So it looks good that Gnolls may show up in the PHB3 which would mean more crunchy goodness for them.
Bel
Well there is one open race in PHB 3, Gnoll could be it, however it and the Minotaur kind of overlap, I would expect a psionic race seeing as the Githzerai doesn't really fit the bill.
Unfortunately, the authors have already stated that the githzerai is the most psionicly inclined of all the PH3 races.
Like it or not, gnoll is looking like a strong front-runner for the 4th slot. What I'd like to know is how between the gnolls and minotaurs (races with strong thematic links to their own patron demon lords), how WotC can with a straight face say that githyanki are too villainous to be a PC race.
On a side note, I don't understand why people assume Minotaurs are evil.
I never made that assumption. In fact, my group frequently plays minotaurs and includes minotaur cities, villages, and so on right alongside dwarf cities, villages, and so on in our campaign settings...
Well, I was curious the other day if another race had a similar hint. ... And nothing. I specifically checked in Gobins (all of them), Gnolls, Githyanki, Orcs, and several other humanoid creatures. None of them were given the slightest hint that some of them could be good. In fact, Gnolls got the worst rap of all of them.
And I quote, "Gnolls don't bargain or parley, and they can't be bribed or reasoned with." Also, "The life of a slave in a gnoll camp is brutal and short." (MM 133) For rude!
As much as I think gnolls are interesting, I doubt they will make the cut as a PH race for a long time yet. They probably just couldn't manage to put ALL the race articles in the Dragon Annual.
Well. There it is.
Sincerely,
Lord Dreadman
The new race could be something that fits into Dark Sun? Maybe?
Most of those races are psionic though. My guess for the last slot is Illumians.
But, I'd be happy with Gnolls.
Bel
thats all that needs to be said
Most of those races are psionic though. My guess for the last slot is Illumians.
But, I'd be happy with Gnolls.
Bel
Well, thri-kreen weren't originally psionic, they just pick up psionic flavor after being dropped in dark sun. Arguably, none of the races of dark sun really have a hardcoded psi flavor, its just that everything in the setting is psionic. Im sure muls and half-giants (if we see them) won't be intrinsically psionic.
What I'd like to know is how between the gnolls and minotaurs (races with strong thematic links to their own patron demon lords), how WotC can with a straight face say that githyanki are too villainous to be a PC race.
They did a good job keeping a straight face for the Tiefling, Drow, and Minotaur; Gnolls should be no problem. Whatever the real reason for excluding Githyanki is, they don't have a problem with making up some nonsensical reason for it.
However, I am cool with that, I think Gnolls are awesome. Githyanki are no good, untrustworthy evil creatures (just like the Drow), so personally I don't have a problem with no Githyanki... however they most likely will eventually have the Githyanki available for those that want to play them.
Whatever the real reason for excluding Githyanki is, they don't have a problem with making up some nonsensical reason for it.
I kinda think the issue is that Wizards believes they'd be perceived as too similar to the Githzerai, to people who aren't already familiar with them. They are indeed quite different, but they have similar names, and they look the same, sort of.. (well, enough that the one on the cover could've been either, apparently.) I can swallow that as a reason not to put them both in the same book, and out of the two, I'd agree the Githzerai should get priority because they're more apt for a PC race. But, that's not the reason they gave, so I'm not really sure whether it was even a consideration.
They've hinted they'll give them a writeup outside of PH3, which I take to mean probably a dragon article, so I'm satisfied with that.
Perhaps gnolls will show up. Then again, perhaps we'll see their stronger, smarter and, I think slightly, more civilized cousins the Flind.
True, that's entirely possible--I wouldn't mind that so much, although I'm not sure how personality-wise they're all that different from good minotaurs.
True, that's entirely possible--I wouldn't mind that so much, although I'm not sure how personality-wise they're all that different from good minotaurs.
Given the 4E view on subraces, I suspect we'll get a player writeup on Flinds without calling them that- they are simply called Gnolls.
I begrudgingly accept the lack of Githyanki (hoping they'll appear in a Dragon article sometime), but, given the reason they gave in the Githzerai article for excluding their astral pirate cousins--they don't want another "evil" race--I'd be baffled to see gnolls.
I've heard this before, and I'm sick of it. There is an enormous difference between a race like the Gnoll or the minotaur and a race like the drow or the Githyanki - Namely, that the latter races have perfectly usable good counterparts, and the former races DO NOT.
If you want to play a good githyanki, you might as well play a Githzerai (since, apparently, they're not very different in 4e). The same could be said about Drow and Elves/Eladrin, but not anywhere near as easily, as there are clearly differences between Elves/Eladrin/Drow aside from their culture.
If you want to play a good Gnoll, what do you play? A gnoll. There's no alternative, like there is for the Githyanki, or to a very much lesser extent, drow. The same is true of the minotaur.
They're not the same. Don't call them the same.
That aside, the only reason I'm not expecting a PHB3 Gnoll is that the Adventurer's Vault comes out before PHB3, and that's where the speculation comes from.
I thought our fourth race was probably going to be this thing?
I agree; I'm hoping it's Con/Int.
I thought our fourth race was probably going to be this thing?
That's probably a Psychic Sentinel, which is apparently a creature, not a potential PC race. That or it's a power for one of the classes.
The 4th race is most likely either the Gnoll, or one of the Dark Sun races that tended to exist outside Dark Sun, ie everything but Mul.
I base this on the whole non-mention of what the September PH3 preview will be in the Gith article, unlike the Psion article telling us Gith were next, coupled with the forum tease that the preview would be pleasantly surprising/unexpected. A Dark Sun race whose mention would have spoiled the setting announcement beforehand makes sense.
I've heard this before, and I'm sick of it.
If you want to play a good Gnoll, what do you play? A gnoll. There's no alternative, like there is for the Githyanki, or to a very much lesser extent, drow. The same is true of the minotaur.
I feel as though I've hit a nerve, and I'm not entirely sure why. If githyanki raiders sacked your hometown, and the nearby gnoll village came to your defense for some reason--I assure you I mean no personal offense...
No race is really 'the same' as another. I could make an argument, that gnolls--excluding Flinds--are not really like Minotaurs either, so you shouldn't lump them together. It's already been mentioned that there are some good Minotaurs, in the Monster Manual, well before they'd been written up as a PC race. Gnolls, as pointed out by another poster here,
...got the worst rap of all of them.
And I quote, "Gnolls don't bargain or parley, and they can't be bribed or reasoned with." Also, "The life of a slave in a gnoll camp is brutal and short." (MM 133)
So while Minotaurs are not necessarily an "evil race," there's no precedent within 4e for any substantial amount of good Gnolls. Like Githyanki.
Now, on another tack, I disagree with your main premise, that Gnolls have no alternative 'good' subrace, because as also pointed out by another poster, here, That Blasted Somoflange, the Flind exists. Haven't seen 'em yet in 4e, but that doesn't mean they're unavailable as an option with precedent. Granted, Flinds aren't necessarily "good" in the old-e writeups so much as "marginally more orderly and less savage," but they strike me as a better candidate for PC race writeup in a core book than 'regular' gnolls.
I probably shouldn't have gone off about the Githyanki here, it was tangential to this thread.
That's probably a Psychic Sentinel, which is apparently a creature, not a potential PC race. That or it's a power for one of the classes.
Except that the Psychic Sentinel wouldn't be found in the PHB3...
And it doesn't use weapons/armor/shields/strange claw gauntlets/have hair/have a clear gender.
It might be related somehow, much like a Warforged is related to the Slaughterstone Construct from the MM2, but I highly doubt that picture is a monster like that.
I could see it being a power... maybe... but another defender that transforms into things would be very disappointing.
Except that the Psychic Sentinel wouldn't be found in the PHB3...
Who says that it's a picture of something from the PHB3 in the first place? ;)
Who says that it's a picture of something from the PHB3 in the first place? ;)
Well, it's not the Psychic Sentinel. It's clearly a PC, or some other thing we have no idea about yet.
We know the Minotaur is in PH3... what does that imply about Gnolls?
Dragon Anual can also be taken as evidence, as well... like the Minotaur, the Gnoll will not be appearing in the hardbound version.
We know the Minotaur is in PH3... what does that imply about Gnolls?
Nothing.
I'd love to see them, along with a racial paragon and some more racial feats. (And a fixed up Claw Fighter so that it isn't such a useless feat unless you want to abuse some mechanics.)
Nothing.
Actually, taken with the Gnoll's as PCs art from AV2, it says a lot. Dragon PC races have not appeared in any hardcover book yet, except the Gnoll. Warforged don't count because they didn't appear in art until after the EPG. That, plus the absence from the annual, plus the fact that the Gnoll article was poorly done mechanics wise, just like the Minotaur, are all fairly good hints that they'll be the 4th PHB3 race.
However, I still think it's going to be a Dark Sun race, and that it'll be previewed in September.
Actually, taken with the Gnoll's as PCs art from AV2, it says a lot. Dragon PC races have not appeared in any hardcover book yet, except the Gnoll. Warforged don't count because they didn't appear in art until after the EPG. That, plus the absence from the annual, plus the fact that the Gnoll article was poorly done mechanics wise, just like the Minotaur, are all fairly good hints that they'll be the 4th PHB3 race.
However, I still think it's going to be a Dark Sun race, and that it'll be previewed in September.
The anomaly here is that AV2 comes out MONTHS before PHB3. It's very strange.
I agree that Gnolls are one of the top suspects for the 4th race, and for good reason. I like gnolls, and I kinda hope that it's them, but I also really want a tenable Con/Int race.
There would be quite a bit of overlap between the two books when they started production..
Well just cause the AV2 comes out before, doesn't exactly mean that it was in development entirely before.
There would be quite a bit of overlap between the two books when they started production..
I know, I'm just saying it's oddly different from the Warforged. And really, everyone knew Warforged would be in EPG, but they didn't put them in the books until after it came out. Why would they do that with a race that's open to guesses?
Has there even been a popular demand for gnolls as a race?
Yes.
Yeah, there has been. At least I, WolfLordbran, Anubis, Burningrose and a few others have taken interest in making Gnoll characters. I've been running around trying to figure out how to best make a gnoll leader.
I've made THREE kobold leaders, you!~O_o They are DEX/CON too... so it's not like it's difficult at ALL.
first leader and first 4e char i made was kobold tactical warlord X3 ok so his attributes don't match any of the primary/secondary stats, but shifty + dex (initiative, blade feats) and con (hp, surges, hammer/pick/axe feats) have made him a VERY well rounded warlord.
2nd was a kobold con-shaman, again... con... gnolls have it too... a gnoll shaman doesn't exactly sound far fetched either. Plus kobolds don't worry about implement sizes like they do weapon sizes
3rd I played one encounter with and have been preparing for other campaigns, kobold BARD, he seems the most flavorful to me, though i already picture myself playing him more like an arcane warlord. And I'm not too concerned with him using a big weapon being bards aren't exactly about being hard hitting, so using a short sword at heroic then taking heavyblade expertise (or focused expertise) and switch to a scimitar in paragon and afterwards.
And again, bards use CON, and being melee bards would use a songblade, that extra dex helps with blade feats =) heavy blade opportunist anyone ;D guided strike FTW!
Yes.
Yeah, there has been. At least I, WolfLordbran, Anubis, Burningrose and a few others have taken interest in making Gnoll characters. I've been running around trying to figure out how to best make a gnoll leader.
Really? You and a few others is not great player demand. This is certainly not great demand when compared to other monster races like kobolds, lizardfolk, and hobgoblins amongst others.
Dromite!!!
I say thee nay!!!
:D
Really? You and a few others is not great player demand. This is certainly not great demand when compared to other monster races like kobolds, lizardfolk, and hobgoblins amongst others.
Alright, you list people off the top of your head and see how far you get. The list he made details people on this board he's aware of, but it's not the *complete* list.
Alright, you list people off the top of your head and see how far you get. The list he made details people on this board he's aware of, but it's not the *complete* list.
It's a pointless exercise that proves nothing.
It's a pointless exercise that proves nothing.
It proves that there are, in fact, people who like gnolls. I'm sure that for every race, there are plenty of people who like it, but there are many people who aren't as sure of that (Like you seem to be). What is a pointless exercise is trying to compare the support for different races like that, because it's pretty much impossible.
I, for one, want to be able to run a game without "Traditional" races entirely.
Any furry would apreciate the option of the Gnoll- At the moment we have only the Dragonborn and perhaps the Shifter, with the Minotaur, Gnoll, and Kenku being far less supported.
I, for one, want to be able to run a game without "Traditional" races entirely.
Well, you'd pretty much need to cover at least the 6 stats...
I don't count Shifters as exotic. They don't make up for the lack of a real bestial race; they're 1/8 the bestial that the Gnoll is.
EDIT: also, Rakkashas as reflavored Devas. That'll give me all the stat bumps, AND a bestial catlike race.
Lots of body hair and pointy ears are not the only things they have going for them, the flavour and fluff of the race itself I would think would be more of a reason to play them. Personally I never thought too much of Gnolls, until a DM'd several sessions for our group and added a Gnoll NPC. The sort or NPC that gets on the PC's nerves all the time, proving to be very helpful, but inadvertently screwing them over on several occasions due to the fact of the difference in culture (killing messengers because they were following the party, and the like). The party actually did not end up killing this NPC, and I had so much fun with this NPC, that my next PC character was a Gnoll Warlock multiclass fighter (who was/is awesome).
Gnolls and Minotaur are not just for the....... furry type...... For some, Gnolls and Minotaur somewhat fit into a similar niche that other brutal races like Orcs do.
Lots of body hair and pointy ears are not the only things they have going for them, the flavour and fluff of the race itself I would think would be more of a reason to play them. Personally I never thought too much of Gnolls, until a DM'd several sessions for our group and added a Gnoll NPC. The sort or NPC that gets on the PC's nerves all the time, proving to be very helpful, but inadvertently screwing them over on several occasions due to the fact of the difference in culture (killing messengers because they were following the party, and the like). The party actually did not end up killing this NPC, and I had so much fun with this NPC, that my next PC character was a Gnoll Warlock multiclass fighter (who was/is awesome).
That's actually why I really like gnolls. I mean, my gnoll was a beast master ranger with a battlecrazed full-blade and a hyena pet, and I have to say - He played the "Crazy angry while bloodied" a lot better than a shifter does. But when he dealt the finishing blow on the guy we wanted to keep alive for questioning, it was like... No. I know this character. He wouldn't leave anyone alive, because it's just in his blood. Especially when he's in a blood craze.
So yeah. I like them for much more than "They're Furry Hyena People!"
As for people who say 'But they're putting in Minotaurs!', they are a somewhat dualistic race, bestial and human, which they play up by making some of them follow Baphomet and some follow Erathis and/or Bane. Minotaur warriors are listed as Any under alignment in the MM, whereas Gnolls, Goblins and Kobolds are listed as Evil.
I don't foresee Gnolls, Goblins or Kobolds as PC races anytime soon
How about Tiefling and Drow? Humans and elves tainted by Devils and Demons respectively becoming yet more subraces. If more PC races are to be added, I want them to be unique, something compleatly different from the humans, elves and dwarves every second fantasy story has. If devil-horned-humans and elves with black skin can be separate PC races warranting their own write ups, than I would think Gnolls and Minotaur can also fit in with the PC's.
I don't foresee Gnolls, Goblins or Kobolds as PC races anytime soon, for the same reason they didn't add Githyanki to PHB3.
How many times to I have to say why this is so dumb?
I've heard this before, and I'm sick of it. There is an enormous difference between a race like the Gnoll or the minotaur and a race like the drow or the Githyanki - Namely, that the latter races have perfectly usable good counterparts, and the former races DO NOT.
If you want to play a good githyanki, you might as well play a Githzerai (since, apparently, they're not very different in 4e). The same could be said about Drow and Elves/Eladrin, but not anywhere near as easily, as there are clearly differences between Elves/Eladrin/Drow aside from their culture.
If you want to play a good Gnoll, what do you play? A gnoll. There's no alternative, like there is for the Githyanki, or to a very much lesser extent, drow. The same is true of the minotaur.
They're not the same. Don't call them the same.
James Wyatt: Contrary to some message-board claims, the githyanki are not appearing in Player’s Handbook 3. Why not, you ask?
The githzerai’s evil kin are great villains, and we want to be careful about how often we turn villain races into player character options. Making the drow a playable race spent a lot of that currency, and we don’t want to overdo it.
And Mike Mearls said this:
Mike Mearls: While sometimes it’s fun to play against
stereotypes, we don’t want every villainous race to go the
way of the drow.
The reason that Githyanki are not being added has nothing to do with them not being 'different enough' from Githzerai, so your argument is pretty much a strawman, Burning Rose.
This also answers any quibbles about Drow, as they are cited as an example they don't want to emulate.
The reason that Githyanki are not being added has nothing to do with them not being 'different enough' from Githzerai, so your argument is pretty much a strawman, Burning Rose.
This also answers any quibbles about Drow, as they are cited as an example they don't want to emulate.
My argument isn't just that they're not different enough, but it is based on them having an alternative. I'm saying it's not the same as it is for the gnolls and the minotaur, or goblins, or kobolds, etc., who have no alternative.
Please go read the entirety of my argument before you go making assumptions about what it is.
It's a pointless exercise that proves nothing.
Except the fact the people i named are just a handful of people I had just recently seen and was naming off the top of my head.
And Aidan, pray tell why are gnolls featured in the dragon in the first place? The article itself, has broken the Only Evil clause you hold so very dear.
I've made THREE kobold leaders, you!~O_o They are DEX/CON too... so it's not like it's difficult at ALL.
first leader and first 4e char i made was kobold tactical warlord X3 ok so his attributes don't match any of the primary/secondary stats, but shifty + dex (initiative, blade feats) and con (hp, surges, hammer/pick/axe feats) have made him a VERY well rounded warlord.
2nd was a kobold con-shaman, again... con... gnolls have it too... a gnoll shaman doesn't exactly sound far fetched either. Plus kobolds don't worry about implement sizes like they do weapon sizes
3rd I played one encounter with and have been preparing for other campaigns, kobold BARD, he seems the most flavorful to me, though i already picture myself playing him more like an arcane warlord. And I'm not too concerned with him using a big weapon being bards aren't exactly about being hard hitting, so using a short sword at heroic then taking heavyblade expertise (or focused expertise) and switch to a scimitar in paragon and afterwards.
And again, bards use CON, and being melee bards would use a songblade, that extra dex helps with blade feats =) heavy blade opportunist anyone ;D guided strike FTW!
I've never said it is impossible to make a gnoll/kobold whatever leader. Only that they don't really lend themselves to being such. Primary because the gnolls don't have any of the main stats for leaders. So I'm like totally hoping for a leader some time that uses con or dex for its attacks and is melee..
My argument isn't just that they're not different enough, but it is based on them having an alternative. I'm saying it's not the same as it is for the gnolls and the minotaur, or goblins, or kobolds, etc., who have no alternative.
Please go read the entirety of my argument before you go making assumptions about what it is.
Indeed, there is a subtle difference, but I think it's really pretty much moot if there is an alternative or not. It's a matter of not making a 'Monsters R Us' game, which they've said they don't want to do.
And Aidan, pray tell why are gnolls featured in the dragon in the first place? The article itself, has broken the Only Evil clause you hold so very dear.
Dragon articles are far different from the Players Handbooks. Heck, they put the ecology of the Sharn in a Dragon article, and I don't remember seeing them in any MM even.
I can see you both really like gnolls. I've learned not to argue with furries, but we'll know soon enough what is going to happen. I don't have a huge investment in my prediction, but don't be too surprised or disappointed when I'm right.
It proves that there are, in fact, people who like gnolls. I'm sure that for every race, there are plenty of people who like it, but there are many people who aren't as sure of that (Like you seem to be). What is a pointless exercise is trying to compare the support for different races like that, because it's pretty much impossible.
I did not say otherwise. What I have been saying is that gnolls have not been in great demand as a race when compared to other monster races.
Except the fact the people i named are just a handful of people I had just recently seen and was naming off the top of my head.
Which is again hardly proof that gnolls are in great demand as a player race.
And its not so much that i like gnolls. Its just that I've played human/elf/dwarf whatever so much already that I'm tried of playing a race that everyone is totally cool with. Its like "Hi, My name is Joe, and I'm a human." then the village responds "Hi Joe!"
But if it was "Hi, my name is Joe, and I'm a gnoll." then the village should promptly respond with "MAKE LIKE TREE! AND DIE!"
Not to mention the humor involved. You can't make any drow jokes, but you can make Gnoll jokes. Like I play a revenant right now, who has a habbit of cutting off kobolds heads and making them his puppet. Whenever undead appear, I'm suppose to be diplomatic with them. Worked once so far, I was even the one to give them the burial rights.
And besides, either way with the outcome, my racial quest right now is to get the shifters fixed. Because I think they suck when you compare them to even some MM races. And that's sad. They need some racial traits besides their racial power.
I did not say otherwise. What I have been saying is that gnolls have not been in great demand as a race when compared to other monster races.
Which is again hardly proof that gnolls are in great demand as a player race.
So, what evidence to you cite for the races that you say have 'popular demand'?
Indeed, there is a subtle difference, but I think it's really pretty much moot if there is an alternative or not. It's a matter of not making a 'Monsters R Us' game, which they've said they don't want to do.
No, they've said they don't want to make villainous races, not monstrous races. If you don't understand the difference, maybe you should go read the Frankenstein Monster or something.
I did not say otherwise. What I have been saying is that gnolls have not been in great demand as a race when compared to other monster races.
Which is again hardly proof that gnolls are in great demand as a player race.
Prove it.
So, what evidence to you cite for the races that you say have 'popular demand'?
If you were to say look at the Draconomicon of 3.5E, the fact that kobolds got so much love in that book was predominately due to popular demand and a sort of fanatical devotion to kobolds that are present in the gaming community and the forums. You would be much harder pressed to find such a fanatical devotion from the 'gnoll community.'
Prove it.
I suppose this is a nice way to shift the burden of proof away from yourself that gnolls are a race with great demand. But really I admit that I do not have so much evidence as I do general impressions of the forum over time.
Anycase.. Chou babe.
No, they've said they don't want to make villainous races, not monstrous races. If you don't understand the difference, maybe you should go read the Frankenstein Monster or something.
I understand the difference quite well and am familiar with Mrs. Shelley's work. What's more I appreciate her work and feel that the horror, pathos and pity of the story is irredeemably cheapened by making it common. The Frankenstein monster by itself is a comment on Man's inhumanity. The Frankenstein Monster, Dracula and the Wolfman together is an Abbot and Costello film (and now I'm afraid I've dated myself).
And yet, Kobolds haven't even gotten a Dragon Mag write up yet and gnolls have...
And yet what? The supply of kobold support have not met the demand. But didn't kobolds have an early Dragon article devoted to them? They were not presented as PCs, but as opponents. There still has been constant demands for kobolds in the PHBs.
The biggest reason for the draconomicon is Deekin.
Kobolds also had Dragon Mountain and Tucker's kobolds going for them. What do knolls have to their names? Furries? :P
Though at the same time, this is exactly why gnolls should be in PHB3.
I wish i knew what happened to sentimental horde. It was about an adventuring party that was all monster races. Goblin, Half-Orc, gnolls, and lizardfolk where all part of the party.
Also what does fur have to do with anything?
gnolls can eat anything. I find that would be very handy when trying to assassinate someone..
Though at the same time, this is exactly why gnolls should be in PHB3.
Do not compute.
I wish i knew what happened to sentimental horde. It was about an adventuring party that was all monster races. Goblin, Half-Orc, gnolls, and lizardfolk where all part of the party.
Also what does fur have to do with anything?
Lizardfolk, despite being a fairly popular monster race, have received far less (N)PC attention than the other races you have listed. I would say that if you want such a party, you should be requesting for a lizardfolk PC write-up. :P
Which is why i don't even care about kobolds at the moment.
Already got one. But we call the lizard a dragonborn.
Which is why i don't even care about kobolds at the moment.
I am not following your rationale at all. Lizardfolk =! dragonborn. Their only real similarity really are scales. Apart from that, different flavor and origins entirely. It is much the same with kobolds.
So therefore, you cannot cite popularity as a reason for or against including Gnolls, Kobolds, Goblinoids, or any other race. Or at least the sole reason.
Especially Dromites. :P
Actually, taken with the Gnoll's as PCs art from AV2, it says a lot. Dragon PC races have not appeared in any hardcover book yet, except the Gnoll. Warforged don't count because they didn't appear in art until after the EPG. That, plus the absence from the annual, plus the fact that the Gnoll article was poorly done mechanics wise, just like the Minotaur, are all fairly good hints that they'll be the 4th PHB3 race.
However, I still think it's going to be a Dark Sun race, and that it'll be previewed in September.
I think that the simpler solution is that poor mechancis+not appearing in annual=article that wasn't good enough for the annual. I admit the artwork could be hint, but at the same time having a race appear in a book five months before the race is officially released seems off to me. *shrugs* (Oh and I'm still hoping for that crystal race being the fourth race because it was awesome looking.:D )
-=Edit: Holy crap I missed two pages. I don't feel like replying to everything in those two pages.....=-
The reason we were given that Githyanki are not being added has nothing to do with them not being 'different enough' from Githzerai...
*throws fuel on the fire* :D
Bel
Personally after being smothered in Kobolds when 4E was first launched (KotS I'm looking at you), my PC would probably kill one on sight if it appeared as a member of the party. Bel
Ding. Winner!!
Ok... no smileys?
I don't foresee Gnolls, Goblins or Kobolds as PC races anytime soon, for the same reason they didn't add Githyanki to PHB3.
Not to split hairs, but the Gnoll has already had a player write up, unlike Goblins or Kobolds, so it is already a PC race. So it's not far fetched that Gnolls would end up in PHB3 like the Minotaur is.
Gnolls have to be the favourite to be in the PH3, much as I would prefer Goblins or Thri-Kreen.
The write up of Yeenoghu in the Dragon Magazine Annual says he's a corrupted primordial who killed the Gnolls original god Gorellik - my bet is that we get given some gnolls who are still true to the old ways as 'good' guys
If PHB3 features Gnolls, all Wotc reasons not to chosing Githyanki (eeevil) will be lies?
I don't expect gnolls on PHB3 for the same reasons githyankis won't be in.
If PHB3 features Gnolls, all Wotc reasons not to chosing Githyanki (eeevil) will be lies?
I don't expect gnolls on PHB3 for the same reasons githyankis won't be in.
But Gorellik's gnolls wouldn't BE Ebil. Nor would Znir Pact gnolls.
If PHB3 features Gnolls, all Wotc reasons not to chosing Githyanki (eeevil) will be lies?
I don't expect gnolls on PHB3 for the same reasons githyankis won't be in.
You do know that the Githyanki excuse was a BS excuse right? There are already playable DROW and TIEFLING, Tiefling even in the PHB1. Evil race is no reason to exclude any new PC races (or PC races in need of a revamp).
Besides, we are already getting the other Gith in PHB3.
You do know that the Githyanki excuse was a BS excuse right? There are already playable DROW and TIEFLING, Tiefling even in the PHB1. Evil race is no reason to exclude any new PC races (or PC races in need of a revamp).
Besides, we are already getting the other Gith in PHB3.
While the "evil" reason given was pure BS, so is excluding githyanki just because githzerai are in.
You do know that the Githyanki excuse was a BS excuse right? There are already playable DROW and TIEFLING, Tiefling even in the PHB1. Evil race is no reason to exclude any new PC races (or PC races in need of a revamp).
Besides, we are already getting the other Gith in PHB3.
While the "evil" reason given was pure BS, so is excluding githyanki just because githzerai are in.
I have to disagree, I thought their reasoning for not making the Githyanki a playable race was right on. The fact that there are already Tieflings and Drow means they are willing to make villainous races playable, but are not going to drown us in them, doling them out gradually.
And this is a good thing, otherwise you end up with parties of gnolls, bugbears, kobolds and mind flayers wandering the countryside. 'Oh, we are misunderstood by our kind or were raised amongst good folk and never learned our racial ways'. But, they will take their racial feats and features.
I approve of WotC's decision.
Bel
You do know that the Githyanki excuse was a BS excuse right? There are already playable DROW and TIEFLING, Tiefling even in the PHB1. Evil race is no reason to exclude any new PC races (or PC races in need of a revamp).
Besides, we are already getting the other Gith in PHB3.
Their reason is that had already used up some of their "evil race" currency with the drow and they didn't want to use up all of it. And Tieflings aren't really evil, dark certainly but not flat out evil. The other Gith really aren't flat out "evil" either.
The Gnoll race on the other hand are demon worshipers who are responsible for the destruction of the last great civilization in the default PoL setting.
I specifically checked in Gobins (all of them), Gnolls, Githyanki, Orcs, and several other humanoid creatures. None of them were given the slightest hint that some of them could be good.
You didn't check all D&D campaign settings. In Eberron, orcs and half-orcs form the majority of the druidic order known as the Gatekeepers, who are a critical factor in keeping the abyssal forces away. Given that setting was written for 3.5, druids were restricted to neutral alignments (and their portrayal in the novels lends them to be almost completely neutral and balance oriented - see The Dragon Below series)
As for those who are saying "It will be a Dark Sun race!" we already have a race that used to be dark-sun exclusive. The goliath is the new half-giant.
As for the gnoll, if it dosn't appear in PHB3, it will appear in a PHB eventually. It's not in the annual because they said that races will only appear in PHBs, and we know it's not Dragon exclusive because they've said that the revanent and assassin are Dragon exclusive material and they did not say that about the gnoll. Hence, it will appear in a PHB sometime.
My argument isn't just that they're not different enough, but it is based on them having an alternative.
Saying that githzerai are an alternative to the githyanki is like saying that longtooth shifters are the alternative to gnolls.
As for the gnoll, if it dosn't appear in PHB3, it will appear in a PHB eventually. It's not in the annual because they said that races will only appear in PHBs, and we know it's not Dragon exclusive because they've said that the revanent and assassin are Dragon exclusive material and they did not say that about the gnoll. Hence, it will appear in a PHB sometime.
While I am a supporter of the idea that the Gnoll will be in a PHB, PHB3 specifically, and I use it's absence from the Dragon Annual as evidence, the supposed statement that races will only appear in PHBs (and PGs) is bunk. After all, the Shadar-kai is in the annual. 
You do know that the Githyanki excuse was a BS excuse right? There are already playable DROW and TIEFLING, Tiefling even in the PHB1. Evil race is no reason to exclude any new PC races (or PC races in need of a revamp).
Besides, we are already getting the other Gith in PHB3.
While the "evil" reason given was pure BS, so is excluding githyanki just because githzerai are in.
I have to disagree, I thought their reasoning for not making the Githyanki a playable race was right on. The fact that there are already Tieflings and Drow means they are willing to make villainous races playable, but are not going to drown us in them, doling them out gradually.
And this is a good thing, otherwise you end up with parties of gnolls, bugbears, kobolds and mind flayers wandering the countryside. 'Oh, we are misunderstood by our kind or were raised amongst good folk and never learned our racial ways'. But, they will take their racial feats and features.
I approve of WotC's decision.
Bel
Or perhaps those characters are in a world where gnolls, bugbears, kobolds and mindflayers are, y'know, not 'villainous races'. They've grown out of their savagery or need to conquer and have lived peacefully among the other races for decades, centuries, or millenia.
While I am a supporter of the idea that the Gnoll will be in a PHB, PHB3 specifically, and I use it's absence from the Dragon Annual as evidence, the supposed statement that races will only appear in PHBs (and PGs) is bunk. After all, the Shadar-kai is in the annual.
If the shadar-kai are in the annual and the gnoll is not, then I concur that the gnoll will be in PHB3.
As for the gnoll, if it dosn't appear in PHB3, it will appear in a PHB eventually. It's not in the annual because they said that races will only appear in PHBs, and we know it's not Dragon exclusive because they've said that the revanent and assassin are Dragon exclusive material and they did not say that about the gnoll. Hence, it will appear in a PHB sometime.
While I am a supporter of the idea that the Gnoll will be in a PHB, PHB3 specifically, and I use it's absence from the Dragon Annual as evidence, the supposed statement that races will only appear in PHBs (and PGs) is bunk. After all, the Shadar-kai is in the annual.
quite unfortunant that Wizards went back on their stance on this. I am glad, at least, that there are no new classes in the Annual.
To be fair, though, it is an "evil" race, one that is now out in print so it won't be in any future PHB's.
I, for one, don't think the Gnoll will be in a PHB at all. If the race is redone for print, it will be in a Setting Player's guide, though I doubt it will make it on the Dark Sun Players Guide next year.
I still hold out hope for the Dromite. The Small need representing...
Shadar-kai are unaligned ....
Shadar-kai are whatever they want to be. They're a player race.
MOST Shadar-kai are unaligned - the majority of NPC Shadar-kai are unaligned, that is. Players are restricted by alignment (though they probably shouldn't play Evil or Chaotic Evil alongside a good party).
To be fair, the way shadar-kai are described certainly makes them sound evil. I think most sane people would agree that a society where the accepted method of advancing in rank is to murder your rivals qualifies as an evil society. Really, the only thing that distinguishes them morally from drow is that they don't seem to take pleasure in torturing people before killing them (and that might just be because they prefer to torture themselves instead).
But this is really just a result of the slightly screwy 4e alignment system. I really wish WotC would decide once and for all whether alignment is supposed to represent your personal morality, ethics and wordview, or just whose side you're on. At the moment, different races and characters seem to be defined under quite different interpretations of what 'alignment' is supposed to be in this edition.
If 'alignment' is 'whose side you're on', then shadar-kai can be unaligned because they (mostly) follow the unaligned Raven Queen. But then drow should be chaotic evil rather than just evil, as they follow the chaotic evil Lolth.
If 'alignment' is defined primarily by where you stand on the axis of selfishness/selflessness as it was in earlier editions, then both drow and shadar-kai are evil (with drow being somewhat more so). Both are pitiless, ruthless murderers who don't care about anyone's wellbeing but their own.
For an even more egregious example of alignment double standards, compare Holy Uldra and Irristia Immiar, both from the Eberron Campaign Guide. The 'unaligned' Immiar slaughters civilians in an attempt to provoke a massive, bloody war, purely so she can have the chance to earn the personal 'glory' she feels the end of the Last War denied her. The supposedly 'evil' Uldra just wants to free her people from what she sees as corrupting foreign influence and it's even stated outright that her belief that she's doing what's best for her people really is genuine.
Then again, with Shadar-Kai, it depends on setting also. In FR they tend more towards evil being strongly tied to Shar and a creation of the Netherese.
Actually, the depiction of Shadar-kai in Dragon, especially after the Behind the Curtain in the Annual, says quite outright that they are NOT particularly evil, and goes on to just prove the entire purpose of what Unaligned is and should bse.
I'm tired of people calling themselves unaligned and playing evil or chaotic evil. I'm tired of deities like that too. But Shadar-kai are definitely not in that category of unaligned.
Sure, they make good villains, and we see them often in villain roles. We see humans more often in villain roles than Shadar-kai though. We just don't see Shadar-kai as often in the "humble barkeep" NPC role as often because, frankly, they're a rarer race whose culture doesn't sit too well with humbleness.
Shadar-kai are a people of extremes. The most important point about them is that they're culturally open - they won't hide their feelings. They'll tell you outright why they're upset. They feel great passion, great pain, great sorrow, grain anger. They need to feel powerful emotions - it's a way to stave off the melancholy of the world they (usually) live in.
Shadar-kai are a prideful race. They like to brag about their achievements. Their achievement are worth more to them than their money, possession, and birthrights. They forge their own path through life.
All of these traits are traits that fit ANY alignment. They tend to be unaligned because they tend to care most about themselves and the people they care about, rather than greater struggles of ethics and holy wars and such. Unaligned is defined in that way - it's about being a teamplayer, but not caring too much about saving the kingdom unless there's something personal at stake - a friend, a title, family, anything that directly relates to what the unaligned character cares out - often in the character's background.
Good and Lawful Good heroes may try to save a kingdom, liberate the oppressed, root out evil, obliterate undead, destroy abominations. Unaligned characters need more of a motivation to do that than just wanting to do good. Shadar-kai fall into that category quite nicely quite often, but they can easily be of any category depending on your personal taste.
I also think we have enough monster PCs, but if we're going to get another one, it better be kobolds and not those stinking Gnolls.
Ah, the beloved lowly kobold. It was such a joke in 2nd with it's quarter of a hitdie. Kobolds have always been a fan-favorite. The day Complete book of Humanoids came out I rolled up the party mascot "Trapbait".
Allow me to present some facts: Playing kobolds is fun, and good for you. It cures cancer, brightens your teeth, and improves your memorization and focus.
Playing Gnolls is bad for you.
In light of those facts, I hope WOTC makes the right decision.
Kobolds are fun, they have a legacy of humour (remember the Kobold Victory roll from 3.5e that got translated to the article in 4e Dragon?). They should be a Player race eventually.
But WotC said that they're difficult to deal with, and frankly, it's true - shifty is too powerful for PCs. We need shifty to be altered to PC level before they can be PC approved, but any weakening of the power makes it too weak for PCs. This is the fundamental conundrum that (I believe) has prevented WotC from releasing a Playing Kobolds article or putting them in a PH or PG. That, and the fact that we're only in the second year, and there are many, many years of 4e to come.
Kobolds will come, eventually.
I could see making Shifty the Race power for Kobolds, with a Dex or Level based Feat turning the power into an At-will or something like that.
Regardless, I would like to see the 4th race be a small one, and I would also like to see more damaging small race weaponry. Not that I like or want to play small races, but I think they are a bit under-represented so far. So Goblins, Kobolds, etc.
Then again I am just happy to see any new and different option being published. They would have to try real hard to alienate me right now.
If they nerfed Shifty into "you can shift 2 squares as a Shift move action" , I think it would work as a major race feature...
I also think we have enough monster PCs, but if we're going to get another one, it better be kobolds and not those stinking Gnolls.
Technically, since Gnolls are already a PC race by virtue of their Dragon article, if you are to get another new one it most certainly won't be Gnolls. ;)
Couple things..
The Small race should be the Dromite. It makes sense considering the Psionic nature of the race and the Psionic theme of the book.
Gnolls having some article online doesn't make it a default player character race. I rathor think it is more like the MM races instead, up to DM approval. Good luck for those players who have DM's that don't have the overpriced DDi.
Kobolds are more of a setting guide race, like the Drow.
ThaX, would you say the Dromite is more Psionic than the Githzeri?
Couple things..
The Small race should be the Dromite. It makes sense considering the Psionic nature of the race and the Psionic theme of the book.
Gnolls having some article online doesn't make it a default player character race. I rathor think it is more like the MM races instead, up to DM approval. Good luck for those players who have DM's that don't have the overpriced DDi.
Kobolds are more of a setting guide race, like the Drow.
Actually, the Gnoll was included in the original demo of the Character Builder, and it's article is still free online. So no overpriced anything needed.
Also, it has been brought up before, but they have mentioned that the Githzerai are the most psionic race that we are going to get. They might be lying, or they might change their minds, but a psi race at this point looks doubtful.
ThaX, would you say the Dromite is more Psionic than the Githzeri?
Because he's obsessed with them for some reason. But all evidence points to them not being in. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if there was no small race included at all, which along with all the other evidence is why I think it'll be the Gnoll. Barring that, the Thri-kreen is the next most logical choice, especially since they existed in Forgotten Realms, Spelljammer, and I think either Greyhawk or Mystara before Dark Sun came out.
ThaX, would you say the Dromite is more Psionic than the Githzeri?
Because he's obsessed with them for some reason. But all evidence points to them not being in. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if there was no small race included at all, which along with all the other evidence is why I think it'll be the Gnoll. Barring that, the Thri-kreen is the next most logical choice, especially since they existed in Forgotten Realms, Spelljammer, and I think either Greyhawk or Mystara before Dark Sun came out.
The Dromite is about the same as far as Psionic is concerned.
The Thri Kreen was used more effectively in the Dark Sun setting than any other, and it most likely will be in that setting's Players guide. This is part of the reason I think the Dromite would make sense as the last race included in the PHB3.
The Gnoll is a monster race, one that will stay in the electronic pages of the DDi for the time being, and would be a setting race if ever published into print form. To be quite frank, the other unlikely favorite, the Goblin or another Gobliniod race, would have a better chance.
The Dromite is about the same as far as Psionic is concerned.
That was a trick question. If the dromite, indeed, is on par or more psionic than the Githzeri, then by the developer's comentary, it will not be in.
The Dromite is about the same as far as Psionic is concerned.
That was a trick question. If the dromite, indeed, is on par or more psionic than the Githzeri, then by the developer's comentary, it will not be in.
A little confused here, why would it be eliminated? I wasn't aware that they said "There will be no more races that would go with the content of this book added, but something completely out of left field." I had thought the Wilden had taken that spot...
They explicitly said that the githzeri would be the MOST psionic race they publish for the forseeeable future. (Githzeri preview article, you can read it yourse- OH WAIT!)
If the Dromite is on par with the Githzeri, it must not be planned to be published anytime soon.
The Gnoll is a monster race, one that will stay in the electronic pages of the DDi for the time being, and would be a setting race if ever published into print form.
The Minotaur would like to have a word with you.
They explicitly said that the githzeri would be the MOST psionic race they publish for the forseeeable future. (Githzeri preview article, you can read it yourse- OH WAIT!)If the Dromiteis on par with the Githzeri, it must not be planned to be published anytime soon.
True, however, technically speaking MOST does not mean ONLY. The dromite could be equally as psionic as the Githzerai, and the statement from the preview would remains true (as two things tied for top position would both be MOST). Granted such a case isn't very likely, but...
Anyway, as to whether the dromite is less/more/equally psionic compared to the githzerai. Back in 3.5, dromites had 1 innate power point, while githzerai had 2. Dormites had one psi-like ability (energy ray), while githzerai started with four (inertial armor, psinic daze, catfall, concussion) and gained a fifth (plane shift) at 11th level. So the dromite had fewer power points and fewer abilities. Also to me, shooting beams of energy is not very strongly synonymouswith psionicpower, while with the exception of plane shifting most of the githzerai abilities feel quite psionic. How dromites would be stated into 4e is almost anyones guess, but in the previous edition they seem to rather clearly be of a weaker psionic flavor.
The Gnoll is a monster race, one that will stay in the electronic pages of the DDi for the time being, and would be a setting race if ever published into print form.
The Minotaur would like to have a word with you.
Yes? And?
The Minotaur has had a florish of stories that put them in a better light than the monster in the maze. Huma comes to mind, and is what most here would think of in regard to a Player Character Minotaur.
The Gnoll has no such background, and I do not see it coming anytime soon.
The Gnoll is a monster race, one that will stay in the electronic pages of the DDi for the time being, and would be a setting race if ever published into print form.
The Minotaur would like to have a word with you.
Yes? And?
The Minotaur has had a florish of stories that put them in a better light than the monster in the maze. Huma comes to mind, and is what most here would think of in regard to a Player Character Minotaur.
The Gnoll has no such background, and I do not see it coming anytime soon.
Yes, Huma, the human knight, is a perfect example of a PC Minotaur...
I believe you are thinking of Kaz.
Yes? And?
The Minotaur has had a florish of stories that put them in a better light than the monster in the maze. Huma comes to mind, and is what most here would think of in regard to a Player Character Minotaur.
The Gnoll has no such background, and I do not see it coming anytime soon.
A handful of stories versus millenia of lore as monsters, as opposed to a critter that's been around maybe 30 - 40 years. I can see how that would be confusing.
Minotaurs are still viewed as monsters, no matter how much you protest otherwise. They're an incredibly bad example to use against the inclusion of Gnolls. Especially since they're demon worshippers, just like Gnolls.