So, racially, we know there's the two Giths and the Wilden ...
I'm picking a small race - dark one, perhaps?
Two giths, the wilden, the minotaur, and probably something else.
I'm picking a small race - dark one, perhaps?
Screw dark one.... goblin please!
Happy for the gith.
Minotaurs are meh.
Dunno what Wilden are.
Who knows what else?
Screw dark one.... goblin please!
Goblins would be cool. Or brownies.
Mmm, brownies...
Gnollsgnollsgnollsplz.
...
Dunno what Wilden are.
Wilden are a sort of "plant people", first shown in a PH3 playtest.
As for Gnolls, since you seem excited about them, you know that a version was already released in Dragon Magazine, right? Granted, they haven't received much love since then, maybe they're due for an update.
One race, ability to swap power/build/buff sort of thing during long rests.
Wildren are based off the Killorean from 3.5 Races of the Wild.
One race, ability to swap power/build/buff sort of thing during long rests.
How similar are they to Killoren? I was under the impression that the Wilden killed them and took their stuff.
Psion Article released made a mention of Psion class being good for the Githyanki race due to the favoured stat of Intelligence (Githyanki are Int/Con). This confirms Githyanki as a Player Race in PH3!!!
Reading the reference to Githyanki I don't think this is a confirmation of them as a PC race. They have a MM writeup which has the +Int that is mentioned. The Githzerai is confirmed but the Githyanki is no more a confirmation of a PC writeup (in PH3 or Dragon) than is the mention of thri-kreen in the EPG.
I doubt there will be a small race.
I hope there won't be a small race. Just like the Psion destroys all preconceptions of how a class must function, I hope PHB3 destroys the preconception that every PHB has to have a small race.
Wilden are a sort of "plant people", first shown in a PH3 playtest.
As for Gnolls, since you seem excited about them, you know that a version was already released in Dragon Magazine, right? Granted, they haven't received much love since then, maybe they're due for an update.
I half expect the Gnoll to get the same treatment as the Minotaur. The Gnolls aren't as bad as the Minotaur about being all classes friendly, but they do need help. Plus the Gnoll mechanics were tacked on to the article, hence the lack of PPs or EDs.
Reading the reference to Githyanki I don't think this is a confirmation of them as a PC race. They have a MM writeup which has the +Int that is mentioned. The Githzerai is confirmed but the Githyanki is no more a confirmation of a PC writeup (in PH3 or Dragon) than is the mention of thri-kreen in the EPG.
No, it pretty much is a confirmation. There is no way they'd mention the Yanki as an option alongside other PC races, if they weren't going to be a PC race too.
How similar are they to Killoren? I was under the impression that the Wilden killed them and took their stuff.
The Wilden are the same as the Killoren as much as the Goliath are the same as the Goliath. Just a new name, because somehow Wilden is less silly than Killoren
, and with a focus on opposing the Far Realms instead of generic despoilers of nature.The Wilden are the same as the Killoren as much as the Goliath are the same as the Goliath. Just a new name, because somehow Wilden is less silly than Killoren
Hmm, for some reason I thought that Killoren were more humanoid, while Wilden look like sentient leaf-bugs.
Killoren is a bad name, but you're right, Wilden is too. It's flat, and it sounds way too much like other names already in the game. "I'm a Wilden Warden! And my friend here is Willy the Wilden Wilder!" (Okay, so there's no Wilders in 4E yet, but that doesn't mean their won't be.) Even "Wildkin" would have been better. Or "Wildfolk". Or even ditching the "wild" part altogether, in favour of something more reminiscent of plants. "Oakfolk", perhaps?
I don't mind these irregular plurals, but I think 4E's got enough of them now. It's time to name something normally.
I vote "Leafers".
Hmm, for some reason I thought that Killoren were more humanoid, while Wilden look like sentient leaf-bugs.
I think the Killoren were more elf/human-ish looking, but still green and leafy. The CB update has portraits showing art more finished than the original article, and they look ... brown and pointy.
I think the Killoren were more elf/human-ish looking, but still green and leafy. The CB update has portraits showing art more finished than the original article, and they look ... brown and pointy.
Would you say "leaf-bug-y"?
Would you say "leaf-bug-y"?
Eh, maybe.
No, it pretty much is a confirmation. There is no way they'd mention the Yanki as an option alongside other PC races, if they weren't going to be a PC race too.
While it indicates it MAY end up with a PC writeup its no guarantee. Also even if it does get a PC writeup it may be in Dragon and not in PH3. My point was that until they say 'there is a githyanki writeup in source X' then it's not a confirmation. It's just a possible indication.
Even "Wildkin" would have been better. Or "Wildfolk". Or even ditching the "wild" part altogether, in favour of something more reminiscent of plants. "Oakfolk", perhaps?
No, no, no. We don't need any more "-folk" or "-lings" in D&D. Thematically, they were kinda cool, but..."Yakfolk?" No more. This dumb naming style must end.
I hope there won't be a small race. Just like the Psion destroys all preconceptions of how a class must function, I hope PHB3 destroys the preconception that every PHB has to have a small race.
But not having a small race JUST to break a preconception is just as bad as putting them in there just to have a small race to fill out the roster.
I think putting goblins in there would be good, especially with their role in Eberron. Why NOT have them?
No, no, no. We don't need any more "-folk" or "-lings" in D&D. Thematically, they were kinda cool, but..."Yakfolk?" No more. This dumb naming style must end.
Good point, but at least there aren't many other "-folk" among 4E PC races.
Anyway, I already voted for "Leafers". It's tongue-in-cheek!
I'm willing to bet that the Githzerai Paragon Path is going to be the Zerth Cenobite, and if it isn't then it's Zerth-something-else.
But not having a small race JUST to break a preconception is just as bad as putting them in there just to have a small race to fill out the roster.
I think putting goblins in there would be good, especially with their role in Eberron. Why NOT have them?
While I have been relatively uninspired by the expected PHB 3 content so far, I would ABSOLUTELY buy this book if it has goblins and/or kobolds in it. I love goblins!
Killoren is a bad name, but you're right, Wilden is too. It's flat, and it sounds way too much like other names already in the game. "I'm a Wilden Warden! And my friend here is Willy the Wilden Wilder!" (Okay, so there's no Wilders in 4E yet, but that doesn't mean their won't be.) Even "Wildkin" would have been better. Or "Wildfolk". Or even ditching the "wild" part altogether, in favour of something more reminiscent of plants. "Oakfolk", perhaps?
I don't mind these irregular plurals, but I think 4E's got enough of them now. It's time to name something normally.
I vote "Leafers".
I think Wilden are a very bland and wierd race altogether. I don't think I could ever include them in my campaign world. If Wizards wanted to make a plant race, I think it would've been cool to take some inspiration from Zelda's deku scrubs. I'd love to play one of those critters.
Reading the reference to Githyanki I don't think this is a confirmation of them as a PC race. They have a MM writeup which has the +Int that is mentioned.
Has any MM race ever been mentioned in a class without appearing as a playable race?
So, what we have so far for PH3 is
Shadow and psionic power sources
Monk and Psonicist
Githyanki, Wilden, Minotaur and Githzerai.
Hybrid Rules
Anything else?
Yeah, I think Githyanki are almost certain to be a player-race....
So, what we have so far for PH3 is
Shadow and psionic power sources
Monk and Psonicist
Githyanki, Wilden, Minotaur and Githzerai.
Hybrid Rules
Anything else?
No shadow source (although the Assassin is D&Di exclusive, and of the shadow source, so the shadow source will be appearing some time, unlike Ki).
The other two power sources are primal and divine, but I'm wondering if the 4/2/2 pattern might be broken and only one class appear for either divine or primal. Basically I think the non-psion classes are just re-sourced versions of the dead Ki classes they started before they realised it really wasn't going to work.
That said, I don't think the 4/2/2 pattern will change.
Also, I did think about the mention referring to MM Githyanki, or possibly Dragon, but they've never mentioned either before in an article based on a class. Essentially, a class article, a preview of PH3 no less, mentioned Githyanki. That doesn't prove that Githyanki are in the PH3, but it confirms them as a Player Race at the very least, and makes them highly likely to be present, especially with Githzerai present in the book.
So maybe I should have rephrased the title - First True Githyanki evidence for PH3 Player Race!!
The other two power sources are primal and divine, but I'm wondering if the 4/2/2 pattern might be broken and only one class appear for either divine or primal.
Its possible. it could be WotC will simply screw us over and give us less classes. Or we could get 2 Psionic strikers. 1 using the power point system, the other not.
Its possible. it could be WotC will simply screw us over and give us less classes. Or we could get 2 Psionic strikers. 1 using the power point system, the other not.
Considering how many pages the hybrid rules will require, and that there will be X number of pages for the races, with an equal number for racial PPs, plus new EDs, and the feats ... yeah I'm not seeing how less than 8 classes is "screwing us over" when more potentially threatens their enforced page count.
yeah I'm not seeing how less than 8 classes is "screwing us over" when more potentially threatens their enforced page count.
I didn't say we should expect more than 8 classes. Although fair point. The Hybrid rules could take the slot of the 8th class we would hope for in a new PHB.
Which makes me wonder what will PHB4 have? Because if they decrease it in PHB3, they will have found a way to decrease the number of races and classes in each new PHB. In PHB2 it was racial paragon paths and character backgrounds. If you're right in PHB3 it will be Hybrid Classes. Or would we actually get more classes in PHB4?
Considering how many pages the hybrid rules will require, and that there will be X number of pages for the races, with an equal number for racial PPs, plus new EDs, and the feats ... yeah I'm not seeing how less than 8 classes is "screwing us over" when more potentially threatens their enforced page count.
Id rather have 8 classes than hybrid rules. The current multi classing is fine. Ill look at hybrid but right now if I run a game there is probaly a 90% chance Ill disallow hybrid characters. Reminds me too much of 3.5 days where people would take things only for mechanical benifit than for rp.
That said bring on the githyanki the more races we have to choose from the better.
The current queen, Vlaakith CLVII, is an undead wizard who has ruled her people for more than a thousand years. So paranoid is she, that when any githyanki achieves a certain level of power and skill, she summons them to her palace to consume their souls, thus preventing them from ever threatening her power. Most githyanki willingly present themselves out of blind loyalty and pride, whilst those who try to flee this fate are hunted down and dragged before her in shackles. These victims afterwards become some form of undead servant under her direct control.
Reminds me too much of 3.5 days where people would take things only for mechanical benifit than for rp.
Except that for the most part hybriding seems to be a week mechanical option. Also, there are some very strong RP reasons to hybrid, such as having a mixed background, trained simultaneously in aspects of multiple disciplines. The current multiclassing system works great for some one who starts as one class and then later trains as another, but works poorly for representing someone who was both from the start.
Also, there are some very strong RP reasons to hybrid, such as having a mixed background, trained simultaneously in aspects of multiple disciplines.
Which perfectly describes the Swordmage. Viewed one way, a Swordmage is simply a hybrid Fighter/Wizard using a different mechanic ;)
Id rather have 8 classes than hybrid rules. The current multi classing is fine. Ill look at hybrid but right now if I run a game there is probaly a 90% chance Ill disallow hybrid characters. Reminds me too much of 3.5 days where people would take things only for mechanical benifit than for rp.
That said bring on the githyanki the more races we have to choose from the better.
Unlike in 3E, however, Hybrid rules are much more consistent in their effectiveness. In 3E, multiclassing could make your character vastly more useful, or shoot you in the foot, depending on what you were multiclassing into; in 4E, Hybrid characters are basically never more effective than single-classed characters, but they can be as effective as them for short periods of time. In short, they're basically never either overpowered or totally useless.
The only major pitfall with Hybrids in 4E is that your character needs to be even more aware than usual of which role he can fill, unless you like being ineffective.
I would just prefer the loss of the term 'small'
I am sincerely sorry to offend, how about:
"Vertically Challenged"
I wonder how'll they'll find a good excuse about the Lich Queen killing every githyanki of lvl 15/16+... Unless they retcon that part, ofcourse.
Actually, one of my characters killed her off in a home campaign so badly that she's dead forever. She'll be a vestige in 5e. :D
Seriously, though, I hope they kill her off. I hate the Githyanki, and wish they had a more compassionite leader. Maybe then they'll stop trying to kill me...
(Running campaign joke. My 3.5 characters have almost all had problems with -Yanki rading parties.)
Which perfectly describes the Swordmage. Viewed one way, a Swordmage is simply a hybrid Fighter/Wizard using a different mechanic ;)
True, but hybrid classes are probably simpler solution than trying to create a class for every possible mixed training background.
View Post
I would just prefer the loss of the term 'small'
I am sincerely sorry to offend, how about:
"Vertically Challenged"
Seriously though, Small is one of the biggest problems (pun intended) for PCs in 4E. Small characters are missing out on the ability to be effective in any class that relies upon weapons.
Seriously though, Small is one of the biggest problems (pun intended) for PCs in 4E. Small characters are missing out on the ability to be effective in any class that relies upon weapons.
Except rogue. They can also pull off the dual scimitar ranger (AKA, Drizzt clone) just as well as any drow.
Also, small PCs can be quite "effective" in any weapon based class, they just aren't likely to be "optimal". There is a difference.
Except rogue. They can also pull off the dual scimitar ranger (AKA, Drizzt clone) just as well as any drow.
Also, small PCs can be quite "effective" in any weapon based class, they just aren't likely to be "optimal". There is a difference.
You're right. Optimal is more accurate. Still, it's a major discouragement against being a weapon user, the same way that a racial bonus to using weapons (ie: MM's Oversized ability) is a major discouragement to using implements.
That is all.
You're right. Optimal is more accurate. Still, it's a major discouragement against being a weapon user, the same way that a racial bonus to using weapons (ie: MM's Oversized ability) is a major discouragement to using implements.
Or a major encouragement for those seeking to play against type (long a popular RPG activity).
Actually, one of my characters killed her off in a home campaign so badly that she's dead forever. She'll be a vestige in 5e. :D
Seriously, though, I hope they kill her off. I hate the Githyanki, and wish they had a more compassionite leader. Maybe then they'll stop trying to kill me...
(Running campaign joke. My 3.5 characters have almost all had problems with -Yanki rading parties.)
That would be one way to deal with the problem...
And about the "small" issue: please, take it to a thread where it isn't off-topic.
Ditto for other races.
Has any MM race ever been mentioned in a class without appearing as a playable race?
They aren't in the class writeup, they appear in the designers commentary about the stats for the class and what races (PC or otherwise) would make good members of that class.
Githyanki got mentioned alongside PC races. That's enough evidence for me.
They may not have been in the actual class write-up, but to my knowledge, Wizards have never mentioned specific NPC Races lest they were talking about how you shouldn't use them, or how they're updating them into a real PC race (such as when they talked about Drow or Changelings).
Githyanki got mentioned alongside PC races. That's enough evidence for me.
*points to page 25 of FRPG*
Githyanki are also known to practice their own swordmage tradition, which is similar to the shielding swordmage.
In case you didn't notice the yanki were not in PHB2, so there is precedent of an NPC race being mentioned(in a class write up) with that race not getting a PC version within the next year, and in fact that precedent was set by the yanki themselves.
As far as the lich-queen is concerned, sure she's evil but that doesn't mean every single 'yanki wants to worship her. In fact that would be the focus of a githyanki campaign if I ever get the chance to run one: helping a resistance movement against the queen. It would also give good reason for someone to play a githyanki PC.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20090519
Can someone point me to the cover of the PHB3? I think I missed that preview.
As far as the lich-queen is concerned, sure she's evil but that doesn't mean every single 'yanki wants to worship her. In fact that would be the focus of a githyanki campaign if I ever get the chance to run one: helping a resistance movement against the queen. It would also give good reason for someone to play a githyanki PC.
While it's probably not that original (it's probably the archetypical role for Githyanki PCs), that's the seed for a pretty solid campaign you've got there. It's almost surprising that it's never been (AFAIK) a major campaign arc, or at least it would be surprising if Githyanki had any significant history as a PC race prior to their presumed forthcoming inclusion in 4E. (If it has happened before, I'll bet it was in Planescape, and I'll bet that they had Githyanki PCs too.)
Off-topic: Vilnias and johnnype, have you guys noticed that your pictures are the same, and yet slightly different? I thought it was weird enough to point out.
While it's probably not that original (it's probably the archetypical role for Githyanki PCs), that's the seed for a pretty solid campaign you've got there. It's almost surprising that it's never been (AFAIK) a major campaign arc, or at least it would be surprising if Githyanki had any significant history as a PC race prior to their presumed forthcoming inclusion in 4E. (If it has happened before, I'll bet it was in Planescape, and I'll bet that they had Githyanki PCs too.)
The only book that had the Githyanki PC race was Guide to the Astral Plane. Githzerai had far more of a history as a PC race debuting as a PC race alongside the Bariaur and Tiefling. The Githzerai had spell resistance (5% per level) and +1 dex, +1 int, -1 str, -1 wis back then.
Actually, one of my characters killed her off in a home campaign so badly that she's dead forever. She'll be a vestige in 5e. :D
Seriously, though, I hope they kill her off. I hate the Githyanki, and wish they had a more compassionite leader. Maybe then they'll stop trying to kill me...
(Running campaign joke. My 3.5 characters have almost all had problems with -Yanki rading parties.)
Actually, one of the recent articles in Dungeon (or Dragon, I don't know) talks about the Githyanki city, and mentions that
Show
in Scales of War she is, and has been, dead
Actually, one of the recent articles in Dungeon (or Dragon, I don't know) talks about the Githyanki city, and mentions thatShowin Scales of War she is, and has been, dead
Dromite!!
Search your feelings, you know it to be True!
The last race must be Elan!
Search your feelings, you know it to be True!
It better damn will be, or there shall be hell to pay!
What is an Elan?
Elans are not born; they are made. Living humans are selected from a pool of applicants and screened by a special elan council. Those who pass muster undergo a secret psionic process in one of several hidden elan enclaves, where they abandon their humanity for a new, psionically energized existence. Thus, elans do not reproduce biologically, but rather psionically, through a mysterious psionic ritual known only to elans. Even then, their “children” are usually already fully formed adult humans. Nonhuman elans are never created, and it could be that the ritual simply doesn’t work for any creatures but those who were originally human.
When those who are still human seek the transformation to elans, they must petition existing elans for the privilege of going through the process. Elans are a secret lot in this regard, and do not publicly reveal their enclaves or places of making; the elans select new aspirants and turn away those they feel are unsuited for life as an elan. Newly created elans retain the basic memories and personalities of their previous human lives, but lose all their previous class levels, skills, and other characteristics; a newly created elan is a 1st-level character, free to reinvent himself as a member of his new race.
Ability wise:
They had natural resistance and damage reduction. Also can sustain itself without food or water for a long period of time. They are natural psionics as well gaining bonus Power Points. They are considered Aberrations.
The Elan and Tieflings are my two favourite D&D races.
I don't think we NEED another small race, and who's to say what we will get for races or exactly how many. We can honestly only confirm 3 at this point though many think the 'yanki will make 4. If we get 5 I'd think we might get one that's more divine biased. Wilden seem primal/psionic (since they're painting with the 'yanki article in Dragon this month that psionic powers in races stems form the world trying to combat incursions from the Far Realm), minotaurs seem primal with a bit of divine. 'Zerai are psionic heavy and if they put in 'yanki they'll be psionic as well.
That's assuming hte last 1-2 races are actually themed towards the power sources in the books as in PH and PH2 not all the races fit the power sources in the book thematically.
From the Expanded Psionic Handbook (odd that you know about Dromites and not Elan since in the same book):
Yeah, that struck me as weird too.
Sorry, I pass over the completely ridiculous, so I keep forgetting about them. Elen, then. Really?
Sorta sounds like different take on the Warforged.
Sorta sounds like different take on the Warforged.
Oh sure, certainly. Except for coming earlier by a year or so. And being former humans. And never being the slave worker race for someone else. And not being golems. Other than that they're totally similar.
- Do the Warforged have a secret society?
- Are they wolf-in-sheep-clothing?
- Can a human start again as a new being as a Warforged?
- Are Warforged made in secret Psionic rituals?
How are the Elan ridiculous either? The idea of hidden races (especially when it is the wolf-in-sheep-clothing style), secret conspiracies, hidden and secret rituals, etc. are all popular concepts. It is good to have a well-thought out but still mysterious representation in D&D like the Elan.
Especially compared to Dromites your personal favourite for PHB3 it seems. What sets them apart? Their only real defining aspect I can see in Expanded Psionic Handbook are their underground hive-cities which they barely spend time in and being genderless. Heck all their beginning part of their description talks about which is where you sale the race is this:
Dromites might be mistaken for halfl ings at a distance, due to their diminutive stature. However, closer scrutiny reveals dromites to have hardened, chitin-encrusted skin, compound eyes like those of an insect, and two small antennae protruding from their brows. Called “bug-men” by the ignorant, dromites share far more traits with humans than they do with insects. One major difference between dromites and most other races is their androgynous physiology. Aside from their Grand Queen (female) and their Elected Consort (male), dromites are genderless and possess no sexual characteristics.
That being said, I'm hoping for Synads as the last race myself. They were one of the few cool things from Complete Psionics in 3.5, and they seem like a key representative for Psions as a whole. Plus hey, with the whole Far Realm approach, why wouldn't Far Realm humans fit in?
Yeah that description for elan makes it seem to work better as a human racial PP rather than a base race.
No more so than the Revenant.
Elan have traded their memories away in exchange for the potential to live forever as something more than human. With those memories went all the skills they learned in their old life. If it were a paragon path, the 11th level path feature would be "Memory Wipe: You become 1st level again. You lose everything you gained from your other ten levels. You may re-choose your class, skills, feat, and any other choices you made at 1st level."
Previously Elan had -2 charisma as their ability modifier. I think 4e Elan would have +2 Con and +2 Int. Their racial power would allow them to choose between automatically succeeding on a saving throw or increasing their defences. Not needing to eat or drink would be an always-on race feature (like warforged).
Choosing between Elan and Dromites is a tough one. I love those cute little communist bug-people.
Oh sure, certainly. Except for coming earlier by a year or so. And being former humans. And never being the slave worker race for someone else. And not being golems. Other than that they're totally similar.
Well when you consider Half-Orcs and Dragonborn are exactly the same, Elan and Warforged seem much more alike ;)
For small races however I want goblins and kobolds. Bad.
What we really need to see is the EPHB, or The Evil Player's Handbook.
In it should be typically evil races and classes. Now I'm not saying limit these to evil campaigns, just have them be like the tiefling or drow.
Suggested races: Kobolds, Goblins/Bugbears/Hobgoblins, Azer, Yuan-ti, Sladds, Rakashas whatever else they can think of (I'm new to D&D so I only have 4e monsters to work with here)
Suggested Classes: Necromancer, Tyrant (think evil martial leader),.... (help me out here people I'm all fresh outta ideas; I just really want a necromancer...)
And I agree about the power sources. Give us something new to chew on, we've had divine three in a row now and this will make 2 in a row for Primal. As I said I'm new and I can't wait to see new powersources like Shadow. Do they have an elemental power source? like the primordials version of divine? (ooh that would be a good power source for EPHB. Same thing for infernal as a new style of divine)
And where is a martial controller?
They are considered Aberrations.
That's pretty cool.
How about more Abberent races? an Abberant class? OR EVEN A POWER SOURCE!?!
And where is a martial controller?
There is no grid, no slots to fill. There won't be a Martial Controller, it wouldn't make sense.
Primal and Divine have had their time, and after getting a look at Psion and how it works, Monk would fit better in the Ki power source where god intended for it to go.
wtf? You must not be aware that Ki and Psionics represent the exact same thing. Ki means "air, spirit, or breath"; psyche means "soul, mind, breath". Both power sources would have been entirely focused upon training one's "internal force", and any difference between them would have been entirely arbitrary (even moreso than the fairly arbitrary differences between all the other power sources). Once you realize that "ki" wasn't a unique concept, you'll understand why Psionic is the best fit for the Monk -- unless you only think of the Monk as a class that fights by punching and kicking, in which case your "Martial Artist" should be Martial. (Luckily, most of us realize that there's more to fantasy Monks than just punching and kicking, even though that's a part of it.)
Also, FWIW, I'm pretty sure that God didn't have anything to do with the Monk being Ki, so don't blame Him for it.
There is no grid, no slots to fill. There won't be a Martial Controller, it wouldn't make sense.
Every once in a while, thaX, you actually say something that makes sense! ;)
I dunno, I kinda think Kalashtar should've killed Elans and taken their stuff... :P
I'd rather the Elan and the Kalashtar remain distinct and seperate concepts, however, I will agree that we don't need two naturally psionic races that both look human, but aren't.
My personal hope is that the Elan and the Illumian both eat each other in order to birth a new race that is more interesting than either was alone (a race I would see as being more divine and/or arcane, with any left over psionis dregs getting picked up by the Kalashtar). Should that race keep one name or the other my choice would be Illumian, which sounds like Illuminati and so works quite well for a secretive race of enlightened former humans. Besides this is the only Elan I need.
wtf? You must not be aware that Ki and Psionics represent the exact same thing. Ki means "air, spirit, or breath"; psyche means "soul, mind, breath". Both power sources would have been entirely focused upon training one's "internal force", and any difference between them would have been entirely arbitrary (even moreso than the fairly arbitrary differences between all the other power sources). Once you realize that "ki" wasn't a unique concept, you'll understand why Psionic is the best fit for the Monk -- unless you only think of the Monk as a class that fights by punching and kicking, in which case your "Martial Artist" should be Martial. (Luckily, most of us realize that there's more to fantasy Monks than just punching and kicking, even though that's a part of it.)
I take exception to the claim that psionics and ki would have been the exact same thing. However I won't go over my lengthy argument on the subject as it is mildly off topic.:P
My personal hope is that the Elan and the Illumian both eat each other in order to birth a new race that is more interesting than either was alone (a race I would see as being more divine and/or arcane, with any left over psionis dregs getting picked up by the Kalashtar). Should that race keep one name or the other my choice would be Illumian, which sounds like Illuminati and so works quite well for a secretive race of enlightened former humans. Besides this is the only Elan I need.
We already have the Illumian orgin for 4th edition. It is in Manual of the Planes. They were created by one of the dieties(the one of knoweldge) as I recall. Then they proceeded to destroy themselves and rumors exist that they are still out there.
The important thing is that this is a species who used to be something else.
The "transformed" hook is as yet unused for a race, with the closest being the Revenants. The Elan are prime candidates for it.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Dromites are kept for Elemental. Weren't they organised around what type of elemental damage they projected?
I for one wouldn't mind if the Elan were given an unique appearance, or allowed to have been other races.
The important thing is that this is a species who used to be something else.
The "transformed" hook is as yet unused for a race, with the closest being the Revenants. The Elan are prime candidates for it.?
I wouldn't mind seeing it be usable for other races, either or I be fine with. *Ponders* A Tiefling turned Elan, my favourite races combined! BUHAHAHA! Though not so much a unique appearance as shall talk about below.
But yeah, transformation I would also say is a hallmark of the race. That and I think being hidden, in that you can hide in plain sight since well you still look like Human (or whatever). With secret society/ritual being icing on the cake (along with Psionic flavour, mhmm, good).
I wouldn't mind seeing a full-blown, alien-thing attached to spinal cord symbiote type race come about sooner or later if they wished to showcase more of that hook(s). I would like in general more races that don't just use appearance as their distinguishing trait.
I take exception to the claim that psionics and ki would have been the exact same thing. However I won't go over my lengthy argument on the subject as it is mildly off topic.:P
Don't worry about it, I'm just a WotC apologist. I used to fight for a distinct Ki power source, but upon hearing the arguments, coupled with the de facto cancellation of Ki, I moved on. At any rate, I can definitely see that these two power sources are taking up the same small piece of territory with their massive feet. (As in, they step on each other's toes.)
We already have the Illumian orgin for 4th edition. It is in Manual of the Planes. They were created by one of the dieties(the one of knoweldge) as I recall. Then they proceeded to destroy themselves and rumors exist that they are still out there.
Yep, they were made by Ioun, and they were the original inhabitants of the astral dominion, Shom. I like Shom, I like Ioun, and because of it all, I now like Illumians -- I never did in 3.5E.
I see these races in the PHB3;
Elan
Githyanki
Githzerai
Illumian
Minotaur
Wildren
Bel
Elan
Githyanki
Githzerai
Illumian
Minotaur
Wildren
I don't think so.
Kalashtar, Elan, Illumian; that's at least one too many races that look human but aren't (it's certainly too much to have any two of them in the same book). I've said it before and I'll say it again; kill the Elan, give their psionic powers to the Kalashtar and their created race features to the Illumian.
I don't think so.
Kalashtar, Elan, Illumian; that's at least one too many races that look human but aren't (it's certainly too much to have any two of them in the same book). I've said it before and I'll say it again; kill the Elan, give their psionic powers to the Kalashtar and their created race features to the Illumian.
Eh was never too big a fan of elan. But Illumian sounds interesting. But small psionic race BLUE psionic goblins come on who doesnt like the idea?
Eh was never too big a fan of elan. But Illumian sounds interesting. But small psionic race BLUE psionic goblins come on who doesnt like the idea?
I don't. BLUE strike me as one of those pointless subraces that only exists to be to provided a version optimized for X class. We don't need BLUE, we only need PC goblin stats and the psionic classes.
I don't. BLUE strike me as one of those pointless subraces that only exists to be to provided a version optimized for X class. We don't need BLUE, we only need PC goblin stats and the psionic classes.
thats true but I liked em for some reason.
I would really like to see the Dromite in 4e. They always struck me as a very neat race(I prefer them to the Thri-Kreen as a Bug-Humanoid).
Wow, for a while I was sure that thaX was the only beating the Dromite stick.
Maybe if I knew more about them (other than that I just pretend my Dromite mini is of a Halfling in a weird helmet) I'd have more of an opinion...
What?
I don't get the love for the dromites, but at least they're not Elans.
What?
Bug people that AREN'T Thri-Kreen, count me in :D
Bug people that AREN'T as cool as Thri-Kreen, count me in :D
I fixed that for you. :P
I fixed that for you. :P
Lying about it only makes the inevitable realization that Thri-Kreen do IN FACT suck all that more painful :D
Lying about it only makes the inevitable realization that Thri-Kreen do IN FACT suck all that more painful :D
Until they gank you with four scimitars and kill you.
Either that or playable Yuan ti. For some reason i like the snake people.
Lying about it only makes the inevitable realization that Thri-Kreen do IN FACT suck all that more painful :D
It might, if not for the fact that thri-kreen are in fact the coolest bug race ever...
:D :PIt might, if not for the fact that thri-kreen are in fact the coolest bug race ever...
Agreed.
It might, if not for the fact that thri-kreen are in fact the coolest bug race ever...
Even cooler if they keep the 2e design over the 3e one. Much prefer the more insectiod one over the other that made it more humanoid.
Id like to see a completley new race one brand new to 4th edition. I dont know what they could come up with but Im sure they could come up with something.
Either that or playable Yuan ti. For some reason i like the snake people.
Wilden are new.
Wilden are an update to Killoren, a late 3.5 minor race from the Races of... series. I love how they finally recognized the fact that Killoren were loads and loads cooler than the utterly lame Raptorians (we're bird people. We live in nests like birds. We have rights of passage like birds. The only thing that makes us special is that we fly. Like birds. And we're going to waste an entire chapter of the book explaining to you just how much like birds we are.)
Raptorans could have been more interesting. But yeah they were lame. I like the wilden and would like to see a unique race, or stats for lizard men. A reptilian race thats not draconic.
Wilden are an update to Killoren, a late 3.5 minor race from the Races of... series. I love how they finally recognized the fact that Killoren were loads and loads cooler than the utterly lame Raptorians (we're bird people. We live in nests like birds. We have rights of passage like birds. The only thing that makes us special is that we fly. Like birds. And we're going to waste an entire chapter of the book explaining to you just how much like birds we are.)
My understanding is that Wilden borrow some of the mechanical and thematic ideas of Killoren, but that they're actually something quite different. However, I must admit I'm not especially familiar with Killoren.
As for a "totally new race" though, it will depend on your definition of "totally new"; Eladrin are "new" for 4E, and so are Tieflings, Dragonborn, Genasi, Gnomes, Devas, Half-Orcs, Revenants, and the aforementioned Wilden, and yet all of those races are successors of other races or racial concepts from earlier editions. (If I had to say what 4E race so far is the "newest", I'd say the Deva or Revenant, both of which are basically totally new concepts strapped to familiar names.) The truth is, I'm not totally sure folks want "new" races so much as they want cool (read: interesting and distinct) races, cool versions of traditional races, and in williamhm75's case, cool reptilian races. Cool (again, read: interesting and distinct) rules.
Even cooler if they keep the 2e design over the 3e one. Much prefer the more insectiod one over the other that made it more humanoid.
You know, I actually prefer the 3e visual design of the thri-kreen. I don't know why, but I just do.
That's pretty cool.
How about more Abberent races? an Abberant class? OR EVEN A POWER SOURCE!?!
this has merit...
aberrant power source, remember the PP in 3.5, the abberant prince or something? It was focused on symbiotes and such... That would be a very cool take on a power source....
My first experience with them was when I first DMed. My brother wanted to play a thri-kreen (named Klik-Kilk) and my sister an elf, which sounded good to me. Then I looked at the thri-kreen and saw "Level Adjustment: +4."
Well, I didn't know what it meant. These racial abilities look pretty good to me ... I thought. Why in the world would I want to give him four extra levels? I thought about it some more and decided (young DM that I was) that he would get NO extra levels. He would just have to cope with being Level 1 next to my sister.Much skeleton bashing ensued while I desperately tried to figure out where I had gone wrong with my encounter design.
Anyways, that adventure was long over before I figured out what I had done wrong. In any case, it's a funny story, but, thanks to it, I can't think about thri-kreen without laughing (in a good way). As a result, I love that race and truely hope to see it return with Klik-Klik in tow.
Seriously though, if you don't like the thri-kreen, perhaps you can explain why the race sucks. I don't mean why is wasn't good in previous editions. I mean, why don't you like the race for 4E?
Thanks!
Yours,
Lord Dreadman
Ultimately I dislike the Thri-Kreen because, being a Dragonlance fan, I have more than had my fill of anthropomorphic creatures/races (besides, bears and walruses beat bugs any day of the week). Also, as you can tell from your own experience, they carry a lot of baggage because of their power. They are fine for a monster, but too powerful for a player race. Any attempt to stuff them into that role would severely limit the race's potential.
You know, people said that about "Dragon-people" too. And "Angel-folk". And Drow. And Genasi. And Tieflings.
You know, people said that about "Dragon-people" too. And "Angel-folk". And Drow. And Genasi. And Tieflings.
The difference between the Thri-Kreen and a lot of those things is that they are large sized, which automatically makes them harder to implement, since we don't have any large races yet. As to dragon-people, the original dragon-people, the Draconians, would be incredibly hard to make into a player race, much in the same way the Thri-Kreen would.
As for why I like the Dromite more than the Thri-Kreen, the answer is simple. They are buglike without being bugs, and are a small race, which is an automatic plus. Besides, the Thri-Kreen belongs in the Dark Sun Player's Guide when we get it somewhere down the road (I still say 2011).
The difference between the Thri-Kreen and a lot of those things is that they are large sized,
they said that about Golaiths...
they said that about Golaiths...
Naw, Goliaths, originally, were medium sized in 3e, and are still medium in 4e. Thri-Kreen were large sized in 3e, and should stay large sized in 4e.
I liked elans mechanically, but liked illumians more fluff-wise; combining the two would be a good move, I think, especially since they are both transcended humans.
at first the idea of holding 4 swords seems simple (you'd need an attack that used all 4), but what if it's 2 swords, a shield, and a wand.... That's messy.
at first the idea of holding 4 swords seems simple (you'd need an attack that used all 4), but what if it's 2 swords, a shield, and a wand.... That's messy.
It still isn't all that messy. Being able to hold both two weapons and an implement is a nice advantage for multi-class or hybrid rangers, but doesn't truly break anythings (due to options like Quick Draw and the availability of weapons that also work as implements). Having both a shield and two weapons, is a little messier, but even that isn't entirely out of line (the Two-Weapon Defense feat gives a similar benefit, while spiked shields are both a weapon and a shield). These are benefits that would certainly make thri-kreen a very good race, but not so good as to completely overshadow every other race.
There are also ways to tone down the benefits of their four arms while still retaining mechanical utility. A lot of 3E artwork featured the thri-kreen's second pair of arms as noticeably smaller than the other. Mechanically this could translate into the ability to "hold" stuff in all four arms, but still only be able to "wield" stuff with two. This would leave the thri-kreen's extra arms intact and beneficial, while restricting their functionality to little more than an innate racial variant of Quick Draw.
Githyanki
Githzerai
Minotaur (Dragonlance mino's, not underground monsters)
Elan
Thrikreen
Other races I would like to see,
Xeph
Centaur
A amphibious race or a flying race.
Assuming they again only release 5 races, I would like them to be
Githyanki
Githzerai
Minotaur (Dragonlance mino's, not underground monsters)
Elan
Thrikreen
Other races I would like to see,
Xeph
Centaur
A amphibious race or a flying race.
Id replace Elan with some version of playable yuan-ti or something but that would be my preffrence. Centaur if balanced would be neat especially with primal.
Assuming they again only release 5 races, I would like them to be
Githyanki
Githzerai
Minotaur (Dragonlance mino's, not underground monsters)
Elan Really, humans remade? Why?
Thrikreen I think the Thrikreen are gonna be a race saved for the Dark Sun Setting.
Other races I would like to see,
Xeph You have got to be kidding me, the most boring, uninspired race in all of 3.5?
Centaur I believe the Centaur is to large, and the races thus far has been limited to Medium Size.
A amphibious race Not sure if the Dragonborn is different enough for the Lizardman to be used.or a flying race. See Dragon Born and Epic Feat.
I really see the Dromite to be used instead of the Thri Kreen.
Until they gank you with four scimitars and kill you.
In 4th edition? Riiiiight.
Thri-Kreen were large sized in 3e, and should stay large sized in 4e.
I've underlined the part I strongly disagree with. Large races present a whole host of potential logistical problems that make them inappropriate as PCs.
Assuming they again only release 5 races, I would like them to be
Githyanki
Githzerai
Minotaur (Dragonlance mino's, not underground monsters)
Elan
Thrikreen
Other races I would like to see,
Xeph
Centaur
A amphibious race or a flying race.
I'm only barely convinced that Elan should be separate from Kalashtar.* Why the heck do we need Xephs, too? Aren't they just yet another human-looking Psionic race? We don't need three of those.
(*Elans would have been a much better target than Kalashtar for that whole "They're the same as Devas!1!" BS.)
(*Elans would have been a much better target than Kalashtar for that whole "They're the same as Devas!1!" BS.)
Huh? While I agree the Kalashtar are Devas thing was silly. To compare them to Elan is even more silly, since there is even less comparisons.
Huh? While I agree the Kalashtar are Devas thing was silly. To compare them to Elan is even more silly, since there is even less comparisons.
But aren't Elans the ones that are actually immortal? (Unlike Kalashtars...)
Anyway, consider my opinion on the matter firmly tongue-in-cheek.
But aren't Elans the ones that are actually immortal? (Unlike Kalashtars...)
Anyway, consider my opinion on the matter firmly tongue-in-cheek.
*Goes on big rant about differences... Sees second sentence, "oh nevermind"*
But to answer the question. Here is the direct quote from the book:
Elans have effectively unlimited life spans. As long as they are not destroyed, their mental arts could conceivably continually energize and rebuild their bodies for a thousand years or more.
So essentially immortal. Though obviously unlike the Deva when they die nothing passes on to something new.
So essentially immortal. Though hmm... Do Deva age? I have forgotten, like their spirit moves on to a new body and that is immortal but the actual body?
There is nothing actually stated about their lifespan, but it is implied that they tend to get bored if they stay in one body too long so they tend to reincarnate every lifetime or two assuming they aren't killed in battle. However I suspect they are just as susceptible to disease, poisons, and death by greasy hot dogs as every other species.
There is nothing actually stated about their lifespan, but it is implied that they tend to get bored if they stay in one body too long so they tend to reincarnate every lifetime or two assuming they aren't killed in battle. However I suspect they are just as susceptible to disease, poisons, and death by greasy hot dogs as every other species.
I checked the Ecology article, yeah you are exactly right.
lol So now that I've learned a little more about Elans, can somebody explain Xephs to me? They're another flavour of Psionic human(oid) right?
I would say the most interesting aspect of the Xeph is less themselves and more where they live. They inhabit cities in constant darkness deep below the lip of a giant rift in the earth, the only light coming from psionically illuminated forest.
They are renown for their speed and artistic ability, and have natural psionic abilities (power point bonus). I would say they have more in common with elves then humans, their personalities, living in a forest, size (around 5 1/2).
I'm glad the Expanded Psionics book is the 3.5 book I kept.
Assuming they again only release 5 races, I would like them to be
Githyanki
Githzerai
Minotaur (Dragonlance mino's, not underground monsters)
Elan
Thrikreen
Other races I would like to see,
Xeph
Centaur
A amphibious race or a flying race.
You're missing the Wilden, which we know will be in PHB3.
Naw, Goliaths, originally, were medium sized in 3e, and are still medium in 4e. Thri-Kreen were large sized in 3e, and should stay large sized in 4e.
Except they were medium sized in 2e, medium sized in 3e, and probably were medium sized in 1e if they existed in 1e. They shall continue to be medium sized in 4e.
Except they were medium sized in 2e, medium sized in 3e, and probably were medium sized in 1e if they existed in 1e. They shall continue to be medium sized in 4e.
Call it faulty memory on my part. I could have sworn they were large. They did exist in 1e, BTW, I believe in the 1E Monster Manaul 2.
Call it faulty memory on my part. I could have sworn they were large. They did exist in 1e, BTW, I believe in the 1E Monster Manaul 2.
I think some of the monstrous versions were large, but the PC thri-kreen have always been medium.
I think some of the monstrous versions were large, but the PC thri-kreen have always been medium.
For whatever it adds to this conversation, I just looked in my copy of 1E AD&D MM2: Yep, Thri-Kreens are in there, but nope, they're not large here either. The "size" entry reads "M (6')".
For whatever it adds to this conversation, I just looked in my copy of 1E AD&D MM2: Yep, Thri-Kreens are in there, but nope, they're not large here either. The "size" entry reads "M (6')".
I saw an old Wizards article recently, one of those 'Fight Club' articles that mentioned a large thri-kreen. Maybe that's the only place they were actually big.
I think the only Psionic race introduced in XPH that really has enough traction is the Maenad. It's an interesting concept and their oceanborne society fills a niche currently not existing in 4e. I'd like to see them come back.
Care to explain more about them? (Why do I think Maenads are mushroom-folk? Am I mixing them up with Myconids?)
Care to explain more about them? (Why do I think Maenads are mushroom-folk? Am I mixing them up with Myconids?)
I dont really rember them either.
I thought they had traction at least, but I guess I was wrong.
No thanks I'd rather have my water elemental djinn back from 1e and 2e (and Arabian/Persian mythology).
Wow so 3e turned maeneds from the water-djinn race into a psionic emotional timebomb?
No thanks I'd rather have my water elemental djinn back from 1e and 2e (and Arabian/Persian mythology).
You're thinking of Marids, not Maenads.
You're thinking of Marids, not Maenads.
Could be, but I recall maenads being something other than what was described of them in the 3.5 psionics book, and also being water-related.
...
Ahh there it is (thank you wikipedia). Okay they were wild women who followed Dionysus. So guess the emotional timebomb part works in D&D. Though in Greek myth they weren't water-related and had no shards. They just went into frenzies of abandon including attacking animals, men, and childern and tearing the flesh from them and eating it. That is when they wern't drinking, shouting, and having lots of wild sex.
Hmm guess that's pretty much a case of name being used with no connection to the names RL origin
They were a race of psionically charged creatures resembling very tall (females averaged about 6'3") humans with shards of crystal in their skin and strange eyes. They were somewhat like Vulcans in that they were intensely emotional beings who had to restrain ALL their emotions to keep from going totally nuts. In combat they could unleash their rage as a damaging sonic beam or through berserker rage. Their civilization long destroyed, they survived on flotillas of nomadic ships.
I thought they had traction at least, but I guess I was wrong.
Actually, that sounds kinda cool!
One point to make though is that we need more shorter Medium races, Dwarf-height, or slightly less than Human-sized. I suffer from a group of players who seem to engage in some kind of "height war" with their characters, always trying to be taller than the next guy by playing a bigger race, and then editing their height on the character sheet. (Okay, that's more a player issue than a game issue, but still, they've got a lot of tall races to choose from already.)
Wow so 3e turned maeneds from the water-djinn race into a psionic emotional timebomb?
No thanks I'd rather have my water elemental djinn back from 1e and 2e (and Arabian/Persian mythology).
Could be, but I recall maenads being something other than what was described of them in the 3.5 psionics book, and also being water-related.
...
Ahh there it is (thank you wikipedia). Okay they were wild women who followed Dionysus. So guess the emotional timebomb part works in D&D. Though in Greek myth they weren't water-related and had no shards. They just went into frenzies of abandon including attacking animals, men, and childern and tearing the flesh from them and eating it. That is when they wern't drinking, shouting, and having lots of wild sex.
Hmm guess that's pretty much a case of name being used with no connection to the names RL origin
What you just described from Wikipedia sounds quite a bit like the origin of the psionic Maenad race that The_Fan described above. However, I'm quite certain that you're still confusing Maenads with Marids, the water genies -- by your own assertion, Greek Maenads had nothing to do with water -- because the connection between the names seems pretty obvious...
What you just described from Wikipedia sounds quite a bit like the origin of the psionic Maenad race that The_Fan described above. However, I'm quite certain that you're still confusing Maenads with Marids, the water genies -- by your own assertion, Greek Maenads had nothing to do with water -- because the connection between the names seems pretty obvious...
Yeah guess I wasn't clear that I realized the mix up in names, been a while since I looked at those books (and don't have them here with me, they're in storage so couldn't confirm first hand).
Still the maenad as described by him don't seem to mesh with the Greek maenads very well, other than a tie to wild emotions. The maenads of Greek myth were just human women driven to wild abandon by a god and weren't overly tall, had no crystals, and had no males. Like I said just another case in D&D where the name of a RL mythical being has no real bearing on the D&D incarnation
Yeah guess I wasn't clear that I realized the mix up in names, been a while since I looked at those books (and don't have them here with me, they're in storage so couldn't confirm first hand).
Ahh, okay. Now I see what you meant! It was a tad ambiguous before, and on these forums, I default to assuming people are dumb. Sorry for that, G.
Still the maenad as described by him don't seem to mesh with the Greek maenads very well, other than a tie to wild emotions. The maenads of Greek myth were just human women driven to wild abandon by a god and weren't overly tall, had no crystals, and had no males. Like I said just another case in D&D where the name of a RL mythical being has no real bearing on the D&D incarnation
You're right, there's a lot of differences, too. Still, I think the psionic Maenad is an acceptable picture of the Greek Maenad, as seen through a thick haze of D&D-fantasticization.
They were a race of psionically charged creatures resembling very tall (females averaged about 6'3") humans with shards of crystal in their skin and strange eyes. They were somewhat like Vulcans in that they were intensely emotional beings who had to restrain ALL their emotions to keep from going totally nuts. In combat they could unleash their rage as a damaging sonic beam or through berserker rage. Their civilization long destroyed, they survived on flotillas of nomadic ships.
I thought they had traction at least, but I guess I was wrong.
Actually they do sound rather good to me. I certainly wouldn't have a problem with that race being in the PHB3.
So guess the emotional timebomb part works in D&D. Though in Greek myth they weren't water-related and had no shards. They just went into frenzies of abandon including attacking animals, men, and childern and tearing the flesh from them and eating it. That is when they wern't drinking, shouting, and having lots of wild sex.
That race does exist in 4th ed D&D. They simply have the name and appearance of satyr ;)
Seeing as none of the previous books have shown any Dragon race in a PC light yet (except Warforged, and that's only Divine Power, post EPG), I'm wondering if this little bit of art from Adventurer's Vault 2, showing what appears to be a Gnoll PC and not a Gnoll monster, isn't a nod towards the idea that Gnolls will be joining the Minotaurs in PHB3.
I hope not. Although its theoretically possible
manead sound close to Kalshtar. Controlled most of the time but with the ability to get out of control. I think the Kalshtar may have taken the manead stuff.
No, Kalashtar aren't exactly like that; when a Kalashtar closes control, instead of going into a fury or frenzy, they go into a state where they can't tell reality from their dreams (being creatures connected to the Plane of Dreams, and all). Most of the time, though, Kalashtars are just like other humans.
...Okay, I'll admit it: I can see why someone who isn't into Eberron wouldn't bother to make the distinction.
No, Kalashtar aren't exactly like that; when a Kalashtar closes control, instead of going into a fury or frenzy, they go into a state where they can't tell reality from their dreams (being creatures connected to the Plane of Dreams, and all). Most of the time, though, Kalashtars are just like other humans.
...Okay, I'll admit it: I can see why someone who isn't into Eberron wouldn't bother to make the distinction.
Im just going by whats written in the players guide to ebaron and in that it looks like the kalshtar and manead are very similiar.
well I would definately welcome Gnolls, but have anyone heard anything about maybe Centaur or Wemic Races?
Lupins would be better, have the big dogs instead of the little puppies. I would rather keep the MM races inside the MM.
We already have the shifters. I believe the Centaur and the Wemic are to big, the races thus far being medium or small.
I am looking forward to both Gith races in PHB 3.
Bel
I say bring on the monstrous races: goblins, kobolds, orcs and gnolls! We have enough human-but-slightly-different races already (kalashtar and devas) so I think now is the time to intoduce some of the classic monster races as PCs. I would love to play a kobold sorcerer or goblins warlord!
+1 then again Id love to see a species of medium centaurs and maybe even wemic as well. The more fantastic the races they bring in the better.
I don't see Centaurs fitting the medium size very well.
I can see them coming up with a medium sized version though. Sort of a race of dwarfed centaurs. Id go with str wis for stat bonuses speed of seven with an encounter ability to increase speed and gain a bonus to athletics for one round. Skills would be nature and athletics, or something along those lines.
I say bring on the monstrous races: goblins, kobolds, orcs and gnolls! We have enough human-but-slightly-different races already (kalashtar and devas) so I think now is the time to intoduce some of the classic monster races as PCs. I would love to play a kobold sorcerer or goblins warlord!
Especially now that the Eberron 4E stuff is out. Goblin, orc, and hobgoblin, gnoll, and minotaur characters practically jump off the pages of the Campaign Guide. Lizardmen, kobolds, bugbears and others would slot right in as well. There is space set aside for them, they are not all evil (even the gnolls!), and many of them have a great history (orcs saved the world thousands of years ago, the goblinoids had a continent spanning empire). I say bring 'em on!
I don't see Centaurs fitting the medium size very well.
This medium sized mini (from the Aberrations set), illustrates that a centaur-like creature is viable at medium size.
I could see a race of lesser-centaurs, with pony bodies instead of horse bodies, being quite viable.
This medium sized mini (from the Aberrations set), illustrates that a centaur-like creature is viable at medium size.
Obviously what that picture means is that if Centaurs wish to be playable, they need to be medium creatures. Which means...
All Centaurs need to keep standing on their hind legs at all times.
Obviously what that picture means is that if Centaurs wish to be playable, they need to be medium creatures. Which means...
All Centaurs need to keep standing on their hind legs at all times.
I've got 2-or-3 of that mini. It would still be perfectly medium even on all fours, with only minimal overbasing (check out the Aberrations Set Gallery, most of the pics are scale with each other, and it's clearly more comparable to other medium figures than to any of the larges). I've also got several centaur minis, and they dwarf the bariaur.
A pony sized centaur race would be on the big end of medium, but so are goliaths and minotaurs.
I've got 2-or-3 of that mini. It would still be perfectly medium even on all fours, with only minimal overbasing (check out the Aberrations Set Gallery, most of the pics are scale with each other, and it's clearly more comparable to other medium figures than to any of the larges). I've also got several centaur minis, and they dwarf the bariaur.
A pony sized centaur race would be on the big end of medium, but so are goliaths and minotaurs.
Yup and it would be better than elf race 5,332. Or human variant 1,234.
Unfortunatly the article (pulled staright from the pages of PHB3 to boot) is disapointingly vauge about what makes the two races different.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20090804
Githzerai DDi article confirmed it: No githyanki. They say they want to be careful about turning villan races into player races and the drow spent a lot of that currency.
Unfortunatly the article (pulled staright from the pages of PHB3 to boot) is disapointingly vauge about what makes the two races different.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20090804
Githyanki are psionic space pirates whose leader is a lich (Vlaakith be her name) and githzerai are chillaxed Buddhist monks who live in giant, isolated fortresses floating in the Elemental Chaos.
Githyanki are psionic space pirates whose leader is a lich (Vlaakith be her name) and githzerai are chillaxed Buddhist monks who live in giant, isolated fortresses floating in the Elemental Chaos.
No I realize that. But even though some of them are just being difficult some of the posters have made good points about a lack of distinction between the two. I was hoping they were going to make it more obvious for the article. Oh well.
Unfortunate about the Yanki; I prefer them to the Zerai. But at least this shoots down the utterly idiotic idea that they were going to be listed as a dual race like the Shifters.
To be quite honest between the two races, if one was to be dual and one not, the Gith should have been the dual race and the shifters not. the gith are only a few hundred years seperated. the shifters are two different creature bloodlines. now I have no problem with how they did it. and I prefer the gith as two races (for those who are huffy about it think of it as actual races and not species. this is like having an article for mongols and an article for south africans. granted none of the other races(species) get this treatment save for the shifters but oh well. and the shifters are grouped because they are both generally goo, while the gith are divided between hero and villan races.) But people do need to get less defensive, and the other side, less critical.
And I rather prefered the Yanki too. The article was interesting though and did a little to aleiviate that though.
Unfortunate about the Yanki; I prefer them to the Zerai. But at least this shoots down the utterly idiotic idea that they were going to be listed as a dual race like the Shifters.
Yeah... I mean... Another Dex/Wis race? Really?! Where's that Con/Int race, dammit!
Also, quite confusing, considering that this is definitely a Githyanki on the cover here. Or a yellow Githzerai, but in that case, they're indistinguishable...
But at the same time, that looks like a monk, so it might actually be a yellowish Githzerai.... ugh. So irritating. I was looking forward to a race for Hell-locks and Artificers, as well as Ensnaring and Shielding Swordmages. Very irritating.
EDIT: "Their skin tends toward yellow tones, occasionally shading into brown or green."
Great. So they are completely physically indistinguishable aside from proportions... that's kinda dumb, really.
But people do need to get less defensive, and the other side, less critical.
This will never come to pass. Or at least not within our lifetimes. Hahahaha
To be quite honest between the two races, if one was to be dual and one not, the Gith should have been the dual race and the shifters not. the gith are only a few hundred years seperated. the shifters are two different creature bloodlines. now I have no problem with how they did it. and I prefer the gith as two races (for those who are huffy about it think of it as actual races and not species. this is like having an article for mongols and an article for south africans. granted none of the other races(species) get this treatment save for the shifters but oh well. and the shifters are grouped because they are both generally goo, while the gith are divided between hero and villan races.) But people do need to get less defensive, and the other side, less critical.
And I rather prefered the Yanki too. The article was interesting though and did a little to aleiviate that though.
Uh .... what?
The Gith have been separated for THOUSANDS of years. As long as the Eladrin/Elf/Drow split, if not longer. The Shifters are one single culture, with no differences between how the two live or operate.
Uh .... what?
The Gith have been separated for THOUSANDS of years. As long as the Eladrin/Elf/Drow split, if not longer.
"The githzerai rejected the cruel warmongering of the githyanki and withdrew to the Elemental Chaos and remote locations in the world to follow a path of self-reflection, harnessing the power of the mind and soul. Centuries later, the githzerai remain in such locations, leading disciplined lives and observing their surroundings to determine their place in the universe."
Not in 4e.
"The githzerai rejected the cruel warmongering of the githyanki and withdrew to the Elemental Chaos and remote locations in the world to follow a path of self-reflection, harnessing the power of the mind and soul. Centuries later, the githzerai remain in such locations, leading disciplined lives and observing their surroundings to determine their place in the universe."
Not in 4e.
.... So when is 5e coming?
the gith are only a few hundred years seperated. the shifters are two different creature bloodlines.
The distinction between the two species was pretty distinct in 2e and 3e in those sources that explored the two races to any degree of depth, though 4e is a totally different (meta)setting, so who knows what they'll do with them, and the detail is likely to be significantly less (on top of bizarre things like intentional lack of support of githyanki because they're evil and God forbid you allow anything not heroic and good for PCs).
As detailed in pre-4e sources, the gith have been distinct races for approx 20k years. But we're not bound by the normal timescales for evolution in a fantasy world like D&D, and so the githzerai have been extensively transformed by their exposure to the chaos of Limbo, and the githyanki have likewise been transformed by their exposure to the Astral Plane, the influence of the deific corpses that they construct their cities upon, and a slight fraction of red dragon blood that has wormed its way into their species over time.
The distinction between the two species was pretty distinct in 2e and 3e in those sources that explored the two races to any degree of depth, though 4e is a totally different (meta)setting, so who knows what they'll do with them, and the detail is likely to be significantly less (on top of bizarre things like intentional lack of support of githyanki because they're evil and God forbid you allow anything not heroic and good for PCs).
As detailed in pre-4e sources, the gith have been distinct races for approx 20k years. But we're not bound by the normal timescales for evolution in a fantasy world like D&D, and so the githzerai have been extensively transformed by their exposure to the chaos of Limbo, and the githyanki have likewise been transformed by their exposure to the Astral Plane, the influence of the deific corpses that they construct their cities upon, and a slight fraction of red dragon blood that has wormed its way into their species over time.
Once again: Not in 4e. Doesn't matter for the purposes of a 4e PHB.
Once again: Not in 4e. Doesn't matter for the purposes of a 4e PHB.
Then it's everyone's loss for the loss of detail and the limitation of your options.
Then it's everyone's loss for the loss of detail and the limitation of your options.
Really, you can just play a Githzerai and call him a Githyanki. They're hardly that different to an outside observer. Aside from culture, they're basically the same.
Then it's everyone's loss for the loss of detail and the limitation of your options.
Exactly. When I get a copy of the PHB3, I'm taking a pen to it and marking out that ridiculously stupid and unnecessary change.
Really, you can just play a Githzerai and call him a Githyanki. They're hardly that different to an outside observer. Aside from culture, they're basically the same.
Which is why they have the exact same mechanics even! Oh, wait ....
They are two entirely separate creatures, and saying otherwise is equivalent to calling an Orc a Hobgoblin.
They are two entirely separate creatures, and saying otherwise is equivalent to calling an Orc a Hobgoblin.
No. Physically, they are the same damn creature. It's not at all like calling an Orc a Hobgoblin, and claiming a similarity there is just deliberate ignorance.
No. Physically, they are the same damn creature. It's not at all like calling an Orc a Hobgoblin, and claiming a similarity there is just deliberate ignorance.
Pre-4e they most certainly are not. In 4e I'm not sure that there's enough information to make that determination at all.
No. Physically, they are the same damn creature. It's not at all like calling an Orc a Hobgoblin, and claiming a similarity there is just deliberate ignorance.
Actually, it's deliberate acknowledgment of the differences. :P Do you know how many people come on the board and ask what the difference is between Orc and Hobgoblin? It does happen.
Plus, they're only similar physically, and only externally at that. You don't see Zerai leaping around like grasshoppers or Yanki as a natural ability, do you? They need to take the Monk class to do what Yanki can do naturally. :P
Pre-4e they most certainly are not. In 4e I'm not sure that there's enough information to make that determination at all.
I would say the sheer fact of them having different Racial Traits demonstrates them being different physical, even if it is or isn't physically noticeable.
Really, you can just play a Githzerai and call him a Githyanki. They're hardly that different to an outside observer. Aside from culture, they're basically the same.
Or if you live in Boston that's Githredsox.:D
Unfortunately, if people refuse to see these differences, they probably think Elves, Eladrin, and Drow are the same thing as well.
The difference being that Wizards of the Coast does have a significant amount of player options for all three of these racial deviations, whereas it was stated that the Githyanki is not a playable race in the PH3 and I interpretted their elaboration as code that they are not intending to make it so in the foreseeable future.
I don't agree with the choice anymore than I would if they said they needed to keep Drow evil. Giving Githyanki as a player choice is obviously disliked for one reason; if you have players playing Githyanki, clearly they are not all the ruthless space pirates they're made out to be. But that is clearly them putting fluff in the fore rather than mechanics, which I dislike (and why I like 4th edition largely, as it is normally counter).
Githyanki are obviously an option still; monster manual stat blocks are simple but augmentable. Story is always fluid and there are always meritable explanations for how a good Githyanki walks the natural world amongst men and elves. My disagreement with this is more in the mentality that a race should not be statted because, as far as the "storyline" of the core rules goes, they're all evil.
Like the drow, oddly enough. I can't help but feel that this isn't the entire truth of their choice, to be honest. I think I would have been more satisfied if their actual reason was that they didn't have room in the book, and cut it for a future Dragon article and maybe a future book. If they had said that, I'd have been fine. I guess if that is the case, they may want to blindside us. Assuming that's an accurate truth and I'm not looking too much into it.
And as someone else said different racial ability boosts do reflect physiological differences. Thier psychic abilities seem to have diverged too. As an example to illustrate my point, if we make them a psion then Zerai are telepathics and yanki are telekenetics.
Yeah... I mean... Another Dex/Wis race? Really?! Where's that Con/Int race, dammit!
Also, quite confusing, considering that this is definitely a Githyanki on the cover here. Or a yellow Githzerai, but in that case, they're indistinguishable...
But at the same time, that looks like a monk, so it might actually be a yellowish Githzerai.... ugh. So irritating. I was looking forward to a race for Hell-locks and Artificers, as well as Ensnaring and Shielding Swordmages. Very irritating.
EDIT: "Their skin tends toward yellow tones, occasionally shading into brown or green."
Great. So they are completely physically indistinguishable aside from proportions... that's kinda dumb, really.
Then again, maybe the Yanki are getting a skin color alteration too.
And regardless that cover looks so frickin cool. Thier almost alive.
In any case, I'm still going to have them as a race in my setting, since they both fit perfectly into the story, though in a very different way, with different names. They still have that split though.
Damn, Wizards. You have to ruin my revelation like that. I won't turn on you for this, or for the Psi Points or anything like that, but sometimes you do things that bug me a tinsiebit.
1 race slot is left! Something tells me its that one crystal-humanoid pic but...
I CAN STILL HOPE FOR KOBOLDS ^_^
But I wouldn't count the Githyanki out just yet - only out of the PHB3. After all, the 3rd edition did have a book for making villianous races into PCs. I assume that Wizards will give us a book that is similar in idea for 4th edition; a book that lets us play as Gityanki and Bugbear, Kobold and Goblin, Hobgoblin and Orc. Perhaps even Duergar, Trolls, and the like.
And if they don't make such a book then we, the fans of this game, will find a way to make those races work despite their efforts. ;)
So really, it would serve them best to milk us with a Monstrous Race book (or several), eventually. :D
And as someone else said different racial ability boosts do reflect physiological differences. Thier psychic abilities seem to have diverged too. As an example to illustrate my point, if we make them a psion then Zerai are telepathics and yanki are telekenetics.
I just want to point out, as a Dex/Wis race, the Zerai make better telekenetics then they do telepaths.
I just have to put in my two cents. With the Monster Manual Stat blocks, it is obvious that, While the gith may looks very similar, they are actually quite different. Diferent racial powers (one focuses on physical ability, the other being the ability of the mind), As well as differences in Skill Bonuses and Ability Score bonuses. They are shown as different races, and Burning Rose's attempts to say they are the same are proven false by the preliminary Racial Traits sitting before me now.
But I wouldn't count the Githyanki out just yet - only out of the PHB3. After all, the 3rd edition did have a book for making villianous races into PCs. I assume that Wizards will give us a book that is similar in idea for 4th edition; a book that lets us play as Gityanki and Bugbear, Kobold and Goblin, Hobgoblin and Orc. Perhaps even Duergar, Trolls, and the like.
And if they don't make such a book then we, the fans of this game, will find a way to make those races work despite their efforts. ;)
So really, it would serve them best to milk us with a Monstrous Race book (or several), eventually. :D
i'd MUCH rather have them in phb's. makes it harder for a dm to say "I'm allowing this phb but not these races in it" rather than "i'm not allowing 4.0 savage species book". Trust me after a decade at this :O i know!
Yeah... I mean... Another Dex/Wis race? Really?! Where's that Con/Int race, dammit!
Also, quite confusing, considering that this is definitely a Githyanki on the cover here. Or a yellow Githzerai, but in that case, they're indistinguishable...
But at the same time, that looks like a monk, so it might actually be a yellowish Githzerai.... ugh. So irritating. I was looking forward to a race for Hell-locks and Artificers, as well as Ensnaring and Shielding Swordmages. Very irritating.
EDIT: "Their skin tends toward yellow tones, occasionally shading into brown or green."
Great. So they are completely physically indistinguishable aside from proportions... that's kinda dumb, really.
I'm sooo gonna make a Psion Githzerai just to emulate THE O.G. SITH hopefully they'll be compatible.
i'm glad only one of the "gith"'s got in, WE DONT NEED ANOTHER ELF/ELADRIN DEAL IN A PHB >_<
1 race slot is left! Something tells me its that one crystal-humanoid pic but...
I CAN STILL HOPE FOR KOBOLDS ^_^
If the Githyanki aren't in because they're "too villainous," the Kobolds aren't getting in either. :P
To be quite honest between the two races, if one was to be dual and one not, the Gith should have been the dual race and the shifters not. the gith are only a few hundred years seperated. the shifters are two different creature bloodlines.
I suspect you don't know much about Shifters, if you think they're distinct bloodlines.
Once again: Not in 4e. Doesn't matter for the purposes of a 4e PHB.
4E leaves a lot of the details to the players and DM, but that's not the same as invalidating everything previous editions' lore. Things are only different from 3.5E in the ways that are explicitly spelled out.
Incidentally, why the heck do you think that two things which look identical, must be? You're aware that Githyanki and Githzerai pretty much looked the same in the 4E MM and in the 3.5E MM, right?
EDIT: Oh, and this thread's title desperately needs to be changed now. It's now a completely false statement, despite the best evidence at the time.
If the Githyanki aren't in because they're "too villainous," the Kobolds aren't getting in either. :P
Go read races of the dragon. That book pretty much tells you why they can be awesome PC's :O underdogs being small... we can fit the redeemed villain role. They have a very "collective" way of thinking, leading them to fit very well in adventure groups, almost seeing them as surrogate families. If close enough they will die for you! Regardless of your race Q_Q
It's the kobold CULTURE thats evil. When they leave the tribe for some reason or another it even says their true personality starts showing up since they are somewhat culturally forced into being untrusting meanies <.<
I really need to start working on my "Playing Kobolds" article again ~_~ just having 3k words is so much work!
It's the kobold CULTURE thats evil. When they leave the tribe for some reason or another it even says their true personality starts showing up since they are somewhat culturally forced into being untrusting meanies <.<
This is precisely my point. Other Evil races are different from any other for more than cultural reasons. Even if a kobold was raised by humans, he's still clearly a kobold. Githyanki and Githzerai do not have this, and thus it does not make sense to have a non-evil-culture Githyanki, because they're pretty much Githzerai.
This is precisely my point. Other Evil races are different from any other for more than cultural reasons. Even if a kobold was raised by humans, he's still clearly a kobold. Githyanki and Githzerai do not have this, and thus it does not make sense to have a non-evil-culture Githyanki, because they're pretty much Githzerai.
Except for them being entirely different races with entirely different mechanics of course.
Except for them being entirely different races with entirely different mechanics of course.
Except that the difference in mechanics is entirely attributable to culture, and has nothing to do with fluff anyways. If you ignore mechanics, like I said, and ignore culture, they're EXACTLY THE SAME.
Except that the difference in mechanics is entirely attributable to culture, and has nothing to do with fluff anyways. If you ignore mechanics, like I said, and ignore culture, they're EXACTLY THE SAME.
Just like the Elves and Eladrin. So not.
Except that the difference in mechanics is entirely attributable to culture, and has nothing to do with fluff anyways. If you ignore mechanics, like I said, and ignore culture, they're EXACTLY THE SAME.
So, if we ignore the fluff, and the way to play them in game, then they look the same and thus are exactly the same.
However
If we consider their cultures (one being miltaristic and expansionistic and the other being focused on the powers of the mind) and their different in game mechanics, then they are indeed two separate beings, requiring two different full race write-ups to be equalized, let alone played in a game.
i'd MUCH rather have them in phb's. makes it harder for a dm to say "I'm allowing this phb but not these races in it" rather than "i'm not allowing 4.0 savage species book". Trust me after a decade at this :O i know!
While this may be true, what the developers have said about putting evil races into PHBs pretty much guarantees that if we want monster/villian races such as the Githyanki or Kobolds, then a Savage Races-esque book is going to be the way to go. If your DM excludes it, find a new DM? ;)
Also, for purposes of party building 4E has gotten away from the "Elves hate Dwarves and vice versa" deal. I was always worried that, making a githzarai would ruin the party if somebody just HAS to play a githyanki somewhere down the line and there will be problems. Well, tonight I played a Githzarai for the first time in years and it was nice to know that my character could always get along in the party.
Frankly, those githyanki fellas always looked a bit evil to me, anyways. As a DM, I've had Drow in the party and struggled with using Drow in my encounters because I was worried that they would side with my bad guys and catch me off guard. I always feel as if I have to plan for two eventualities with Drow, and I'm glad that I don't have to worry about that with githyanki.
All of these are small things, and they can be prepared for, but I'm glad that I DON'T have to prepare for them. (Which makes it odd that they would do something like this for races, but not make my job as DM easier with a Monk's weapons ... *sigh* oh well.)
Well. There it is.
Sincerely,
Lord Dreadman
If the Githyanki aren't in because they're "too villainous," the Kobolds aren't getting in either. :P
Shouldn't kobolds reflect the alignment of the Dragon they worship? If so, then only kobolds who worship evil dragons are evil.
So it's win-win. Those of us who weren't hugely excited about Gith get to take them in one at a time without being overwhelmed, while enjoying the benefits of a greater diversity of races in the PHB3. Those who want Githyanki will benefit from letting them be the star of the show at a later date rather than having them fudged up with their cousins.
A PHB version of a gnoll (with a racial paragon path, and a fixed Claw Fighter feat that works well with Monk) could replace the Intimidate racial bonus with Nature. Fluff wise, it would go deeper into the natural gnoll, what they are like without demonic influence.
(and the first person to bring up JFK is getting shot :p)
You know you'll get githyanki eventually; Wizards' plan of "as few villainous PC races as possible" is an excellent principle but it's only going to last up until the point that they feel the 4E product line needs a shot in the arm. At that point you'll be up to your ears in every baby-raping Hitler-saluting monstrous race you can conceive. The non-stop puppy-murdering game you've been longing for will at last be a blessed reality.
Wow. Just ... wow. That's a gross level of exaggeration beyond even the wildest dreams of the greatest anti-evil in my PHB person here. If you honestly believe that's what anyone wants when they say they want the Githyanki, or any other supposedly evil race, then you have serious problems.
Wow. Just ... wow. That's a gross level of exaggeration beyond even the wildest dreams of the greatest anti-evil in my PHB person here. If you honestly believe that's what anyone wants when they say they want the Githyanki, or any other supposedly evil race, then you have serious problems.
I'd love to see race write ups for most of them. Not everything needs to be obviously evil sometimes they have goals that just clash with the pcs. More options=better game.
Bel
Go read races of the dragon. That book pretty much tells you why they can be awesome PC's :O underdogs being small... we can fit the redeemed villain role. They have a very "collective" way of thinking, leading them to fit very well in adventure groups, almost seeing them as surrogate families. If close enough they will die for you! Regardless of your race Q_Q
That's a major reason why we'll see Kobolds as a PC race before we'll see Githyanki.
And I'm sure the Goblinoids and Orcs will get full PC write-ups before Githyanki due to the influence of Eberron or some other campaign setting. It's a far more common twist to have non-evil Goblins and Orcs than it is with Githyanki, who were also blocked from being PC races for most of Planescape back in 2e.
I suspect you don't know much about Shifters, if you think they're distinct bloodlines.
one decendes from werewolves, one from weretigers. Others, not featured here, come from wererats, etc.
That's pretty clearly distinct bloodlines. You don't get longtooth shifters from wererat ancestors. That's all I'm sayin.
Heck, that's enough of a diference to warrent racial writeups but, probably because there are so many of the suckers, and becasue they're one culturally, they didn't feel the need to seperate them.
I just want to point out, as a Dex/Wis race, the Zerai make better telekenetics then they do telepaths.
Well yeah. I was talking flavor and racial mental abilities not Ability scores. Zerai do a lot of self body kind of stuff (judging by the feats) such as improving thier body's defenses and making saving throws. Yanki, judging by thier racial power, do more outer kind of stuff, like throing an ally though the air via thier mind (telekenetics)
But I have always liked them, they remind me of Romulans. It's a great race for if you want to play the alien bounty hunter, space pirate or any sort of technological character.
The Githyanki will sort of be our first techi race, which is why I'm glad they make such good Artificers.
Just like the Elves and Eladrin. So not.
There are physiological differences between Elves and Eladrin. An Elf raised by eladrins would still be an elf, admittedly with a different perspective on things.
There are no physiological differences between the Gith, at least in 4e, as far as anyone can tell. A Githyanki raised by Githzerai would be a Githzerai.
So no. You can't claim that it's the same. Whether you like it or not, in 4e, Githyanki are evil Githzerai. That's about it.
I love that only one of the Gith races are in. (Still fuzzy about the difference between them)
The Kobold is a Setting Character Playable race, at best. Don't look for him in any PHB.
I still hold out hope for the Dromite to be the small race this time around.
The Orc and the Hobgoblin are not the same... no, wait, one is shorter, right?
Just some random thoughts...
I still hold out hope for the Dromite to be the small race this time around.
Well, we've now had confirmation of wilden, minotaurs, and githzerai in PHB3. Given that their savagery is a key component (plus their release came out 5 months before the minotaur), looks like the 4th slot is going to be the gnoll...and it's been confirmed that it's only going to be 4 races.
It's odd, though (and I'm just talking about fluff here, not stats/racial bonuses), that wilden, minotaur, and gnoll all seem suited to Primal classes, and githzerai obviously to Psionic. No race that seems particularly suited to a Divine class. On the other hand, PHB2 had shifters, devas, and gnomes, which seem well-suited to Primal, Divine, and Arcane classes, respectively, and the goliath could be painted as either Martial or Primal (half-orcs seem more Martial than anything else).
The Kobold is a Setting Character Playable race, at best. Don't look for him in any PHB.
Wha? O_o A setting character playable race? I don't understand.
What the heck does that make the minotaur that started in the phb, got into dragon magazine and will be in phb3?!
Wha? O_o A setting character playable race? I don't understand.
What the heck does that make the minotaur that started in the phb, got into dragon magazine and will be in phb3?!
Let me put to you like this. If there was a setting for Planescape, the Kobold would be a good possibility for one of many races that would be included in the Players Guide for it. The Tiefling came from here, and I would bet that the main reason it not going to be a setting is so that a setting Player's Guide would not have more races than a PHB.
So Dark Sun (Most likely the next setting out) may yet have the Kobold as a Character Race, or maybe another setting. What it won't be in is a PHB.
There are no physiological differences between the Gith, at least in 4e, as far as anyone can tell. A Githyanki raised by Githzerai would be a Githzerai.
So no. You can't claim that it's the same. Whether you like it or not, in 4e, Githyanki are evil Githzerai. That's about it.
You don't know this to be true and nothing in the books points to you being right.
Well, we've now had confirmation of wilden, minotaurs, and githzerai in PHB3. Given that their savagery is a key component (plus their release came out 5 months before the minotaur), looks like the 4th slot is going to be the gnoll...and it's been confirmed that it's only going to be 4 races.
It has been confirmed that there is only 4 races? Really?
That would be... disappointing.
Looks like, to me, the Dromite has three things going for it. It isn't a monster manual race (like the Gnoll), it is a small race (a slot still to be filled), and is Psionic.
Just looking to see when it is gonna be confirmed.
There are physiological differences between Elves and Eladrin. An Elf raised by eladrins would still be an elf, admittedly with a different perspective on things.
There are no physiological differences between the Gith, at least in 4e, as far as anyone can tell. A Githyanki raised by Githzerai would be a Githzerai.
So no. You can't claim that it's the same. Whether you like it or not, in 4e, Githyanki are evil Githzerai. That's about it.
Except of course for the fact that the Githyanki raised by Githzerai would still have *gasp* Githyanki racial abilities. That is physiological. You keep saying ignore the mechanics, but the mechanics are the only thing that shows a physiological difference between Elf and Eladrin. Therefore, you sir are being hypocritical.
Except of course for the fact that the Githyanki raised by Githzerai would still have *gasp* Githyanki racial abilities. That is physiological. You keep saying ignore the mechanics, but the mechanics are the only thing that shows a physiological difference between Elf and Eladrin. Therefore, you sir are being hypocritical.
Nope. They actually say that the physiology for Elves and Eladrin are different in their physical characteristics section, completely separately from mechanics. No where in the Githzerai section do they mention any differences based on the centuries spent in the elemental chaos, while they frequently cite how the differences in culture separate the Gith. They never say anything about anything physiological. They even imply that, were a Githzerai to abandon his focused and disciplined view, he would effectively become a Githyanki. If that doesn't say it, I don't know what does.
The fact is, the Elf and Eladrin physiological differences you claim exist beyond mechanics? They aren't mentioned as being environmental in nature, or mentioned at all beyond the superficial in the PHB. And yet you claim the lack of such mention in the official PHB3 Githzerai entry is proof of there being no physiological difference? Please.
But it's not superficial, is my point. They mention physiological differences between the elven races. They don't for the Gith. There's no point to releasing a Githyanki race for PCs in favor of some other race because we already have Githzerai.
Nope. They actually say that the physiology for Elves and Eladrin are different in their physical characteristics section, completely separately from mechanics. No where in the Githzerai section do they mention any differences based on the centuries spent in the elemental chaos, while they frequently cite how the differences in culture separate the Gith. They never say anything about anything physiological. They even imply that, were a Githzerai to abandon his focused and disciplined view, he would effectively become a Githyanki. If that doesn't say it, I don't know what does.
Would the stats change? It doesn't say anywhere that one race raised by another would have different stat bonuses and racial abilities. The DM could always rule it that way, but that's just DM's fiat.
If you could find where it says that, i would sincerely want to know where it is. I have been trying to push my Dwarf who grew up with Goliaths (trading out Wis for Str) for months with my DM. So far, it's a no-go
.Nope. They actually say that the physiology for Elves and Eladrin are different in their physical characteristics section, completely separately from mechanics. No where in the Githzerai section do they mention any differences based on the centuries spent in the elemental chaos, while they frequently cite how the differences in culture separate the Gith. They never say anything about anything physiological.
They make only a couple of comparisons. There is nothing there suggesting that you are right. You're simply adding things -- I presume -- to "win."
They even imply that, were a Githzerai to abandon his focused and disciplined view, he would effectively become a Githyanki. If that doesn't say it, I don't know what does.
They imply no such thing in the article.
Wow. Just ... wow. That's a gross level of exaggeration beyond even the wildest dreams of the greatest anti-evil in my PHB person here. If you honestly believe that's what anyone wants when they say they want the Githyanki, or any other supposedly evil race, then you have serious problems.
My tongue was firmly in my cheek, but I do think an understanding of "evil" that's confined to twirling a long moustache and tying a damsel to some train tracks is a little naive, and I also hold that while there's occasionally such a thing as an interesting evil character, there's no mature reason to want an entire playable race that's evil by default.
But I don't have to DM your angsty drow hero or your deliciously treacherous githyanki backstabber so it's a non-issue. You're welcome to all the murderin' you can carry provided it's not coming to my table and it's not carrying a cost to supplements I'll actually enjoy.
But it's not superficial, is my point. They mention physiological differences between the elven races. They don't for the Gith. There's no point to releasing a Githyanki race for PCs in favor of some other race because we already have Githzerai.
No, they don't. The entries describe what each looks like. Not how each races looks different from the other. Why on earth would you expect it to be different for the Gith?
Here are the facts:
In the PHB1, Elves and Eladrin are only physically described in the Physical Qualities section, with absolutely no mention of the other race.
In the PHB1, the only mention of any differences are listed in the Playing An X section, where of course the PHB is going to list the differences between one PHB race and another.
In the PHB3 entry for Githzerai, the only place Zerai are physically described in the Physical Qualities section. Once again, they are the only ones mentioned there.
In the PHB3 Playing a Githzerai entry, Yanki are mentioned once, to describe their different mindsets. Their homeland isn't even mentioned.
The lack of any mention of differences is not proof that there are no differences. Therefore, the only proof ascertainable is the Monster Manual describing them as separate races, which in DnD terms is proof of difference.
No, they don't. The entries describe what each looks like. Not how each races looks different from the other. Why on earth would you expect it to be different for the Gith?
Here are the facts:
In the PHB1, Elves and Eladrin are only physically described in the Physical Qualities section, with absolutely no mention of the other race.
In the PHB1, the only mention of any differences are listed in the Playing An X section, where of course the PHB is going to list the differences between one PHB race and another.
In the PHB3 entry for Githzerai, the only place Zerai are physically described in the Physical Qualities section. Once again, they are the only ones mentioned there.
In the PHB3 Playing a Githzerai entry, Yanki are mentioned once, to describe their different mindsets. Their homeland isn't even mentioned.
The lack of any mention of differences is not proof that there are no differences. Therefore, the only proof ascertainable is the Monster Manual describing them as separate races, which in DnD terms is proof of difference.
Monster Manual, 4th Edition, page 128:
"The githyanki and githzerai were once a single race - the gith- enslaved by mind flayers, but they split into two races after winning their freedom."
They are separate races, as presented by the above. CelticMutt is right, end of argument.
CelticMutt is right, end of argument.
I don't think that's how the internet works. Two people berate each other and make assumptions about the other's momma until we all feel ashamed for having witnessed it.
It's all here in the guidebook
Monster Manual, 4th Edition, page 128:
"The githyanki and githzerai were once a single race - the gith- enslaved by mind flayers, but they split into two races after winning their freedom."
They are separate races, as presented by the above. CelticMutt is right, end of argument.
Race does not mean species. There are different races of humans, but we'd all use the same stat block.
I don't think that's how the internet works. Two people berate each other and make assumptions about the other's momma until we all feel ashamed for having witnessed it.
It's all here in the guidebook
You forgot the part about YouTubing it. :P
Race does not mean species. There are different races of humans, but we'd all use the same stat block.
Well, actually Race in D&D does mean species. It doesn't make sense and is a bit asinine, but that's how it goes.
Race does not mean species. There are different races of humans, but we'd all use the same stat block.
In DnD, race does mean species.
Well, actually Race in D&D does mean species. It doesn't make sense and is a bit asinine, but that's how it goes.
Even if they are *technically* different species (See: Manatee and Dugong), it doesn't mean there's enough difference to warrant choosing Githyanki over another race when we already have Githzerai. That's been my point the whole time; if you're arguing against something else, you're not arguing against me.
Even if they are *technically* different species (See: Manatee and Dugong), it doesn't mean there's enough difference to warrant choosing Githyanki over another race when we already have Githzerai. That's been my point the whole time; if you're arguing against something else, you're not arguing against me.
Except that's still wrong. If you choose a Yanki over a Zerai, it's because you want everything associated - the ability traits, the culture or former culture, everything. I mean, you could choose to play an Eladrin and call it an Elf - hell that's what Forgotten Realms does. But mechanically it's still an Eladrin.
Anyways, the point is, yes, you could pick the Githzerai and just call it a Githyanki. But you could pick a human and call it a Githyanki too. But it's still not a Githyanki in anything but name.
Race does not mean species.
It does in D&D. See: half-orcs, shifters, dragonborn, devas, tieflings, mind flayers, etc. All separate races, but according to you the same species and with the same stat block.
Even if they are *technically* different species (See: Manatee and Dugong), it doesn't mean there's enough difference to warrant choosing Githyanki over another race when we already have Githzerai.
And this has been covered too. They've been made different through different stat blocks and different fluff.
Even if they are *technically* different species (See: Manatee and Dugong), it doesn't mean there's enough difference to warrant choosing Githyanki over another race when we already have Githzerai. That's been my point the whole time; if you're arguing against something else, you're not arguing against me.
While I agree that we do not need both Gith races in the PHB, your reasoning is (saying it again) flawed. They are different from each other, just the same as Vulcans are different from Romulans.
While I agree that we do not need both Gith races in the PHB, your reasoning is (saying it again) flawed. They are different from each other, just the same as Vulcans are different from Romulans.
Just because they "have differences" does not mean they have anywhere near enough differences to really matter. A Vulcan is a lot more different from a Werewolf than it is from a Romulan, and given the choice, if we already had Vulcans, I'd take Werewolves (Insert an actual really weird star trek race here, I'm not familiar enough with it to pick an obscure one off the top of my head).
And I'd say, at least in Next Generation onward, Romulans are VERY different from Vulcans. Far more than the gith are. I can actually tell them apart.
Just because they "have differences" does not mean they have anywhere near enough differences to really matter. A Vulcan is a lot more different from a Werewolf than it is from a Romulan, and given the choice, if we already had Vulcans, I'd take Werewolves (Insert an actual really weird star trek race here, I'm not familiar enough with it to pick an obscure one off the top of my head).
And I'd say, at least in Next Generation onward, Romulans are VERY different from Vulcans. Far more than the gith are. I can actually tell them apart.
So your claim is that if they are nominally visually the same, they play the same in-game?
So your claim is that if they are nominally visually the same, they play the same in-game?
No, my claim is that because they are practically the same aside from mechanical differences (which every race has), that they should step aside for races that are more different, fluff-wise. All races are different from each other based on mechanics, which is why I'm ignoring it.
Just because they "have differences" does not mean they have anywhere near enough differences to really matter. A Vulcan is a lot more different from a Werewolf than it is from a Romulan, and given the choice, if we already had Vulcans, I'd take Werewolves (Insert an actual really weird star trek race here, I'm not familiar enough with it to pick an obscure one off the top of my head).
And I'd say, at least in Next Generation onward, Romulans are VERY different from Vulcans. Far more than the gith are. I can actually tell them apart.
And I am saying that your concentrating on a flawed argument. It is not that they are almost the same or wildly different, but that one is good, and the other evil, and this is the relevant reason for the exclusion for one of the two. Your trying to say here that Vulcans and Romulans are the same but wildly different at the same time, that don't work. I think that Romulans would not (and have not been) included at a race for players in that setting simply because they are the main nemesis in so many plot lines in the show (at least before the Borg came in) Yes, the Klingons would be in instead, but not for the reason you imply.
No, my claim is that because they are practically the same aside from mechanical differences (which every race has), that they should step aside for races that are more different, fluff-wise. All races are different from each other based on mechanics, which is why I'm ignoring it.
However most people want races that are different mechanically, not fluff-wise. Of course all races are different based on mechanics. It's how different they are that has some people ticked. Wer will have three STR/CON and three WIS/DEX races, and currently we have no CON/INT races.
We aren't looking for different fluff races, we're looking for different mechanics so we can make our Scourge Warlocks and Shielding Swordmages as badass as they can be.
However most people want races that are different mechanically, not fluff-wise. Of course all races are different based on mechanics. It's how different they are that has some people ticked. Wer will have three STR/CON and three WIS/DEX races, and currently we have no CON/INT races.
We aren't looking for different fluff races, we're looking for different mechanics so we can make our Scourge Warlocks and Shielding Swordmages as badass as they can be.
And I hope they include a Con/Int race, too. I really do. But it would sadden me for the best option for so many possible characters to be an evil race. Do you know how many irritated DMs that would make? How many angry players because their DM doesn't want a Githyanki in the party, but it's the best for their stats? It wouldn't be like drow. It would be every artificer, warlock, wizard, and swordmage, and his brother playing a Githyanki. And that's irritating. Honestly, I hope they find another Con/Int combination that would be less weird (or if not less weird, less evil).
And I hope they include a Con/Int race, too. I really do. But it would sadden me for the best option for so many possible characters to be an evil race. Do you know how many irritated DMs that would make? How many angry players because their DM doesn't want a Githyanki in the party, but it's the best for their stats? It wouldn't be like drow. It would be every artificer, warlock, wizard, and swordmage, and his brother playing a Githyanki. And that's irritating. Honestly, I hope they find another Con/Int combination that would be less weird (or if not less weird, less evil).
Hey, I'm not saying it has to be or even should be the Yanki. All I am saying is that to the best of my knowledge, they have the CON/INT combo that many players want. If they use another race, so be it. But we want a CON/INT race and if the Yanki are all they can offer, then I say they should give them to us.
Drow, Shadar-kai, Tieflings, Gnolls, and Revenants (all evilish-inclined races) can be team players. If a Githyanki and a Githzerai are both PCs, they're NEVER going to work together. That's against the 4e Mantra of promoting teamwork.
If a Playing Githyanki article is going to work, we'll need to figure out how to reconcile Githyanki with other PC races as members of the team.
As much as I want the Githyanki in PH3 (I made this topic, for Tiamat's sake), I don't know how they would resolve the Githyanki as members of THE TEAM.
Drow, Shadar-kai, Tieflings, Gnolls, and Revenants (all evilish-inclined races) can be team players. If a Githyanki and a Githzerai are both PCs, they're NEVER going to work together. That's against the 4e Mantra of promoting teamwork.
If a Playing Githyanki article is going to work, we'll need to figure out how to reconcile Githyanki with other PC races as members of the team.
Revenants and Shadar-Kai are Unaligned-inclined, not Evil. :P
I took a long time convincing him that the Raven Queen's love children didn't = Selfish Bastard Dark Loner.
And essentially, that's the same argument that can be made for Evilish races:
Played straight with their race, they are Selfish Bastards who will betray the PCs.
But PC Races are supposed to be the exception, and within each of these questionable races' articles, there is enough information to provide the exception to make Dark PCs teamplayers.
Yes, they are. However, I have a friend here that I've been arguing about how they can over come their dark goth lonelitude to be team players.
I took a long time convincing him that the Raven Queen's love children didn't = Selfish Bastard Dark Loner.
And essentially, that's the same argument that can be made for Evilish races:
Played straight with their race, they are Selfish Bastards who will betray the PCs.
But PC Races are supposed to be the exception, and within each of these questionable races' articles, there is enough information to provide the exception to make Dark PCs teamplayers.
You want to make that player's head spin, show him the "Playing Gnolls" Article. Wait for the, "but all Gnolls are crazy demon-worshipping bastards" comment. ;)
And really, I'm not sure what people have against evil characters in parties. I think Richard and Belkar have shown that, when the party needs someone willing to be evil, it's good to have someone who left their scruples at the door. :D
And really, I'm not sure what people have against evil characters in parties. I think Richard and Belkar have shown that, when the party needs someone willing to be evil, it's good to have someone who left their scruples at the door. :D
It can be useful to have someone ready to do dirty work that needs to be done to outsiders - it's less useful to have someone willing to stab party members in the back. Or in other words, an evil PC still needs to be a team player, whether that is because of respect for a leader's authority (the classic LE personality) or just out of enlightened self-interest (Belkar hangs out with the OotS because being an adventurer gives him the perfect societally sanctioned excuse to indulge his murderous impulses).
While I agree that we do not need both Gith races in the PHB, your reasoning is (saying it again) flawed. They are different from each other, just the same as Vulcans are different from Romulans.
Burning Rose, take note! You should know your argument is in a world of trouble when even our mutual friend, thaX, finds fault with your logic. :P
Burning Rose, the problem with your argument is that any race raised amongst another race will still have their racial ability scores, their racial power, and other racial traits. Githzerai included. Thus it isn't nurture that makes them different, it's nature. They evolved both culturally and physically to reflect that culture. Therefore, an evil Githzerai wouldn't suddenly have Con/Int and the ability for telekinesis. A good Githyanki wouldn't suddenly have Dex/Wis and an iron will. S/he could, due to his class choices or background, be good in these areas, but s/he'd have a racial set back due to inborn traits that developed over the long period of time they've been apart.
And, by shortening the length of time they havce been seperate races, (hardly over 1000 years, if we take the lich queen bit into consideration,) WotC has accounted for thier lack of similarites. They look very similar because not enough time has passed for them to diverge noticably. however, the natural divergences plus the unique properties of the planes they live on has in fact subtly altered them.
So not only are they different, while looking largely the same, WotC has realized this and fixed the timelines to have it make sense.
And maybe they look the same to you but call a Zerai a Yanki and, if you don't get stabbed, you'll be treated to an hours worth of how they are different then those vile Yanki dogs. It's like how asians and Latinos will sometimes get angry when white people can't tell the different nationalitse apart; maybe the dumb white guy can't tell the difference but its painfully obvious to them.
But I don't have to DM your angsty drow hero or your deliciously treacherous githyanki backstabber so it's a non-issue. You're welcome to all the murderin' you can carry provided it's not coming to my table and it's not carrying a cost to supplements I'll actually enjoy.
If your friends play Githyanki like that they are very limited.
A full race being "evil", "backstabber" or "muderer" is nonsense, sorry.
You keep you "GOOOOOOOOOD VS evil" sumplements and I play shades of gray, thanks.
Hope 5E gets rid of alignment.
Hope 5E gets rid of alignment.
Whether or not the next edition (a long ways down the road) gets rid of Alignment or not, there will still be heroes and monsters. The previous edition did more harm in trying to have the same rule set for all things than what I could ever have imagined.
I think that having monsters as character races is a major step in the wrong direction. Keep your kobolds, thanks, leave the Orcs behind (the half breeds are pitied) and never trust a Gnoll.
So, yes, the Yanki are a MM race, while the Zerai are a Character Race. I doubt the elimination of Alignment will change that.
Still, for anyone who wants to do so, the Monster Manual stats can be used for player characters -- unless those stats are obviously overpowered. As best as I can tell, the bugbear is the only Monster Manual race that currently presents that problem.
There was a time the Githzerai were considered a monster race too ...
I am not sure what they were before being in the Psionic books in 3rd edition. I know that the current decisions with them is with the write ups in the XPH in mind, along with the history that others have mentioned. If a Gith needed a PC write up, then the more heroic one should be the one to have it.
I am still burned that the Tiefling got an entry in the first PHB.
If your friends play Githyanki like that they are very limited.
A full race being "evil", "backstabber" or "muderer" is nonsense, sorry.
You keep you "GOOOOOOOOOD VS evil" sumplements and I play shades of gray, thanks.
Hope 5E gets rid of alignment.
5th ed will add a third axis to the old 2nd ed system, as well as expanding each choice to five options, creating a matrix of 125 possible alignment choices.
Noble - Good - Neutral - Evil - Iniquitous
Code Bound - Lawful - Neutral - Chaotic - Random
Capitalist - Free Market - Laissez Faire - Governed Market - Communist
There was a time the Githzerai were considered a monster race too ...
I'll pose the following: why should there be any sort of artificial, arbitrary distinction between player races and "monsters"? If I have a player that wants to play as a githyanki, if he can come up with a backstory and personality and a reason for his PC to be part of the campaign, that's good enough for me. I don't much see any reason to go "no, that's a monster, you cannot play it because that would be something you're not allowed to do."
Some character concepts take a bit more legwork to convince me of their viability, but I find the idea of a hard line between allowed PC races and "monsters" about on the same level as racial class restrictions. It seems a pointless, intentional limitation of options.
Of course I'm used to planar campaigns, and in my current one the most mundane character is a fey-touched half-drow wizard.
*Personally I dislike that idea in general. I would rather have them discuss different cities, planes, etc. where the race is commonly found and what the culture is like there.
I am not sure what they were before being in the Psionic books in 3rd edition. I know that the current decisions with them is with the write ups in the XPH in mind, along with the history that others have mentioned. If a Gith needed a PC write up, then the more heroic one should be the one to have it.
I am still burned that the Tiefling got an entry in the first PHB.
You do know the Githyanki were also in the XPH as a PC race, right?
And they were both PC options in 2e thanks to Planescape.
And they were both monsters in 1e, and in 2e before Planescape.
I'll pose the following: why should there be any sort of artificial, arbitrary distinction between player races and "monsters"? If I have a player that wants to play as a githyanki, if he can come up with a backstory and personality and a reason for his PC to be part of the campaign, that's good enough for me. I don't much see any reason to go "no, that's a monster, you cannot play it because that would be something you're not allowed to do."
Some character concepts take a bit more legwork to convince me of their viability, but I find the idea of a hard line between allowed PC races and "monsters" about on the same level as racial class restrictions. It seems a pointless, intentional limitation of options.
Of course I'm used to planar campaigns, and in my current one the most mundane character is a fey-touched half-drow wizard.
Here here. I agree fully.
I think that once your making every race you meet into allies, then the only monsters you fight will end up being animals and beasts. The "bad guys" are not misunderstood, they are the "bad guys." They rob from caravans, attack small hamlets for supplies and food, and overall have different views about society and law.
I like that the Yanki are a nemesis for the Zerai, and that they are (for now) something that are a mystery for the players.
I think that once your making every race you meet into allies, then the only monsters you fight will end up being animals and beasts.
That's probably a good thing. You should be fighting bad guys, not monsters. Of course, even bad guys can be monsters. Just because your best pal is a hobgoblin doesn't mean that most are vicious bastards. After all, Nazis, Huns, Stalin, Mao, etc. were still human.
I think that once your making every race you meet into allies, then the only monsters you fight will end up being animals and beasts. The "bad guys" are not misunderstood, they are the "bad guys." They rob from caravans, attack small hamlets for supplies and food, and overall have different views about society and law.
The same can be said for any race, you certainly can't say humans have never done such things. Hell, if only "monstrous races" are supposed to be the "bad guys" then none of my campaigns would work out. It is the civilized races that can be the most damning, evil beings in a campaign.
The same can be said for any race, you certainly can't say humans have never done such things. Hell, if only "monstrous races" are supposed to be the "bad guys" then none of my campaigns would work out. It is the civilized races that can be the most damning, evil beings in a campaign.
Exactly. Devils only wish they could be as evil as a human. After all, a devil is evil by nature, a human is evil by choice.
Exactly. Devils only wish they could be as evil as a human. After all, a devil is evil by nature, a human is evil by choice.
In my current campaign the Devils who are in a secret war with the main government in the world is absolutely terrified of the civilized species. Hell, the PCs are going to probably end up considering the Devils possible allies over choosing the government, especially once they learn how the government won the past war. Oh, sending the purest of minds to Hell to mess with its inner workings.
5th ed will add a third axis to the old 2nd ed system, as well as expanding each choice to five options, creating a matrix of 125 possible alignment choices.
Noble - Good - Neutral - Evil - Iniquitous
Code Bound - Lawful - Neutral - Chaotic - Random
Capitalist - Free Market - Laissez Faire - Governed Market - Communist
I sure hope this was tongue-in-cheek, because such a system would either be completely unnecessary or no end of problems (and idiotic debates!).
Also, your economic continuum needs serious revisions. Additionally, one has to ask, why the heck would a person's economic beliefs be relevant to D&D? (Or rather, why is it more relevant than, say, favorite colours, which aren't included in your matrix?)
Exactly. Devils only wish they could be as evil as a human. After all, a devil is evil by nature, a human is evil by choice.
Or they're the end result of a human being evil by choice, stripped of the weakness of flesh and the last fragments of conscience they might have had.
Everything had come in a blur of darkness and flame, curses spit in a tongue that burned the ears and blurred the vision with each uttered syllable, and in the end the mortal paladin’s house and family lay torn apart, ripped limb from limb, partially devoured, or incinerated. There had been no time to flee. Most of the dead never realized what was happening before their spirits were ripped free from the anchor of the flesh and devoured by a single, solitary fiend from the darkest pits of the netherworld.
Apteris Ib Shaelloth inhaled, letting the smoky curls of burning wood and burning flesh lick at his nose before being siphoned into his lungs where they mixed to his infernal delight like the bouquet of a wine to a picky connoisseur of fine spirits.
Lord Marcus Artellion, paladin of Torm and general of the armies of Cormyr lay at the fiend’s feet, pinned to the floor by his own sword which neatly punctured his thigh and dove deep into the stone below. The paladin’s face was stoic, as much as was possible with the bodies of his wife and three children laying just out of reach or pinned to the walls with their own extracted and fractured long bones. Everyone was dead except for the lord of the house, and the fiend seemed to be waiting to butcher him last.
“Do what you must fiend.” Marcus said, snarling the words and holding back the tears of a broken man.
“I can, I have, and I will.” The fiend said calmly, now licking at the air with its elongated jackal’s tongue. Its eyes were still closed and it seemed preoccupied with taking in the whole of its actions like an artist, only vaguely aware –or caring- of the paladin skewered and helpless at its feet.
“The gods will destroy you and your kind for this sin.”
“I’m sure that they would,” The ‘loth answered with a thick sense of contempt. “If only they were capable of it of course. Or maybe they don’t care about one or two ants beings roasted under the sun; one or the other.”
The jackal-headed fiend turned and looked at his last victim, stepping closer and kneeling down to look him eye to eye.
“Enjoy my death.” Marcus spat defiantly. “But you will not shake my faith in the end, even if you have killed everything I loved. Enjoy yourself but it will be hollow.”
“Of course I’d enjoy it.” The fiend replied, leaning in so close that Marcus could smell the paradoxical combination of brimstone, perfume, and rotting flesh upon its breath.
Marcus waited for it to end. He waited for immolation, claws ripping open his chest to grasp at his still beating heart, or even the beast’s teeth at his throat ready to siphon off his blood, spurt by arterial spurt.
Marcus waited but nothing happened.
“Hmmph.” The fiend snorted contemptuously.
Marcus inhaled and shuddered as he heard the fiend’s lips separate and felt the acid spittle dribble down upon his cheek. But the end did not come, and the fiend was smirking rather than preparing to gorge itself.
“Why are you waiting hellspawn?” Marcus asked, opening his eyes and gritting his teeth.
The fiend was sitting down, legs crossed and apparently relaxed. The fiend’s silk robes and manicured hands were still spattered in the blood of his wife and children, but the creature had an almost pleasant look upon its face as it locked eyes with him.
“Of course I’d enjoy killing you.” It replied. “I quite enjoyed butchering your family, and I even admit to having applied a rather loose reading of the terms of the contract that bade me lay low your house in order to extend the killing to more than your immediate family. Their blood is still fresh on my tongue, and a certain urge exists to continue that slaughter with you and simply be done with my obligations in order to return to other pursuits.”
“Then kill me.” Marcus said. “Everything I loved is gone. Do your worst and be done with it.”
The fiend leaned in and replied with a smile on its lips.
“Death would be a transient pain for you mortal.” Apteris Ib Shaelloth explained. “One brief flicker of emotion, agony, spilt blood and perhaps your soul slipping down my gullet like a still squirming infant… and then it would be over. Indeed I would enjoy your death on some level, and the taste of your soul would be a particular delight in its own way: greasy and chewy as I digested its metaphysical gristle.”
The fiend paused, licked its lips and smiled even wider.
“But your death is predicated upon one simple notion: the assumption that you matter and that I care.”
Apteris stood and brushed the dust from the knees of his robe, fastidious about the presence of the smallest speck of dirt, but absolutely uncaring about the Rorschach patterns in pooled, smeared crimson.
“As much as I might enjoy it in some fashion, I have absolutely no intention of killing you.” The fiend’s words were cold, but the despondent chill that pulsed through the paladin was even colder. “If you’re so intent on suicide, I’ve conveniently given you a sword through your left leg, so I suppose you should thank me for providing you with that little bit of grace.”
“What?”
“I’m not going to kill you.” The yugoloth replied with a sneer. “But I will take my leave of you now, and I’ll leave you with your family, now that I’m done with them. Do as you will little man.”
The paladin had no words as the fiend opened a slender rip in the fabric of space and prepared to step through. His heart lurched and the foundation of his faith shuddered and cracked.
“Your ultimate fate doesn’t concern me you see.” The fiend said as he stepped through the gate. “Your suffering holds no meaning mortal. But you shall suffer nonetheless.”
I say "choice" as I do because there is, of course, choice. They have a monster block in the Monster Manual, and it'd be pretty easy to take the Githzerai, compare the blocks, and sort of filter in some fair augmentations to the Githyanki race to make it on par with other races and with nods to their Gith cousins. Wouldn't take too long to also create racial feats for them. I guess it would take a bit to make Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies on top of feats and the stat block, come to think of it. But we're not disallowed from controlling our own games.
Still doesn't make Wizards of the Coast's choice completely reasonable.
I understand having high elves & wood elves in the PH1, as well as two types of shifters in the PH2 (same fluff, slightly different mechanics). But outside hardcore D&D groups, I dunno if 'yanki will be really missed as a player option; just not that iconic beyond their badguy shtick. "We wield silver swords to kill astral travelers, ride evil red dragons cuz that's cool, and serve a paranoid lich queen because she's stronger than us."
Although in 4e they've 'recently' killed off the Lich Queen and broken the pact with Tiamat and the red dragons. Gith is back from Hell but hidden in the body of the Lich Queen's replacement.
The Lich Queen is still alive by default PoL fluff. I believe she is dead in the Scales of War adventure path, but that doesn't mean she is dead in the default fluff.It really isn't a question of differences in how they've chosen to implement the races mechanically. Yes, they have completely different ability scores and racial abilities. Presumably whatever race is included in the place of the Githyanki will also have completely different ability scores and racial abilities. It will presumably also have a meaningfully different concept. "Nice frog alien" and "mean frog alien" are not meaningfully different concepts. People not steeped in D&D lore know the difference between the High Elf and Wood Elf archetypes. To the same group, including both Gith looks like "Look guys, two copies of the same race in this book. Get your money's worth here."
Lastly, the Con/Int issue. Yes, there's no Con/Int race. Yes, there are several builds that would benefit from being a Con/Int race. I'm sure that providing a variety of racial stat loads is somewhat of a priority. It's not enough of a priority to include the Githyanki on its own strength. (They're literally better off with an original race than something that looks like a clone of another race in the same book.)
What if they left the Yanki out of PHB3 but instead put them into that years setting...much like they did with the Drow?
Believe me though, I don't enjoy bursting this bubble.
You need a good "Evil" race for the characters to go up against.
You need a good "Evil" race for the characters to go up against.
Seconded here. This is what I have been trying to say.
Personally, I hope Githyanki don't become a player race. That's what ruined drow. One "good" drow and suddenly they're not an enemy, but a character race option.
You need a good "Evil" race for the characters to go up against.
We already do, don't we? We have yuan-ti, beholders, undead types, dragons, Illithids, demons, devils, giants and many other good "evil" races. Atleast I like um.
Also just because players can use a race as a PC doesn't mean the race has to no longer be evil. The PC's are the exception to the rule unless you create tons of NPC's. I fail to see the problem.
Personally, I hope Githyanki don't become a player race. That's what ruined drow. One "good" drow and suddenly they're not an enemy, but a character race option.
You need a good "Evil" race for the characters to go up against.
Making it optional will make those interested in playing it happy while those who aren't can still use it as an enemy. I fail to see the horror in making others happy by providing.
Kalashtar are Humans that got psychic powers from Dream spirits and are disciplined monastics. If anything, they clash too much with Githzari defensive psionics, and one of them should go.
Personally, I hope Githyanki don't become a player race. That's what ruined drow. One "good" drow and suddenly they're not an enemy, but a character race option.
You need a good "Evil" race for the characters to go up against.
There were good drow before Drizzt, the drow weren't ruined, and we already have the best Evil race ever in the game: HUMANS.
And they were both PC options in 2e thanks to Planescape.
You realize that the Githzerai were presented as a PC race TWICE in Planescape. And I seem to recall the book that had Githyanki PC stats, mentioned that it was far harder to have a Githyanki as a PC, as every Planescape book generally assumed that either someone in the party was a Githzerai or got along with the Githzerai as they were a core Planescape race, rather than an optional one.
You realize that the Githzerai were presented as a PC race TWICE in Planescape. And I seem to recall the book that had Githyanki PC stats, mentioned that it was far harder to have a Githyanki as a PC, as every Planescape book generally assumed that either someone in the party was a Githzerai or got along with the Githzerai as they were a core Planescape race, rather than an optional one.
Yes, I do know that since I own the books. Thanks for assuming I didn't though. And way to miss the point - the point being thaX being just a wee bit hypocritical in accepting one but not the other, since both used to be "monsters."
Making it optional will make those interested in playing it happy while those who aren't can still use it as an enemy. I fail to see the horror in making others happy by providing.
The githyanki are already optional. If a DM allows it a player can write up a githyanki using the MM writeup. Putting a race in a PHB by default means it's not so much 'optional' as it is 'standard'. The point of the PG/PHB races is that they have a significant enough good population to be considered a PC race. Rare one-offs of good are best either homebrewed or based off the MM racial write-ups.
In 4e FR there are good drow and evil drow both in large numbers, especially when you take in to account the drow who were reverted to 'dark elves' by Corellon. Their skin got lighter but other than that they don't seem to be statted any different than drow (though the FR PG/CG don't specificy if they use drow or elf racial writeups). Long before Drizz't I had a good (leaning towards neutral) drow multiclass thief/fighter female during the 1e days and her partner was a female valley elf (Greyhawk elf subrace) cleric.
As for the 4e default fluff it's 50/50 on the Lich Queen since the Dragon article leaves it up to the DM if they want to have her still alive or if they want to use the post-scales of war shift in the Githyanki main city with Gith returned and the Lich Queen dead.
The Githyanki shall appear in The Plane Above. It imagine could be similar to the Bladeling, since it isn't a PHB, Dragon, etc. so probably won't be a full-race. Also since The Plane Above is in many regards a sequel to Manual of The Planes.
I make this prediction mainly based off this, so yeah I am most likely completely wrong :P
Time to make a prediction!
The Githyanki shall appear in The Plane Above. It imagine could be similar to the Bladeling, since it isn't a PHB, Dragon, etc. so probably won't be a full-race. Also since The Plane Above is in many regards a sequel to Manual of The Planes.
I make this prediction mainly based off this, so yeah I am most likely completely wrong :P
It's not personal, but I sure hope that you are wrong. I honestly really like the Manual of the Planes, but I was quite annoyed that it broke the "DM-/Player-book boundary" so early into 4E's lifespan, especially when keeping that line so clear was one of the goals of 4E.
As for Githyanki as a player race, I'm surprised at how ambivalent I am towards it. I'd love to see them as a player race, but OTOH I'd also love it if they retained the mystique of being "bad-guy only". Drow are good example of the kind of "villain-decay" you get when a "bad-guy race" becomes available to players, though to be fair, that started happening to Drow long before 4E put them in the FRPG. (Blame Drizz't.)
I think the ideal solution would be to put Githyanki in Dragon Magazine, where only subscribers can get it; that way, there's a limited form of "restriction" on whom it's available to. More importantly though, the magazine is a better venue for monster-races.
You know in general I am really liking the idea of exclusives. Especially given that they have stated they will give options for it as time progresses. I would love to see like a monthly Exclusive Race, etc.
As for Githyanki as a player race, I'm surprised at how ambivalent I am towards it. I'd love to see them as a player race, but OTOH I'd also love it if they retained the mystique of being "bad-guy only". Drow are good example of the kind of "villain-decay" you get when a "bad-guy race" becomes available to players, though to be fair, that started happening to Drow long before 4E put them in the FRPG. (Blame Drizz't.)
This I can't agree with. Drow are still very much a villainous race so far as I can tell. True it can seem like every other adventuring group can boast one or more such members, however, the overwhelming majority of drow in most setting are still lolth worshiping denizens of the underdark. The PC minority does not negate the NPC majority.
I think the ideal solution would be to put Githyanki in Dragon Magazine, where only subscribers can get it; that way, there's a limited form of "restriction" on whom it's available to. More importantly though, the magazine is a better venue for monster-races.
This I can agree with. In fact I very much hope that such an article will be released around the same time as the PH3.
The PC minority does not negate the NPC majority.
It can, and frequently does, in the minds of the players, even if they don't actively realize it. Just because there's TECHNICALLY still a ton of evil Drow, it doesn't mean that players don't have a slightly changed outlook on them now that they're also a player race. Hell, misconceptions and subconscious judgments happen with real-life races; why wouldn't it happen with fake ones?
Not that our party is a run of the mill group. We have:
- Dragonborn Starlock (albino white scales and our weakest link)
- Elf Ranger (ex-con, total bastard to non-elves)
- Shifter Cleric (who wishes he was an eladrin and tries to convert everyone to Sehanine)
- Minotaur Druid (cieftan's daughter, fresh in the world seeking adventure)
- Human Warden (with shifter blood and resembles a shifter and raised by shifters but no shifter mechanical traits, my char)
We're hoping the dragonborn gets killed off (issues with the player) so we can replace him with two other players who rolled up gnoll brothers. Yes the DM picks and chooses but it is his world after all. I know he also allows kobold PCs.
It can, and frequently does, in the minds of the players, even if they don't actively realize it. Just because there's TECHNICALLY still a ton of evil Drow, it doesn't mean that players don't have a slightly changed outlook on them now that they're also a player race. Hell, misconceptions and subconscious judgments happen with real-life races; why wouldn't it happen with fake ones?
And yet Githyanki are still considered a sufficiently villainous race for the designers to stat that as a reason for excluding them from PH3, despite the fact that Githyanki were PC options in both 2E and 3E. If the past two editions worth of PC minorities were not enough to negate the NPC majority then I doubt opening the option up in 4E would be any different.
It can, and frequently does, in the minds of the players, even if they don't actively realize it. Just because there's TECHNICALLY still a ton of evil Drow, it doesn't mean that players don't have a slightly changed outlook on them now that they're also a player race. Hell, misconceptions and subconscious judgments happen with real-life races; why wouldn't it happen with fake ones?
I think I somewhat agree; it's depowering to the evil races to give them PC rights, now when people see a Dark elf they think "are you a good Drow or a bad Drow", the stigmatism is faded and it's a little more boring.
I like Githyanki, I would love to play one, but not if nobody is going to fear him simply for being a Githyanki.
And yet Githyanki are still considered a sufficiently villainous race for the designers to stat that as a reason for excluding them from PH3, despite the fact that Githyanki were PC options in both 2E and 3E. If the past two editions worth of PC minorities were not enough to negate the NPC majority then I doubt opening the option up in 4E would be any different.
Don't bring up 2E and 3E, it was different then; there were draw backs back then to playing monster races, there was evil classes and evil characters all over the place. In 4E they would be way more accessible and so we would be seeing more of them, and just because it was being done in the past does not mean that if you keep doing it it's not going to get worst, that like saying "well I've been smoking for 20 years and I haven't had any problems so why would I start now?"
Let's face it, 4E is a lot more care bear; so if we say it's OK to play a Githyanki, then that makes them a little more care bear.
Don't bring up 2E and 3E, it was different then; there were draw backs back then to playing monster races, there was evil classes and evil characters all over the place. In 4E they would be way more accessible and so we would be seeing more of them, and just because it was being done in the past does not mean that if you keep doing it it's not going to get worst, that like saying "well I've been smoking for 20 years and I haven't had any problems so why would I start now?"
Their is some truth to that, and yet my point still remains. Even after 24 year as a PC option and 21 years with a major protagonist in the novels, drow remain a villainous enough race for the 4E authors to print "Arrogant and Perverse, the drow conspire to subjugate all who don't revere their Spider Queen," for the races introduction in MM1 and to still list every drow in that book as evil (not unaligned or any).
The PC minority does not negate the NPC majority. Heroic individuals of an otherwise villainous race are nothing more than the exceptions that prove the rule.
Let's face it, 4E is a lot more care bear; so if we say it's OK to play a Githyanki, then that makes them a little more care bear.
Riiggghhhhttttt......
Tiefling infernal walocks core since PH1, that's some pretty messed up carebares. 4E may be a game of heroic fantasy which by default assumes a story where good triumphs over evil, but that still leaves plenty of room for darker and edgier anti-heroes in the mix. Even the paladin is no longer necessarily a shining beacon of virtue and justice, now that the alignment restriction noose has been removed from round the class's neck.
The PC minority does not negate the NPC majority. Heroic individuals of an otherwise villainous race are nothing more than the exceptions that prove the rule.
Okay, let's just ignore what's already been said then. That sounds like a great plan.
Otherwise:
It can, and frequently does, in the minds of the players, even if they don't actively realize it. Just because there's TECHNICALLY still a ton of evil Drow, it doesn't mean that players don't have a slightly changed outlook on them now that they're also a player race. Hell, misconceptions and subconscious judgments happen with real-life races; why wouldn't it happen with fake ones?
Okay, let's just ignore what's already been said then. That sounds like a great plan.
Congratulations on ignoring everything else I said in that post. Yes I restated something I had already said (to add emphasis), but I also in the same paragraph you quoted expanded upon that original statement.
Congratulations on ignoring everything else I said in that post. Yes I restated something I had already said (to add emphasis), but I also in the same paragraph you quoted expanded upon that original statement.
Well, I'm sorry to point this out, but, contrary to cliched statements, an exception DOES NOT prove a rule to be true. In fact, it proves it wrong.
The difference between "Githyanki are evil" and "Most Githyanki are evil" can be very great in a player's or a character's minds. If WotC wants them to remain a wholly villainous race, the only way to do that is to not include them as a Player Race.
Well, I'm sorry to point this out, but, contrary to cliched statements, an exception DOES NOT prove a rule to be true. In fact, it proves it wrong.
Try looking up the original meaning rather rely on the bastardized modern usage (link*)
[INDENT]*Yes that's a wikipedia link, but it's well cited and the citations support entry.[/INDENT]
The difference between "Githyanki are evil" and "Most Githyanki are evil" can be very great in a player's or a character's minds. If WotC wants them to remain a wholly villainous race, the only way to do that is to not include them as a Player Race.
Drow, orcs, goblins, gnolls, minotaurs, and githyanki; all of these race are typically villainous by the default D&D setting despite all of these races having been player options at various points throughout the extended history of this game. This is because a typical theme of the sources that present them as PC options is to highlight that the PC is the exception to his more evil kin and that the PC must struggle against either his base nature and/or the preconceived notions of others in order to achieve his heroic destiny.
Their is some truth to that, and yet my point still remains. Even after 24 year as a PC option and 21 years with a major protagonist in the novels, drow remain a villainous enough race for the 4E authors to print "Arrogant and Perverse, the drow conspire to subjugate all who don't revere their Spider Queen," for the races introduction in MM1 and to still list every drow in that book as evil (not unaligned or any).
Yes but now it's easier to play a Drow more than ever, so It's not going to be the same. And the MM might be saying those things to try and compensate for the larger amount of people who are going to be playing Drow
And purely speaking from experience, I have noticed more people playing Drow than before, and IMO people are even being more accepting of them. I think if these people really though about it, they would have a more appropriate outlook on having a Dark Elf in the party, but the race has lost it's 'red flag' ever since it was a perfectly acceptable race choice with no drawbacks.
The PC minority does not negate the NPC majority. Heroic individuals of an otherwise villainous race are nothing more than the exceptions that prove the rule.
I think in a way we are talking about racism, we are talking about how others view an entire race, not like xenophobia but more just about image; and as we all know that just because there is a more rational way to look at it does not mean that people are going to stop being racist, especially not on the semi-subconscience level that we are talking about(red flags).
Tiefling infernal walocks core since PH1, that's some pretty messed up carebares.
And I think Tieflings have lost some of that 'red flag' that made them cool.
4E may be a game of heroic fantasy which by default assumes a story where good triumphs over evil, but that still leaves plenty of room for darker and edgier anti-heroes in the mix. Even the paladin is no longer necessarily a shining beacon of virtue and justice, now that the alignment restriction noose has been removed from round the class's neck.
That's not what we're talking about
And purely speaking from experience, I have noticed more people playing Drow than before, and IMO people are even being more accepting of them. I think if these people really though about it, they would have a more appropriate outlook on having a Dark Elf in the party, but the race has lost it's 'red flag' ever since it was a perfectly acceptable race choice with no drawbacks.
Of course more people are playing Drow now than before - because they got rid of the ridiculous Level Adjustment crap! I guarantee you, most of the people playing Drow now that didn't before would have if it were for the LA crap. This is what we call a good thing.