Confirmed now from the Editorial Calendar for next month. We all saw it coming, but now its official. Any thoughts?
Given they're only 4 days out, I'm disinclined to spend much energy on speculation. ;)
The thing I'm curious about is what the "Playing Githzerai" article on the 17th is going to contain if we're getting the PHB3 version on the 3rd.
I asked WotC_Trevor who went to Chris Young and the answer basically is: The Playing article is going to give expanded options for Githzerai while the Debut is just the book entry for 'Zerai.
The Playing article is going to give expended options for Githzerai.
Yes, very similar to the 3.5 crusader. There will even be a quite innovative refresh mechanism.
Can't wait to see what they have come up with!
We listened to what you had to say about the presentation of the psion, and we’ve made some major adjustments this time. You’ll get the githzerai in the more familiar article-style presentation, as well as in the D&D Character Builder, so reading and using the material should be a lot easier.
Yes!
Huh. Maybe with the githyanki race, we'll also get a real 'Psionic' 'gish' class?
Githyanki are famous for their arcane gish warriors, not psionics.
GITHZERAI, the ones we're hopefully getting ASAP today, are (now even more than then) famous for psionics (and martial arts).
At least according to the Ampersand article they listened to the input about the Psion article, and will make the Githzerai article in full article format.
And ppl will complain - Oh, damn you WotC, you previews are taking up space we pay you for. :D
Edit: NEVERMIND. Githyanki are NOT appearing in PHB3...
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.
So, Minotaur, Wilden, Githzerai and one more race. My bets are on one more Psionic-oriented race.
the other three psionic classes, though the githzerai will
need to get his primary ability score for those classes the
hard way.
Interesting commentary aabout psionic classes, here...
Interesting that Psi classes have a WIS secondary option.
EDIT: Never mind, I forgot Gnome and Half-Orc already did that. Silly me. :P
No, Githyanki:
So, Minotaur, Wilden, Githzerai and one more race. My bets are on one more Psionic-oriented race.
They picked the wrong race to PCify, if you ask me (but don't bother asking; I already answered).
A high Wisdom score fills the secondary ability score for
the other three psionic classes, though the githzerai will
need to get his primary ability score for those classes the
hard way.
Interesting commentary aabout psionic classes, here...
Well, this torpedoes the idea of there being more than four Psionic classes in this book. Of course, it doesn't give us a concrete number of the other power sources.
Also, only four races in this book, which is definitely strange. Hopefully the fourth race will be Con/Int, since we aren't getting the Githyanki.
Also, only four races in this book, which is definitely strange. Hopefully the fourth race will be Con/Int, since we aren't getting the Githyanki.
Probably because of the room that Hybrid Classes take up.
I expect many players to experiment with other psionic classes, because the githzerai will feel like the most "psionic" race available.
If this is true, this is pretty disappointing. The most psionic class available doesn't even have the main stat bonus for 3 out of 4 psionic classes? Does this really mean we aren't getting that crystaline thing from the psionics commentary article? There are going to be no other "psionic" races in the PHB3?
Probably because of the room that Hybrid Classes take up.
This is more than likely the case. I was hoping the space for racial paragon paths, rules updates, and backgrounds could have been taken up by the Hybrid rules though. Oh well, I really don't have that much use for two hundred races.
If this is true, this is pretty disappointing. The most psionic class available doesn't even have the main stat bonus for 3 out of 4 psionic classes? Does this really mean we aren't getting that crystaline thing from the psionics commentary article? There are going to be no other "psionic" races in the PHB3?
This might mean that the crystaline thing is actually a picture of a wilden. They did say that the art design of the race wasn't completely finished when the preview debuted, IIRC.
This might mean that the crystaline thing is actually a picture of a wilden. They did say that the art design of the race wasn't completely finished when the preview debuted, IIRC.
Turning them from green plant guys to red crystal dudes? Seem like a pretty radical thematic departure.
I'm pretty happy that they aren't pcifying the Githyanki, and the reasons for not doing so. This also probably indicates no goblins or kobolds as PC races like some people have been clamoring for.
I foresee much wailing and gnashing of teeth in future posts.
Bel
Turning them from green plant guys to red crystal dudes? Seem like a pretty radical thematic departure.
It does, but it's also possible that it is a wilden under the effects of some psionic power from a yet-unnamed class. It did show up in an article about psionics, after all.
Race #4 will be the Gnoll, thus breaking the idea that there has to be a small race in each PHB in half.
Probably not for the same reason there will be no Githyanki.
Probably not for the same reason there will be no Githyanki.
I don't think that's true. I don't think that the reason that they decided on no Githyanki was because they're typically evil. I think that the reason that they decided on no Githyanki was because Githzerai are like almost the same thing. I mean, did we really need two of these guys? That's like one race getting twice as much coverage. :P
I don't think that's true. I don't think that the reason that they decided on no Githyanki was because they're typically evil. I think that the reason that they decided on no Githyanki was because Githzerai are like almost the same thing. I mean, did we really need two of these guys? That's like one race getting twice as much coverage. :P
I cant tell if you are being facetious! lol. They did give us 3 freakin elves in the PHB.
I cant tell if you are being facetious! lol.
I'm actually not. :P
They did give us 3 freakin elves in the PHB.
Which are more different from each other than the Gith are. And even if they weren't, making a mistake in the past doesn't at all give you a good excuse to make that same mistake again.
And the fact that Yanki aren't in is WotC saying the idea that the Giths are too similar is pure stupidity. Unfortunately, so is WotC's idea that they're too villainous.
And the fact that Yanki aren't in is WotC saying the idea that the Giths are too similar is pure stupidity.
Makes perfect sense to me. No more different than not wanting 50 elf races again because they're too similar. Besides, even if that's not the reason, it's certainly a positive side-effect.
The Gnolls are an option, because they need the same treatment that the Minotaur, another supposedly villainous race which will be in the PHB3 got. They're more likely than anything else at this point.
And the fact that Yanki aren't in is WotC saying the idea that the Giths are too similar is pure stupidity. Unfortunately, so is WotC's idea that they're too villainous.
Well, if Dragonlance is the 2010 setting, there is a large population of good-aligned Minotaurs. All three continents that are known have sizeable populations of good minotaurs (the minotaurs on Adlatum are monks).
Which are more different from each other than the Gith are. And even if they weren't, making a mistake in the past doesn't at all give you a good excuse to make that same mistake again.
Mechanically, they are at least as different from each other as all the elves in the PHB. They are certainly more different from each other background-wise than an elf and half-elf while having a similar amount of historical difference between them as the eladrin and elf do.
And the fact that Yanki aren't in is WotC saying the idea that the Giths are too similar is pure stupidity. Unfortunately, so is WotC's idea that they're too villainous.
Well, apparently, they're both yellow now. Which is dumb, but it does make them kinda indistinguishable.
It seems to me that, aside from the very very minor physical differences that a few hundred years have produced, Githyanki are just a different culture of Githzerai (The Evil culture). Gnolls and Minotaurs are viable because they're the same thing whether they're evil or good; they're not releasing an evil race, they're releasing a race.
But imagine if they released a race called "Taller and Evil Humans" (I admit, that's a bad name, but whatever). Aside from their cultural difference, and the fact that they're ever so slightly taller, these were just humans. Evil Humans.
Now imagine that that race was almost always played as not evil, because that's how PCs work, but that it was supposed to somehow be considered as something different from the regular human. It may have different mechanics. But it would be just a good evil human. And that's silly.
That's how the Gith are. A githyanki PC race would just be good evil Githzerai.
I'd be more willing to buy the cultural thing if they didn't have radically different racial abilities.
It's all based on culture, though. They might be slightly differently proportioned, but the Iron Mind thing isn't a DNA thing. It's just something ingrained into their culture so that they know it deeply. I'll admit that it might be nice to have some writeup or something for them eventually, just for mechanical purposes (But I'm talking about fluff reasons for releasing them. It might be nice to have a writeup for an Evil Human PC race for some people's mechanical concepts, but that doesn't mean it makes any sense fluff-wise).
But pretending like it would be the same as releasing gnolls or minotaur, or revenants, or drow, is just silly. Ridiculous, really.
It's all based on culture, though. They might be slightly differently proportioned, but the Iron Mind thing isn't a DNA thing. It's just something ingrained into their culture so that they know it deeply. I'll admit that it might be nice to have some writeup or something for them eventually, just for mechanical purposes.
Does it actually state this anywhere or are you presenting your own theory as fact?
But pretending like it would be the same as releasing gnolls or minotaur, or revenants, or drow, is just silly. Ridiculous, really.
Except for the fact that, you know, it would be exactly the same as releasing the drow, which is just an evil spin off elf with a different culture/powers.
Does it actually state this anywhere or are you presenting your own theory as fact?
Except for the fact that, you know, it would be exactly the same as releasing the drow, which is just an evil spin off elf with a different culture/powers.
Except that the drow have been different for millenia, and heavily influenced on a physical level by Lolth's touch. It's evident even in their skin color, which, at least in 4e, is apparently not the case for Gith. Apparently, they're both kinda yellow. I don't know if this was an appropriate change, but it's part of the flavor now. You can't really debate something like that.
I'm sorry, if they look exactly the same, I find it hard to recognize them as two physically different races.
Oh, and on the subject of whether or not they were physically influenced any differently by their environment? The article states on many occasions the differences in culture, and the attitudes/changes that it brings, but not once does it state any physical difference resulting from their few hundred years in the Elemental Chaos.
Frankly, everyone needs to email WotC to tell them to list it as millenia like it should be. This may not be a playtest article, but that doesn't mean they can't change one word in the next seven months to reflect the proper history.
Maybe they don't want it to be millennia. Maybe they think it fits better as centuries; it certainly makes more sense for not having Githyanki included.
the reason that they decided on no Githyanki was because Githzerai are like almost the same thing. I mean, did we really need two of these guys? That's like one race getting twice as much coverage. :P
Well, apparently, they're both yellow now. Which is dumb, but it does make them kinda indistinguishable.
It seems to me that, aside from the very very minor physical differences that a few hundred years have produced, Githyanki are just a different culture of Githzerai (The Evil culture). Gnolls and Minotaurs are viable because they're the same thing whether they're evil or good; they're not releasing an evil race, they're releasing a race.
You two are clueless. If you accept a physical and mental distinction elves and eladrin then you also accept a physical distinction between githzerai and githyanki. No exceptions.
Except that the drow have been different for millenia, and heavily influenced on a physical level by Lolth's touch. It's evident even in their skin color, which, at least in 4e, is apparently not the case for Gith. Apparently, they're both kinda yellow. I don't know if this was an appropriate change, but it's part of the flavor now. You can't really debate something like that.
C'mon... skin color means your a different species now? The drow and wood elves both have different "racial" powers. The yanki and zerai both have different "racial" powers. They are all different "races", not just cultures. You could argue that living in different dimensions for a few centuries has at least as much effect on "race" as a god turning your skin black.
I'm sorry, if they look exactly the same, I find it hard to recognize them as two physically different races.
Elves and humans are nearly identical and yet they are supposedly different races. Halfings just look like athletic human kids. Elves and half-elves are at least as identical as 'zerai and 'yankis, yet they get different entires. Last edition daelkyr half-bloods were indistinguishable from humans in appearance and yet they were aberrations.
Conversely, you can be an incredibly dark skinned human with black hair or a pale human with blonde hair and still be the same race, thus "race" in DnD is not primarily based on things like skin or hair color.
Oh, and on the subject of whether or not they were physically influenced any differently by their environment? The article states on many occasions the differences in culture, and the attitudes/changes that it brings, but not once does it state any physical difference resulting from their few hundred years in the Elemental Chaos.
The ability scores and racial powers speak for themselves. That, and the article stating repeatedly that the zerai are their own race.
C'mon... skin color means your a different species now? The drow and wood elves both have different "racial" powers. The yanki and zerai both have different "racial" powers. They are all different "races", not just cultures. You could argue that living in different dimensions for a few centuries has at least as much effect on "race" as a god turning your skin black.
Elves and humans are nearly identical and yet they are supposedly different races. Halfings just look like athletic human kids. Elves and half-elves are at least as identical as 'zerai and 'yankis, yet they get different entires. Last edition daelkyr half-bloods were indistinguishable from humans in appearance and yet they were aberrations.
Conversely, you can be an incredibly dark skinned human with black hair or a pale human with blonde hair and still be the same race, thus "race" in DnD is not primarily based on things like skin or hair color.
The ability scores and racial powers speak for themselves. That, and the article stating repeatedly that the zerai are their own race.
But my point remains valid. Even if they are *very slightly, or technically* physically different, in some small way, it's not enough to distinguish Githyanki as anything more than evil Githzerai. They might be distinguished to you, but that's only because you clearly have a focus on Gith. Elves and Humans are very much physically different. I wasn't using Skin color as the only difference to be found between races, but it is definitely a defining one.
Elves and Half-elves are thoroughly different. One can take a simple look at their life-span and see that.
And again, the article states no where that their time in different planes has changed them differently, while they clearly focus on cultural differences between the two of them. If you still think their different powers is a physiological thing, and not a cultural focus, you're being intentionally blind.
I'm not saying that they should never ever make a Githyanki PC race. But when they only have space for 4 races in a book, I want them to pick the good ones.
But my point remains valid. Even if they are *very slightly, or technically* physically different, in some small way, it's not enough to distinguish Githyanki as anything more than evil Githzerai. They might be distinguished to you, but that's only because you clearly have a focus on Gith. Elves and Humans are very much physically different. I wasn't using Skin color as the only difference to be found between races, but it is definitely a defining one.
And yet it's the only real physical difference between Elves, Eladrin, and Drow.
And again, the article states no where that their time in different planes has changed them differently, while they clearly focus on cultural differences between the two of them. If you still think their different powers is a physiological thing, and not a cultural focus, you're being intentionally blind.
Because the article barely goes into their history at all! Do you honestly expect something like that out of a PHB race entry? That's being intentionally blind. Oh, and ignoring the whole different racial abilities as being more than enough evidence of course.
But my point remains valid. Even if they are *very slightly, or technically* physically different, in some small way, it's not enough to distinguish Githyanki as anything more than evil Githzerai. They might be distinguished to you, but that's only because you clearly have a focus on Gith. Elves and Humans are very much physically different. I wasn't using Skin color as the only difference to be found between races, but it is definitely a defining one.
Elves and Half-elves are thoroughly different. One can take a simple look at their life-span and see that.
And again, the article states no where that their time in different planes has changed them differently, while they clearly focus on cultural differences between the two of them. If you still think their different powers is a physiological thing, and not a cultural focus, you're being intentionally blind.
I'm not saying that they should never ever make a Githyanki PC race. But when they only have space for 4 races in a book, I want them to pick the good ones.
Sorry, but this reeks of hypocrisy. The two races have separate, completely different stats and are thus more different from each other than elves and eladrin -- and even elves and half-elves -- are. And it's a good thing too because they inhabit vastly different worlds and have vastly different cultures. So if you are going to defend elves and eladrin and half-elves, then turning around and spouting ignorance of what the gith actually are and condemning them as "identical" kills your credibility.
Elves and Half-elves are thoroughly different. One can take a simple look at their life-span and see that.
Seriously? You are saying the the zerai and yanki must be the same because of their skin color and yet life-span somehow makes elves and half-elves completely different races despite the fact that they appear totally identical?
And again, the article states no where that their time in different planes has changed them differently, while they clearly focus on cultural differences between the two of them. If you still think their different powers is a physiological thing, and not a cultural focus, you're being intentionally blind.
If you ignore the fact that every mechanical, racial aspect of both races is completely different and yet somehow claim they are identical, you're being intentionally blind. They are constantly referred to as their own race.
Sorry, but this reeks of hypocrisy. The two races have separate, completely different stats and are thus more different from each other than elves and eladrin -- and even elves and half-elves -- are. And it's a good thing too because they inhabit vastly different worlds and have vastly different cultures. So if you are going to defend elves and eladrin and half-elves, then turning around and spouting ignorance of what the gith actually are and condemning them as "identical" kills your credibility.
Except that, if you don't consider the mechanical aspects of the race, they're practically identical aside from culture. If the Githyanki had been listed with the same mechanical aspects in the MM as the Githzerai, without changing any fluff at all, they'd be exactly the same damn thing but with a different culture. You can't say the same about any other race pair.
The cultures are different, and that results in different mechanics. They might even have slightly different dispositions physical proportions. But aside from the fact that one tends to be a little more lithe than the other, they lack any differences physiologically. You can't say that about any other race pair, either.
Except that, if you don't consider the mechanical aspects of the race, they're practically identical aside from culture. If the Githyanki had been listed with the same mechanical aspects in the MM as the Githzerai, without changing any fluff at all, they'd be exactly the same damn thing but with a different culture. You can't say the same about any other race pair.
Except the Elves and the Eladrin, and to a lesser extent the Drow.
Except that, if you don't consider the mechanical aspects of the race, they're practically identical aside from culture.
Are you talking about eladrins/elves/half-elves?
Are you talking about eladrins/elves/half-elves?
No. If you don't consider mechanics:
- Half-elves have half human blood, and live about as long as humans, but do not suffer from frailty in old age.
- Eladrin are particularly physiologically infused with arcane energy, live longer than elves, and trance, as well as having noticeably different physical characteristics. They don't have pupils or grow facial hair.
- Elves lack said arcane infusement, or trance, live about 100 years less than Eladrin, but maintain a very characteristic appearance and live longer than humans.
- Drow are infused with darkness, and have VERY noticeably different physical characteristics.
Now that Githzerai are yellow, the completely lack anything at all like that.
No. If you don't consider mechanics, Half-elves have half human blood, Eladrins are particularly physiologically infused with arcane energy, as well as having noticeably different physical characteristics, and elves lack said arcane infusement. Drow are infused with darkness powers, and have VERY noticeablly different physical characteristics.
Now that Githzerai are yellow, the completely lack anything at all like that.
Eladrin are magic and Elves aren't is the exact same as saying Yanki are Metal Pirates and Zerai are monastic.
Eladrin are magic and Elves aren't is the exact same as saying Yanki are Metal Pirates and Zerai are monastic.
No it's not. One describes culture, the other describes physiology. And I went through the actual race listings, and found more to point out differences.
Mechanically, they are at least as different from each other as all the elves in the PHB.
I'd be more willing to buy the cultural thing if they didn't have radically different racial abilities.
Yes, they have different mechanics. However, the key is that they don't need to have different mechanics.
They are certainly more different from each other background-wise than an elf and half-elf...
If by "background" you mean "culture" then yes, but culture is irrelevant when discussing player races. Heck, all you have to do is look at the vastly different human cultures we have here on Earth and realize that in D&D they would all be identically mechanically represented to realize that. Similarly, you can have a nation where humans, elves, dwarfs, and gnomes all live together and have the exact same culture, but they'd still have different mechanics, because they'd still be biologically, psychologically, and physiologically different.
...while having a similar amount of historical difference between them as the eladrin and elf do.
Again, irrelevant.
You two are clueless. If you accept a physical and mental distinction elves and eladrin then you also accept a physical distinction between githzerai and githyanki. No exceptions.
What physical distinctions between the Githzerai and Githyanki? I don't know any of these supposed physical differences people keep talking about. They look exactly the same to me. Show me a picture of one, and I won't be able to tell you which one it is. You get more variation in appearance within the human race alone than you get between the Githzerai and Githyanki.
As for your attempt to draw a parallel between this case and that of the Eladrin and Elf, this is a false analogy. I can tell the difference between Eladrin and Elf. I can look at a piece of art and tell which race it is with no problem. I can also point out many biological, psychological, and physiological distinctions. The only difference I see between the Githyanki and Githzerai is culture, and cultural differences are simple not good enough. No exceptions.
Yes, they have different mechanics. However, the key is that they don't need to have different mechanics.
Yes, they do. This isn't a high elf/grey elf issue. This is a bugbear/hobgoblin issue.
What physical distinctions between the Githzerai and Githyanki? I don't know any of these supposed physical differences people keep talking about. They look exactly the same to me. Show me a picture of one, and I won't be able to tell you which one it is. You get more variation in appearance within the human race alone than you get between the Githzerai and Githyanki.
That doesn't matter because you already don't think eladrin and elves are the same. Those two races have more in common with each other (dexterity) than githyanki and githzerai (nothing).
As for your attempt to draw a parallel between this case and that of the Eladrin and Elf, this is a false analogy. I can tell the difference between Eladrin and Elf. I can look at a piece of art and tell which race it is with no problem. I can also point out many biological, psychological, and physiological distinctions.
And some people can tell you the difference between a githyanki and githzerai. This isn't about you.
The only difference I see between the Githyanki and Githzerai is culture, and cultural differences are simple not good enough. No exceptions.
As said before, this isn't about you. Who are you to say culture isn't a good enough reason? Culture can, in fact, be a major factor in determining the way a race evolves. The elves' and eladrin's differences are just as much based on culture as that of githyanki and githzerai, and the latter have more physical and psychological differences between one another than the former. So no, the analogy is not false just because you aren't learned enough to tell the difference.
Yes, they have different mechanics. However, the key is that they don't need to have different mechanics.
Right. Just like elves/eladrin/drow/half-elves don't need different mechanics. They have different mechanics because, like the githzerai and githyanki, they are explicitly denoted as being different races in the text.
If by "background" you mean "culture" then yes, but culture is irrelevant when discussing player races.
Exactly my point. People keep bringing up culture when it is irrelevant. What is relevant is the zerai and yanki have totally different racial features and are consistently referred to as different races. Race =/= culture.
Similarly, you can have a nation where humans, elves, dwarfs, and gnomes all live together and have the exact same culture, but they'd still have different mechanics, because they'd still be biologically, psychologically, and physiologically different.
Right. Just like if you had a dwarf that lived in a githzerai monastary, his racial features wouldn't be replaced by the githzerai racial features...because githzerai racial features are racial. You're proving my point.
You get more variation in appearance within the human race alone than you get between the Githzerai and Githyanki.
Proving that physical variation doesn't define race. Thank you.
I can also point out many biological, psychological, and physiological distinctions. The only difference I see between the Githyanki and Githzerai is culture, and cultural differences are simple not good enough. No exceptions.
Then you haven't looked at any text written about either race. Completely different physiology (different ability scores), different racial features, completely opposite physiology.
Right. Just like elves/eladrin/drow/half-elves don't need different mechanics. They have different mechanics because, like the githzerai and githyanki, they are explicitly denoted as being different races in the text.
Exactly my point. People keep bringing up culture when it is irrelevant. What is relevant is the zerai and yanki have totally different racial features and are consistently referred to as different races. Race =/= culture.
Right. Just like if you had a dwarf that lived in a githzerai monastary, his racial features wouldn't be replaced by the githzerai racial features...because githzerai racial features are racial. You're proving my point.
Proving that physical variation doesn't define race. Thank you.
Then you haven't looked at any text written about either race. Completely different physiology (different ability scores), different racial features, completely opposite physiology.
The elves do need different mechanics, because they're physiologically different. The gith are not. Crimson's points are all completely valid (and he managed to deliver them more eloquently than I could, thank you Crimson
).Once more, because it throws all your points about the Gith away:
There is no physiological difference in fourth edition between Githyanki and Githzerai. The only mechanical differences are based on culture.
There is no physiological difference in fourth edition between Githyanki and Githzerai. The only mechanical differences are based on culture.
I agree, the Gith are only separated by philosophy. But I still think they should have two different racial mechanics, it meshes better with the classes.
I agree, the Gith are only separated by philosophy. But I still think they should have two different racial mechanics, it meshes better with the classes.
Then we need writeups for all the different human philosophies out there. My nomadic tribe human should be a better barbarian than a city dweller.
See, that's a dumb thing. If you really want it, there is a MM writeup for Githyanki; but including them in the PHB is not at all like including minotaurs, or gnolls, or even drow, because they already have Githzerai in there. It would be excessive in a situation that already has too much people want (See "Hybrid classes taking up space" and "People wanting more classes" and "People wanting gnolls and goblinoids and abberant races, etc.")
There is no physiological difference in fourth edition between Githyanki and Githzerai. The only mechanical differences are based on culture.
You are honestly arguing that they are different races only because they have different culture? Really?!? Because the text repeatedly notes that githzerai is a race.
You are honestly arguing that they are different races only because they have different culture? Really?!? Because the text repeatedly notes that githzerai is a race.
So are arab, causican, oriental, "black", and other ethnicities. D+D may use Race and species synonomusly, but the Giths as a group are WAY over on the Ethnicity side. (so are the elves/humans/orcs group) Dragonborn, Gnolls, Minotaurs, warforged... definately on the Species side. I'd put goblinoids in the middle- hobgoblin eugenics produced the bugbears and goblins, but they started as one race, LONG before the Giths split.
All I'm saying is that shown these two images, I cannot tell you who is a member of what race. I could totally deal with the two being separate races if only I could tell them apart and there differences were more than cultural. I have repeatedly asked to be told what the non-cultural differences between the two races are, but half of a shade of a tone of a skin color difference isn't enough for me to be able to tell them apart.
And, "they're different races because they have different mechanics and racial features," is circular reasoning and logically fallacious.
Furthermore, isn't it the case that the Gith were different races when they were first introduced because that was back during the edition where races still had class restrictions? With racial class restrictions no longer in place, their original purpose in being separate races has become obsolete, so the only reason not to merge them back into a single race is that people are, again, simply attached to the idea of their being separate races. This is the same reason that we got Sorcerers class back in 4E after their original purpose became obsolete and the same reason that we didn't get the item creation feats back in 4E after their original purpose became obsolete. It all goes back to how attached people are.
If I'm not attached to the idea, I don't see why I should pretend that I am for the sake of the people who are.
Look, I don't disagree with you because I'm stupid.
You're simply being hypocritical. The two are entirely different beyond the shallowest physical similarities. This is simply a fact. The animosity comes because of you and Rosie's pigheaded assertions that since they look similar that therefore they must be the same race. You are thaX. There, I said it.
EDIT: Don't overreact because I called you two thaX.
Listen, the differences between the Elf and the Eladrin are as pronounced as the Dwarf and Halfling. Just because they were split from the elf from the previous edition doesn't mean they are the same now.
Basically, the High Elf and the Wood Elf are now their own races.
Gith in general was a Psionic thing, and I didn't pay much attention to them. I do agree that the Zerai and Yanki need to be separate. I also agree with the exclusion of the Yanki from the PHB because of it being a monster race. If both were to be included, it would be as the Shifters had been IMHO, and wouldn't have the same bite as they are gonna have now.
Thanks for using me like a bad omen, btw.
Did someone say my name?
Listen, the differences between the Elf and the Eladrin are as pronounced as the Dwarf and Halfling. Just because they were split from the elf from the previous edition doesn't mean they are the same now.
Basically, the High Elf and the Wood Elf are now their own races.
Gith in general was a Psionic thing, and I didn't pay much attention to them. I do agree that the Zerai and Yanki need to be separate. I also agree with the exclusion of the Yanki from the PHB because of it being a monster race. If both were to be included, it would be as the Shifters had been IMHO, and wouldn't have the same bite as they are gonna have now.
Thanks for using me like a bad omen, btw.
I'm, like, totally sorry. It was a lame attempt at a joke.
You're simply a hypocrite.
I'm not a hypocrite just because I disagree with you, and there's nothing inconsistent about my position.
The two are entirely different beyond the shallowest physical similarities.
The physical similarities are anything but shallow. They look similarly enough that I cannot tell them apart and that any perceived differences seems to me to merely be individual variations or possibly minor racial variations at best, "racial" in this context specifically being analogous to the racial variations between caucasoid, mongoloid, and negroid human races which all use the same mechanics are are for all intents and purposes the same.
The animosity comes because of you and Rosie's pigheaded assertions that since they look similar that therefore they must be the same race.
A) It's not just as simple as they look the same. Their being practically visually indistinguishable is a problem, yes, but there's also the problem that they're also otherwise remarkably similar, specifically in reference to their psychology in physiology. This is why I buy the differences between the Eladin and Elf even though they're very physically similar (but still visually distinguishable) and why I buy the differences between Human and Kalashtar even though they've very physically similar.
B) There's no need to insult me as "pigheaded" and "not learned" just because I disagree with you. I mean, we're arguing about made up races we pretend to be every weekend in our friends' basements. There's no need to be se serious about it. Come on. :P
You are thaX. There, I said it.
EDIT: Don't overreact because I called you two thaX.
I really don't know what that means.
EDIT: Oh! You mean the poster. I thought you were trying to insult me with a term I wasn't familiar with. Gotcha. No, I'm not thaX.
You're simply being hypocritical. The two are entirely different beyond the shallowest physical similarities. This is simply a fact. The animosity comes because of you and Rosie's pigheaded assertions that since they look similar that therefore they must be the same race. You are thaX. There, I said it.
EDIT: Don't overreact because I called you two thaX.
The two are different only when you don't consider physical similarities. That is the point. They may have different cultures, but that doesn't mean they're really seperate species. The reason I argue for this point is that if they are different only in culture (which they are), then it makes no sense to release Githyanki in a PHB for use in good campaigns, because a good, focused Githyanki is just a Githzerai.
They're not exactly the same. I know that. But, from a purely Physiological standpoint, they are exactly the same, or at least don't have enough variation to fill up a sake glass.
Please stop basing your opinions on 4e fluff on earlier editions. My paladin can be Neutral, and your gith are pretty much the same now (Physiologically). Deal with it.
Also, I take no offense to being called pigheaded because we're over the internet and people like to talk like that. I'm used to it, whatever, you can say whatever you want. I'm not going to bother insulting you with unnecessary negative adjectives, even if I might want to, because we're on a forum and there are rules for such conduct.
But Rosie? That, sir, is a nickname I do not take kindly to.
I'm not a hypocrite just because I disagree with you, and there's nothing inconsistent about my position.
You say there is a physical difference between elves and eladrin but deny any difference between githyanki and githzerai. That's inconsistency.
The physical similarities are anything but shallow. They look similarly enough that I cannot tell them apart and that any perceived differences seems to me to merely be individual variations or possibly minor racial variations at best, "racial" in this context specifically being analogous to the racial variations between caucasoid, mongoloid, and negroid human races which all use the same mechanics are are for all intents and purposes the same.
The stat blocks say different. Nobody claiming they are the same can verify the claim except, like you do, by looking at a couple of pictures. Do you think this is enough to refute pages of fluff which has not yet been overwritten and huge differences between their cultures, especially given that real-life people exist who can't tell two Asians apart? Think about it. Could they be just a little too different for you to see a difference? If you have a smidgen of doubt, maybe call it a day.
A) It's not just as simple as they look the same. Their being practically visually indistinguishable is a problem, yes, but there's also the problem that they're also otherwise remarkably similar, specifically in reference to their psychology in physiology. This is why I buy the differences between the Eladin and Elf even though they're very physically similar (but still visually distinguishable) and why I buy the differences between Human and Kalashtar even though they've very physically similar.
WotC splits up races for less than what you mention.
B) There's no need to insult me as "pigheaded" and "not learned" just because I disagree with you. I mean, we're arguing about made up races we pretend to be every weekend in our friends' basements. There's no need to be se serious about it. Come on. :P
I'm not trying to insult you. I'm commenting on your behavior and how it strikes me. Pigheaded is another word for stubborn and "not learned" describes your ignorance on this issue (and just this issue).
I really don't know what that means.
EDIT: Oh! You mean the poster. I thought you were trying to insult me with a term I wasn't familiar with. Gotcha. No, I'm not thaX.
That was an insult. Honestly not a good one, but it wasn't supposed to be. You with githyanki and githzerai is eerily similar to thaX and half-orcs and dragonborn. I was just being an idiot.
The two are different only when you don't consider physical similarities. That is the point.
They have plenty of physical differences. Some people suggest that githyanki lay eggs whereas githzerai don't (I'll check for you to see if this is true). The reason? Heritage from red dragons. That's one difference and I'm sure there are plenty more.
because a good, focused Githyanki is just a Githzerai.
Back this up. I don't see anything in the books suggesting this is true.
Please stop basing your opinions on 4e fluff on earlier editions. My paladin can be Neutral, and your gith are pretty much the same now (Physiologically). Deal with it.
Telling your discussion partner to "deal with it" is ****-poor debating. Some fluff has been changed in 4E, but the assumption is that until otherwise noted, canon from earlier editions holds true.
Also, I take no offense to being called pigheaded because we're over the internet and people like to talk like that. I'm used to it, whatever, you can say whatever you want. I'm not going to bother insulting you with unnecessary negative adjectives, even if I might want to, because we're on a forum and there are rules for such conduct.
But Rosie? That, sir, is a nickname I do not take kindly to.
Like Concerto, I was not trying to insult you. It was a comment on your behavior, not your character. I respect you as much as a person as I ever did.
The elves do need different mechanics, because they're physiologically different. The gith are not. Crimson's points are all completely valid (and he managed to deliver them more eloquently than I could, thank you Crimson
Once more, because it throws all your points about the Gith away:
There is no physiological difference in fourth edition between Githyanki and Githzerai. The only mechanical differences are based on culture.
That is completely and utterly false. The text itself proves they are different, and you have not and can not prove that it is only cultural.
The real difference is the culture, but there a few physiological differences as well. Notice that the Yanki (i keep thinking baseball
) have more physical power, and the Zerai are more agile. I don't know if the physical stats (Strength, Constitution, and Dexterity) can be changed easily through cultural means. Is a dwarf raised by elves more dexterous? Is a half-orc that grew up in a halfling community any less strong? We don't have any guidelines for it, so my best assumption is the physical characteristics are based on breed and genes.In this case, I would assume the Giths are two different species. They may not look like it, but that's just the appearance the artists gave. These are fictional creations, after all.
That is completely and utterly false. The text itself proves they are different, and you have not and can not prove that it is only cultural.
It is proven in the article. Go read it. There is no mention of any physiological changes since their split, nothing about red dragons, nothing. Your opinions are based on fluff artifacts from earlier editions, which though I understand, are not true in 4e. There is not enough of a difference between Githzerai and a good Githyanki to justify releasing them as a race in place of some other candidate in the PHB3.
And I know one is a little leaner than the other. But proportional tendencies happen in human ethnicities, and yet we keep them as one race. It's not enough, is what I'm saying. Maybe there's a speck here and there that kinda justifies it, but it's not enough to take the place of any other race that they could put in.
It is proven in the article. Go read it. There is no mention of any physiological changes since their split, nothing about red dragons, nothing. Your opinions are based on fluff artifacts from earlier editions, which though I understand, are not true in 4e. There is not enough of a difference between Githzerai and a good Githyanki to justify releasing them as a race in place of some other candidate in the PHB3.
And I know one is a little leaner than the other. But proportional tendencies happen in human ethnicities, and yet we keep them as one race. It's not enough, is what I'm saying. Maybe there's a speck here and there that kinda justifies it, but it's not enough to take the place of any other race that they could put in.
Actually, the lack of mention is not proof. I'm going to laugh when the Playing Githzerai article proves you wrong.
Actually, the lack of mention is not proof. I'm going to laugh when the Playing Githzerai article proves you wrong.
It's enough to justify scrapping Githyanki over another race that doesn't already have a good-counterpart that sufficiently overshadows it.
Perhaps you should try responding to all of my points instead of the only one you have an answer for?
Zerai - Good
Yanki - Evil.
I say that right there is a big difference.
The 3.5 stuff that some are disregarding is still a factor in all this, even when it isn't mentioned in some preview article.
It's enough to justify scrapping Githyanki over another race that doesn't already have a good-counterpart that sufficiently overshadows it.
Perhaps you should try responding to all of my points instead of the only one you have an answer for?
Maybe if your points had any merit. But they don't.
Maybe if your points had any merit. But they don't.
Tell me why including Githyanki makes more sense than including, say, Gnolls, or some other race, despite the fact that we already have the Githzerai. And don't say something like "because they're cooler" or something, I already know they're your favorite, and it's not a valid reason.
Let us see...
Zerai - Good
Yanki - Evil.
I say that right there is a big difference.
The 3.5 stuff that some are disregarding is still a factor in all this, even when it isn't mentioned in some preview article.
3.5? Hell try every edition. But yes, exactly.
This isn't a case of the Tieflings or Deva where the race was completely rebuilt, the Gith races are the exact same as they always have been, except the ridiculous reduction of the time span since the civil war.
It's enough
Says who?
I think the Gnoll will not be the 4th race in for the exact same reason that the Githyanki are not in.
Tell me why including Githyanki makes more sense than including, say, Gnolls, or some other race, despite the fact that we already have the Githzerai. And don't say something like "because they're cooler" or something, I already know they're your favorite, and it's not a valid reason.
Actually, for one thing I have not and have never said I want them in over any other race. EVER. I have said that I prefer them to Githzerai, and that I'm disappointed they won't be in. The only thing I have argued against is this ridiculous nonsense that they would merit a combined entry if they had been included.
For another, they are not my favorite race. By far. That distinction falls to the Eladrin, Elves, and Changelings.
I think the Gnoll will not be the 4th race in for the exact same reason that the Githyanki are not in.
But that is exactly my point - your logic is flawed when you say that. If you want to play a good Githyanki, you might as well play a Githzerai. There *might* be some very minor details, but it's there.
If you want to play a gnoll... you play a gnoll. It's not the same thing. There's no race of good gnolls that they've already included that you can just fall back to.
And I'm not exactly expecting gnolls either, I'm expecting the crystal race that's in another thread on this future releases forum. But my point remains valid, which is:
I wholeheartedly agree with WotC's decision to not include Githyanki because the Githzerai already take their place sufficiently enough as good-aligned gith, moreso than any other "evil" race can attest to, thus making their potential inclusion an option of slight redundancy amidst a sleuth of original and fresh alternatives.
If I've seemed to be arguing for some other point, I apologize; I'll admit it's easy to stray from one's own deliberate debate-boundaries whilst on the internet.
For another, they are not my favorite race. By far. That distinction falls to the Eladrin, Elves, and Changelings.
Well, I know assumptions aren't the best things to make (Sword are better to make, I think), but when you seem to know a fair bit about them and have a Githyanki as your avatar, it's hard to tell. Sorry.
Says who?
With a quote like that, I have NO IDEA what you're referring to.
Because the Dromite makes more sense to include than the evil Githyanki?
I think the Gnoll will not be the 4th race in for the exact same reason that the Githyanki are not in.
Actually, I think the Gnoll will be in for the same reason the Minotaur is in - their Dragon article mechanics were crap. :P
Actually, I think the Gnoll will be in for the same reason the Minotaur is in - their Dragon article mechanics were crap. :P
Oh, but my Gnoll Beast-mastery ranger did so well! If they remove all the sick damage bonuses, I will be sad
I wholeheartedly agree with WotC's decision to not include Githyanki because the Githzerai already take their place sufficiently enough as good-aligned gith, moreso than any other "evil" race can attest to, thus making their potential inclusion an option of slight redundancy amidst a sleuth of original and fresh alternatives.
Your reasoning is flawed.
If they was to have this type of carbon copy, two sided coin type of racial divide, the Gith would have been like the Shifter, having both "factions" in one racial entry. Wizards decided to differentiate them enough to make the Zerai an entry all of their own while the Yanki stayed in the MM. To say that they are the same but for their alignment is selling both races short, and says a lot about how little you (and admittingly, me) know about these races. I am not a fan of the Gith. In the previous edition they only seemed to be there so that the Gith slaying PrC's had a focus.
It is also rumored that crystal race pic is a form that the Wilden takes.
Well, I know assumptions aren't the best things to make (Sword are better to make, I think), but when you seem to know a fair bit about them and have a Githyanki as your avatar, it's hard to tell. Sorry.
I know a lot about normally useless stuff. :P
And frankly, the Githyanki avatar is simply better looking, and less commonly used, than any of the Eladrin/Elf avatars. Now, if the EPG Changeling race entry pic is in the Avatar list, I might change.
Actually, I think the Gnoll will be in for the same reason the Minotaur is in - their Dragon article mechanics were crap. :P
I would not know, I don't waste my money on DDi.
With a quote like that, I have NO IDEA what you're referring to.
I'm questioning whether it's enough to warrant a fusion of the two. You say it's enough and I don't believe you. So kindly back it up.
Monster Manual, 4th Edition, page 128:
"The githyanki and githzerai were once a single race - the gith- enslaved by mind flayers, but they split into two races after winning their freedom."
They are separate races, as presented by the above. CelticMutt is right, end of argument.
Man... two threads, same subject...
/thread
The above quote actually demolishes BurningRose's stance. Races in D&D are all physiologically, psychologically and culturally distinct from each other and githyanki and githzerai being separate races establishes that even though he can't see them, there are physiological, psychological and cultural differences between the two.
/thread
Don't you hate it when a perfect argument is ruined by a little thing like fact? :D
/gloat
The above quote actually demolishes BurningRose's stance. Races in D&D are all physiologically, psychologically and culturally distinct from each other and githyanki and githzerai being separate races establishes that even though he can't see them, there are physiological, psychological and cultural differences between the two.
/thread
Hey, guess what guys? I can present baseless things as facts and say an argument is over too! Watch!
I am always right. If you can't see that, that's your fault. /thread
See? It's so easy!
And I'm not for a fusion of Gith. That would be dumb; whether it's culture or physiology (And physiologically, they're practically the same), they have different mechanics, and I'm okay with that. I'm just saying there's not enough fluff difference between them to warrant picking Githyanki over any other race because we already have the Githzerai.
Hey, guess what guys? I can present baseless things as facts and say an argument is over too! Watch!
I am always right. If you can't see that, that's your fault. /thread
See? It's so easy!
Matukal said it first, so following standard Queensbury rules, he wins.
If this was a Tuesday, things may be different
Edit: lol, forgot which post i was in.
Hey, guess what guys? I can present baseless things as facts and say an argument is over too! Watch!
It's kind of funny that you're being sarcastic but actually stating truth. Elves and orcs and minotaurs and bullywugs and dwarves and changelings are separate races, but by your logic they could the same species. I don't think this makes sense, but dogs do it, so you might try pushing that for a while.
It's kind of funny that you're being sarcastic but actually stating truth. Elves and orcs and minotaurs and bullywugs and dwarves and changelings are separate races, but by your logic they are the same species. I don't think this makes sense, but dogs do it, so you might try pushing that for a while.
...What?
...What?
A race is a subset of a species. That is, when not in D&D.
Hey, guess what guys? I can present baseless things as facts and say an argument is over too! Watch!
I am always right. If you can't see that, that's your fault. /thread
See? It's so easy!
And I'm not for a fusion of Gith. That would be dumb; whether it's culture or physiology (And physiologically, they're practically the same), they have different mechanics, and I'm okay with that. I'm just saying there's not enough fluff difference between them to warrant picking Githyanki over any other race because we already have the Githzerai.
All that need to be stated was that they were once a single race, and have splintered into two races. Paired with the differences in Racial Traits presented in the back of the Monster Manual, WotC has made them two separate races.
This does not mean they should be in a PHB, nor does it mean they should be in an external suplement as a player race. Githzerai need not be houseruled into Githyanki, since Githyanki have racial traits in the Monster Manual. They just aren't a fully supported race choice as a PC, which is what gets some people in a fuss, because Gnolls and Minotaurs both worship demons (largely) and yet both have gotten at least the nominal respect of a magazine writeup and some racial feats. They are both generally thought of as evil races, and so people are obviously rattled that WotC would claim that they have some nebulous pot of "Evil Cred" that they can't expend on the Githyanki race.
This does not mean they should be in a PHB, nor does it mean they should be in an external suplement as a player race. Githzerai need not be houseruled into Githyanki, since Githyanki have racial traits in the Monster Manual. They just aren't a fully supported race choice as a PC, which is what gets some people in a fuss, because Gnolls and Minotaurs both worship demons (largely) and yet both have gotten at least the nominal respect of a magazine writeup and some racial feats. They are both generally thought of as evil races, and so people are obviously rattled that WotC would claim that they have some nebulous pot of "Evil Cred" that they can't expend on the Githyanki race.
My point was just that Minotaurs and Gnolls have a lot more going for them than Githyanki do when we already have Githzerai. That's still the case, and it's more than just a matter of pure opinion on which you like better.
All that need to be stated was that they were once a single race, and have splintered into two races. Paired with the differences in Racial Traits presented in the back of the Monster Manual, WotC has made them two separate races.
This does not mean they should be in a PHB, nor does it mean they should be in an external suplement as a player race. Githzerai need not be houseruled into Githyanki, since Githyanki have racial traits in the Monster Manual. They just aren't a fully supported race choice as a PC, which is what gets some people in a fuss, because Gnolls and Minotaurs both worship demons (largely) and yet both have gotten at least the nominal respect of a magazine writeup and some racial feats. They are both generally thought of as evil races, and so people are obviously rattled that WotC would claim that they have some nebulous pot of "Evil Cred" that they can't expend on the Githyanki race.
Yeah, that's my biggest problem. While I'm disappointed by the Githyanki being cut, I don't really mind it. By the reasons given are completely hypocritical IMO.
However, the quote from this thread makes me hopeful for an eventual Dragon release at least.
(Tangent: Just 'cause the githyanki ain't in PH3 doesn't mean you'll never see them as a PC race. It just means that we didn't think now was the right time for it. We're in this for the long haul, which sometimes means saying "not yet.")
I must say this now. Minotaurs are a beastial race, not an evil one. I think that the book that had Huma in it is the main factor in having Minotaurs as a player character race, in previous edition as well as in the PHB3.
The Monster Manual kind of agrees. In some Minotaur settlements they revere Baphomet and embrace the beast within, in others the cult is "underground". But since Dragonlance could be a future campaign world for 4th ed, I think that's the reason that Minotaurs are an in and Githyanki are not.
So far.;)
My point was just that Minotaurs and Gnolls have a lot more going for them than Githyanki do when we already have Githzerai. That's still the case, and it's more than just a matter of pure opinion on which you like better.
Except that Githyanki function differently than Githzerai do.While both are the same size, speak the same base languages, and even have the danger sense racial trait, Yanki have Con and Int, lending more towards Possiblities to be OK Bards, Invokers and Shamans. They would make great Shielding Swordmages and Scourge Warlocks, which would be nice since they really don't have races yet that support those builds in terms of the Ability score bumps. And that's just with the current classes. Yanki also get a boost to their history (the better to remember great conquests) and they have Githyanki Wilpower, a racial trait that gives them a +1 to their will and a +2 to vs charm effects. They also have a racial power that is very different from at least the Monster Manual's version of Githzerai.
Speaking of, as as Dex/Wis race, the Zerai are more fit to be Pursuing Avengers, Devoted Clerics, Predator Druids, and Archer Rangers, or to a lesser extent Invokers, Rogues, Shamans and Swordmages. I'm not going to use the Monster Manual entry to represent them as they are now, as I have no DDi subscription, and thus do not know if they have changed drastically, but I would guess that they have not lost their racial power as it sits before me, nor the Skill Bonuses in Acrobatics and Athletics.
They are very separate. They may not look it, but they are. Meanwhile, Goliaths and Warforged share the Ability Score mods taht Minotaurs have, making them less than ideal for some players. Gnolls, however, do have Con/Dex, the only combination of those two as I see it so far.
Speaking of, as as Dex/Wis race, the Zerai are more fit to be Pursuing Avengers, Devoted Clerics, Predator Druids, and Archer Rangers, or to a lesser extent Invokers, Rogues, Shamans and Swordmages.
Actually, with the new writeup & feats, they make really good melee skirmishers like Rangers, Rogues, Monks, and Avengers due to a sweet combo of ridiculously high Initiative potential (you can potentially start with a +11 bonus
), bonuses for acting first in a round or encounter, and a lot of mobility bonuses (like a racial trait + feat that allows the to shift their speed every time they spend their 2nd Wind).They are very separate. They may not look it, but they are. Meanwhile, Goliaths and Warforged share the Ability Score mods taht Minotaurs have, making them less than ideal for some players. Gnolls, however, do have Con/Dex, the only combination of those two as I see it so far.
The Revenants are also Dex/Con.
Actually, with the new writeup & feats, they make really good melee skirmishers like Rangers, Rogues, Monks, and Avengers due to a sweet combo of ridiculously high Initiative potential (you can potentially start with a +11 bonus
The Revenants are also Dex/Con.
I may not have mentioned, but I don't have a DDi subscription. So yeah, I know nothing about the Revenants.
I would also like to mention that I already did mention Avengers, Rangers (Though with only the MM entry for me to go on, Archers seemd a better choice at the time) and Rogues. I have no clue what Monks need, or what they look like (again, no DDi ;) ). So yeah.
Actually, I think the Gnoll will be in for the same reason the Minotaur is in - their Dragon article mechanics were crap. :P
At least we can agree on this. :D
As for the race issue they are both still Gith and yes even in 4e they were originally human or damn close to it. There was an article in Dragon talking about the history of both 'zerai and 'yanki and their split. The split did occur over a millenia ago since the Lich Queen ruled for a millenia and was only recently (in PoL) replaced and she wasn't the first one to rule in Gith's place. The 'zerai split still occured when Gith was sent to Hell to bind the bargain.
They have different MM stats because their culture and environment needs different stat blocks, just as other races have multiple stat blocks based on culture, class choice, and lifepaths. They are still much closer overall than elf, eladrin, half-elf, humans, and drow are.
The racial power of the githzerai is based on their self-discipline to keep their natural warlike natures in check, otherwise they'd just be githyanki again. This would indicate that a good githyanki would be a githzerai since it would involve keeping their warlike natures in check. Think of the 'zerai as Vulcans and the 'yanki as Romulans. They came from the same base culture and race but split based on philisophical differences and only by being on different planets (or planes) do they gain any cosmetic differences outside of their chosen culture.
A race in 4e, especially a PC race, is made up of more than a stat block. To keep their PoL design concept though they need to keep it light on fluff in the print books (outside campaign setting books) which means that besides some different stats the githyanki and githzerai are identical. It's their fluff that truly seperates them. If they wanted to include both I agree that they'd have done it as a Gith race with sub-blocks for the 'yanki and 'zerai since that's about the amount of difference they have without all their background fluff.
Does anyone else think Githzerai/Githyanki look alot like Picholo from Dragonball Z? Whenever I look at them I hear "Kah-meh-ha-meh-ha!" in my head. :D
Dont you mean "Special beam cannon?"
Does anyone else think Githzerai/Githyanki look alot like Picholo from Dragonball Z? Whenever I look at them I hear "Kah-meh-ha-meh-ha!" in my head. :D
Shouldn't that be Makankosappo?