"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 I liked the idea of both races that are "neutral" relative to the toils of humanity, and see the prime material mostly as a battling ground to raid against each other or against the Illithid.
Oh well
I'm not sad the githyanki won't be in the phb3. I am sad that we aren't guaranteed a +2 con/int race. Hopefully one of the other two races will have that stat pairing.
There's only one race left unannounced - there will only be four. The knowns are Minotaur (Str/Con), Wilden (Con/Wis), and Githzerai (Dex/Wis). Beats me what the last will be.
There's only one race left unannounced - there will only be four. The knowns are Minotaur (Str/Con), Wilden (Con/Wis), and Githzerai (Dex/Wis). Beats me what the last will be.
im thinking oozes.
Well, am I the only one that is saddened about these news?
Probably not. But I appreciate the intentions of the designers.
Keep villains as villains as often as possible. The individual DM may have campaign-specific exceptions, but once it gets "core" for players, it is assumed to be default, requiring the DM that wants to keep villains as villains to exclude core material. I prefer to add as exception rather than exclude as exception.
im thinking oozes.
Perhaps a myconid. Every try to destroy a fungus colony in your garden? Those things are hardy! Give them brains and they are unstoppable!
A myconid druid, warden, or bard would rock.
A fungus among us.
WTF? I'd prefer Githyanki over minatours any day. Minatours are almost mindless beasts, and are iradimably evil in most settings more so than githyanki. If they can do drow and minatours they can do githyanki.
I think you need to reread the generic lore in the MM on the minotaurs.
im thinking oozes.
A while ago I had an idea for a "Cubeling" race. It would be overpowered in 4e though ;P
Having both githyanki and githzerai would probably make many new players ask what makes one different from another. Frankly, I wouldn't know how to explain it to be understood.
A while ago I had an idea for a "Cubeling" race. It would be overpowered in 4e though ;P
Having both githyanki and githzerai would probably make many new players ask what makes one different from another. Frankly, I wouldn't know how to explain it to be understood.
I agree, but i can also point out the Shifters. You could have a combined writeup for both.
I think you need to reread the generic lore in the MM on the minotaurs.
Yeah I dont like that lore. Traditionally in mythology minatours live alone in labyrinths eating people. The new MM lore makes them closer to DL minatours for my liking. I'd have preffered a playable centaur race over minatours and Githyanki over either.
Yeah I dont like that lore. Traditionally in mythology minatours live alone in labyrinths eating people. The new MM lore makes them closer to DL minatours for my liking. I'd have preffered a playable centaur race over minatours and Githyanki over either.
Im just saying. WotC is gonig for their design goals. you can ignore it as you want.
Both Gith races are in the CB, the only thing you are not going to get is an official writeup.
Im just saying. WotC is gonig for their design goals. you can ignore it as you want.
Both Gith races are in the CB, the only thing you are not going to get is an official writeup.
And racial feats, paragon paths. Gnolls recieved a racial write up why not Githyanki they are far more interesting than minatours.
Yeah I dont like that lore. Traditionally in mythology minatours live alone in labyrinths eating people. The new MM lore makes them closer to DL minatours for my liking. I'd have preffered a playable centaur race over minatours and Githyanki over either.
The Minotaur was a myth based off of king Minos (a real person), who would conduct sacrifices wearing a Bull's Head mask.
The labrynth came from the depictions of Labrys (a double-bladed axe?) on the walls.
Hardly a nearly mindless beast.
I agree, but i can also point out the Shifters. You could have a combined writeup for both.
Them too, but I don't have PHB2, so it's still not an issue.
Eladrin and elves could also be confusing, believe it or not. But after pointing out the existence of drow you get your standard high-wood-dark trio.
And racial feats, paragon paths. Gnolls recieved a racial write up why not Githyanki they are far more interesting than minatours.
in your opinion.
Plus from a purely mechanical perspective we get yet another Wis/Dex race and lose the opportunity of a new Con/Int race... a combination that could benefit a number of classes.
And I liked the idea of both races that are "neutral" relative to the toils of humanity, and see the prime material mostly as a battling ground to raid against each other or against the Illithid.
Oh well
I don't like githyanki as PC races. They are too evil, enigmatic, and steeped in legend. Unlike drow, they do not have a legacy as a PC race, or a popular 'good' character from fantasy literature.
That being said, I really, really think that teiflings should have been given Int and Con as their two boosted stats. That way they would make good conjurer wizards, and infernal warlocks. Perhaps they should have had the option of any Int + Con or Char, in a manner similar to that of changlings.
Elans would be boss though. I'm surprised there's only going to be 4 races though, that's... disappointing.
A while ago I had an idea for a "Cubeling" race. It would be overpowered in 4e though ;P
No, you really can't. That's like having the Elves, Eladrin, and Drow, or the Bugbears, Goblins, and Hobgoblins share the same entry. Shifters were created as a combined race, that is why they weren't separated. To do that to the Gith would be a mistake.
Im not really a Gith buff, so I really wouldnt know.
Technically the gobliniods all share the same MM entry.
I don't like githyanki as PC races. They are too evil, enigmatic, and steeped in legend. Unlike drow, they do not have a legacy as a PC race, or a popular 'good' character from fantasy literature.
That being said, I really, really think that teiflings should have been given Int and Con as their two boosted stats. That way they would make good conjurer wizards, and infernal warlocks. Perhaps they should have had the option of any Int + Con or Char, in a manner similar to that of changlings.
Minatours have been evil for the entire time of dnd as well. They have been just as evil as githyanki if they can justify non evil minatours they can justify non evil githyanki.
I don't like githyanki as PC races. They are too evil, enigmatic, and steeped in legend. Unlike drow, they do not have a legacy as a PC race, or a popular 'good' character from fantasy literature.
Other than them being a PC race since 2e of course ...
Minatours have been evil for the entire time of dnd as well. They have been just as evil as githyanki if they can justify non evil minatours they can justify non evil githyanki.
But there is stats for the race. They just are not adding it as core.
I could see the Githyanki being added in a players guide like the drow.
Ick. I hate drow, let them stay in the caves where I can go kill them. I don't want them up on the surface. I'd much rather have a githyanki in my party than a drow, at least with githyanki you know where they stand.
And racial feats, paragon paths. Gnolls recieved a racial write up why not Githyanki they are far more interesting than minatours.
2nded.
Githyanki have a power that can briefly grant fly to themselves or an ally (so full of win if you're chasing down a fleeing enemy). Minotaurs get... a headbutt. Sorry, goring charge. And we get another STR/CON race (one which, IMO, does not compare favorably to the Warforged, the Orc or even the Goliath). And the Githyanki were a perfect fit flavorwise for the psionic power source, which will be featured in PHBIII.
I understand their reasoning, but the adherence to a design goal seems misplaced here to me. I know from personal experience that nothing tears a group up like having an evil PC. I also know that none of my players who played drow ever played them as evil (because if they did the rest of the group would have hated and expelled the character). The followers of Gith are by definition a band of rebels. How much of a stretch of the imagination is necessary to think of examples of the Githyanki who do not care for the domination of their Lich Queen, or who simply abhored making slaves of other races?
A missed opportunity here, I think.
Lets not forget drow used to be the evilest of the evil. Until drizzt, and all the fanbois had to make characters just like him.
Ick. I hate drow, let them stay in the caves where I can go kill them. I don't want them up on the surface. I'd much rather have a githyanki in my party than a drow, at least with githyanki you know where they stand.
Eh I like drow pcs not because of dritz but because of Elaine Cunninghams Windwalker series. Liriel Baenre is an amazing character.
They should provide PC writeups for every monster race, because what constitutes a 'villainous' race will vary from one campaign to another. There is absolutely nothing stopping me from saying 'in this game world, goblins are civilized, beneficent protectors of the peace across the continent', or 'the githyanki and githzerai are united as one against the Lich-Queen' or 'the eladrin have declared war on all shortlifers, declaring them unworthy to share the world with the superior Eladrin'.
I would agree to an extent. To save space I wouldnt mind if the writeup consisted of only the block needed like in the back of the monster manuals.
and to your point of each campaign being different I believe WotC is trying to cater to the broadest spectrum as possible.
I would agree to an extent. To save space I wouldnt mind if the writeup consisted of only the block needed like in the back of the monster manuals.
and to your point of each campaign being different I believe WotC is trying to cater to the broadest spectrum as possible.
Either we define 'broadest spectrum' differently, or I'm not understanding you. Wouldn't catering to the broadest spectrum, aka the most people, involve putting out more material rather than saying 'you can't have this'?
Were the minotaurs of Krynn evil? I thought those Dragonlance minotaurs ran the spectrum... (and are likely the reason why we get minotaurs in the next PHB - to support Dragonlance as the next setting).
Realistically (and I know how much trouble I'll get in for using that word), unless you're talking demons or devils, EVERY race runs the spectrum (and there's the occassional exception in the demons and devils, too). 'Always Chaotic Evil' is dead, but apparently needs to be buried deeper.
Either we define 'broadest spectrum' differently, or I'm not understanding you. Wouldn't catering to the broadest spectrum, aka the most people, involve putting out more material rather than saying 'you can't have this'?
Well, lets ask the question. Besides a specific book "Monsters as PCs" there is only going to be so much space per new book. Releasing both Gith races together essentially takes up a spot that could be taken up by another various race.
People Say Githyanki instead of Minotaurs! But what about the people who have been waiting for an official Minotaur race?
What I mean by broad is that there is a variety instead of two giths. Two giths out of 4 new races? Not fair.
One can argue that eladrin and Elves didnt need to be in the same book, but as a sense of classic core I think they did need to be.
Traditionally in mythology minatours live alone in labyrinths eating people.
Traditionally, in mythology, there was only one minotaur. So perhaps using that as a basis for objection in how minotaurs are portrayed in D&D is not the best place to start.
(Disclaimer: I know that that the Githyanki/Githzerai conflict is FASCINATING and an absolute core and essential part of D&D lore, and despite the fact that the races look almost identical, they are truly unique and distinct in ways that anybody can appreciate. For example, a simple look at the Monster Manual reveals that Githyanki have slightly less conservative hairstyles. There's plenty of PC conceptual space for two greenish-yellow frog-nosed tattooed wrist-and-hair-bandaged multi-soul-patched speckled disciplined militants from the astral sea with psionic powers and a tradition of combining martial and magical fighting. Like, one is evil, for example, and the other wears cloth armor in group shots.)
They should provide PC writeups for every monster race
Although I shudder at the thought (because of the icky abusability approach they took with it), a Savage Species like book would not be too bad. Instead of rules for *how* to turn monsters into PCs, just give PC write-ups for a bunch of humanoid monsters. Assuming a 160-page layout, we would have 155 pages (not including title page, contents, intro, and index) for content. This could be laid out as follows:
Race Entry Only
Two pages each. 77 two-page write-ups, just like in the PHB1. This would exclude paragon paths feats, or magic items.
Race + Feats + Items
Three pages each. 51 three-page write-ups. This would still exclude paragon paths.
Race + Feats + Items + Paragons
Four pages each. 38 four-page write-ups, including one racial paragon path for each.
A mix of all of the above
Hmm... now that I think about it, I will have to come up with my prioritized list of monsters that I would like to see for this.
There's plenty of PC conceptual space for two greenish-yellow frog-nosed tattooed wrist-and-hair-bandaged multi-soul-patched speckled disciplined militants from the astral sea with psionic powers and a tradition of combining martial and magical fighting. Like, one is evil, for example, and the other wears cloth armor in group shots.
Well said, sir. I, for one, wish to express my extreme disappointment with WotC for not using the new race slots for what we (or I, at least) want to see most. That being fully playable and feat-supported PC slaad and modrons.
Well, lets ask the question. Besides a specific book "Monsters as PCs" there is only going to be so much space per new book. Releasing both Gith races together essentially takes up a spot that could be taken up by another various race.
People Say Githyanki instead of Minotaurs! But what about the people who have been waiting for an official Minotaur race?
What I mean by broad is that there is a variety instead of two giths. Two giths out of 4 new races? Not fair.
One can argue that eladrin and Elves didnt need to be in the same book, but as a sense of classic core I think they did need to be.
Minatours already have a dragon article githyanki dont even have that.
Minatours already have a dragon article githyanki dont even have that.
Yet.
Note: I say this in the same way that I say that Swordmages shouldn't be limited to only Heavy and Light Blades. Sure, I don't actually have any concepts in mind that could work with the Swordmage class if only it didn't place limits on weapons used, but that's besides the point. Even if I'm not going to make use of something (don't care about Githyanki), that doesn't mean it shouldn't be available.
Especially not for some reason like "Evil currency". Come on, it's like they keep tripping up at the finish line. They make the long-sought change to gut alignment from actually doing anything only to do this. Or they make the brilliant change to go ahead and abstract things as necessary to keep things fair, regardless of preconceived notions (a 14th-level Fighter isn't obsolete in comparison to a 14th-level Wizard even though he's swinging a stick to the Wizard's violation of the laws of the universe? yes, please), but they introduce something like Small.
I certainly hope they at least finally get the Minotaur right in this book, because the MM1 didn't do it and the online article doesn't count either.
Minatours already have a dragon article githyanki dont even have that.
Not that it's much of a writeup. They removed minotaurs one redeeming feature (over sized, which was admittedly OP) and didn't really replace it with anything to give them more hitty power. They "fixed" goring charge, but it's still mostly worthless. And the majority of the feats aren't worth taking.
So we can at least hope the PHB 3 minotaur is actually playable relative to the other str/con races.
Other than them being a PC race since 2e of course ...
I agree that in the world of planescape, they were a fine PC race. I still don't like them for the kind of D&D games I run though. Of course, if someone really really wanted to run a Githyanki, I would let them if they could come of with a good backstory.
Not that it's much of a writeup. They removed minotaurs one redeeming feature (over sized, which was admittedly OP) and didn't really replace it with anything to give them more hitty power. They "fixed" goring charge, but it's still mostly worthless. And the majority of the feats aren't worth taking.
So we can at least hope the PHB 3 minotaur is actually playable relative to the other str/con races.
Never been interested in Minatour so I didnt really look at it. Im glad people who like it are getting it but Id have loved to play a githyanki too. More races=more options=better game experience.
That said Id love to see a medium sized centaur at some point in 4e.
Never been interested in Minatour so I didnt really look at it. Im glad people who like it are getting it but Id have loved to play a githyanki too. More races=more options=better game experience.
Which is exactly why they probably didn't spend two slots on two almost identical races.
Which is exactly why they probably didn't spend two slots on two almost identical races.
Different stat bonuses and abilities. Id have done one entry for gith like they did for shifters with a little explanation on the diffrences between the two.
Different stat bonuses and abilities. Id have done one entry for gith like they did for shifters with a little explanation on the diffrences between the two.
Which is totally fine, I can 100% get behind that.
No, you really can't. That's like having the Elves, Eladrin, and Drow, or the Bugbears, Goblins, and Hobgoblins share the same entry. Shifters were created as a combined race, that is why they weren't separated. To do that to the Gith would be a mistake.
If the shifters were created as a combined race, why are there 2 different stat blocks for them in the MM? (Pg 297)
Or were you meaning when they were introduced in 3.5?
Minatours have been evil for the entire time of dnd as well. They have been just as evil as githyanki if they can justify non evil minatours they can justify non evil githyanki.
Except that non-evil Githyanki are Githzerai. So they did give us non-evil githyanki.
Either we define 'broadest spectrum' differently, or I'm not understanding you. Wouldn't catering to the broadest spectrum, aka the most people, involve putting out more material rather than saying 'you can't have this'?
I'm going back to find Seeker's earlier post to answer you...
The individual DM may have campaign-specific exceptions, but once it gets "core" for players, it is assumed to be default, requiring the DM that wants to keep villains as villains to exclude core material. I prefer to add as exception rather than exclude as exception.
Yeah I dont like that lore. Traditionally in mythology minatours live alone in labyrinths eating people. The new MM lore makes them closer to DL minatours for my liking. I'd have preffered a playable centaur race over minatours and Githyanki over either.
Wow.... Williamhm75, you posted this on another thread TODAY:
Tradition=dumb idea we keep doing because we do not like to think for ourselves.
and went on to make several posts upholding the idea that following tradition for tradition's sake is dumb. Now you're angry because the MM doesn't hold with traditional minotaur lore? Seriously, are there two people sharing your account?
Perhaps instead of limiting your beliefs about minotaurs to greek myth, you should think for yourself.
Transforming a race to a "core" player race doesn't mean that all individuals of that race suddenly become heroes. A DM does not need to exclude core material if he wants to use drows, gnolls, minotaurs and devil offspring as villains - even though drows, gnolls, minotayrs and tieflings are currently "core" material, available and supported as player races.
Adding githyanki to that list above would have little impact on that goal.
I think you need to reread the generic lore in the MM on the minotaurs.
Yes, that entry does state that are many non-evil minotaurs. It also states that the "archetypical minotaur is a savage, dungeon-dwelling brute that kills for pleasure." Like it or not, even though tha entry puts a great emphasis in the fact that there are indeed good minotaurs, the race has been often used as antagonist in most fantasy, including D&D. Even the Dragon article that gives us stats for minotaurs aknowledges that - "Play a minotaur if you want... to be a monstrous adventurer struggling against villainous tendencies".
That being said, I don't think minotaurs should have been cut in order to make space for the githyanki. I think other people here have given more likely hypothesis on why they were cut - Lesp's point comes first in my mind.
Except that non-evil Githyanki are Githzerai. So they did give us non-evil githyanki.
Is that so? I'm not very familiarized with gith's history but I thought they were different races, aren't they? Sure, they descend from the same race, but I always thought in them as cousing (like elf and eladrin) and not as members of the same race. That's why I would echo CelticMutt's concern about merging both into the same statblock (a la shifters). I do want to point out however that they are indeed very similar and since I'm not that knowledeable about them, perhaps they are indeed the same race and would thus justify a single statistics block...
At any event, it seems clear that the loss of the githzerai in PHB III is not echoed by the community - most are concerned about having a Con/Int race, you bunch of powergamers! ;) Just kidding people! you may play however you like! Your plight for a Con/Int is as much valid as my gith problem! ^^
Well, I hope that at least the "fourth mysterious race" gets to fulfill your wishes for a Con/Int race!
I know I'll get to wait for the githyanki some more time Best of gaming to you all! :D
If the shifters were created as a combined race, why are there 2 different stat blocks for them in the MM? (Pg 297)
He's talking about PHB2 shifters, not Monster Manual shifters.
Probably not. But I appreciate the intentions of the designers.
Keep villains as villains as often as possible. The individual DM may have campaign-specific exceptions, but once it gets "core" for players, it is assumed to be default, requiring the DM that wants to keep villains as villains to exclude core material. I prefer to add as exception rather than exclude as exception.
Core means that its playable, it doesn't mean the DM can no longer use that race as villain or an enemy of the PC party. The thing about any race is that, as others have pointed out, any race can have good individuals as well as evil ones. Its that the Good individuals will not be as readily present as the non-good ones in that race. This also isn't to say that a PC can't be evil, or non-good, just that the DM needs to keep the evil PC from going overboard with that evil.
BurningRose, that answer by the Seeker95 is not useful to answer Salla's question...
Transforming a race to a "core" player race doesn't mean that all individuals of that race suddenly become heroes. A DM does not need to exclude core material if he wants to use drows, gnolls, minotaurs and devil offspring as villains - even though drows, gnolls, minotayrs and tieflings are currently "core" material, available and supported as player races.
Adding githyanki to that list above would have little impact on that goal.
I think you may have misunderstood what was being said. The objection was to having evil races in core because then a DM who wishes to NOT use evil races as PCs (because they're evil and he'd like them to stay that way presumably) has to exclude core material.
I'm sure at some point fans of every imaginable race will be rewarded by their inclusion in some form in one of the supplements that is bound to be published monthly from now on till the death of 4e. Every imaginable thing will eventually get covered, just not all of them in the order everyone wants.
And with all due respect to James Wyatt (as I really like his commentaries in the DMG and in his column Dungeoncraft), the reason above seems weird given that the cover art posted a while back had a minotaur in it. Why spend the "evil" currency with minotaurs and not githyanki? Particularly when that same race has had at least Dragon support!
This is a good question, though I suspect the answer is basically "Minotaurs aren't universally bad guys anymore." The Minotaur Warrior in the MM has alignment: any, though the fluff really implies they're mostly pretty bad news.
I suspect the actual reason is other media including non-evil minotaurs, and D&D doing the same. WoW may also be partially to blame, and/or furries.
Did people forget the theme of the book? Fight against Aberrants with a minor theme in Psionics.
I assume the last revealed race will be the poster child of those two themes. Since none of the new races are good for Psionics I would at least hope that we get a psion support race. Probably some rebranding of something from XPsHB
Did people forget the theme of the book? Fight against Aberrants with a minor theme in Psionics.
I assume the last revealed race will be the poster child of those two themes. Since none of the new races are good for Psionics I would at least hope that we get a psion support race. Probably some rebranding of something from XPsHB
That's why I think this post by tehsquirrely may be onto something:
Maybe we'll get Elans as the last race. I could see them getting 2 con/int what with being a hardy psychic aberrant race. But wait! And abberant player race? Thats far to evil! all aberrant are insane psychopathic cannibals.
Elans would be boss though. I'm surprised there's only going to be 4 races though, that's... disappointing.
Elan would make a whole bunch of sense given the themes in the book.
Mechanus doesn't exist in 4E cosmology, does it?
Yet. Give it time. If WoTC thinks enough of you'll pay for it, odds are it'll appear.
Afterall, there's no real reason x (whatever you want x to be) couldn't exist. Might not be exactly like it was in previous editions, but so what? Afterall, this is the alternate reality of 4e....
If we get Elan, I can overlook the Githyanki removal.
Eh Im not that too excited about yet another variant of human.
Eh Im not that too excited about yet another variant of human.
That's what I liked about them. They looked and acted human, but in reality, they were Aberrations. ;)
As a few side questions, can't we just wait and find out? Does it really matter what races they give us, as long as we get more new and varied options?
If the shifters were created as a combined race, why are there 2 different stat blocks for them in the MM? (Pg 297)
Or were you meaning when they were introduced in 3.5?
3.5. They were one race with different "build choices," like 4e classes. The 4e version is largely the same, even down to the "One prime, Two secondary" features of different class builds.
He's talking about PHB2 shifters, not Monster Manual shifters.
Well, PHB2 & 3.5 Eberron.
There's only one race left unannounced - there will only be four. The knowns are Minotaur (Str/Con), Wilden (Con/Wis), and Githzerai (Dex/Wis). Beats me what the last will be.
Has it been confirmed that the Minotaur will be in PHIII? I thought it would be in next years Dragonlance setting as a player race.
Lets not forget drow used to be the evilest of the evil. Until drizzt, and all the fanbois had to make characters just like him.
Ick. I hate drow, let them stay in the caves where I can go kill them. I don't want them up on the surface. I'd much rather have a githyanki in my party than a drow, at least with githyanki you know where they stand.
I enjoy reading the Drizzt books however it is time for him to DIE!
I wish drow were never a player race but since they are I get to control if they come into the campaign or not since I am running it.
I'll do the same for Githyanki unless I decide to run a Githyanki campaign.Has it been confirmed that the Minotaur will be in PHIII? I thought it would be in next years Dragonlance setting as a player race.
Is the Dragonlance setting for next year OFFICIAL? I see there will be 2 draconians in the next batch of miniatures. I know there are going to be draconian writeups in the next draconomicon. Interesting circumstantial evidence but I haven't see anything official.
I would be happy if a Dragonlance campaign setting came out. My only wish is the campaign setting encompass the War of the Lance and Time of the Twins. Everything that was written after those books made me disappointed in Weis and Hickman. The movie made me want to go poke my eyes out.
Has it been confirmed that the Minotaur will be in PHIII? I thought it would be in next years Dragonlance setting as a player race.
Well, considering a minotaur is on the cover of the PHB3, I'd say so.
1) That we will get the elan, maened, xeph, or dromite as a race.
2) That we will get an Intelligence-boosting race (which likely will be the psionic source's primary primary stat).
I wonder why WotC is giving us the gnoll and minotaur in a book when we have Dragon articles for them, but I'm not complaining - I always have had a soft spot for gnolls.
Well, considering a minotaur is on the cover of the PHB3, I'd say so.
Had not seen the cover yet, where did they post it?
I'd like to see Satyrs (Fawns) as the last race, but I'm not holding my breath. An alternate Dwarf sub-race wouldn't upset me. I'm not a GithX fan, but as long as Kender are not the last race, I'll be able to hold down lunch.
Breaking News! The Kender is going to be the Fourth race in the PHBIII!!!!!
I'm on your side, OP. Githyanki and Illithids have always been my favourite D&D races.
But if the Evil Mana Pool⁚ can't be drained a bit for Yanki, then Mind Flayers are right out as core PC material.
If we get Elan, I can overlook the Githyanki removal.
Githyanki were never in the book to begin with, making removal impossible.
Why is it that everyone seems to be looking towards the Expanded Psionics book of 3rd ed to try and piece out/Pick their choice of the last race for the PHB3?
Because PHB3 introduces the Psionic power source, and there is still an unknown fourth race. And because it would be reasonable and wise for WotC to re-script what has come before rather than write a completely new race. It has so much to draw from, and the ExPsHB is the go to source for psionics material.
Because PHB3 introduces the Psionic power source, and there is still an unknown fourth race. And because it would be reasonable and wise for WotC to re-script what has come before rather than write a completely new race. It has so much to draw from, and the ExPsHB is the go to source for psionics material.
I was under the impresion that they were going to have the Githzerai be the "most" psionic race.
Thus wouldn't the best idea be to look at non-psionic races instead?
1. The Githzerai is listed as the most psionic of the four races in the book. Which pretty much rules out the Elan, Maenad, Dromite (sad
), etc.2. Unless the Seeker class is psionic (which is quite possibly is NOT), three out of four classes that the race favors aren't psionic.
Does anyone else see a problem with this? Couldn't they have thrown BOTH of the Gith races out if they weren't going for a psionic focused race in the first place, which, clearly the Githzerai is NOT a psionic-focused race?
Seriously, if they were going to put all their psionic eggs in one basket with the Zerai, shouldn't they have at least made an effort to make the race psionic-focused?
BTW, I am going to throw my hat in with the people irritated that the Githyanki isn't in PHB3. Hopefully it will have a Playing Githyanki article soon. I was really looking forward to them being in a book.
We have many races that work with Psionics already. Elf, Razorclaw, Githzerai, Half-Orc are all excellent Monks. Doppelganger, Tiefling, Gnome, Deva are all great Psions. It's very likely that Kalashtar will be top-tier Empaths (assuming Empaths will be Cha/Wis), and I can expect a Cha/Con Empath as well - good for Half-Elf.
I would expect the Psionic Defender would use either Con or Str somehow, maybe even a combination, making the "Big" races of Goliath, Minotaur, and Warforged good at them. Goliath is my key into this - I highly expect they'll replace Half-Giants, and the way to do that would be make them good at a Psionic Class.
Do we really need more Psionic races?
That all said, I'm really sad about Githyanki. They're an extremely important race in my setting, after I was able to unify the Gith races into my setting's lore: they were always the odd races out before I figured that out. Now they're so important that it makes me really sad that Githyanki won't get support. I was the first to jump the gun and shout "Githyanki CONFIRMED for PH3!" after Debute - Psion, since they were mentioned in the article. I'm really sad. Not just for the loss of a Con/Int, but that just makes it more sad.
At least I got my Githzerai...
I'll need to write-up my own Playing Githyanki article. Maybe I could submit it to Dragon too. If I don't do it, somebody better do it soon. We should all work on Playing Githyanki articles, submit them to Dragon, and then they'll HAVE to accept at least one of them. Or at least realise the desire for them, and then get someone who can write it REALLY well to make one.
XD
None of the Int races have any Psionic-flavor traits. Thus they actually arent Psionic races.
The Kalashtar race has telepathy and good Psionic flavor, but is a Wis-Cha race.
Yes, we need more Psionic races. Because ..
None of the Int races have any Psionic-flavor traits. Thus they actually arent Psionic races.
The Kalashtar race has telepathy and good Psionic flavor, but is a Wis-Cha race.
I really think Elan be great for all this:
- Lots of people like Elan.
- They have great Psionic flavour.
- It is fitting I think for them to have Intelligence. As well as fitting to have Constitution. So you would have a PHB Race with Int/Con as well as a Psionic Race with Intelligence.
Did people forget the theme of the book? Fight against Aberrants with a minor theme in Psionics.
This is actually largely why I am disappointed by the decision to not include the githyanki in PH3. The race might have a villainous legacy, but they also have a legacy of hunting aberrants (mostly illithids) and have traditionally been much more active in doing so than their githzerai cousins. Given this theme, I'd really like to see a Dragon artical shortly after the release of PH3 covering the githyanki.
I'm also disappointed because the githyanki CON+INT would have expanded upon the currently available stat pairs. I'm quite disappointed that 3/4 of the confirmed races for PH3 all use already existent stat pairs. I had rather hoped that with the release of PH3 that all 15 possible stat pairs would be covered by an official PC race. Personally I'd rather have seen one less class (or preferably to have seen hybrid as DDi exclusive content rather than in PH3) and use those pages in order to support around a half-dozen or so more races.
Yes, we need more Psionic races. Because ..
None of the Int races have any Psionic-flavor traits. Thus they actually arent Psionic races.
The Kalashtar race has telepathy and good Psionic flavor, but is a Wis-Cha race.
I don't understand.
Where did you get the idea that Int is important to Psionics? If the Psion is any indicator, Cha will be the Psi-classes normal main stat.
Drow have actually been a PC race ever since the 1e Unearthed Arcana. Along with Duergar and Svirfneblin... ;)
As for gith, playing either type feels dirty, after the whacking retcons of the planes. Where are our silver swords...? And a minor note, but throwing gith into Eberron would totally require a huge reflavoring, as illithids in Eberron are aberrant servants of Khyber, making gith a natural, not extraplanar, servitor race.
Drow as a PC race isn't a stretch, as most Drow players are wannabe Drizzt's anyway, and Eberron Drow are not inherently evil.
I don't understand.
Where did you get the idea that Int is important to Psionics? If the Psion is any indicator, Cha will be the Psi-classes normal main stat.
You should check the Psion again:
All psions rely on Intelligence. Psions also benefit from a high Charisma or Wisdom, depending on which expression of class they favour.
You should check the Psion again:
I was just about to say...
Also, I really don't know why people use such definitive terms when referring to which campaign setting is coming out next year. Seriously, everyone that is saying "Dark Sun is in 2010" or "when Dragonlance comes out next year" is going to look pretty dumb when My Little Pony or some other Hasbro property comes out next year as the campaign setting.
BTW, I would totally play that campaign setting.
Minotaurs are in the PHB3 because of Dragonlance coming out next year. That being said, minotaurs in Dragonlance are pretty cool. Still, they would need a pretty large 4E reflavoring to not be considered an Evil race.
You do know that's not confirmed, right? DL is a front-runner, but is not confirmed as the 2010 setting.
You should check the Psion again:
Yup. Psions are Int prime, Cha/Wis secondary. Kalashtar can do all right as either build, or maybe balanced, but they aren't a perfect fit.
All psions rely on Intelligence.
You're right. I fail.
But Cha should be psionics' defining trait, dammit!
You're right. I fail.
But Cha should be psionics' defining trait, dammit!
It'll probably be the Empath's prime. That combined with the Kalashtar group mind feat will make them the best Empaths probably.
It'll probably be the Empath's prime. That combined with the Kalashtar group mind feat will make them the best Empaths probably.
Yeah I can definitely see Charisma working with Empath... Really, I can't see any other working better then Charisma.
I am glad Intelligence is primary for Psion (possibly mystery class/es) since well Intelligence is a pretty easy extrapolated attribute to align with the power of the brain/mind.
Different stat bonuses and abilities. Id have done one entry for gith like they did for shifters with a little explanation on the diffrences between the two.
That would have been a terrible idea. Squashing two races into the same entry only really works when the two races are near identical (e.g. Shifters). For races that actually have cultural differences (e.g. eladrin and elves, githyanki and githzerai) two entries are much better.
I'd rather wait and get a good githyanki write-up, then a crammed in write-up that doesn't do the race justice and takes away from the githzerai as well.
Core means that its playable
Core means that it can have a place in any setting. That's it. Its entirely up to the DM what races are and aren't available to PCs.
I think you may have misunderstood what was being said. The objection was to having evil races in core because then a DM who wishes to NOT use evil races as PCs (because they're evil and he'd like them to stay that way presumably) has to exclude core material.
Well, if Seeker95 meant what you said, then I could understand his concerns. Even though a GM can ban some races as player resource, it's not a well accepted idea with some players, notadely, some of them nitpickers...
That being the case, he didn't appearead to have a problem with the existant "evil" races available! And if the designers clearly state that such races, if played incorrectly, can be a problem to the table, its more than enough argument for the DM to ask his players to be carefull when choosing standard evil races.
Of course, that's just me. I can totally understand people who don't want any evil race to be available to players.
As other have said, I just think its a missed opportunity for roleplaying .Dromite for the forth race. (Small race slot, psionic, not monstrous)
The Yanki not being included is not a big surprise to me. We already knew the Slayer PrC classes isn't being redone in this new edition (to focused) and the Gith are not well known outside of D&D.
4 races = fail. I expect they are making room for the hybrid class rules. I still expect 8 classes (4-2-2) with psi having four classes.
The fourth race is obviously going to be the Furling.
XD
If thats the case where ar my Asgard.
If thats the case where ar my Asgard.
They got pastel hair in this edition. Check the EPG.
As for blaming Drizzt for playable drow...
Drow have actually been a PC race ever since the 1e Unearthed Arcana. Along with Duergar and Svirfneblin... ;)
Yes, Drow became a PC race in 1E Unearthed Arcana. Just about everything in that book was WAY OVERPOWERED, IMO.
They got pastel hair in this edition. Check the EPG.
I think he means these guys:
