I would NEVER take assumptions from another setting and copy-paste them here.
It's the same with other settings – you can't copy-paste the flavour-mechanics choices to the Core Setting. Take Eberron. The Ancestor Spirits of the Elves are worshipped as a deity there, with it's own religion and domains. But Ancestor Spirits are ALWAYS a form of Primal Spirit in the Core 4e Setting. In Dark Sun, Elemental Magic is entwinned with Primal Magic. As far we know in the Core Setting, Elementals are not the entities that Shamans ever make contact with, because the Elementals are not Primal Spirits, but entities of the Chaos representing builiding blocks.
that long winded thing is really way I love 4e cosmo. I am really looking forward to this book, the feywild is such a rich setting.
Essentials Bard!
blogofholding.com/?p=3189
Essentials Bard!
Yay? I personally didn't ever need to see one but I guess some people might be happy with it.
blogofholding.com/?p=3189
Essentials Bard!
Yay? I personally didn't ever need to see one but I guess some people might be happy with it.
why feel obligated to rain on the parade? people are excited about it
why feel obligated to rain on the parade? people are excited about it
In the hopes that the WotC guys will see this, I will add some clouds to that parade ruiner. I think Estyle stuff is horrible. I want more options during character building, not shoehorning prebuilts. If the classes in the two "heroes of the f'n places" aren't enough to attract new gamers, which is what they claimed essentials was designed to do, then putting them in a splat book isn't going to help any.
hamadryads and SATYRS!!! squee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here's a link for all the news http://blogofholding.com/?p=3208
"Races in Heroes of the Feywild are hamadryad satyr and pixie
\
what is a hamadryad? and how is it diffrent from a dryad?
and I totaly want to play a pixie...
Feywild sounds cool. Bet you all three races get racial powers. Btw this completes Sharess monster manifestations from 3e. Sharess manifested through Tieflings, Doppelgangers, Satyrs, and Dryads.
Most horrorfying mix Hamadryad Necromancer.
Hamadyrads are said to live in trees or some say are trees. Feywild sounds cool. Bet you all three races get racial powers. Btw this completes Sharess monster manifestations from 3e. Sharess manifested through Tieflings, Doppelgangers, Satyrs, and Dryads. Most horrorfying mix Hamadryad Necromancer.
A pixie barbarian would be pretty scary too.
I also wonder what they'll do to make the 4e pixie unique and interesting, given that the 4e gnome is basically the 3.X pixie without the wings (and at-will flight from level 1 is a complete nonstarter).
It will be interesting to see how they get around the hamadryad's inability to live away from her tree. Seems like this would make adventuring difficult. Also, it will be interesting to see how they address hamadryads and satyrs traditionally being single-sex races
I hope they say that when a dryad or satyr is born males are satyrs and female are dryads...
I also wonder what they'll do to make the 4e pixie unique and interesting, given that the 4e gnome is basically the 3.X pixie without the wings (and at-will flight from level 1 is a complete nonstarter).
They could always make pixies tiny rather than small. They could be force to use offhand weapons with both hands, though that'd be wildly unlikely.
I guessed in another thread a 1 1/2-3 foot tall tiny flying creature... same weapon retriction as small, and speed of 2 or 3 and fly speed of 7 (hover) with a max hight of 2 or 3.... give them a dash as there race encounter... shift up to 10 as a move.
then they can have a 6th level race utlity... pixie dust... close burst 1 allies gain fly speed of 5
It will be interesting to see how they get around the hamadryad's inability to live away from her tree. Seems like this would make adventuring difficult. Also, it will be interesting to see how they address hamadryads and satyrs traditionally being single-sex races (my guess is they'll cop out and say male hamadryads and female satyrs are just very rare, not nonexistent).
I also wonder what they'll do to make the 4e pixie unique and interesting, given that the 4e gnome is basically the 3.X pixie without the wings (and at-will flight from level 1 is a complete nonstarter).
There are several fantasy series/games where satyrs can be male or female, like White Wolf's Changeling, or Crafty's Mastercraft system. But I fully expect them to restrict the two to a single gender each.
I'd personally love it if they would create this plant race as hermaphroditic, but I doubt that it'll happen. The developers have unfortunately already shown this edition that they're sticking to conventional sex and gender, which sucks.
As for the Satyr, I fail to see any problem at all with female satyrs.
As for the Satyr, I fail to see any problem at all with female satyrs.
Considering Dwarven females are the poster child/calendar girls of this edition, I'm sure they can sell Satyr chicas.
As for the Satyr, I fail to see any problem at all with female satyrs.
Considering Dwarven females are the poster child/calendar girls of this edition, I'm sure they can sell Satyr chicas.
Fauns anyone?
There are several fantasy series/games where satyrs can be male or female, like White Wolf's Changeling, or Crafty's Mastercraft system.
Yes, I'm aware of that (in fact, when I DM, my portrayal of the Feywild and fey creatures like the eladrin owes more to Changeling the Lost than to the official D&D 4e material). I was thinking of the existing 4e D&D fluff, but on re-reading the appropriate entries in MM1, it turns out neither race is explicitly described as single-sex.
Warforged aren't unisex. They're entirely sexless.
I think one of the most potentially interesting things about the warforged (and shardminds) is that they are sexless but not necessarily genderless. One of my pending character concepts is a warforged built to look like the Maschinenmensch from Metropolis, who, despite his very obvious female appearance, insists he is male and responds angrily (or even violently) to being referred to as female.
The developers have unfortunately already shown this edition that they're sticking to conventional sex and gender, which sucks.
I don't think the 'official' material is as conservative as all that. Changelings don't have fixed sex or gender. Devas can change sex when they reincarnate (the fluff for the deva NPC in Shadowfell: GWaB states she doesn't know what sex her soulmate has reincarnated as this time around). Warforged and shardminds are sexless. And the 'official' fluff on this is hardly a straightjacket (pun fully intended) anyway, given how little WotC actually mentions such things (as a recent thread pointed out, the official fluff for the vryloka doesn't even state whether they reproduce sexually or by magically converting humans, or both, or neither). The wilden fluff doesn't explicitly state that they're not hermaphrodites, so nobody can really complain if you decide that they are.
Personally, my wilden are hermaphrodites; my eladrin and elves are mostly polyamorous bisexuals with no real concept of gender (and this was the real reason for their split with the drow, who decided that monogamy and strict gender roles were a religious imperative); my changelings can be male, female or hermaphroditic entirely at will and, while individual changelings often have a preferred gender identity, it does not necessarily map to their 'preferred' physical sex; and my shardminds don't even really 'get' non-crystalline biology, let alone sex or gender, and function on the level of pure (and, so they think, exclusively rational) thought. The 'official' fluff is all vague enough that I can do all this without it really qualifying as a 'homebrew' setting, because none of it explicitly contradicts the 'official' fluff.
I must admit, it would be nice to see a race whose official fluff does explicitly include something really 'out there', but I recognise that it's really just a (somewhat childish) wish on my part to witness some head-explosions among the more 'conservative' members of the D&D community. It wouldn't actually mean anything.
Semantics, what I meant is that they'd have a single gender.
Sex =/= Gender
;)
I think one of the most potentially interesting things about the warforged (and shardminds) is that they are sexless but not necessarily genderless.
I totally agree, but where they were once flavored as quite often not caring at all about gender, they're now flavored as most often identifying with a gender (specifically male). While this change can be easily ignored, it changes the mood of the race pretty dramatically, in my opinion. It changes just how invested they are in the cultural norms that have nothing to do with them.
Changelings don't have fixed sex or gender.
This was changed for 4E. Changelings do now have a default sex in their natural forms, which again it something that makes the race lose something really unique and defining.
Warforged and shardminds are sexless.
But are still nonsensically assumed to still have the same genders that sexed races do. I can even understand Warforged, but why in the world do Shardminds care at all about gender?
The wilden fluff doesn't explicitly state that they're not hermaphrodites.
It says that there are male and female Wildens, so...
It changes just how invested they are in the cultural norms that have nothing to do with them.
I think it makes sense that some warforged would try to "fit in" to the societies they find themselves in by adopting aspects of those societies' cultural norms, which could easily include identifying with a specific gender. So I don't really agree with the "have nothing to do with them" bit. And it makes sense that warforged who aspire to be recognised as full, thinking, ensoulled humanoids with full rights might be prickly about being referred to as "it". That seems (IMO) to be the implication of their racial write-up in EPG, rather than them really thinking of themselves as "male".
This was changed for 4E. Changelings do now have a default sex in their natural forms
Where is this explicitly stated?
But are still nonsensically assumed to still have the same genders that sexed races do. I can even understand Warforged, but why in the world do Shardminds care at all about gender?
The racial write-up for shardminds in PHB3 implies their physical forms are just a facsimile of what that individual shardmind thinks of as "humanoid". Some might look (to members of other races) more "male" or "female", but the shardmind itself really doesn't care about that. The write-up actually very definitively states that shardminds "don't have gender" (I'd actually forgotten this, hence my comment above about their lack of sex not necessarily implying a lack of gender).
What isn't explicitly stated, but seems likely, is that each shardmind takes on a form that mimics in rough outline the first humanoid it encountered upon awakening to consciousness. A shardmind doesn't need to understand that the first humanoid it met was what her species calls "a woman", or understand any of the biological or cultural baggage that goes with that designation, in order to appear, to other humanoids, to be shaped like "a woman".
It says that there are male and female Wildens, so...
OK, I'd actually missed that.
I think it makes sense that some warforged would try to "fit in" to the societies they find themselves in by adopting aspects of those societies' cultural norms, which could easily include identifying with a specific gender. So I don't really agree with the "have nothing to do with them" bit. And it makes sense that warforged who aspire to be recognised as full, thinking, ensoulled humanoids with full rights might be prickly about being referred to as "it". That seems (IMO) to be the implication of their racial write-up in EPG, rather than them really thinking of themselves as "male".
While I would agree with you to an extent if that were the way that it were explained, I'm just not getting the same implication that you are. Maybe they worded their intention badly, but here's the part that gets me: "Because most warforged have bodies that resemble males, they identify themselves as males..." Not because they want to fit in with society or not be viewed as objects or anything. Just because they have bodies that are masculine in shape.
Where is this explicitly stated?
All I can find right now is that the race does have a block for male and female names, though I could have sworn I saw it more explicitly somewhere...
The racial write-up for shardminds in PHB3 implies their physical forms are just a facsimile of what that individual shardmind thinks of as "humanoid".
If that were the case, then they'd more often than not come across as androgynous, but they don't. They come off as obviously gendered in form.
I think it makes sense that some warforged would try to "fit in" to the societies they find themselves in by adopting aspects of those societies' cultural norms, which could easily include identifying with a specific gender. So I don't really agree with the "have nothing to do with them" bit. And it makes sense that warforged who aspire to be recognised as full, thinking, ensoulled humanoids with full rights might be prickly about being referred to as "it". That seems (IMO) to be the implication of their racial write-up in EPG, rather than them really thinking of themselves as "male".
While I would agree with you to an extent if that were the way that it were explained, I'm just not getting the same implication that you are. Maybe they worded their intention badly, but here's the part that gets me: "Because most warforged have bodies that resemble males, they identify themselves as males..." Not because they want to fit in with society or not be viewed as objects or anything. Just because they have bodies that are masculine in shape.
As with all things D&D, they fluff is to be taken as inspiration for play. If you have a more liberal, educated and vested interest in the concept of gender, you are free to explore what it means to lack a designation beyond form.
The racial write-up for shardminds in PHB3 implies their physical forms are just a facsimile of what that individual shardmind thinks of as "humanoid".
If that were the case, then they'd more often than not come across as androgynous, but they don't. They come off as obviously gendered in form.
Gender identity is a relatively new and uncharted endeavor in the practice of psychology and related pursuits. Although you seem to empathize and acknowledge, it's mighty heavy material for the average gamer. -- Most like to leave these considerations behind when delving into dungeons for loot and plunder.
By the way, are there any fairy or pixie monsters? I can't find any! Hopefully we can get some soon.
but here's the part that gets me: "Because most warforged have bodies that resemble males, they identify themselves as males..." Not because they want to fit in with society or not be viewed as objects or anything. Just because they have bodies that are masculine in shape.
To me, that just means that they insist on people referring to them as "he" rather than "it", and that it's "he" rather than "she" just because they look more like male humanoids than female humanoids to other humanoids. You seem to be reading more into the word "identify" than was probably intended.
I agree that it could have been worded more clearly, but I honestly don't think the writer meant to imply what you're inferring.
All I can find right now is that the race does have a block for male and female names, though I could have sworn I saw it more explicitly somewhere...
It's notable that there's only a single list of names, rather than separate "male" and "female" names like most other races get. Having said that, perhaps it's also significant that they do still say "male and female names" rather than just "[race] names" like they do for warforged and shardminds.
If that were the case, then they'd more often than not come across as androgynous, but they don't. They come off as obviously gendered in form.
They appear "obviously" male or female to other humanoids who expect them to exhibit physical sexual characteristics (which includes most of the people reading their racial write-up). Who is to say whether the shardminds without "breasts" are "male" or "androgynous"? Other humanoids assume those shardminds are trying to appear "male" (because most people tend to interpret "not obviously female" as "male by default"), but that is not necessarily how the shardminds themselves think.
And the description actually says: "Some take on forms that seem more masculine, while others appear more feminine." There's nothing there indicating that all shardminds must fit into one of those two categories. "Some cars are built by GM, while others are built by Toyota" does not imply that nobody else in the world makes cars. Perhaps most shardminds actually do appear androgynous, but since that should be the default expectation for an explicitly non-gendered, non-sexual race, the description only needs to mention those individuals who do (to other humanoids) appear gendered?
Perhaps it could have been better phrased as: "Shardminds choose their forms to mimic the shapes of humanoids. While the shardminds themselves have no real concept of gender, differences in the appearance of individual shardminds often lead other humanoids to view them as male or female."
For what it's worth (probably very little), the only shardmind NPC I've introduced to my players so far identified itself as "This One" and as "The One Who Seeks" and I always referred to it as "it". My players never once asked whether it had crystal boobs.
As with all things D&D, they fluff is to be taken as inspiration for play. If you have a more liberal, educated and vested interest in the concept of gender, you are free to explore what it means to lack a designation beyond form.
While I agree with this, it's worth pointing out that a clumsy and over-simplistic approach to gender and sexuality can be offputting, even offensive, to some people. Women roleplayers no longer have to deal with Fighters being referred to as "Fighting Men" or portrayed in official artwork and flavour text as being exclusively male. We've pretty much gotten rid of the stereotype of the big, macho Barbarian/Fighter/Paladin coming to save the scantily-clad, screaming, blonde, defenseless damsel from the monster. These days, it's just as likely to be the big, strong (red-haired) and heavily-armoured warrior-woman saving the weedy eladrin wizard from (being turned into a demon), to refererence a recent D&D novel. So why do we still never see gay couples in official D&D fiction? Why can't an important NPC in an official setting be bisexual? Why can't we have a brief mention of a commune of elves who practise polyamory? It doesn't have to (in fact, shouldn't) be made a big deal of, but we get plenty of mention "in passing" of characters being in heterosexual relationships, becuase that's simply "expected" and "normal". Just once or twice, it'd be nice if the description of a campaign locale in official material could say something like: "The barkeep and proprietor of the Broken Anvil, a middle-aged female dwarf named Vigdis, is fiercely devoted to her lover, the half-elf woman Angelika, who serves as the tavern's bouncer." If the half-elf was named "Angelus" instead, and was male, that little piece of description could easily be in any D&D product. But implying the dreaded "L-word", suddenly it doesn't sound like something you've ever read in official D&D material, does it?
Gender identity is a relatively new and uncharted endeavor in the practice of psychology and related pursuits. Although you seem to empathize and acknowledge, it's mighty heavy material for the average gamer. -- Most like to leave these considerations behind when delving into dungeons for loot and plunder.
Sorry this is a new post. I suck at quoting. But the problem is not that gender identity is ignored. The problem is that certain gender identities are ignored, while others are just assumed as "standard", to the point that they appear to be "universal". Like you, most people don't even notice this discrepancy.
If every single piece of official artwork in D&D products portrayed all adventurers as exclusively White/Caucasian, would you tell Black, Asian, Hispanic, etc. players that it wasn't really a big deal and that modern ideas of racial equality are just "too heavy for the average gamer"?
As with all things D&D, they fluff is to be taken as inspiration for play. If you have a more liberal, educated and vested interest in the concept of gender, you are free to explore what it means to lack a designation beyond form.
While I agree with this, it's worth pointing out that a clumsy and over-simplistic approach to gender and sexuality can be offputting, even offensive, to some people. Women roleplayers no longer have to deal with Fighters being referred to as "Fighting Men" or portrayed in official artwork and flavour text as being exclusively male. We've pretty much gotten rid of the stereotype of the big, macho Barbarian/Fighter/Paladin coming to save the scantily-clad, screaming, blonde, defenseless damsel from the monster. These days, it's just as likely to be the big, strong (red-haired) and heavily-armoured warrior-woman saving the weedy eladrin wizard from (being turned into a demon), to refererence a recent D&D novel. So why do we still never see gay couples in official D&D fiction? Why can't an important NPC in an official setting be bisexual? Why can't we have a brief mention of a commune of elves who practise polyamory? It doesn't have to (in fact, shouldn't) be made a big deal of, but we get plenty of mention "in passing" of characters being in heterosexual relationships, becuase that's simply "expected" and "normal". Just once or twice, it'd be nice if the description of a campaign locale in official material could say something like: "The barkeep and proprietor of the Broken Anvil, a middle-aged female dwarf named Vigdis, is fiercely devoted to her lover, the half-elf woman Angelika, who serves as the tavern's bouncer." If the half-elf was named "Angelus" instead, and was male, that little piece of description could easily be in any D&D product. But implying the dreaded "L-word", suddenly it doesn't sound like something you've ever read in official D&D material, does it?
+1
Why can't an important NPC in an official setting be bisexual? Why can't we have a brief mention of a commune of elves who practise polyamory? It doesn't have to (in fact, shouldn't) be made a big deal of, but we get plenty of mention "in passing" of characters being in heterosexual relationships, becuase that's simply "expected" and "normal". Just once or twice, it'd be nice if the description of a campaign locale in official material could say something like: "The barkeep and proprietor of the Broken Anvil, a middle-aged female dwarf named Vigdis, is fiercely devoted to her lover, the half-elf woman Angelika, who serves as the tavern's bouncer." If the half-elf was named "Angelus" instead, and was male, that little piece of description could easily be in any D&D product. But implying the dreaded "L-word", suddenly it doesn't sound like something you've ever read in official D&D material, does it?
well I have no problem with any such things, I know people who do. Infact depending on who is in our group depends on how far we go with these things... if player A is in the group, he is very immature, and we know what that discription will lead to, so if we dont want a 20 min distraction, we avoid that sort of thing...
player B on the other hand has strong moral abjactions to any form of even hint of such a thing...(But some how has no problem playing a shade who became one with darkness then sold his soul to become a warlock
.player C is the 'L word', and can not put up with player A or B when the subject comes up... but is quite fine with it any other time.
Becuse we have to consider the players, I do think Wotc needs to be carful with this topic. In my mind atleast some major signficant portion of neverwinter should have a lifestyle not the norm...But if the book openly talked about it, then the book would be less useful to us
Becuse we have to consider the players, I do think Wotc needs to be carful with this topic.
And, if you had a player in your group who claimed to have a "strong moral objection" to miscegenation, would you tiptoe around the existence of half-elves and half-orcs in D&D and express a wish for WotC to "be careful with the topic"? Would you worry that a D&D book might be "less useful" to your group because two NPCs who were stated to be in a relationship were shown in the artwork to have different skin colours, and that might upset your bigoted "moral" friend?
Becuse we have to consider the players, I do think Wotc needs to be carful with this topic.
And, if you had a player in your group who claimed to have a "strong moral objection" to miscegenation, would you tiptoe around the existence of half-elves and half-orcs in D&D and express a wish for WotC to "be careful with the topic"? Would you worry that a D&D book might be "less useful" to your group because two NPCs who were stated to be in a relationship were shown in the artwork to have different skin colours, and that might upset your bigoted "moral" friend?
Again, +1. Some people may object to talking about this "delicate subject," but what it all boils down to is some people being biggots and trying to deny people equal consideration because they're different. Simple as that. And yet, if you try to side with equality, you can be demonized for not sweeping a delicate topic under the rug. Sadly, smart business tends to favor sweeping controversial material under the rug.
Topics like gender never come up.
I have an extremely difficult time believing this. In fact, I'll just go ahead and say that I don't believe you.
Becuse we have to consider the players, I do think Wotc needs to be carful with this topic.
And, if you had a player in your group who claimed to have a "strong moral objection" to miscegenation, would you tiptoe around the existence of half-elves and half-orcs in D&D and express a wish for WotC to "be careful with the topic"? Would you worry that a D&D book might be "less useful" to your group because two NPCs who were stated to be in a relationship were shown in the artwork to have different skin colours, and that might upset your bigoted "moral" friend?
Again, +1. Some people may object to talking about this "delicate subject," but what it all boils down to is some people being biggots and trying to deny people equal consideration because they're different. Simple as that. And yet, if you try to side with equality, you can be demonized for not sweeping a delicate topic under the rug. Sadly, smart business tends to favor sweeping controversial material under the rug.
ok, so becuse it is a hot button (I do belive there are a great many people that have these thoughts) I think you need to side on caution... Do you really think that if you get people to argue real world poltics or sociology that will make your game better?
Do you really think that if you get people to argue real world poltics or sociology that will make your game better?
Honestly? Yes.
ok, so becuse it is a hot button (I do belive there are a great many people that have these thoughts) I think you need to side on caution... Do you really think that if you get people to argue real world poltics or sociology that will make your game better?
The game? Probably not (at least in the short term). With a group of mature players, it could actually add depth and be enjoyable. But I'm more concerned about making the world a better place, and fostering acceptance means we can't just assume heteronormative standards all the time. Whether it be games, books, movies, or TV, we need to reach a point where certain things no longer cause us to bat an eyelash. In other words, I don't think it should adversely affect the game to not avoid hot button issues. Will it? With a few, I'm sure. But isn't the point of setting books to provide lots of ideas to serve as inspiration for games? You're not required to use a specific bit of fluff as a campaign seed. For example, it's canonical that in Eberron, Kaius III is in fact a vampire, Kaius I. I've never used that in game, but I haven't contradicted it either. It's just a seed I didn't use. And for that reason, hot button issues shouldn't be avoided - you're not required to use the idea if you don't like it, but creating the idea can help inspire those that do. So there's minimal harm in doing this, and what's the benefit? WotC earns brownie points in my book, and in Crimson's, and in quite a few others, from what I can see. For me, morals sell. If a company is standing up for something I believe in, I'm going to spend more on them, as a sign of support. One of my best friends is a lesbian, and I met her playing D&D (it was her first game ever). I've got her back all the way, and any company that joins us in solidarity has my undying loyalty.
If you really want a business model, here it is. When it comes to controversial issues, there's two approaches a company could take:
1) Sweep it under the rug. Nobody boycotts you for taking the stance they're against, but nobody shows you extra support for being an ally.
2) Take a stance. You'll lose some business, and gain some other. I can't really analyze the cost-benefit here. But there's also the intangible benfit of being at the forefront of change. That's something you can feel good about being a part of. That is something the employees should be proud to be a part of. In order for any social change to succeed, it needs to become normalized, which means it has to be present in pop culture, and by the end, present in a background sort of way, not a spotlight grabber.
What it boils down to is, it doesn't detract from the game (and can enrich it for some people), and it helps to enrich society. The benefit is in something other than the bottom line dollar figure.
ok, so becuse it is a hot button (I do belive there are a great many people that have these thoughts) I think you need to side on caution... Do you really think that if you get people to argue real world poltics or sociology that will make your game better?
The game? Probably not (at least in the short term). With a group of mature players, it could actually add depth and be enjoyable.
and with immature ones it could cause problems...
But I'm more concerned about making the world a better place, and fostering acceptance means we can't just assume heteronormative standards all the time.
good on you...I fully support you there...but do not feel it is the best for every entertainment mediaum.
And for that reason, hot button issues shouldn't be avoided - you're not required to use the idea if you don't like it, but creating the idea can help inspire those that do. So there's minimal harm in doing this, and what's the benefit?
lets play the what if game shall we... the never winter book has a male/male relationship between two elves... a few immature players (ok maybe even me on this one) make the "how can you tell" joke... one player causes an un needed scean about his views, and our only female player at this time feels less welcome becuse she doesn't want her sexuality (that WILL come up at this point) made into a atalking point.
If you really want a business model, here it is. When it comes to controversial issues, there's two approaches a company could take:
1) Sweep it under the rug. Nobody boycotts you for taking the stance they're against, but nobody shows you extra support for being an ally.
2) Take a stance. You'll lose some business, and gain some other. I can't really analyze the cost-benefit here.
What it boils down to is, it doesn't detract from the game (and can enrich it for some people), and it helps to enrich society. The benefit is in something other than the bottom line dollar figure.
what it boils down to is math... Lose X players support gain Y player support... with out spending Z$$$ there is no way to determain witch is bigger X or Y. If you spend $Z and find that X is larger then Y then you are out $Z, if you spend $z and find that Y is bigger then X, you then also are down Z and that will now eat into it... In a large multi million dollor indusrty (like BBC) it may be worth it...but for any rpg?
But there's also the intangible benfit of being at the forefront of change. That's something you can feel good about being a part of. That is something the employees should be proud to be a part of. In order for any social change to succeed, it needs to become normalized, which means it has to be present in pop culture, and by the end, present in a background sort of way, not a spotlight grabber.
if you live in the wrong part of this very free country even the Lincon Lawyer is contraveral (movie)... I see no reason to risk D&D on being a forerunner...let others with more backing take those chances.
do warforged understand physical intamacy at all? I mean what does a hug or a handshake mean to them?
if wilden were birthed by nature do they ever reproduce?
can a drow and an elf have a kid? what about an eladrin? if Humans can mate with dwarf, orc, and elf...doesn't that then onpen the door to other mixes?
the only diffrence is I want that in a book that I can use in the right mature group, and put away when it will be used to make some or most of us uncomfortable.
Maybe we need the old Mature books again (BoVD and BoEf, and BoEd)... In fact back a few years ago I pushed for a new BoEf, one that focused more on what you are saying...Especialy go into depth with the idea that my Diva and his eladrin lover both promised nothing would keep them from each other...when the diva died he re rose as a female Avenger instead of a Male paliden...what happens when I see her again??
do warforged understand physical intamacy at all? I mean what does a hug or a handshake mean to them?
if wilden were birthed by nature do they ever reproduce?
can a drow and an elf have a kid? what about an eladrin? if Humans can mate with dwarf, orc, and elf...doesn't that then onpen the door to other mixes?
the only diffrence is I want that in a book that I can use in the right mature group, and put away when it will be used to make some or most of us uncomfortable.
I'm rather curious about that myself. As for the gender/sex debate, I just assume they match until corrected otherwise. It's not a morality judgement, it's just easier. One of my closest friends is transitioning from male to female. But I doubt that the current edition will go too deeply into such mature topics. So lets get back on the actual topic, racial traits what do you think?
Point is, you don't have to be the big guy to take a stance, and equal rights are not achieved until every medium is fine with these sorts of things.
As for the bad scenario where immature gamers bring it out of proportion - that's where DMs come into play - knowing their group, and understanding what level of maturity they can handle. And no, I don't think the books need a disclaimer warning DMs to leave out homosexual elements unless their group can handle it. Do the books currently need a disclaimer saying don't include gray area morality if your group can only handle black or white? Some people like simple games where the PCs are heroes, and they never have to do anything wrong. Others like complex games, where the PCs are capable of atrocities, where they may be forced to choose between doing something vile or taking the moral high ground at the cost of something truly horrible happening. Some people like playing the shining paladins, and others the brooding anti-hero seeking redemption, and still others like the CN thief or even the Richard/Belkar Bitterleaf. The game doesn't currently come with disclaimers that some groups can't handle or wouldn't like complex moral subjects. The DM just leaves that stuff out. Same thing with this - providing the option is not forcing DMs to use it in groups where it's not appropriate. And if somebody acts like an @$s about it, you blame the @$s, not the book that set him off. When somebody does something despicable, you don't blame the victim, and you don't blame the trigger. You blame the guilty party. It shouldn't be WotC's job to cater only to its most immature players, and provide nothing that could set them off. Immature players need to learn how to deal with the world, not be sheltered from it.
Topics like gender never come up.
I have an extremely difficult time believing this. In fact, I'll just go ahead and say that I don't believe you.
Wow. Ok. Well, me and my group are a bunch of guys approaching 40. We talk about work, movies we have recently seen, books we have read, etc. We have also been friends since high school. We have learned not to talk about "hot button" topics like politics or religion or social injustices. We are there to have fun playing a game and enjoying each others company. Emotionally charged debates are not really condusive to that. Oh and thanks for calling me a liar.
Back to the topic of the book...
at least marginally anyway. Gender, even sex is fluff. You want androgynous races, have them. Male dryads, go ahead, nothing is stopping you.
Just because you don't talk about them doesn't mean that they don't ever come up. Gender is such a deeply engrained part of our society that it's impossible to escape, even if you don't realize that it's a factor. For example, your group is all male? There's a reason for that, I'm betting. I'm not saying that you're lying per se, just that you don't realize that what you claimed is not true.
Ok, hear what I am saying. Our group does not talk about gender issues. Whether or not our group has gender issues is not what I was saying. Once again, we do not discuss gender issues.
Not to interrupt this great discussion but back on to the topic of the Feywild book. What if the new races are just themes. We were told we would have playable werewolves, now we do as a theme. Perhaps the pixie is a gnome only theme that gives at-will flight. The dryad is a wilden only theme and the satyr an elf and half-elf only theme. Just a thought.
Firstly, thank you for getting on the actual topic. Secondly, If I recall the races are races not themes.
The discussion has also prompted me to change some ideas about handling a few of my PCs for later in this camp...Back to the less important, but much cooler topic:
Of the three new races, Satyrs interest me most for playing as a PC, but depending how the Dryad turns out, they could have possibilities too.
Knowing Dryads are on the horizon makes me wonder a lot how the fluff will reflect the differences between Dryads and Wilden. Admittedly, I do not know as much of the existing fluff as I would like.
In pure speculation, I would hazard a few guesses:
* Dryads will have a green elven form and an encounter to change into their tree form with some change of speed for defenses or some such. Con Wis/Int
*Satyrs I imagine will have some balance or climbing bonuses (speaking to their goatish origins), and a difficult terrain related racial power. I picture them filling the slot as a ranged equivalent to the Minotaurs thematically. Dex Cha/Int perhaps.
* More than enough has been discussed of the Pixie elsewhere. Suffice, I am pro-pixie.
Does anyone have any cold hard facts on the races. I'm formulating a concept for a pixie pirate who used to be the capt. of a small airship built for likewise small races until his ship was besieged by trolls and his crew eaten. now hes flat broke and trying to raise funds to recruit a new crew and acquisition a new ship.
Not that I've seen, and I spend a lot of time on the web.
I kind of need to see what fluff develops to know how best to work some of them in as characters though.
Im sure you guys saw this, but this coming-soon for the Heroes of the Feywild looks cool.
www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=38...
In a Gencon seminar they said there will be a race that flies at level 1...
Yes, the pixie. And unlike others, I'm inclined to believe that it will have a fly speed rather than a power that allows it to fly.
In a Gencon seminar they said there will be a race that flies at level 1...
Like the Wind-Soul Genasi.
In a Gencon seminar they said there will be a race that flies at level 1...
Like the Wind-Soul Genasi.
Not quite. If they meant it was like the Windsoul manifestation I doubt that it would have received the announcement. Like I said, my guess would be a fly speed.
I'm just saying that coming to any conclusion either way right now is entirely premature. Being able to fly at level one isn't something that can't already be done with a PC race. People are reading far too into that comment and assuming the worst. It could be almost anything, and having a Genasi-like encounter flight or a legitimate fly speed aren't even the only two options. It could be an encounter power that grants a fly speed until the end of your next turn, it could be an at-will flight power that forces you to land between usages, it could be overland flight with an altitude limit of 1, etc. Assuming that they're going to get a full on flight speed is like if they had introduced the Shardmind as a "race that can teleport" and everybody assumed that they would have a teleport speed.
Are there Teleport speeds?
Are there Teleport speeds?
Yes. Pretty rare, but they do exist.
Yes. Pretty rare, but they do exist.
Dimensional Marauder
Acolyte of Entropy
Mirage Dragons
Eldritch Giant
Spell Weaver
Vizier Devil
Just a few examples. I wouldn't even say teleport speeds are all that rare these days. Heck, there are even powers that can grant PCs a teleport speed.
It never occurred to me that teleport distances listed under Speed in monster stat blocks would/could appropriately/accurately be referred to as "teleport speeds". -- Consider me schooled!
Yes. Pretty rare, but they do exist.
Dimensional Marauder
Acolyte of Entropy
Mirage Dragons
Eldritch Giant
Spell Weaver
Vizier Devil
Just a few examples. I wouldn't even say teleport speeds are all that rare these days. Heck, there are even powers that can grant PCs a teleport speed.
Mithril Dragon too, IIRC.
Emphasis mine.
indeed tiny pixies, futhermore they mention the witch build which im betting is a wizard build with emphasis on curses and transmutation. since the witch most likely is a wizard build with transmutation spells that means any wizard can take those powers thus does there need to be a transmutation school mage build? hmm i guess i can still see one appearing if not here then in a dragon article. foe to frog, savage transformation i'm betting they're wizard powers the witch can take by association sorta like the bladesinger but hopefully not implemented the same way. watch the witch turn out to be a controller thats more strikery too lol or the other way around.
I'm exuberantly overjoyed about the Witch build!
Could be a Druid, though. ... They did mention that there is a Druid build on the horizon... (if memory serves me right)
"Pixie: Childlike fairies full of wonder and magic, the tiny pixies fly on vibrant wings and vanish into thin air on a whim."
Emphasis mine.
It most likely does not mean literally in the game mechanic sense. Pixies can probably be well described as being tiny in the same way that Goliaths can be we described as being large.
I'm curious about the Satyrs mostly, because it seems like either they're going to go against all of mythology and have female Satyrs, or else we'll be seeing a race that is only male. On the other hand they have the hamadryads(still not sure how those'll work out) which should only be female so I guess they'd balance in a way.
Either way, curious to see what comes up on the race previews in the coming weeks.
"Pixie: Childlike fairies full of wonder and magic, the tiny pixies fly on vibrant wings and vanish into thin air on a whim."
Emphasis mine.
It most likely does not mean literally in the game mechanic sense. Pixies can probably be well described as being tiny in the same way that Goliaths can be we described as being large.
Simply not going to give an inch until you see it in print, are you?
Simply not going to give an inch until you see it in print, are you?
I'll give an inch when I think that there's good reason to give an inch. This is not a good reason.
I will, however, say that it seems from this description that Pixies will indeed be able to fly at-will, which I was honestly hoping against, unless they go out of the box and give them two encounter power*. I'm betting the invisibility will be their encounter power (I don't think that "on a whim" will translate to "at-will" in game).
*EDIT: Though, that has been done before now that I think about it...
Simply not going to give an inch until you see it in print, are you?
I'll give an inch when I think that there's good reason to give an inch. This is not a good reason.
I will, however, say that it seems from this description that Pixies will indeed be able to fly at-will, which I was honestly hoping against, unless they go out of the box and give them two encounter powers. I'm betting the invisibility will be their encounter power (I don't think that "on a whim" will translate to "at-will" in game).
I'm with you on the per-encounter invisibility a la Gnome.
I really hope it's not like the Gnomes. I had enough lazy blatant rehashing of existing racial features from the Neverwinter book. Plus, it's sort of lame that the Gnome only gets to use its invisibility as in immediate reaction, and that certainly doesn't sound very "on a whim" to me. Minor action to turn invisible and lasts until the end of your current turn would be nice...
I didn't mean exactly like Gnomes; merely related in terms of use and duration.
Using a Minor to go invis till end of current turn, WITH the ability to make an attack that doesn't break invis, would be most enjoyable. -- Pixie Rogues would be vicious, vicious little faeries.
I don't think that's necessary. Even if attacking did break the invisibility, the Rogue would still get Sneak Attack on its first attack, which I think is good enough for a racial power.
It would feel as though you were invisible only for miliseconds if you went invisible, attacked, broke invisible and then moved. -- In this sense, invisibility ending at the end of your current turn seems rather uneventful; it would only see use in order to obtain combat advantage, or perhaps to move to a more advantageous position without being seen (which would be limited in scope and application).
I would move to have invisibility last till beginning of next turn; any attacks made breaking it as per usual.
"Pixie: Childlike fairies full of wonder and magic, the tiny pixies fly on vibrant wings and vanish into thin air on a whim."
Emphasis mine.
But that would seriously hamper my Pixie Monk!
"Pixie: Childlike fairies full of wonder and magic, the tiny pixies fly on vibrant wings and vanish into thin air on a whim."
Emphasis mine.
But that would seriously hamper my Pixie Monk!
But it wouldn't seriously hamper my enjoyment of watching your pixie monk in action!
Are you forgetting than an invisible character cannot be the target of an opportunity attack? That's pretty fantastic, at least in my opinion. Minor to invisible, move with complete immunity, and then attack with CA? Or attack, minor to invisible, and then make an escape to total cover or concealment and make a Stealth check? That sounds awesome to me. It has much more utility than simply obtaining CA.
I am forgetting that actually.
I'm being swayed...
"Pixie: Childlike fairies full of wonder and magic, the tiny pixies fly on vibrant wings and vanish into thin air on a whim."
Emphasis mine.
But that would seriously hamper my Pixie Monk!
But it wouldn't seriously hamper my enjoyment of watching your pixie monk in action!
Or, if it is Tiny, I could realise that Killmoulis Magic-User I've wanted to play since 1st Ed.
"Pixie: Childlike fairies full of wonder and magic, the tiny pixies fly on vibrant wings and vanish into thin air on a whim."
Emphasis mine.
But that would seriously hamper my Pixie Monk!
But it wouldn't seriously hamper my enjoyment of watching your pixie monk in action!
Or, if it is Tiny, I could realise that Killmoulis Magic-User I've wanted to play since 1st Ed.
The resurrection of past desires, and they ability to realize them, is one of my favorite aspects of new toys in the ruleset!
going to go against all of mythology
Meh. Going for some sort of mythological 'purity' would be misguided anyway. The original (Greek) satyrs were not the goat-men people associate with the name these days. The goat-people were originally the (Roman) fauns, which came in both male and female varieties. Satyrs (which were all-male) were hairy men with donkey ears (and sometimes tails). Besides, unless the D&D 'satyr' race is going to be made up exclusively of alcoholic rapists (in addition to being all-male) they are primarily going to be based on fauns rather than satyrs in everything but the name, so a gender restriction would be silly.
The resurrection of past desires, and they ability to realize them, is one of my favorite aspects of new toys in the ruleset!
Definitely, which is one of the best things about 4th Ed for me (of corse it's not perfect, before anyone wades in).
Actually, when 4th Ed came out, I got a real hankering to run a 1st Ed or ODD campaign alongside my 4th Ed one (updated from 3.799 or whatever it became by that time); now I've been tinkering around on a 1st Ed/4th Ed hybrid (4th Ed AD&D).
unless the D&D 'satyr' race is going to be made up exclusively of alcoholic rapists (in addition to being all-male)
Okay, all Satyr party/campaign, who's in?
Okay, all Satyr party/campaign, who's in?
I'm in!
Okay, all Satyr party/campaign, who's in?
I'm in!
And it's set in a prison!
...sorry, getting a bit dark.
pixie: dex, int/cha
hamadryad: wis, cha/con
satyr: dex, wis/ cha
bard: cha/int or con
witch: int/cha
barbaian: str/dex, con, cha
those are my bets tho i still have to widdle down classes to two abilties i just havent decided wich are most key. if it's a combat bard cha/con would make the most sense. barbarian, im at a loss i think either of the three could be the secondary but def str primary.
of their most likely ability modifiers what order do you think they'll come in?
satyr: dex, wis/ cha
I think the Satyr could be our first Fey race with a Con bonus (they're quite hardy/randy/rugged).
true and a cha, con/dex satyr would be an optimal bard which they really should be. ya sorry i know people hate that sort of jump to conclusions. also thats only if we are assuming the bard in this book is cha/con. i think they'll make the satyr optimal for whatever stats this bard needs.
I think they would suit the original (AEDU) Bard as well, prancing around at a distance playing the pipes.
...now I'm thinking Spinal Tap.
It would be AWESOME!
And honestly I have no issue with a race that is solely male if they go that route. It really isn't a big deal because everyone who had issue would just say there're male/females as a homebrew and it would be a homebrew that wouldn't actually require mechanical changes for once. Well plumbing is mechanical...(buh-duh bump ching!)
Though if the Satyrs are solely male I'd prefer the hamadryads as solely female to balance. But if the two races aren't sexually exclusive that doesn't bother me too much. I'm just more interested in seeing the races themselves and if they'll bring anything interesting to the table.
You know, on the topic of Satyrs and music, might be kinda cool if they got access to all the bard only rituals and could tap into the bard powers/properties on magical instruments/weapons. It would work better as a feat probably though since a Satyr bard then wouldn't get anything from it unless they got a bonus to such abilities if they were a bard, but would be kinda cool.
And what the hell, maybe the Satyrs will get an attack bonus against female creatures. I mean races already get a bonus against bloody creatures, why not females? haha, kidding...well kinda it would be funny though.
And honestly I have no issue with a race that is solely male if they go that route.
And now we have the Witch subclass on the horizon, hope it doesn't become a gender war...don't you repress me, mate!
I mean races already get a bonus against bloody creatures
...see, Ed, Dryads, now you're putting the whole station in jeopardy...
And honestly I have no issue with a race that is solely male if they go that route.
And now we have the Witch subclass on the horizon, hope it doesn't become a gender war...don't you repress me, mate!
I wouldn't worry, Witch isn't gender exclusive. There are male witches and female witches a plenty out in the world. The problem is the old stereotype from...well the dark ages practically that witches were all women. And ugly, and green, and hard warts to for that matter.
Which I will formally complain against Wizards and call them out on being stupid if a class feature of the Witch class includes green skin and ugly warts. Just saying, there will be trouble haha.
I suspect that there will be, probably transmutation.
Total, with the whole witch/frog/pumpkin action; save ends spells/evocations that turn the target into a vole or what have you (yes, I'm aware of Baleful Doo-Dah).
I'm imagining an atwill that slows the target by tangling it in it's own hair.
Does not the Seeker have a power like that: flying little deviants tearing at your hair?
how much space do you think the book will devote to themes?
ditto on the transmutation school.
how much space do you think the book will devote to themes?
Depends on how many they come up with. The average theme runs about 2 pages each, so if there are 7 themes that'd be roughly 14 pages. I'm thinking that there will be fewer class options than Heroes of Shadow so that they can fit in themes and such.
that might account for the mounted eladrin wizard on the cover with the fairy dragon familiar
Oh, that is so passe, what about my Leprechaun Psion?!
that might account for the mounted eladrin wizard on the cover with the fairy dragon familiar
Oh, that is so passe, what about my Leprechaun Psion?!
When was the last time D&D had rules for leprechauns, anyway?
/tangent
On topic, I really hope there's some seeker support too, just because the seeker does have some Feywild connection and it needs support.
that might account for the mounted eladrin wizard on the cover with the fairy dragon familiar
Oh, that is so passe, what about my Leprechaun Psion?!
When was the last time D&D had rules for leprechauns, anyway?
I think a gnome works great for a leprechaun.
My guess will be covens, which maybe devoted to Archfey or courts. Some Archfey can grant primal power as well as arcane. So one Coven could be say the Coven of Hyrsam's dance and they'd have more arcane mixed into thier powers, or the Coven of Gloom Courts whisper's which would offer a divine twist to powers or Coven of the Pale Court's blade which might offer Shadow power into the primal mix.
Either way I'm betting that Witch's focus more on Archfey then the Primal Beast of other druids. Witch's will also focus more on people then other primal power classes and may be more powerful if other Witchs are in the party which is different from other classes. Oh and they'll be a hag connection of some sort.
Maybe the subset will be archtype, like Stepmother, Hermit, Priestess.
Or lineage like granddaughter of Baba Yaga or Hyrsam.
Or Planar like Astral Witch or Feywild witch or more focus on local geography, Forest Witch, Tundra Witch, Swamp Witch, Desert Witch, Urban Witch.
Ancestor focused, Grandfather Witch or Grandmother Witch.
Maybe Mystical Tradition were you get a free feat like familiar or alchemy or power like channel divinity depending on tradition choosen.
Also I'm betting that they will either not havr wildshape or a warped version where they become dragons or sea serpants instead of bears or wolves.
Is every one certain the barb is the duel role class and not the Witch?
Ma
What do you think the Witch's subsets will be? Like how Sentiel have season, warlock's packs and wizard's mage schools or implement masteries. My guess will be covens, which maybe devoted to Archfey or courts. Some Archfey can grant primal power as well as arcane. So one Coven could be say the Coven of Hyrsam's dance and they'd have more arcane mixed into thier powers, or the Coven of Gloom Courts whisper's which would offer a divine twist to powers or Coven of the Pale Court's blade which might offer Shadow power into the primal mix. Either way I'm betting that Witch's focus more on Archfey then the Primal Beast of other druids. Witch's will also focus more on people then other primal power classes and may be more powerful if other Witchs are in the party which is different from other classes. Oh and they'll be a hag connection of some sort. Maybe the subset will be archtype, like Stepmother, Hermit, Priestess. Or lineage like granddaughter of Baba Yaga or Hyrsam. Or Planar like Astral Witch or Feywild witch or more focus on local geography, Forest Witch, Tundra Witch, Swamp Witch, Desert Witch, Urban Witch. Ancestor focused, Grandfather Witch or Grandmother Witch. Maybe Mystical Tradition were you get a free feat like familiar or alchemy or power like channel divinity depending on tradition choosen. Also I'm betting that they will either not havr wildshape or a warped version where they become dragons or sea serpants instead of bears or wolves. Is every one certain the barb is the duel role class and not the Witch? Ma
I really like the environment-themed witch. It'll also be a nice way to emphasize that Feywild does not always mean forest.
I'm betting that they will either not havr wildshape or a warped version where they become dragons or sea serpants instead of bears or wolves.
i don't think they'll havea wildshape-like power. but i do suspect they will have a bunch of transmutation powers that turn their enemies into weak beasts and maybe one at epic tier that turns the witch into a dragon or something dreadful like that.
i don't think they'll have a wildshape-like power. but i do suspect they will have a bunch of transmutation powers that turn their enemies into weak beasts
Yeah, that's what I'm thinking, powers that can turn you into a vole (save ends) or what have you. Really hoping they will be a Druid subclass, not Wizard.
Autumn Sentinels w/ Bird companion and some boosts to enabling leadership
Winter Sentinels w/ Stag/Ram Companion with boosts to controller secondary role (Lots of proning)
Witch Covens sounds good on paper, but making sure it's not watered down Warlock Pacts (assuming they are not yet another Warlock Subclass) would be the trick. I like the idea of Covens or environment based. Sand witches with more illusions, Bog Witches with more poisons and so on. I think as a druid subclass (or so we can hope), they gain Wildshape, but can use it offensively. :D More transmutation seems a given. Wizard MC Witch (Or vice versa) could be quite interesting.
Echoing the call for Autumn and Winter Sentinels. Feywild seems the obvious place for them in the current schedule.
Autumn Sentinels w/ Bird companion and some boosts to enabling leadership
Winter Sentinels w/ Stag/Ram Companion with boosts to controller secondary role (Lots of proning)
Witch Covens sounds good on paper, but making sure it's not watered down Warlock Pacts (assuming they are not yet another Warlock Subclass) would be the trick. I like the idea of Covens or environment based. Sand witches with more illusions, Bog Witches with more poisons and so on. I think as a druid subclass (or so we can hope), they gain Wildshape, but can use it offensively. :D More transmutation seems a given. Wizard MC Witch (Or vice versa) could be quite interesting.
I believe that the other Sentinel seasons are going to be in a DDI article, according to a past Rule-of-Three answer. If it is a Druid subclass, I very much doubt it will have the ability to wildshape.
Yeah Bog/Swamp witch would be cool. I'd be worried that people will hear Sand witch and hear Sandwhich and get hungery. It'll problemly be Bog and Forest to start with,other coming later. I still say they will be more connected to Archfey then the Primal Beast or other druids. I wish we knew what the subclass name was for the Odruid.
That reminds me of the chicken that got turned into a Slaad, gained class levels in that one Witch class variant from the 3.5 DMG, and then took the Queen of the Wild (Desert) prestige class from the 3E Masters of the Wild. She was a Chicken Slaad Sand Witch.
Sand witches with more illusions
i cant help but laugh in response after all my name lol
Yeah Bog/Swamp witch would be cool. I'd be worried that people will hear Sand witch and hear Sandwhich and get hungery. It'll problemly be Bog and Forest to start with,other coming later. I still say they will be more connected to Archfey then the Primal Beast or other druids. I wish we knew what the subclass name was for the Odruid.
That reminds me of the chicken that got turned into a Slaad, gained class levels in that one Witch class variant from the 3.5 DMG, and then took the Queen of the Wild (Desert) prestige class from the 3E Masters of the Wild. She was a Chicken Slaad Sand Witch.
Man that is an old joke! Still funny, but old.
??? indicates an empty space that i'm not sure what could go there. maybe a class we don't know about or maybe itll be used to create more space for content we do know about such as themes or random spells.
introduction
themes
barbarian
bard
witch
???
warlock spells
-fey pact binder
wizard spells (including illusion, transmutation and enchantment)
-school of transmutation
???
races
-hamadryad
-pixie
-satyr
PP
ED
feats
equipment
my question now is, the pixie is tiny but wields weapons as if it were small, is that correct cuz thats how i read that feature but i'm a lil confused on the exactness of "being tiny and what that infers" it should not matter for a spellcaster but what about a hexblade or thief it'd kinda suck if i was forced to use daggers. is a pixie supposed to use it's shrink power to make a larger weapon useable every encounter and not sacrifice damage or did i missinterpret that aswell?
yes i too am excited to see this info!!!
my question now is, the pixie is tiny but wields weapons as if it were small, is that correct cuz thats how i read that feature but i'm a lil confused on the exactness of "being tiny and what that infers" it should not matter for a spellcaster but what about a hexblade or thief it'd kinda suck if i was forced to use daggers. is a pixie supposed to use it's shrink power to make a larger weapon useable every encounter and not sacrifice damage or did i missinterpret that aswell?
You pretty much nailed it. It uses it's shrink power on any equipment it may need. But the power lasts until the next extended rest, or indefinitely if the item is on the pixie's person. As far as weapons go I believe you treat it like a small character.
Obviously I'm thinking a melee type will have to enter an enemy's square (thus provoking an OA) to attack.
the witch is a wizard subclass.
Damn, because the Wizard needs more subclasses (we also have the upcoming Sha'ir), I was so hoping it would be a Druid subclass.
Sorry, may someone point me to a link to this Pixie Tiny action?
Obviously I'm thinking a melee type will have to enter an enemy's square (thus provoking an OA) to attack.
www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...
Here ya go, the full mechanical write-up for the pixie.
They're basically treated as Small creatures for combat purposes, including melee range, but Tiny for everything else (I'd imagine you wouldn't have to squeeze in areas where larger creatures would, for example).
It looks to me like a pixie hexblade or rogue would work just fine with no negative side-effects, really. Since weapons keep their stats after being shrunk, there's no downside to choosing weapon-based classes.
Alternatively, you could say that the pixie is zipping about mid-flight in their square and doing a fly-by strike when they hit in melee, adding momentum to each hit.
Not to mention that the standard "Disney-fairy" concept that most people probably visualize when thinking of this type of character is actually on the short side, going by the average height of 6 inches to 1 foot. I'd guess that a sword scaled down to be usable by foot-tall creature would still hurt like heck, if swung with enough force.
What bugs me (in the sense of flavor, anyway) is the fact that gear still weighs the same when it's shrunk. I understand that it makes things easier mechanically, but I myself would probably reflavor that to say that it's a scaled measurement; i.e. the gear weighs as much relative to the pixie as the same gear would weigh relative to a human when full-size.
They're basically treated as Small creatures for combat purposes, including melee range, but Tiny for everything else (I'd imagine you wouldn't have to squeeze in areas where larger creatures would, for example).
Now I really want my Diminutive Atomie character.
...and ever since 1st Ed I have always wanted a Killmoulis Magic-User.
I was right about familiar, wrong about druid.
Basically WOTC crept up behind the Pathfinder's witch and clubbed her in the back of the head and stole her stuff, thematically included! Did not expect it to be so blant. Still Pathfinder got most of its game design from Wizards so I'd say its a fare play.
Still I like the way Wizard's handled the fluff better of the Witch. They left so open, its a Wizard so you can play it as a "primitive" Wizard, A holy worshipper of the gods with a Wiccan flavour, a darker Devil worshipper/Demon worshipper, fairy tale Witch, Hathran, or just about any other witch archetype you chose. The fact that they set the class as being before the Primordials and Gods warred aka pre primial spirits explains why they're not primal or divine despite the patron thing. They do need to explain fluff wise the deference between them and warlocks with thier pacts or to a lesser degree Invokers with thier covenants with the Gods aka divine pacts.
I do find that the Witch is in essence the oldest class interesting.
l also wonder if they will be reintroducing familiars in this book for those without arcane power.
Also still curious about what the dividing subsets will be. I'm leaning towards Archtype like Priestess or Hermit or Patron based, but Patron is broader strokes, instead of Hyrsam, Fey Lords, Vs. Say Immortals ala Gods, Angels, and Devils.
This of course leaves what the Druid new subclass is in the air, any guesses?
I'm assuming Con and Wis to be in there, one of them likely the primary stat. I'd like to see Str in there, but I'm just pulling that out of the essense-of-tree idea.
Still waiting to see the goods on the Hamadryad. What do you think the stats will be like?
I'm assuming Con and Wis to be in there, one of them likely the primary stat. I'd like to see Str in there, but I'm just pulling that out of the essense-of-tree idea.
Interesting. And any bets on the racial power? The whole walking into a tree to teleport/travel faster probably wouldn't work, as (1) it requires trees, so it's not reliable enough for an encounter power, and (2) eladrin already have the teleporting thing. Me, when I think dryad, I think turning into a tree to avoid unwanted attention. So perhaps an encounter power usable as an immediate interrupt to turn into a tree, gaining resist X all against the attack, and immunity to prone and forced movement. No, that's like the goliath only better. And it doesn't quite feel right. A minor action to remove yourself from play, perhaps. Maybe something like this:
Tree Shape * Encounter
Free Action * Polymorph
Trigger: You use your second wind.
Benefit: You transform into a tree until the start of your next turn. While in this form, you gain resist 5 to all damage, are immune to forced movement, and cannot attack. You do not threaten any squares (and hence cannot be used for flanking), but you grant cover.
Eh, not quite what I was aiming for. But I like the idea of being able to turn into a tree to basically create an obstacle and provide cover for your allies. Of course, it should also have a line about sustaining and a way to make people think you're a regular tree if they don't see you change, for the sake of out-of-combat uses.
Still waiting to see the goods on the Hamadryad. What do you think the stats will be like?
I'm assuming Con and Wis to be in there, one of them likely the primary stat. I'd like to see Str in there, but I'm just pulling that out of the essense-of-tree idea.
Interesting. And any bets on the racial power? The whole walking into a tree to teleport/travel faster probably wouldn't work, as (1) it requires trees, so it's not reliable enough for an encounter power, and (2) eladrin already have the teleporting thing. Me, when I think dryad, I think turning into a tree to avoid unwanted attention. So perhaps an encounter power usable as an immediate interrupt to turn into a tree, gaining resist X all against the attack, and immunity to prone and forced movement. No, that's like the goliath only better. And it doesn't quite feel right. A minor action to remove yourself from play, perhaps. Maybe something like this:
Tree Shape * Encounter
Free Action * Polymorph
Trigger: You use your second wind.
Benefit: You transform into a tree until the start of your next turn. While in this form, you gain resist 5 to all damage, are immune to forced movement, and cannot attack. You do not threaten any squares (and hence cannot be used for flanking), but you grant cover.
Eh, not quite what I was aiming for. But I like the idea of being able to turn into a tree to basically create an obstacle and provide cover for your allies. Of course, it should also have a line about sustaining and a way to make people think you're a regular tree if they don't see you change, for the sake of out-of-combat uses.
Somehow, I see that as a racial trait rather than a power. Something like "You can make a Bluff check to disguise yourself as a tree. You gain a +4 racial bonus to Bluff checks used in this way." I don't see an issue with the power, though. I can see a Hobgoblin puzzling as to how a tree found its way into the middle of their camp.
Perhaps they'll go off the plant motif and give it some sort of root-grabbing power. Something to hold an enemy or create difficult terrain. Then again, that might not be very balanced.
Also laughed at them getting two racial powers. I wonder how many people are now wanting to tag team as Peter Pan and Tinkerbell because of this. But having Pixie Dust and Shrink to boot will make things fun. Kinda curious though with Shrink, it says obviously "object", and anything shrunk becomes an improvised weapon despite it saying damage dice remains. My first thought is that a Pixie could shrink a weapon to its size to use but if the longsword becomes just an improvised weapon with the same damage dice it throws that idea out. Just doesn't seem right, a shrunk weapon should be just fine to use as the weapon should. But oh well, a minor thing really.
Though as with the Small races, not thrilled about weapon restrictions but that's something to worry about when I eventually play a Pixie. Because dammit, I really want to play one now. Especially as a wizard or else hedge wizard's gloves to get Prestidigitation for added antics, man I'm ACTUALLY interested in buy a D&D book for the first time in ages(don't have money, but I am interested).
And the Witch background was kinda cool, and freebie familiar is nice especially since it's more then just getting the familiar since it seems to act as your spellbook is a nice touch. But what I really am annoyed with is it being a sub class for the wizard, I'd just rather see new classes, not just sub classes and all but whatever, makes me curious though.
I was worried Wizards would make them Small just to avoid having to do anything with them being Tiny, but no thankfully.
What would be wrong with their being Small? They were Small back in 3.5, and that was a WAAAY more simulationist game.
I was worried Wizards would make them Small just to avoid having to do anything with them being Tiny, but no thankfully.
What would be wrong with their being Small? They were Small back in 3.5, and that was a WAAAY more simulationist game.
Because Pixie's should be tiny. Not saying that they couldn't make them small, just that flavor wise or whatever, pixie's should be tiny so I'm glad they are. I figured they'd make them small though so they could avoid having to address the issue of being Tiny and yet needing to fight on equal terms with other races. Which was why I was pleasantly surprised by Wizards making them Tiny.
I didn't even know pixie's existed in 3.5 honestly, though I remember a 2 or 3 years about before I started playing 3.5 I played one D&D game and someone was a pixie and they definitely were smaller than Small races are nowadays. But that's neither here nor there really.
Because Pixie's should be tiny.
Why? People say this a lot, but I'm really curious why. If Pixies need to be tiny, then why don't Gnomes and Elves.
Because Pixie's should be tiny.
Why? People say this a lot, but I'm really curious why. If Pixies need to be tiny, then why don't Gnomes and Elves.
Pixies are always little flying fairies. Look honestly thematically I just wouldn't see pixies as pixies if they were 3 or so feet tall that's really it. Doesn't really matter though, they're Tiny. And mechanically I think they'll work just fine. They're not going to be any "weaker" in terms of melee damage than any Small race at least, and at the same time though, they wont be busting down doors which is fine because they are tiny so they have a worse shot at doing something like that, which is fine by me.
As for gnomes and elves, I don't consider them to be tiny creatures. Small yes, in terms of gnomes. But elves, not really. I mean yeah in mythology some elves are small, some aren't depending. But elves as they are are fine and gnomes as well. Do you think gnomes and elves should really be tiny?
Though I will say one thing, I mentioned their racial power Shrink and a confusion over weapons being shrunk being considered improvised weapons and I TOTALLY missed that they're only improvised for non-tiny creatures. So whoops on my part.
Because Pixie's should be tiny.
Why? People say this a lot, but I'm really curious why. If Pixies need to be tiny, then why don't Gnomes and Elves.
I think the primary reason people want a tiny pixie is because the popular image of pixies is a tiny human-like being with insect-like wings that may be able to become invisible, grant flight, speak to animals, or shrink things. The thing is, if you are going to call something by a well known name you have to make it recognizable. You wouldn't call an orc a minotaur would you?
Because Pixie's should be tiny.
Why? People say this a lot, but I'm really curious why. If Pixies need to be tiny, then why don't Gnomes and Elves.
Pixies are always little flying fairies. Look honestly thematically I just wouldn't see pixies as pixies if they were 3 or so feet tall that's really it. Doesn't really matter though, they're Tiny. And mechanically I think they'll work just fine. They're not going to be any "weaker" in terms of melee damage than any Small race at least, and at the same time though, they wont be busting down doors which is fine because they are tiny so they have a worse shot at doing something like that, which is fine by me.
As things stand, the height/size difference between the shortest of the Medium races and the tallest is about 3 feet. If Pixies were put in the Small category, they could be 6" - 1' tall and still fit the same spread as the Medium creatures do. Your size category doesn't have much to do with your size, after all.
I'm going to play a gamadryad assassin...you know why? because NOBODY SUSPECTS THE TREE!!!
Except for people who live on the plains. Trees are rare there, you'd notice a new one.
I'm going to play a gamadryad assassin...you know why? because NOBODY SUSPECTS THE TREE!!!
Except for people who live on the plains. Trees are rare there, you'd notice a new one.
Yah so? It's more for fun then mechanics. ASSASSIN TREE POWERS ACTIVATE!!!
Pixies are always little flying fairies.
Yes, but the degree to which they are little is variable both in mythology and in pop culture, just as is the case for Elves and Gnomes. This is exactly why they were Small back in 3.5, because that edition had a lot of different types of Sprites in order to accomodate all of these different possible depictions. Why couldn't 4E have done the same?
The thing is, if you are going to call something by a well known name you have to make it recognizable.
Where other than in D&D and LotR are Elves anything close to Medium? Every single new player that I have introduced to the game has been amazed that Elves were so big in D&D.
The thing is, if you are going to call something by a well known name you have to make it recognizable.
Where other than in D&D and LotR are Elves anything close to Medium? Every single new player that I have introduced to the game has been amazed that Elves were so big in D&D.
It's a trope. Also many old Scandinavian elves were the size of men, as were the Tuatha De Danann. The reason people think small when they elves is because of modern Scandinavian folklore and toymaker elves that live at the North Pole. Heck if we're going all out, kobolds should be fey, gnomes should be elementals, satyrs would have neither horns nor hooves, and dwarves should turn to stone in the daylight.
It's a trope. Also many old Scandinavian elves were the size of men, as were the Tuatha De Danann. The reason people think small when they elves is because of modern Scandinavian folklore and toymaker elves that live at the North Pole. Heck if we're going all out, kobolds should be fey, gnomes should be elementals, satyrs would have neither horns nor hooves, and dwarves should turn to stone in the daylight.
Exactly. It's all just jumping off points. D&D does not need to remain totally faithful to any of these things. Indeed, if remaining so faithful would require us to need to decide between dealing with questionable mechanics and not being able to play something at all, D&D shouldn't remain totally faithful to these things.
I'm going to play a gamadryad assassin...you know why? because NOBODY SUSPECTS THE TREE!!!
Except for people who live on the plains. Trees are rare there, you'd notice a new one.
Yah so? It's more for fun then mechanics. ASSASSIN TREE POWERS ACTIVATE!!!
Hamadryad Barbarian wielding an axe. And he's a cannibal.
I'm going to play a gamadryad assassin...you know why? because NOBODY SUSPECTS THE TREE!!!
Except for people who live on the plains. Trees are rare there, you'd notice a new one.
Yah so? It's more for fun then mechanics. ASSASSIN TREE POWERS ACTIVATE!!!
Hamadryad Barbarian wielding an axe. And he's a cannibal.
Or a hamadryad vampire...that's always fun...
Where other than in D&D and LotR are Elves anything close to Medium? Every single new player that I have introduced to the game has been amazed that Elves were so big in D&D.
Its Norse.... and Tolkein is pretty popular .. (his Elves are bigger than portraid in the movies even). I have certainly read other books with Sidhe or other Fae Races who were tall
MOVING ON! As it is a fey-centric book how much would you be willing to bet there will be a feat that changes your origin to fey, like they had in the Shadow sourcebook? Also, how Grimm are we thinking? We obviously have the witch, but how much else?
I'm sure they will have a fey origin feat, for feyborn members of non fey races and the like. As for how Grimm....well, they have a lot of the other aspects of the Feywild covered, so I wouldn't mind a high degree of Grimm in the book.
If it makes the reading tedious for you, that is, at most, a matter of preference...
Yes, I am very aware that we are discussing our differing opinions. What's your point?LoTR is still widely read and loved. If you add up all the people that I have ever heard express opinions like yours, and all the people that all the people I know have ever heard say the same, they will not be a drop in the ocean compared to those who will express love for the property and it's creator.
So what? The majority is often wrong.It's because it's a brilliant work of fiction, and still one of the very best fantasy franchises ever made.
Then no wonder most people don't take this genre seriously.
You do realize that you never discuss things in a way that gives even the remotest indication that you think that what you are saying is anything other than fact, right?
Seriously, you consistently present yourself in a way that makes it near impossible to think of you as anything other than exceedingly arrogant.
I try to ignore it when arguing with you, because the argument is more important than you, but I wonder...do you enjoy being the stereotype that keeps people away from forums like these?
You do realize that you never discuss things in a way that gives even the remotest indication that you think that what you are saying is anything other than fact, right?
I don't feel like I need to spell that out for you. The context of the conversation should have indicated that.
Seriously, you consistently present yourself in a way that makes it near impossible to think of you as anything other than exceedingly arrogant.
I try to ignore it when arguing with you, because the argument is more important than you, but I wonder...do you enjoy being the stereotype that keeps people away from forums like these?
Not sure if serious.
You do realize that you never discuss things in a way that gives even the remotest indication that you think that what you are saying is anything other than fact, right?
I don't feel like I need to spell that out for you. The context of the conversation should have indicated that.Seriously, you consistently present yourself in a way that makes it near impossible to think of you as anything other than exceedingly arrogant.
I try to ignore it when arguing with you, because the argument is more important than you, but I wonder...do you enjoy being the stereotype that keeps people away from forums like these?
Not sure if serious.
There is a difference in presentation. Your presentation makes people think that you view your opinion as better than other peoples' as a default.
Thus, arrogant.
100% serious.
There is a difference in presentation. Your presentation makes people think that you view your opinion as better than other peoples' as a default.
Everybody does that. You do it too. To what extent people might do it may vary depending on the topic at hand and some other factors, but everybody to some degree holds their own opinions as superior by default. That is a reality of human interaction.
There is a difference in presentation. Your presentation makes people think that you view your opinion as better than other peoples' as a default.
Everybody does that. You do it too. To what extent people might do it may vary depending on the topic at hand and some other factors, but everybody to some degree holds their own opinions as superior by default. That is a reality of human interaction.
Bull. I don't do it.
Bull. I don't do it.
You've done it repeatedly in this very thread. If you weren't doing it, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
well as for the grimm vs disney thing goes, from what I can see from the examples we are given it seems more like a 50% mix of the two. What it says on the book purchase page and from last month's preview article, it says that while on the surface it looks more disneyesque, it also has a darker and grimer element to it, for example they had shown a small bit of fiction that's about an ugly satyr who kidnaps a bride because her groom broke a promise to him. So yah...It has alot of content from the grimm brothers original fiction.
Yeah, tonight's excerpt was pretty demonstrative of that. I'm really looking forward to the excerpts for this one.
Bull. I don't do it.
You've done it repeatedly in this very thread. If you weren't doing it, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
lol Ok, kid. I'm often arrogant, frequently vain and almost always sure of myself. One thing I am not, however, is at all inclined to think that my opinion is better or more valuable than other peoples'.
I'll argue my point strongly, like most people, but when someone makes a good point that counters mine, I'm not too blinded by my sense of superiority to admit that they've made a good point, and I don't assume that I'm right just because I'm me.
It does look to be fairly different. As I've said it looks like it may be a Gloaming Fey.
One thing I am not, however, is at all inclined to think that my opinion is better or more valuable than other peoples'.
I don't assume that I'm right just because I'm me.
Sure, honey, you go on thinking that about yourself.
It does look to be fairly different. As I've said it looks like it may be a Gloaming Fey.
Well considering that this looks more like adventurers fighting a monster, we could say that it might be a vampire satyr....
It does look to be fairly different. As I've said it looks like it may be a Gloaming Fey.
Looks like they tried to combine the Faun of Pan's Labyrinth with Diablo's Goatmen. If the PC race looks anything like this, then Glorious approves +5.
The art preview also suggests that the Witch (at least I assume the witch, whatever the female of the duo is) has a self polymorph ability into a familiar like animal. Animagus powers, ACTIVATE!
Add my disappointment to the Witch being yet another Wizard. I love my Mage yea, but I wanted to see the druid get some love. Knowing that, I think it is safe to say the Transmutation school for Mages will most definitely be in this book.
Well, Satyr preview this/next week, looking forward to it.
I still wonder if the Satyr's will be goat men, or more like a narnian Fawn. That preview critter looks like he is armored to me, so I can't judge the full creature that well.
The art preview also suggests that the Witch (at least I assume the witch, whatever the female of the duo is) has a self polymorph ability into a familiar like animal. Animagus powers, ACTIVATE!
Add my disappointment to the Witch being yet another Wizard. I love my Mage yea, but I wanted to see the druid get some love. Knowing that, I think it is safe to say the Transmutation school for Mages will most definitely be in this book.
Well, Satyr preview this/next week, looking forward to it.
I doubt they'll be goat men. The art for them in the Monster Manual showed them being fairly humanlike, except for the horns, pointed ears, and goat legs.
Hatta-
Bummer you can't read the Satyr, hopefully it's cleared up by now for ya
So why not a satyr with a goatish face.
Sort of like Bauriar, wouldn't mind to see a 4th Ed rendish of them.
So why not a satyr with a goatish face.
Sort of like Bauriar, wouldn't mind to see a 4th Ed rendish of them.
There is a fandmade version online, I could try to find that later..
egg thalid, different rpg, but the old Changeling rpg had an add in Dragon magazine (yes) where they shown the fey beings.... and the Satyr was an old man, kinda like an hermit.