Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 anubis_reynard Jul 24, 2009 12:37:27	This is more a theoretical excercise than some of the other threads in this format. So I'm looking for thought on the subject, not kneejerk reactions- I know it's unlikely, but it might not be as unlikely as you'd think. As everyone knows, the theme of PH3 is "defence against the far realm", which brings together Psionic classes, the Giths which rebelled against the Mind Flayers, the Wilden, and at least 1 monsterous race (Minotaur on the cover) But there is a second theme that I believe was mentioned, that of flexible options. PH3 gives us the Wilden, with it's swapping encounter powers and bonus defence; The Psion, and it's power point system; the Monk, with it's full Disciplines; the Hybrid rules. It is being argued in other threads whether the Giths should be one entry or two. If it was one entry, I believe they could be presented in a way that emphasizes this second theme- do you want your Gith Astral side up or Elemental side down? Likewise, the Goblinoids are an ideal canidate for another dissimilar merge- 3 races, statistically different but with a common theme. And at the same time, Blue Goblins have long been a psionic tradition, linking the Goblinoids to the Psionic power source. It would also include the Goblin, a small race for those of you looking to fill out that tradition. :p How plausable is this chain of reasoning? is there any other evidence of flexible options known for PH3, and for the goblinoids to be in it?
#2 vebrandsson Jul 24, 2009 12:53:13	It depends on what goblinoids you expect them to include, if they go with the MM1 trio of goblin, hobgoblin, and bugbear I think that those three are just a little too statistically diverse to present as a singular write-up in the style of the shifters which I believe is what your suggesting. While not impossible I find it highly unlikely they will do this given that they had separate NPC write ups already. Also I don't know what you mean about psionic blue goblins, I never really got into 3rd and I know such didn't exist in 2nd at least not outside maybe certain settings. Mind you I know that 3rd made half giants psionic which still makes absolutely no sense to me and sounds about as far fetched as the worst of WotC's ideas.
#3 ranadiel Jul 24, 2009 13:27:41	It is being argued in other threads whether the Giths should be one entry or two. If it was one entry, I believe they could be presented in a way that emphasizes this second theme- do you want your Gith Astral side up or Elemental side down? Your argument sort of starts to fall aprat on this point. You are basing your idea on the assumption that they are going to combine the giths and therefore there is precedent for them to have combined races. However we know with some certainty that they have not been combined because we know next month's early PHB3 content is one of the giths(it is the good aligned group....whichever one that is). So the question isn't so much whether they are going to combine the giths as whether they are going to include both types of gith in the book.....and yes I know people are arguing about the combination, but people argue over the wrong question all the time. Anyways without that precedent the idea sort of falls apart.
#4 anubis_reynard Jul 24, 2009 15:14:31	Showing one side of a combined gith race is like showing one build of the Psion, isn't it? :p I will almost certiantly be disproved whern the 'zera article comes out, but it is something to consider.
#5 celticmutt Jul 24, 2009 17:34:37	Showing one side of a combined gith race is like showing one build of the Psion, isn't it? :p Not really.
#6 Black_Knight999 Jul 24, 2009 22:59:51	Not really. Yes it is. They're both exactly the same with a small flavour difference. :D
#7 Hebitsuikaza Jul 24, 2009 23:47:50	Well... Giths look about the same. They are expected to have basically identical fighting styles. Although they live on different realms, the challenges they face on each realm are identical. Giths are physically identical. One can argue there might be SMALL differences, but the differences are such that going by this system we'd need to have different stats for Navaho and Brazilians or Chinese and Mongolians. Their physical differences are just not diverse enough. But if you compare Goblins, Hobgoblins and Bugbears-- there is quite a lot more difference. While you couldn't tell a Githyanki from a Githzerai if they were wearing the same outfit, there is no mistaking the Goblinoids for one another-- except perhaps a REALLY big Hobgoblin might pass for a Bugbear because as D&D versions have progressed the Hobgoblin keeps getting bigger and the Bugbear keeps getting more civilized. Goblins are the size of Halflings. There is less physical difference between a Gnome and an Elf now than a Goblin and a Hobgoblin. So there is no doubt that you need a totally different stat block to represent something the size of a child that is quick and agile as something the size of the largest of our species that is known for being a well organized, studious, relentless warrior. It does get muddled if you bring the "Blue" Goblin into the mix because depending on how you work them into your story a "Blue" Goblin may be as different as a Tiefling is to a human or it may just be a Goblin born with a random mutation. IF the later-- then it isn't it's own race. In which case, you wouldn't even need a stat block for it. All you would need is a different set of racial traits that belong to a "Blue" rather than a normal Goblin and then say that the player may take feats from one set or the other. As I am currently working on a Goblin compendium, I created "Blues" as their own race, but that's simply to complete the list rather than to necessarily advocate them being a unique race. In fact, I don't even think they should be a race that should be carried over to 4E. A normal Goblin can be a psion just fine on its own and a little note can be made in the racial entry that Goblins with natural Psionic talents are often born with bluer skin. But then there are half a dozen other Goblinoids that should either be phased out or retooled. For instance, a Norker is really nothing more than a Goblinoid version of a Dwarf and hasn't even been used for a long time. The Vrill has been replaced by the Lolth-born Goblin so that decission has already made. Koalinth (MerHobgoblins) are no more necessary than MerElves nor are ice Hobgoblins (Amitok). A Thoul was just a weird chimeric monster that was designed for a one-shot and needn't even be considered valid beyond their single appearance. And the Kith and the Vorag are so beastial, so base, so devolved that I don't even know if they should be considered valid races. Only one that 4E hasn't touched on yet was the Bhuka, but they were released in a side supplement that most people probably never even picked up. But unless retooled to be something more than "people who live in the desert" it is hard to do anything with them. I could seem them retooled as pacifist, meditative Goblin shamans and monks, but such a concept isn't one that needs to be released yet when there are so many other monsters left to release that make more aggressive and dangerous foes and there aren't enough 'evil PC' groups that we need a 'good'-aligned monster for them to face. Even if you were to implement Bhuka as being friendly to other Goblins, their best role would be as healers of the others and generally 4E seems to have a distaste for monsters gaining HP during battle. So I don't expect to see the Bhuka issue addressed for quite a while unless WotC becomes desperate for PC races. As for whether they need be different from regular Goblins?... Well, they are bigger and their physical features and battle tactics are still quite a bit different from those of a Goblin than a Githyanki is from a Githzerai. I think the fundamental problem with Githyanki and Githzerai is that BOTH are meant to be psionic races and if you make one much better suited to be a psion or you give one all the cool powers that both should be expected to have access to, then everyone will only play that one-- becaue there has never been and never will be enough distinction between them for anyone to really be a fan of one or the other, instead people will generally like the idea of both fairly equally and choose the one that's given the btter numbers on the page. But the same is more or less true of the differnt Elves. The differences between the Elves is entirely meaningless and trivial in the face of the differences between the goblinoids. Your skin is purple and so you are evil and get dark vision and throwing up clouds of darkness? What's that all about? You are blond insead of brunette so you teleport and can't use a bow anymore? But if someone is a fan of a Goblin, Hobgoblin, Bugbear or Bhuka, they are generally a fan of the elements that the particular one displays that the others do not UNLESS they like how the totally diverse races of totally clearly different sizes, shapes, focuses and abilities function and interact together.
#8 celticmutt Jul 25, 2009 3:13:39	Yes it is. They're both exactly the same with a small flavour difference. :D Not even close to accurate. Well... Giths look about the same. They are expected to have basically identical fighting styles. Except they don't. At all. That's like expecting the medieval Holy Roman Empire to fight the same as the Medieval Spanish. Although they live on different realms, the challenges they face on each realm are identical. No they aren't. Do you know anything about how the Astral Sea or Elemental Chaos (aka Limbo) works? Giths are physically identical. One can argue there might be SMALL differences, but the differences are such that going by this system we'd need to have different stats for Navaho and Brazilians or Chinese and Mongolians. Their physical differences are just not diverse enough. Their stats say otherwise. I think the fundamental problem with Githyanki and Githzerai is that BOTH are meant to be psionic races and if you make one much better suited to be a psion or you give one all the cool powers that both should be expected to have access to, then everyone will only play that one-- becaue there has never been and never will be enough distinction between them for anyone to really be a fan of one or the other, instead people will generally like the idea of both fairly equally and choose the one that's given the btter numbers on the page. Except that (again) that's completely and utterly wrong. Yanki are Psions, and Wizards, and Knights, and Gishes (aka Swordmages). Zerai are Monks, Fighters, Clerics, sometimes Wizards. That's the way it's been every edition. Just because they're both Psionic, they aren't meant to be the same kind of Psionic. They play fundamentally different. Frankly, you once again clearly have no idea what you're talking about. But the same is more or less true of the differnt Elves. The differences between the Elves is entirely meaningless and trivial in the face of the differences between the goblinoids. Your skin is purple and so you are evil and get dark vision and throwing up clouds of darkness? What's that all about? You are blond insead of brunette so you teleport and can't use a bow anymore? Yeah ... there's so much wrong here I don't even know where to begin .... But I will say this - the elf races are just as different as the goblin races. Just because you choose to focus on one trivial physical aspect doesn't change the facts.
#9 Hebitsuikaza Jul 25, 2009 4:22:40	So size, scope, physical abilities and attributes are trivial and unimportant? What exactly do you THINK is important? The only difference between the Githyanki and the Githzerai that has been consistent throughout the editions is that Githyanki are evil, xenophobic and violent and Githzerai are good, foreseeing and docile. That's the only consistent difference you'll find from 1st edition. But a PC will be neither of those things. Generally PCs are not allowed to be evil and xenophobic-- not unless you are playing in a game where only Githyanki PCs are allowed. A PC is also fundamentally not going to be docile, pascifistic and only act in self defense else 90% of adventure hooks would not be functional. Adventure Hook: "Oh no! The dragon stole the fair maiden." Githzerai: "Oh, yes. There is far too much conflict in the universe. But have faith my brothers and sisters that this time of trouble will end soon. Simply relax and be patient." Adventure ends. Furthermore-- even if we accept your definition as you put forth, the Giths are entirely unviable as PCs. By your very definition here a Githzerai can NEVER be a Knight or he is by definition a Githyanki. A Githyanki can NEVER be a monk or he is by definition a Githzerai. You see the problem here? You know which is which based on their CLASS alone. What is quite disturbing here, what tells me that I am conversing with a child, is that you put forth the idea that the Githzerai have been traditionally protrayed as fighters, wizards and clerics, but NEVER as Psions tells me your ENTIRE conceptualization of the race is born directly and fully out of the 4E Monster Manual. You don't care that the race existed for 20 years prior to that book, to you the knowledge came into being last year and for your conceptualization of existence, nothing established before that point "counts". So neither a Githyanki nor a Githzerai can functionally work as a PC. The only knowns about them utterly defie the role. However, not only a goblin, hobgoblin and bugbear all functionally viable as PCs, they are functionally viable as different sorts of PCs. A Hobgoblin fighter does not fight in the same manner as Bugbear fighter nor does a Goblin fighter's abilities match up with either. A Hobgoblin is a well-organized spartan, a Bugbear will grab you and rip you limb from limb and a Goblin will shoot you with an arrow or stab you in the knee then run away. A Hobgobin Rogue does not at all match a Goblin or a Bugbear rogue. A Hobgoblin rogue you'd expect to be a commanding, charming scout while a Bugbear rogue is sneaky, but will smash you with his big club. Meanwhile a Goblin rogue is super stealthy and will jump on your back from a ceiling rafter and cut your throat open before you know what happened. A Hobgoblin ranger would probably be a wild hunter armed to the teeth who dominates nature with a strong fist. A Goblin ranger will probably be riding wolfback and shoot you with poisoned arrows before disapearing into the brush only to emerge again moments later. A Bugbear ranger would be a beastial form of nature armed with a pair of claws and seem more beast than humanoid. So each is viable for each class and for each class there is a clear and concise distinction between how each would approach and handle the class. That is hardly a trivial aspect. Demonstrate to me that the elven races are even remotely close to different. You got 3 races that are exactly the same size, exactly the same build, approach other races with exactly the same condescention-- it's hard enough to differntiate between a Eladrin and an Elf, but then you need to make room for a "good" Drow and suddenly... what? Crowbarred mechanics aside, what exactly is the STORY difference here? See-- you seem to be stuck on a mechanical side here. You say "well, WotC gave them these totally random stats pulled out of thin air and so THAT is all that represents the race, THAT is the entire meaning of the race, THAT is all that defines the race"-- you don't seem to be able to comprehend that those are just numbers on a page and a single artists single rendering of the race by its side. These numbers are merely a grasp at the air trying to capture mathematically the essence of the race that exists in the story. The existence in the story is the primary important aspect. The mathematics, the numbers cannot hope to ever really capture and encapsulate this essential spark. They can try, they can seem to have captured a shadow of the spark... but in the end it is about the imagined image. There is no problem envisioning the imagined image of the goblinoids because they have always existed in tandum. Even if originally the conception was very little more than goblins being a 1st level monster, hobgoblins being a 2nd level, orcs being a 3rd and bugbears being a 3th level monster... they have all been adversaries, all presented side-by-side, all expected to interact, each given its own role in battle. By 3rd edition, the goblinoid races more or less were a dark reflection of a player party with each race specializing in its own role, but able to cross over carrying some of its specialization for the other role to their new one. But in 3rd edition that had very little meaning. In 4E though-- that has deep meaning. You can give Bugbear feats without ever once thinking that they belong to a Goblin and Goblin feats would just look totally out-of-character and place on a Hobgoblin. That's often not true with Elves. Suddenly Wood Elfs are no longer good with swords and High Elves don't know what to do with a bow? Well, that certainly flies in the face of everything that was ever established! Now only one of them is resistant to enchantments? Now only one of them has access to mithril? Now only one is friend to all fey? Previous to 4E, the difference between a Wood Elf and a High Elf was marginal at best. They got whatever attributes best fit the class they were in, but their physical descriptions were NEVER sufficently different enough to rationalize such wildly different attributes. The physical differences are still not varied enough, but now their attributes are much closer-- but, also, now every ability you give to the Elf makes the Eladrin feel its pockets have been picked and visa-versa. Githyanki and Githzerai are guaranteed to be in the same boat. Although we have been shown in previous editions that they FAVOR one particular class, they really only ever had 2-3 monster manual entries anyway-- each of which depicted them in select classes. The abilities they are demonstrated to have have derived far more from what one would expect a member of that particular class to demonstrate rather than what is intuitive to the race itself. With the goblinoids they were all depicted utilizing the SAME class-- 1st level warrior. So all the differences were derived from race, not their choice of class. So once you take "2" races that have only really been properly defined by a) a single amorphus attitude and personality that is seen as unilateral throughout the entire race and b) what classes they've been demonstrated in and then you say "we no longer restrict your class to only 2 options" and "you can't really have your previously defined attitude" then there is no longer enough functional difference to say that they are different except where they deemed to live. You may as well be calling Dwarfs who live in the center of a mountain a different race from Dwarfs who live in a forest village. And every ability you give to either one, each feat you offer either one will make the other feel like it's been kicked in the groin and robbed at knife-point. If you understand what each race is supposed to be capable of, there is such a huge overlap in terms of nonclass abilities that once you start writing those feats the players of the other will say "WTF?! Why can't my race do that anymore?! We are SO totally the Gith that does that!" And you still don't see the problem? Now, it may seem like I am down on the Gith races in general. Let me make it very clear and concise that I am not. They are in fact one of the races I'd be more than happy to play. But I see the definition of "Yanki" and "Zerai" so horribly forced and artificial that I'd not be able to aptly choose between them and I know there's no way I can play according to the single personality that is meant to encompass the entire race. In fact, the choice about them will immediately stop being about which conception seems better for the character and all about which one has the +'s that would be most powerful when combined with the classes. It just feels that that is the antithesis of good roleplay. It's like you'd sit there and say "Okay, I like the personality of the meditative Githzerai more so I want to be that. And I suppose the party needs a defender, so I'll be a fighter." Then you get to the table "I'm playing a Githzerai..." "OMG! Not ANOTHER f**** Striker! We've got 3 already!" "No, no. I am playing a Fighter" "OH! You mean you are a Githyanki Fighter" "No, I am a Githzerai" "WHAT?! No-- Githzerai are only monks or clerics. You can't be a Githzerai Fighter. You mean you are a Githyanki." "But, I'm not evil nor do I serve the Liche Queen" "Githyani PCs are not evil nor do they serve the Liche Queen. Look, are you are you a reclusive monastey dweller who lives in the middle of nothingness?" "Well.. no." "And do you refuse to act on the outside world for doing so would disturb the balance of the universe?" "Well... no." "Then CLEARLY you are not a Githzerai. You are a Githyanki." "But I don't come from the world of fiery water either. I live on the prime material plane like every other PC." "Yes, but PC Githyanki are expected to be on the prime material plane too. Look, the Gityanki's stats are WAY better than the Githzerai's if you are fighting with a weapon. So just say you are a Githyanki and your character will be twice as good! There is no other difference between them." Do you see? Do you understand just how pointless it is to try to define the two by class definition alone? Every other functional difference between them has been nullfied by the simple act of being able to be a level 1 PC. And, yes, we DO have the same difference with 3 Elf races, but not to the same degree. They are effectively clones who get chosen based on how their numbers on the page support their class more than there being enough conceptual physical, moral (once you eliminate the 'Drow are evil' concept), intellectual and social differences between the three as to allow there to be variation and difference between each individual character while maintaining a clearly defined divide between what constitutes the races themselves.
#10 Belorin Jul 25, 2009 5:39:59	So size, scope, physical abilities and attributes are trivial and unimportant? <> Uh, what color is the sky in your world, cause you sure don't live in mine! Bel
#11 Tharag_Bocc Jul 25, 2009 13:05:22	It's like you'd sit there and say "Okay, I like the personality of the meditative Githzerai more so I want to be that. And I suppose the party needs a defender, so I'll be a fighter." Then you get to the table "I'm playing a Githzerai..." "OMG! Not ANOTHER f**** Striker! We've got 3 already!" "No, no. I am playing a Fighter" "OH! You mean you are a Githyanki Fighter" "No, I am a Githzerai" "WHAT?! No-- Githzerai are only monks or clerics. You can't be a Githzerai Fighter. You mean you are a Githyanki." "But, I'm not evil nor do I serve the Liche Queen" "Githyani PCs are not evil nor do they serve the Liche Queen. Look, are you are you a reclusive monastey dweller who lives in the middle of nothingness?" "Well.. no." "And do you refuse to act on the outside world for doing so would disturb the balance of the universe?" "Well... no." "Then CLEARLY you are not a Githzerai. You are a Githyanki." "But I don't come from the world of fiery water either. I live on the prime material plane like every other PC." "Yes, but PC Githyanki are expected to be on the prime material plane too. Look, the Gityanki's stats are WAY better than the Githzerai's if you are fighting with a weapon. So just say you are a Githyanki and your character will be twice as good! There is no other difference between them." This is a poor example. The same situation could occur for almost any player showing up with a non-optimized class plus race combination (which a githzerai fighter is not, DEX+WIS are both useful secondary fighter stats and their iron mind power is a great boon to any defender).
#12 Hebitsuikaza Jul 25, 2009 18:09:40	This is a poor example. The same situation could occur for almost any player showing up with a non-optimized class plus race combination (which a githzerai fighter is not, DEX+WIS are both useful secondary fighter stats and their iron mind power is a great boon to any defender). Not really. If someone is a Elven Fighter then there is no mistaking them for a Half-Orc Fighter. There are numerous things that define the difference between a Half-Orc and an Elf that are instrinic to every PC. If you even compare a Halfling Figther and an Elven Fighter, one may be better optimized and they may even have the same stats-- but you are given a picture of each side by side and there is no problem telling which is which. But the functional differences between a Githyanki and Githzerai disapear entirely once you make thema PC. You can no longer say one is good and one is evil. You can no longer say that one worships the Lich Queen and is warlike while he other is pacifist-- it would be too difficul to make a PC who is either of those things. You can no longer say that one exists in the astral sea and the other in the other in elemental chaos, because both are going to be living on the prime material plane where all adventures take place. And you can no longer say that one is a Swordmage and the other is a Monk, because all classes are now available to both. Furthermore, it wouldn't even be in-character for most PCs to be able to recognize the difference. Neither is widespread or well-known and the physical differences are too minute to be expected to be two different races. So what is left to say "this is a Githyanki" and "this is a Githzerai" other than simply using whatever stats are better for your class? If the only difference left is to say 'the stat strongarmed on this version of the Gith are better for this class" then that's no difference at all! All races should be able to offer a unique perspective on each class when compared against one another, and that just isn't the case here and nothing I've seen argued to the contrary suggests you could use both on each class and the characters would be conceptually different. Goblinoids don't have that problem. You can give any class and Goblin, Hobgoblin, Bugbear, etc.-- each of the characters would be quite different even before you bring in the attribute bonuses and racial powers that happen to have been stuck to them to try to encapsulate their abilities.
#13 celticmutt Jul 25, 2009 19:27:54	So size, scope, physical abilities and attributes are trivial and unimportant? I stopped reading after this point because this line made it abundantly clear you didn't read mine.
#14 Cryonax Jul 25, 2009 20:19:59	You all really need to calm down. It's just a game. There's nothing wrong with this discussion per se, but it's not worthy of your discussion degrading into insults. Many of you seem to have lost the point of this game: to have a good time. Relax.
#15 thescalesoffate Jul 26, 2009 0:46:54	*snip* tl;dr? Moar liek sl;ha (so long; head asploded). In other news, Goblinoids - cute and misunderstood? Or mindless killing machines? Moar at eleven.
#16 Siberys Jul 26, 2009 1:50:37	I wouldn't mind Goblinoids in PH3. I'd use 'em in my Eberron games, certainly. Speaking of Eberron, at least in that setting, Goblinoids (and Orcs) would fit with the "fight against the Far Realm" theme; A fight against the far realm is actually what caused the fall of the ancient goblinoid empire. We'll see, though.
#17 celticmutt Jul 26, 2009 5:00:42	Honestly, I'd rather the Goblinoids get a Dragon article than be in a PHB. Not because I feel they don't belong in a PHB or anything ridiculous like that. But because I think they need the extra space of a Dragon article to flesh them out to a level that's truly worthwhile.
#18 anubis_reynard Jul 26, 2009 10:43:34	half the dragon races have been confirmed to be reprinted in PHBs. It sounds like you'd be more interested in an Ecoligy article, IN ADDITION to a PHB entry.
#19 Hebitsuikaza Jul 26, 2009 16:55:52	Well, every race they intend to release in a PHB should get a Dragon article first-- because this method has been shown to allow wide-scale play-testing and ironing out all the kinks before they get printed in a PHB. As for fleshing them out-- how exactly can one consider the Dragonborn, Tiefling, Deva, Golliaths, Shifters, etc. be considered any more fleshed out than races that have existed in D&D since before it was D&D? Sure, they have shifted over time away from the original conceptions, but not a huge amount. More has been written about the 3 main goblinoids than any other monster-- so since there is pretty widespread understanding of how they function as villains, you merely turn that around and say their new enemies are the enemies of the PCs and the other PCs are considered members of their tribe.
#20 GalaGalaxia Jul 26, 2009 23:03:24	As everyone knows, the theme of PH3 is "defence against the far realm" I had no idea ...
#21 warfeind Jul 27, 2009 0:48:24	Hurray for goblins and their kin!!! Bugbears are scary, Hobgoblins are fearsome, but if you have read Don Bassingthwaite's Legacy of Dhakaan series so far you'd know goblins are down right terrifying. Bring on the bugbears and hobgolins. Just don't make me face the Silent clans.