Where are these articles WotC? Are they gone for good, or are you just taking a pause while you get your new Essentials mechanics figured out?
I have no idea personally, but count me as one of those people who enjoy seeing new races covered.
Yeah, it seems like they've been replaced by the Winning Races articles. Which only win half the time. Color me disappointed too.
Half? You are a lot more generous than me.
But I'm not in a hurry about it. I kind of agree that there are a lot of races out there already, and I don't feel a huge need for more.
I do have to wonder if Shadar-Kai will get an Int/Con option when Heroes of Shadow comes out. If they're going to get a third option, then Con seems the best fit for their masachistic cultural tendencies and the theme of resilience present in many of their current feats, paths, and destinies. +2 Int, +2 Dex or Con seems to me like the most appropriate stat allotment for them, imo.
I do have to wonder if Shadar-Kai will get an Int/Con option when Heroes of Shadow comes out. If they're going to get a third option, then Con seems the best fit for their masachistic cultural tendencies and the theme of resilience present in many of their current feats, paths, and destinies. +2 Int, +2 Dex or Con seems to me like the most appropriate stat allotment for them, imo.
Charisma would work too, with the whole 'crowing' thing they do (and because warlock and sorcerer seem like more appropriate arcane classes for them than wizard and swordmage, IMO). On a purely personal level, I'd rather it be Dex+Int/Con, though, because the option to be Dex+Con fits best with the vaguely barbarian-tribal-bloodthirsty-berserker-axeman theme I gave them in my homembrew setting...
Also, someone (either Mearls or Slavicsek IIRC) was asked in one of the seminars if there was going to be an Int+Con race any time soon and pretty strongly implied that there won't be and that they don't really have any ideas for races that would logically fill that spot on the grid (the grid that doesn't exist ;) ).
There is a playable race (monster manual) that has con int, the githyanki. That's the only one though, i believe..
That's not a PC race. That's an NPC race. NPC races are not balanced the same way or for the same purpose as PC races are.
There is a playable race (monster manual) that has con int, the githyanki. That's the only one though, i believe..
That's not a PC race. That's an NPC race. NPC races are not balanced the same way or for the same purpose as PC races are.
That said, other then the lack of racial feats there is no reason the MM githyanki would have any trouble being incorporated into your game as a PC race. Their stats and abilities are generally in line with those of other PC races (if perhaps slightly below par). You will have problems if you let players play any MM race as a PC, but you won't run into any problems if you let players play this MM race as a PC
Some monsters are perfect (with some changes) for my own created worlds. For example hobgoblins could be a wild people with honour (mixture of klingons from Star Treck and Gorillas from Planet of Apes). Goblins are the perfect rogue anti-heroe..(the evil version or parody of little races like haflings and gnomes). Gnolls are too.... stupy or irractonal.
Would you like a new "Savage Species" like Player´s option for 4th Ed?
Monster classes could be a variant of hybrid class (PH 3).
I mean really. Living Construct Psionic-inclined race. How much more obvious did you need to get for "durable and smart"?
Although I love getting new races through Dragon, the problem I see is that the DDI-exclusive races get very little additional support after their initial release.
Technically, Revenant is the only DDi exclusive race, and it has gotten a decent amount of support, way more than the Assassin. The Gnoll hasn't gotten a thing except maybe an Assassin feat or two, but it technically isn't exclusive. Just screwed.
I say we start a letter writing campaign to WotC for them to bring more races in via Dragon...Also, I believe we should start this campaign by requesting Lizardfolk and Saurials 
.
Ok so I doubt that would actually work, but I am in favor of them doing more races and I am serious about the Lizards and Saurials
.
*cricket sounds*
A'hem (puts hand over mouth and makes fake crowd noises)
"hhaaaaa! yeah! hhaaaa! we want dromites! hhaaaa! and they should be int/con! hhaaa!"
The Gnoll hasn't gotten a thing except maybe an Assassin feat or two, but it technically isn't exclusive. Just screwed.
True, but a race with an otherwise unsupported PC write-up is still better than a race with no PC write-up at all. Heck there are still many races that could benefit from basic NPC stats (lizardfolk come notably to mind).
I've been disapointed by the lack of both PC and NPC base stats over the past year, and I'm not at all pleased by the notion that WotC is intentionally dialing back the number of races they intend to release. Also, the supposed notion that giving stats to a "monster" race some how devalues them as villains truly seems to fall flat when one considers that which races are "good" and which are "evil" can vary from setting to setting. Notably orcs, while typically blood thirsty savages in most settings, are more so noble savage in Eberron and are arguably more approachable and friendly than halflings. Then there is Dark Sun, where a lot of racial stereotypes are thrown completely out the window.
Personally I say WotC should give us a large list of species, and leave it to individual play groups to sort out which are appropriate for PC use.
I want Dromites. Dromites were the coolest. And I'm not alone!
Your not alone. Personally I wanted Dromites for PH3, as did a few others, though we definitely seemed to be in the minority.
I like the other races from 3.5 psionic book too.
But WotC wants racial feats and parangon paths for all 4th PC races. That is the reason of lower number.
Sigh.
What do you think about fraals, the little grey men (alternity, d20 future, but too canon AD&D creature)?
Actually, I kinda like Fraals too, but they'd be more appropriate for, say, Gamma World, or some kind of 4E Modern... which I hope we eventually get.
See, Celt, I am not alone. Why didn't they have a small race in PHB3?
Good question, although the answer probably has to do with the fact that Small races are uniformly screwed as weapon-wielding classes, which isn't cool.
How "Small" is handled needs to considered more carefully for 5E. Then we can have a new small race every year: Halflings, Gnomes, Goblins, Kobolds, Dromites... Although as I'm writing this list, I can't help but imagine these guys as a party of chibi-adventurers: Human, Eladrin, Orc, Dragonborn, and Thri-Kreen.
...
I say we start a letter writing campaign to WotC for them to bring more races in via Dragon...Also, I believe we should start this campaign by requesting Lizardfolk and Saurials .
Ok so I doubt that would actually work, but I am in favor of them doing more races and I am serious about the Lizards and Saurials
Lizardfolk, yes. Saurials? No, because they're just funny-looking Lizardfolk to me. Saurials can be a Lizardfolk racial feat. :P
We do need Lizardfolk stats though, because Dragonborn just aren't the same.
I've been disapointed by the lack of both PC and NPC base stats over the past year, and I'm not at all pleased by the notion that WotC is intentionally dialing back the number of races they intend to release. Also, the supposed notion that giving stats to a "monster" race some how devalues them as villains truly seems to fall flat when one considers that which races are "good" and which are "evil" can vary from setting to setting. Notably orcs, while typically blood thirsty savages in most settings, are more so noble savage in Eberron and are arguably more approachable and friendly than halflings. Then there is Dark Sun, where a lot of racial stereotypes are thrown completely out the window.
Personally I say WotC should give us a large list of species, and leave it to individual play groups to sort out which are appropriate for PC use.
Agreed. Let's let players decide what to play.
Additionally, not only are Orcs important potential heroes in Eberron, but so are Goblins and Hobgoblins (and Bugbears too, I guess, though you don't hear much about them). Gnolls need more support for Eberron, too. All those guys, plus Kobolds, Lizardfolk, and Githyanki, and then I'll leave you alone. Probably.
Although I love getting new races through Dragon, the problem I see is that the DDI-exclusive races get very little additional support after their initial release.
Technically, Revenant is the only DDi exclusive race, and it has gotten a decent amount of support, way more than the Assassin. The Gnoll hasn't gotten a thing except maybe an Assassin feat or two, but it technically isn't exclusive. Just screwed.
lol QFT.
See, Celt, I am not alone. Why didn't they have a small race in PHB3?
Sigh.
Because having a small race in every PHB is the same as having 8 classes in every PHB? An unnecessary attempt at grid filling?
Bariaur and centaur could be PC race. (I know centaur´s stats from PH 2 aren´t of character race).
Anyways, I'm going to try to send in an a race for a Playing Article. It has Con, Int or CHA and it's a psionic race. So, wish me luck.
If not, I think you could improve your race by making it small. And more buglike, and with a name that sounds more like 'Dromite'.
;)
They may give the Gnome Int, Cha or Con as they used to get an Int bonus which was later swapped in 3.0 for a Con bonus.
Anyways, I'm going to try to send in an a race for a Playing Article. It has Con, Int or CHA and it's a psionic race. So, wish me luck.
Good luck.
You really don't need 50+ races when each race get's 2 stat options, and (presumably) feats-as-sub-race options.
Race is about more than just stat bumps, there's also racial traits and powers. Feats as sub-races is certainly a step up from the old days, when every sub-race was treated nearly as a race unto itself, but that doesn't excuse the lack of proper racial write-ups for truly distinct races (or put another way, it's okay to say there is no need for Svirfneblin because we have Gnomes, but it's not okay to say there is no need for Goblins or Kobolds because other small races exist).
They may give the Gnome Int, Cha or Con as they used to get an Int bonus which was later swapped in 3.0 for a Con bonus.
Well that would make them better Artificers, which while default setting 4e gnomes don't have any affinity for, it is something that the race has had an aptitude for in editions past (which seems to be a theme of most of the new material in Essentials).
Though I thought Dwarves would have been an obvious CON+WIS/INT for a similar reason, but instead they seem to have received STR as their flex stat. A wholly unnecessary addition to a race that already made some of the best Fighters in the game, but that's a separate subject.
What do you think about fraals, the little grey men (alternity, d20 future, but too canon AD&D creature)?
I like the other races from 3.5 psionic book too.
But WotC wants racial feats and parangon paths for all 4th PC races. That is the reason of lower number.
I really like the elans (and I hear they may be back in psionic power), but as far as the Fraals go, do you remember the Reel al I think they were called the alien tech race from the tales of the comet adventure
I would love to see grey dwarves they were great in DL.
Gray Dwarves already exist as a bloodline feat for Dwarves in Dragon.
I really like the elans (and I hear they may be back in psionic power), but as far as the Fraals go, do you remember the Reel al I think they were called the alien tech race from the tales of the comet adventure
Yes, the Elan and a companion "race" (the Foulborn I think is the name) are presented as Bloodline feats with extra feat support in Psionic Power.
Dragon is probably the best place to add some more niche races. I'd love to see Goblinoids, Lizardfolk, Kobolds and Dromites written up for PCs. It's not like they need a stack of feats for every possible class (I'm actually a little tired of the "give each race a class-specific feat"), just a write-up, a paragon path and a handful of feats.
I much prefer class feats to more racial feats. The assassin had the main issue with this, cause alot of it is race + assassin feats which means for any one race, your total number of class feats is pretty small.
That said, racial feats are nice to have, just constant support for them really isnt needed. For example, after their own article the shadar-kai are pretty well off.
The gnoll and the minotaur had more people asking for more support, but thats because their initial articles werent too well done.
For my Eberron games it would be awesome. I can finally run me some Darguun and Shadow Marches crunchy goodness !
I really do like the idea of an all goblinoid party especially after reading the Legacy of Dhakaan Trilogy by Don Bassingthwaite - maybe get him to write it !
I much prefer class feats to more racial feats. The assassin had the main issue with this, cause alot of it is race + assassin feats which means for any one race, your total number of class feats is pretty small.
I think both race and class feats have their place in the game, but that said, I don't think the two should intermingle. It's okay if a racial feat synergizes well with a particular class, and it's okay if a class feet synergizes well with a particular race, but a feat should never have both class and race as requisites.
Martial for exemple strikes me as the kind of power source, being dependant on the body and all, to be easily impacted by the different races simply by virtue of each race having different physiology. A dwarf and an Eladrin for exemple can't physically fight the same way becaude they're not built the same way. There should be more feat to emphasize that aspect of the Martial power source.