In all seriousness: I would not expect us to know the entire PHB III series of races until the fall, although 1 or 2 will slip out soon. In fact, I would not be surprised to discusover 1 or 2 next week. They'll likely be races comaptible with the Ki power source (as the monk is being previewed next week), as well as compatible with any other power source featured in PHB III (I'm betting primal and martial - as they have yet to be featured in 2 different PHBs - or 2 other new ones).
We will know at least one by tomorrow (whichever is the playtest).
According to the calendar, the playtest's been pushed back to Friday the 24th.
I myself hope for the Dromite for the small race (like the Halfling in the first, and Gnome in the second)
I personally do not want to see goblins, bugbears, and orcs as player character races, since I don't want them to deflate the heroic feel to playing the game; it would put too much focus on them, frankly. That said, there are quite a few goblinoid fans, and Wizards may play to that. I would not like it, however.
That flying race from Races of the Wild would be cool, but there is a real aversion to flight at heroic and early paragon levels in the current edition. Killoren would be nice.
A guess then: Elan, Half-Giants, Maenads, Dromites.
As for myself my dream list (some could show up in Campaign Settings):
- Elan
- Doppelganger/Changeling
- Thri-Keen
- Raavasta
- Yuan-Ti
- Half-Farspawn/Some other manner of Aberrant Race (besides Elan)
Doppelgangers and/or Kalashtar might also show up, depending on which races appear in the Eberron book.
Winged and aquatic races might appear, but as mentioned before, have some logistical issues about balancing them at low levels. Centaurs might be a good pick, but face some issues as well with being quadrupedal. At least one psionic race from 3rd edition (elans, dromites, and so forth) might make a return appearance.
I have Monasteries in my World and love playing them!
Can't wait to find out....
"Make a Wish"
I really wanna see the MONK!
I have Monasteries in my World and love playing them!
Can't wait to find out....
"Make a Wish"
Thank you for your donation to the Make a Wish foundation.
We are unable to grant your wish at this time.
Error: 10107.
Reasoning: Monk has been CONFIRMED for the past several MONTHS. it's playtest is NEXT MONTH.
I have the sneaking suspicion that Duergar might pop up in the PHB3.
Nah it'll just be a bloodline feat for dwarves that gives you one of those dart shooting beards ;)
Nah it'll just be a bloodline feat for dwarves that gives you one of those dart shooting beards ;)
:D
At least in the text for Duergar in Thunderspire Labyrinth, they are said to be "distant kin to dwarves". This is a similar distinction that was made for drow, eladrin and elves.
Oddly enough Duergar are the only race i can think of i'd like to see out of PHB3. A bunch more bloodline feats would be nice to see though. Something new would be nice though, Dragonborn are currently the only new race.
As in you would prefer the Duergar to be in the PHB3 or left out of the PHB3?
And while Dragonborn are new they kind of have their spiritual ancestors within earlier editions and campaign worlds.
As in you would prefer the Duergar to be in the PHB3 or left out of the PHB3?
And while Dragonborn are new they kind of have their spiritual ancestors within earlier editions and campaign worlds.
Crazy english language. I meant i'd like them in the book. And yes I know Dragonborn aren't 100% new, but coming up with something 100% new is also difficult. Most remaning class races are fairly setting specific, except for these Dromites and Elan i've barely heard of.
Most races that are 'half something' can pretty much be made with bloodline feats.
Crazy english language. I meant i'd like them in the book. And yes I know Dragonborn aren't 100% new, but coming up with something 100% new is also difficult. Most remaning class races are fairly setting specific, except for these Dromites and Elan i've barely heard of.
Most races that are 'half something' can pretty much be made with bloodline feats.
True, on the half-whatever comment (not saying the rest of the post was untrue). I think half-orcs and half-elves are really the only half-whatevers I care to see.
:D
At least in the text for Duergar in Thunderspire Labyrinth, they are said to be "distant kin to dwarves". This is a similar distinction that was made for drow, eladrin and elves.
Duergar might be an interesting choice, if they play up their psionic aspects in the background fluff. Perhaps they got warped by exposure to the Far Realm/experimentation by illithids. I'd guess that the racial stats for duergar might be CON/CHA, since gith already use CON/INT and charisma fits the psionic flavor well.
Of course, we might see azer as a playable race instead (or in addition), but only after the elemental source is released, which means a possible PHB4 race.
Duergar might be an interesting choice, if they play up their psionic aspects in the background fluff. Perhaps they got warped by exposure to the Far Realm/experimentation by illithids. I'd guess that the racial stats for duergar might be CON/CHA, since gith already use CON/INT and charisma fits the psionic flavor well.
Of course, we might see azer as a playable race instead (or in addition), but only after the elemental source is released, which means a possible PHB4 race.
In this thing right here it says their twisted nature is the effect of an association with devils and infernal magic. They all seem to have damn high CON and STR, actually. So probably links to infernal or darker powers are most likely to happen if they get included, with a focus on their bodily power and resilience.
Anything in Dragon is not yet published. The only official places for new races and classes is in the player guides. (Handbooks and settings) So if you see something in Dragon that may be a race in PHB3, the possibility is there.
I am hoping the Gith is made into the one race with the separate entities as casts from the same background. It is much like the Shifter having the Razor Claw and Long Tooth.
Some of the wacky races in the EPH should stay as novelties in the previous edition. The Xeph are simply to generic to port over. (Made for some average mini's also) The Elan being "made" is such an epic power grab move and a bad background to start role playing in makes it unlikely to be around. Eberron has one race just as bad, one that is "taken over" by being from another plane of existence. The Maenad may make it in, though the Genisi in the FRPG are a bit similar with Elemental kick. I think the Duergar might make a good dark race for the PHB3, like the Tiefling in the first.
One race that I might like to see is the Minotaur. I think that would be a better choice than the Half Giant.
Minotaurs have already been covered in Dragon. I like the idea of Duergar, though.
Githzerai/Githyanki as a single race (as mentioned above)
Duergar
Maenads
Blues
Elan
Dromites
Killoren (need more fey)
I think that Kalashtar and Dopplegangers will be in Eberron, so not really on my list here. I think that, upon reflection, half-giants may be covered in any dark sun material; not enough to distinguish them in a regular game, unless they add to their game info beyond the stuff in the XPH.
* Githyanki & Githzerai for the Psionic and Ki flavour respectively,
* Thri-Kreen have a possibility since there is a playtest for a race, and they seem a very likely candidate for a playtest because of the four arms and other abilites
* Doppleganger - Another race with a psionic leaning. The previous doppleganger, when it was a monster, was able to read minds which could show a psionic talent. Since the Changeling and doppleganger from 3.5 were melded together, it would make sense bring back some of the monster elements into the player race, since the two were combined. This, however, is another contender for the racial playtest.
*Dromite - While not terribly likely, it is the only choice here that is more of a personal hope, rather than a logical possibility. I like them, they are another small race, and they could be vastly improved by 4e. While I like them, they were somewhat bland in the previous incarnation. A small race in each PHB would be nice.
* Shadar-Kai if they include shadow as a power source in PHB3.
* A playable undead race, once again, if shadow is a power source. However, taking the undying from Eberron, and converting them to a player race could work without the shadow power source, in fact it would have more leanings towards arcane and possibly ki, since that is the power of the soul. Another possibility for a playtest race.
Now, races I don't see showing up:
* Kobolds - I know they are really popular, but some monsters stay monsters, only to be given love in Dragon. Also, putting them in dragon, what with all the fans, could garner some subscriptions to the e-magazine because of how many fans there are.
* Half-Giants - Honestly, I see the half-giant as dead and eaten. By the goliath. The two races shared a very similar niche. Goliaths do seem similar to stone giants, at least superficially.
* Kalashtar - I still believe Kalashtar will end up in the Eberron Players guide. It's a gut feeling. While they could work in any setting with some tweaking, they are needed in Eberron without tweaking.
* Xeph - As mentioned earlier, they were kind of bland, basically human in my opinion. If they must be put in, make it a racial sub-race feat that only humans can take.
* Elan could be another case like the xeph. Of course, it could be interesting if the races was turned into a class or maybe a paragon path - give up your humanity (or dwarfity, elfity, half-orcity, etc.) to become a psionic construct.
* Maenad - Unless the make them look less human, to me they seem like shiny humans, they seem to be another bland race that could be done as a racial feat/paragon path as well.
* Duegar - they've been changed a bit, and seem less psionic than previous editions, so they may be left out. Or reduced to a sub-race feat.
Minotaurs have already been covered in Dragon. I like the idea of Duergar, though.
.
I went over this. Dragon isn't a permanent placeholder for anything. Any race in the ghost of the mag is a likely candidate for the PHB3 (and Setting Player Guides) as they will not be reprinted in the annual/Bi-annual soft cover release. (if one ever comes out, that is)
DDi is extra stuff, not core.
That said, I doubt Half-Giants are going to be differentiated from Goliaths. There will probably at least one Psionic class that uses Constitution (if not one that uses Strength), and it'll probably be the Defender, so Goliath's will fit into the role quite well.
Duergar are a definite possibility. I was kind of hoping some relation to Starspawn or Foulspawn for a race, but I guess my Foulspawn race (highly refluffed) will have to remain as homebrew, because Foulspawn are quite definitely evil and insane in core 4e. Duergar, on the other hand, are quite evil, but so are Drow (well, Chaotic Evil, but...), and Drow have been popular enough to become PCs. I'm not sure about the Duergar's direction they're taking though; the only Duergar I've seen in any material released had the Devil keyword, which confused me. Are Duergar now somehow related to devils? Could they be the Immortal counterpart to the Tiefling, and actually have Con/Int so they can take advantage of the Infernal Pact? And how many licks DOES it take to get to the centre of a Tootsie-roll Tootsie Pop? The world may never know...
Gith are in. Whether they are two races or one is the question.
Raptorans would be awesome. They don't even need flying until their Racial PP, and work really well if you check out how Wizardmon worked them out. Killoren would be another awesome Primal throwback race. Remember, throw-back races are just as valid. Half-Orcs were a Martial throwback race.
I went over this. Dragon isn't a permanent placeholder for anything. Any race in the ghost of the mag is a likely candidate for the PHB3 (and Setting Player Guides) as they will not be reprinted in the annual/Bi-annual soft cover release. (if one ever comes out, that is)
DDi is extra stuff, not core.
I see what you're saying. Personally, I think that minotaurs are a bit too monstrous for me to want them included in any PH.
shadar-kai - phb3 shadow
dark ones - phb3 shadow
githzerai - phb3 ki
githyanki - phb3 psionic
doppleganger - phb3 psionic or eberron players guide (epg)
warforged - epg
mul - dark sun players guide (dspg)
phb4 races (they'll call it the shaggy phb)
goblins
hobgoblins
bugbears
orcs
kobolds
minotaurs
gnolls
afterthought, somewhere, somehow, wotc needs to make a wis/cha player race.
I went over this. Dragon isn't a permanent placeholder for anything. Any race in the ghost of the mag is a likely candidate for the PHB3 (and Setting Player Guides) as they will not be reprinted in the annual/Bi-annual soft cover release. (if one ever comes out, that is)
DDi is extra stuff, not core.
And everyone else has repeatedly gone over this with you: Dragon IS core. No matter how many times you protest, you can't change facts.
Bel
Seems they'd go well with the "Shadow" power too ...
Any reason why Drow wouldn't be considered? Not in either of the phb so far, nor have they received a Dragon write-up that I know of ... they've already given us two "elf" races, why not a third?
Seems they'd go well with the "Shadow" power too ...
Drow are in the Forgotten Realm's Player's Guide, and WotC seems pretty adamant about not reprinting stuff from one book into another, except power keywords.
Drow are in the Forgotten Realm's Player's Guide, and WotC seems pretty adamant about not reprinting stuff from one book into another, except power keywords.
Ah, I'm not a huge FR fan, so I don't think I've ever even bothered to find out the contents of that particular book.
Sigh, another one I have to go buy now ...
Ah, I'm not a huge FR fan, so I don't think I've ever even bothered to find out the contents of that particular book.
Sigh, another one I have to go buy now ...
It's worth it. there are some really good things in there.
But the FRPG is really more general stuff that while fluffed towards the realms can be applied anywhere.
And everyone else has repeatedly gone over this with you: Dragon IS core. No matter how many times you protest, you can't change facts.
It has always been advertised as extra content, a help for the DM and extra goodies for the player. DDi - "Bring even more to your game table with D&D Insider. With quick access to exclusive material and digital tools D%DI(tm) will help enhance every aspect of your tabletop game."
There has been official word that the only place for new Races and Classes will be in the PHB's and the Setting's Player Guides. Those, it is assumed, that are in the DDi are preview material. It won't be in the Annual soft cover, that being saved for powers, feats and other things, and it won't be in any power source master books.
Whether or not the Minotaur will be in a PHB or stay online is a question, but the possibility that it will adorn the pages of the PHB3 exists, or it could be in the Dark Sun Player's Guide. The Dragon "article" should be considered a preview for future releases.
It has always been advertised as extra content, a help for the DM and extra goodies for the player. DDi - "Bring even more to your game table with D&D Insider. With quick access to exclusive material and digital tools D%DI(tm) will help enhance every aspect of your tabletop game."
There has been official word that the only place for new Races and Classes will be in the PHB's and the Setting's Player Guides. Those, it is assumed, that are in the DDi are preview material. It won't be in the Annual soft cover, that being saved for powers, feats and other things, and it won't be in any power source master books.
Whether or not the Minotaur will be in a PHB or stay online is a question, but the possibility that it will adorn the pages of the PHB3 exists, or it could be in the Dark Sun Player's Guide. The Dragon "article" should be considered a preview for future releases.
......
The only "preview" material in Dragon is the stuff blatantly marked PREVIEW or PLAYTEST. Otherwise it's all official, all CORE. The race articles are just as official as the PH & PG books. Not previews.
Minotaur can be in the PHB3, or the PHB4, or in the Dark Sun Player's Guide. It matters not that it is on the DDi. The developers has said so in the past. It isn't written in stone just because it appears in a "Dragon" article online. Just as if the mags was still produced by Paizo, the material in them are additions to the books and though the rules go together better than in the past it is still just for those suckers that pay into the monthly ransom for the service.
Just to keep in track, I think the Minotaur would be a better choice for a race than the Half Giant (Mul?) and hope the Dromite would be the small race for this book.
Gnome? Half Orc? Warforged? Wasn't these in the DDi "Dragon" articles?
Only the Warforged. There were no Gnome or Half-Orc articles since the magazines went digital. I'd say that Warforged getting printed in both Dragon and in a book other than Dragon Annual is going to be an exception and not the rule. Although only time can tell.
Kobolds... C'mon, Gnomes made the jump back from the Monster Manual, Kobolds can do it too!
Shadar-Kai... With all the love they've already got, it's time to finally print them!
Hobgoblins... They are the most civilized of all the "monster" races. A full writeup would be amazing. Especially if they get Con/Dex instead of Con/Cha, which never really fit them.
Svirfneblin... Nobody mentioned them yet! They're a classic!
Satyr... More fey races!
Azer... Flaming dwarfs are just awesome. They practically beg for a writeup.
Pixie... Would be interesting how a tiny race can work in 4th edition.
Kalashtar, Changeling, Warforged will likely be in Eberron.
As for the "Please let's never mention them again"...
Xephs, Elans, Maenads, Dromites... None of these psionic races has ever been established well in any of the official game worlds. As others have pointed out, Xephs are just too human, Maenads and Dromites just too un-human... okay, there is one in the bunch I'd give a chance.
Elans... They'd have to be completely rewritten, though. Their mechanics just don't translate over to 4th edition at all.
Thri-Keen, Half-Giant, Mul... I'd love to see them in a Dark Sun sourcebook. In fact, I'd rather spend my money on a Dark Sun sourcebook than PHB III!
Only the Warforged. There were no Gnome or Half-Orc articles since the magazines went digital. I'd say that Warforged getting printed in both Dragon and in a book other than Dragon Annual is going to be an exception and not the rule. Although only time can tell.
The Half Orc had been promised as an article, but obviously never materialized for the mag before PHB2 came out. The Warforged is gonna be in Eberron.
The fact that they have a write up in the exclusive DDi service doesn't mean that a race or class won't make it to the guides. Where they won't go is into a 'Best of" book, as it has been mentioned, the only CORE place that new races and classes will be introduced is in the PHB's and Setting Player Guides.
I know, I am repeating myself, but those are the facts that has been posted here by official Wizard employees, and told at the last Gen Con. I think the Minotaur is a better choice. Others are thinking, "Nah, they already did him" while ignoring the fact that those that don't pay a monthly ransom don't have that write up.
As for the ignoring of the Dromite (in the post below this quote) along with the well deserved ignored Elan, Xephs and maenad, I think that a small race will be a "slot" in each PHB, and the Dromite, revisioned for the new edition, can fill that slot as it is a Psi race.
Elans... They'd have to be completely rewritten, though. Their mechanics just don't translate over to 4th edition at all.
Somewhat but I don't think it be that difficult. You figure it isn't that powerful of a race, having a 0 LA. The hardest part would be just converting the abilities based around Power Points into something else. But in general it can fit quite nicely. I can already think of Ability and Skill bonuses for it.
Power Points could be replaced by; Healing Surges, Action Points being Bloodied, etc.
It be really neat too that with Rituals being in 4e. You could include the ritual that turns someone into a Elan in the game and have it done perfectly.
I would think that the fluff about being a made race would be the change, though being called Elan and having that eliminated may make the name mute. The single worst background in all the 3.5 books was that of a "Made" race.
Elans...
I would think that the fluff about being a made race would be the change, though being called Elan and having that eliminated may make the name mute. The single worst background in all the 3.5 books was that of a "Made" race.
Ehh, to each their own. I have had tons of fun with Elan background, it can be twisted in tons of different ways:
- Normal "made" race style
- Failed ritual
- Forgetting your previous memories
- Trying to cope with past life and current life
- Uncovering the new world you inhabit
Lots of stuff you can do. That is barely scratching the surface. Guessing you don't like playing Vampire, Werewolf, Changeling, etc?
Plus the "living in plain sight" idea is a pretty well established one. So Elan fit this well and the "made race" trope as well.
In a fantasy RPG? No, I don't like playing undead or monsters. The Elan is something different, though, like a sage in a body of a 12 year old girl with blue, glowing eyes. Creepy. Eberron had the sense to make the made race there to breed true after the initial making.
But that basically destroys the concept of the made race. My comment about vampires, and such was less about them being monstrous but that they are also a "made race".
It is a different style and something unique to the race. As such it should be emphasized not taken away, I would like the different races to be as diverse as possible. So having a "hiding in plain sight" and being a "made race" is part of what makes it original.
Though with the Elan, they generally choose adults, heck if they didn't and did have a 12 year old but was a sage that is just another cool character concept.
I was actually referencing a character in the Dune movie, just so you know.
Oh I know, just saying that the Elan don't tend to choose children. Alia is a kickass character too, heck all the pre-born are kickass. Though you should read the book, or see the mini-series the 80's movie pales in comparison.
No furries right? I'm clear? Kitsune.
*looks left, looks right*
No furries right? I'm clear? Kitsune.
I imagine if they were to have a Kitsune-esque race they would probably choose the Raavasta. Afterall, it has shapeshifting and a fox like appearance. They also can turn invisible and have some psychic powers (could hint toward the possession/illusion potential of the Kitsune). Plus they are both have trickster personality traits.
The fact that they have a write up in the exclusive DDi service doesn't mean that a race or class won't make it to the guides. Where they won't go is into a 'Best of" book, as it has been mentioned, the only CORE place that new races and classes will be introduced is in the PHB's and Setting Player Guides
I know, I am repeating myself, but those are the facts that has been posted here by official Wizard employees, and told at the last Gen Con. I think the Minotaur is a better choice. Others are thinking, "Nah, they already did him" while ignoring the fact that those that don't pay a monthly ransom don't have that write up.
Exclusive? Monthly ransom???
Seriously, what are you on about? It's a magazine subscription, it's cheaper per month than buying one DnD book per month, and *gasp!* if you are the type to get most of the books, you're STILL paying a monthly fee, each time for a different book. Just like with DDI it's each time for a different issue.
And the facts are that Dragon is CORE. Just like the hardcovers. You really need to learn to accept this.
And the facts are that Dragon is CORE. Just like the hardcovers. You really need to learn to accept this.
I don't think he ever will. I've been trying to find a quote, but my patience for searching poorly designed websites is low. (Heck, I can't even find the Q&A section at all now, where's the link gone?)
Besides, he'll just reinterpret anything we find so it fits his view of the world.
Plus they gave the minotaurs a second continent where they were Romans. Now how cool is that. Minotaur Romans
Assuming that Ki is soul energy and we see the return of some of the Incarnum classes with Ki, I expect that Azurin, Rilkan and Skarn may make an appearance in the PHB3.
Skarn are strong, sophisticated warriors of intellect. Like the Rilkans, they are descended for the vanished Mishtai progenitor race, which long ago infused all Mishtai with incarnum in an attempt to achieve "the perfect form". Skarn appear human except for five or six vertically aligned spines that project from the anterior of each forearm, posterior of each calf, and the upper back. Skarn society is insular and demand both mental and physical achievement. They are a proud race - some would say arrogant - and they boast, soulborns, paladins, rangers, and fighters of other "hybrid" classes that exemplify perfection of both mind and body.
Psychic Warrior (Psionic), or Monk(Ki/Incarnum) anyone?
In 3.5, this basically meant miscellaneous. Since this has a defined meaning now, they're not going to be able to get away with leaving Elan creation undetermined.
If they remain aberrations, then I can see them becoming Star-Spawn.
Otherwise, they may become Abominations, as this would let them use the Immortal type.
I'd also like to see them getting a bit of "Eternal Guardian Versus The Far" fluffyness.
Or, if they wanted give a number of rumours, and hearsay. Even the Elan do not know their true origins and why they are here on the world and not in the Far Realm. I personally would prefer it to be just rumours, the mystery of the Elan is part of their fun.
One thing I hope to get from the race of PHB 3 is some non +cha bonuses. What is it with nearlly every race and there dog being +cha these days...
Remember when it used to be -Cha?
As far as the new races are concerened, I can't say I'd be interested in much beyond the Gith, Dopplegangers, and Dromites/Thri-Kreen (we need more bug people).
All the other Psionic/Incarnum races never really appealed to me. Although they all have different cultures and stats, they all still seem like a bunch of Humans with funny looking eyes.
Though DDi may be core (or may not be, as no one seems able to find a direct answer) I think that depending on the PHB3 power sources, I'd have different Race Choices.
For Psionic Power Source Classes, I'd like to see the Gith (Yanki and Zerai as one entry, similar to shifters).
For Shadow, I'd like to see Dopplegangers and Shadar-Kai.
For Elemental, I'd like Minotaurs. I wouldn't mind Gnolls as well, but they aren't needed.
Duergar seem to be more arcane mixture than psionic weirdo, so They really could come in anywhere for me.
Then again, I kind of expect a Monster PHB sooner or later, like the one for 3rd ed. You know, a PHB like thing, but it really fleshes out more races than new classes. That way all the goblins, trolls, medusae, ogres, oni, etc could be better explored.
Dopplegangers, really. Where did this race start to get popular. My real experience with one was when my character had the mirror of opposites, or some such, and my evil twin started to create havok while I, as the character, had to explain actions I never took. That sucked.
Plus, there is also Eberron with Changelings which has made the Doppelganger into more then just a monster race and into a full fledged race. With a much more awesome base appearance too.
Has anyone noticed on the Dragon page next to the PHB 3 playtest it says the Wilden! Is this a new race, I searched D&D wiki and nothing came up.
That's new, wasn't there before. Unless that is a mistake then yup that be the name of the race. Hmm, either rename of a race, or a new race. It is close to Wilder though a Psionic class from 3.5.
Has anyone noticed on the Dragon page next to the PHB 3 playtest it says the Wilden! Is this a new race, I searched D&D wiki and nothing came up.
Awwww. I was hoping for Thr-Kreen.
The Wilden are pretty cool but what really got me was all the talk of the PHB3 focusing on aberrations and the Far Realm. Now, aberration races would be pretty sweet.
*Crosses fingers for Elan* Hey they be a good way to sneak into the World to hide behind a human guise.
I am neutral right now, since was hoping for something Psionic. But looks interesting, and like its appearance.
Awwww. I was hoping for Thr-Kreen.
You and me both Mutt, You and me both.
Im hoping for daelkyr half-blood myself, albeit with a different name. Their flavor with the mutant symbiont twin/afterbirth seemed more "aberrant" to me than the elans. Of course, getting both in the same book would be pretty awesome and the appearance of the Wilden has given me faith that we might not see another collection of generic DnD cliche races.
I guess WoTC is trying to mine the end of the 3.X days for races they can mix into their 'not quite a metaplot' verse. Which is fine, but for the old school fans, and I guess I qualify, this preview was a great big old blah. I'm sure the race is cool And in a year when PHB3 comes out I'll check them out, but till then I...I pine for grander days. *hint, hint, hint, wotc*
I wanted it to be Thri-Keen.
Other than that though, it really looks like all of the traditional races are pretty much accounted for already. We have human, dwarf, half-elf, halfling, half-orc, elf (wood and high), gnome, tiefling and a cooler aasimar. All the core stuff seems to be out there.
I'm sure it has something to do with the new meta cosmology, but I'm just saying.
There is the mention in the Wilden article about the "story" of the PH3, which is "the Far Realm's continuing intrusion into the world". Make what you will of that...
I was hoping for thri-kreen. Sigh.
Very sad I'm not a subscriber. What about the ability bonuses? (or any particular mechanics) Pretty, pretty please.
They are Con/Wis like a dwarf. They get to choose +1 to one of their NADs and after each extended rest they get chose one of three "aspects", each of which granting a particular racial encounter power. One lets you teleport with a rider effect, one lets you daze an attacking enemy and one lets you shift while granting you a bonus d6 to damage for a round.
The second 2 power looks particularly powerful (extra d6 per attack while doing 2 Rain of Blows during a nova, anyone?)
They are Con/Wis like a dwarf. They get to choose +1 to one of their NADs and after each extended rest they get chose one of three "aspects", each of which granting a particular racial encounter power. One lets you teleport with a rider effect, one lets you daze an attacking enemy and one lets you shift while granting you a bonus d6 to damage for a round.
The second 2 power looks particularly powerful (extra d6 per attack while doing 2 Rain of Blows during a nova, anyone?)
Thanks a lot GhostStepper !! They should have come in the PHB 2.
There is the mention in the Wilden article about the "story" of the PH3, which is "the Far Realm's continuing intrusion into the world". Make what you will of that...
it seems like githyanki and githzerai are a shoe-in for phb3.
that would make 3 races that are directly impacted by the far realms. 3 out of possibly 5 races seems an adequate number of races to play to this "phb3 theme".
i'd say that shadar-kai likely is the 4th race.
a shadowfell-based race seems appropriate, seeing as how we now have (in phbs or pgs):
3 (arguably 5) feywild-based races (eladrin, gnome, wilden, and arguably elf and drow);
1 (arguably 2) astral sea-based race (deva, and arguably tiefling);
1 (arguably 5) elemental chaos-based race (genasi, arguably 5 different genasi "races")
7 (arguably 8) natural world-based races (man, goliath, dwarf, halfling, half-elf (also, distantly feywild-based), dragonborn, and shifter (arguably 2 different shifter "races")).
now for 5th race: doppelganger (alternatively, possibly to appear in epg along with the warforged) or another shadowfell-based race--dark ones.
Another suggestion I haven't seen made is that the Illumians might be one of the ki or psionic themed races. Again, the Manual of the Planes refers to them in the account of the Astral Sea domain of Shom.
Edit: Nevermind. It's spelled Thri-kreen. Must be why I couldn't find it.:P They sound kind of out there.
And they're part of this Dark Sun thing? sound dubious to me.
they're part of this Dark Sun thing? sound dubious to me.
They are. They are humanoid mantis insectiod race, they have natural Psionic abilities and are fierce nomadic warriors. Their Psionic abilities also relate to their hive mind mentality.
They are also extremely kickass. And I really hope to see them in PHB3 or Dark Sun (hopefully the next setting).
Hengeyokai/hengeyoukai could be one race with fox, cat, tanuki, crane, rat, spider, & snake varieties (unless the kitsune & bakeneko warrant their own races, & the snakes & spiders become monsters instead). What about the people with wings on their elbows? Or the tengu? (I'd certainly prefer either to raptorans, who struck me mainly as mummified elves with wings.)
Surely I'm not the only one who knows about Asian culture here...
What the hell is a Thri-keen?
Edit: Nevermind. It's spelled Thri-kreen. Must be why I couldn't find it.:P They sound kind of out there.
And they're part of this Dark Sun thing? sound dubious to me.
They were a part of Forgotten Realms first. Dark Sun was just the first to make them a core player race.
They were a part of Forgotten Realms first. Dark Sun was just the first to make them a core player race.
Ahh. Well I guess that's a little better then.
This Dark Sun thing sounds like not my cup of tea though. Then again, I'm planning on either running Generic D&D as well as making my own worlds (looking at a Lovecraftian-Howardesque world, and a Final Fantasy Setting).
Ahh. Well I guess that's a little better then.
Er...huh? What does it matter where the thing originally appeared if its the same thing in any setting? If X is from Dark Sun you automatically don't like it but if X is from Forgotten Realms its alright?
I also think its kind of ironic that you are sceptical of Dark Sun, which is a rough, low-magic setting, but then want to make a Howardesque campaign. There are a lot of similarities there and a lot of the grittier aspects of DS remind me more of some of Howard's stuff than much of the standard DnD. I dont think you should write it off before getting the full experience.
Er...huh? What does it matter where the thing originally appeared if its the same thing in any setting? If X is from Dark Sun you automatically don't like it but if X is from Forgotten Realms its alright?
I also think its kind of ironic that you are sceptical of Dark Sun, which is a rough, low-magic setting, but then want to make a Howardesque campaign. There are a lot of similarities there and a lot of the grittier aspects of DS remind me more of some of Howard's stuff than much of the standard DnD. I dont think you should write it off before getting the full experience.
True on the Howard being low magic.
But I never said that I was going to carry that over to mine own world.
I loves me some magic, and any game I play in or run will be med to high magic or nothing.
I'm thinking of a mix between the Elder gods and dark cults with a rough an tumble world ruled by magic users.
The Wilden preview mentioning the 'story' of the Far Realm does make it sound like at least psionics will be a power source in PH3 with classes and races themed around it. Interestingly the Wilden themselves though aren't tied to a power source in the PH3 by the looks (they say they favor druid, shaman, and invoker) since they seem fairly primal based.
We may see PH3 more themed around the Far Realm incursions than power sources, at least for the races contained within. Even the classes may have a bent for the Far Realm theme within their power sources.
1 and 2) The Gith are obvious. Without them, we revolt.
3) Shadar-Kai are the We Like Shadow poster children.
These provide one race for every power source, which means things start getting interesting.
4) Psychic Race of Whatever Name- something that takes the Elan, the Maenad, the Synad, and the Xeph, devours them all, and emerges more interesting as a result.
5) Shades. As mentioned in the FRPG, a race touched and overcome by the powers of the shadowfell.
6) The New Guy. Either tied to ki to give it a counterpart to the Githzerai, or a complete dark horse in the lineup, either a Far Realm-tied critter or these Wilden that are being in the playtest.
Campaign Settings
Eberron-> Changelings and Kalashtar
Dark Sun-> Thri-keen and the like
PHB4
Remember, this one will contain Elemental, or whatever the next power source will be. Thus, it's far more likely to contain things like the Raavasta.
I hope for Cha/wis race just to complete the attributes. And no more Dex/Wis races. (Or Str/Con for that matter).
One race we know: Wilder
I hope for Cha/wis race just to complete the attributes. And no more Dex/Wis races. (Or Str/Con for that matter).
I'm hoping Kalashtar show up in PgtE and are Wis/Cha
can we have cat as a playable race? so i don't have to come up with an over elaborat way to wind up as one?
Nope. but thanks for asking. :D
That said, if we are using 5 races like last time, and Gith are one race, these are my current predictions (and I KNEW IT! about Killoren:D ):
Gith - Con/Int (yanki) and Dex/Wis (zerai). Divided like Shifters between Githyanki and Githzerai; unlike Shifters, they fit well into two different power sources, Psionic and Ki. Nice to have a Con/Int (Artificer) race.
Wilden - Con/Wis. Throwback to Primal, but intertwined with Aberrants. Updated Killoren. Very good with Druid, Shaman, Ranger, etc.
Here's where we get into more speculative. Considering that the Dex/Wis Raptorans and the Con/Int Duergar types probably won't want to stumble on the toes of the Gith, and that Killoren got the bill for Primal in PH3, I'm seeing these on the back burner for now. Hopefully Raptorans will make a MM as a NPC race.
Either Dromites (Dex/Int) or Vanara (Cha/Wis/Dex/Int in some fashion). Vanara depends upon Primal/Arcane and Ki, while Dromites on Psionics. My scores could be off here. But only one will be the "Small" race of PH3. Vanara would also fit in with the fight of the natural world against the Aberrant, while doing it in a traditional Sun Wukong/Son Goku/Hanuman trickster way). Considering Halflings and Gnomes are already good tricksters, this may be taken territory. Dromites would need a newly invisioned backstory and ecology to really take-off as the Small of PH3.
An Aberrant Race; Thri-Kreen (Dex/Con) possible; could also be Elan (Wis/Cha?), or something out of left field. Who knows?
An NPC race from MM2. This could be anything from medium-sized Centaurs to Ioun knows what. Very doubtful that another NPC race from MM1 will make it here (after Gith).
Alternatively, Illumians could outplace any one of those options (though probably not the Small race).
In any case, Wilden confirmed what I was already thinking about as the them of PH3 - the invasion of the Aberrant and the Psionic upon the world of the Points of Light. This also screams Dark Sun.
could also be Elan (Wis/Cha?), or something out of left field.
Wisdom I could see or Intelligence depending on what Psionics has as a more dominant trait. But Charisma I could not see at all, unless they messed around with the race. When you consider that Elan are supposed to be semi-awkward in that they appear human but don't quite properly act human.
I would say Constitution is much more likely for them. They are supposed to be extremely resilient, from both natural and psionic means.
So my bet for them is:
Wis + Con
Int + Con
Charisma doesn't necessarily means People-person. Sorcerers are usually not People-People (that's why Half-Elves are rarely Sorcerers). Charisma means your personality is a strong trait, and beauty is an element (though lesser) as well, and definitely a racial trait element (though it's gone into the backburner; Eladrin are very beautiful and charismatic, but they focus on Int and Dex, rather than Cha and Dex like Drow).
While true I don't see anything about the Elan that states they have a strong personality. They are supposed to be around the same level of personality as that of Humans, even then they state that they are somewhat restrained. I just can't see any way Charisma is more logical then Constititution.
While true I don't see anything about the Elan that states they have a strong personality. They are supposed to be around the same level of personality as that of Humans, even then they state that they are somewhat restrained. I just can't see any way Charisma is more logical then Constititution.
Anything you give them will make more sense than Con/Cha for half-elves. ;)
You have one. It's called Razorclaw Shifter.
That said, if we are using 5 races like last time, and Gith are one race, these are my current predictions (and I KNEW IT! about Killoren:D ):
Gith - Con/Int (yanki) and Dex/Wis (zerai). Divided like Shifters between Githyanki and Githzerai; unlike Shifters, they fit well into two different power sources, Psionic and Ki. Nice to have a Con/Int (Artificer) race.
Wilden - Con/Wis. Throwback to Primal, but intertwined with Aberrants. Updated Killoren. Very good with Druid, Shaman, Ranger, etc.
Here's where we get into more speculative. Considering that the Dex/Wis Raptorans and the Con/Int Duergar types probably won't want to stumble on the toes of the Gith, and that Killoren got the bill for Primal in PH3, I'm seeing these on the back burner for now. Hopefully Raptorans will make a MM as a NPC race.
Either Dromites (Dex/Int) or Vanara (Cha/Wis/Dex/Int in some fashion). Vanara depends upon Primal/Arcane and Ki, while Dromites on Psionics. My scores could be off here. But only one will be the "Small" race of PH3. Vanara would also fit in with the fight of the natural world against the Aberrant, while doing it in a traditional Sun Wukong/Son Goku/Hanuman trickster way). Considering Halflings and Gnomes are already good tricksters, this may be taken territory. Dromites would need a newly invisioned backstory and ecology to really take-off as the Small of PH3.
An Aberrant Race; Thri-Kreen (Dex/Con) possible; could also be Elan (Wis/Cha?), or something out of left field. Who knows?
An NPC race from MM2. This could be anything from medium-sized Centaurs to Ioun knows what. Very doubtful that another NPC race from MM1 will make it here (after Gith).
Alternatively, Illumians could outplace any one of those options (though probably not the Small race).
In any case, Wilden confirmed what I was already thinking about as the them of PH3 - the invasion of the Aberrant and the Psionic upon the world of the Points of Light. This also screams Dark Sun.
Confirmed:
Wilden (CON/WIS)
Highly Probable:
Githyanki (CON/INT)
Githzerai (DEX/WIS)
Doppelganger (INT/CHA)
Kalashtar (WIS/CHA)? - Depends on which races are featured in the Eberron books. If Warforged, Doppelganger, and Kalashtar all make it in, this slot can be disregarded.
Speculative ideas:
At least 3 spots are covered here (if we count the gith as a single spot). We'll probably see at least 2 more races. When the second Monster Manual is released, we'll probably see some more ideas for races based off the 'monster races' presented in that book, but for now some speculation might include:
Centaur (DEX/CON) - A possibility, given that they wouldn't be using oversized weapons, but with the wilden in play they might not want to devote more time to another 'primal' race.
Shadar-Kai (DEX/INT) - If any Shadow classes are featured in the PHB3, there's a good chance that Shadar-Kai will show up.
Psionic races - Dromites and Elan get mentioned a lot, but may have some thematic overlap with Thri-Kreen and Kalashtar, respectively.
Not as likely -
Muls (DEX/CON) and Thri-Kreen (?) will probably be featured in the Dark Sun handbook.
Why is everyone bagging on the half-elves? Con/Cha makes perfect sense, they're tougher and hardier than elves but not as agile. Do we want to go back to 3rd edition where they get jack squat?
+2 Con means they are tougher than elves and your average human. In fact, it mechanically represents being as tough on average as a warforged or dwarf. That bonus seems to come way out of left field.
That being said, I do hope that Illumians are in there as a racial choice given how well they fit Hybrid Classes (what with the sigils flying around their head that combine to grant unique abilities). Their penchant for secrecy and conspiracy also fits into the Shadow power source, which is widely speculated to be in the PHB 3.
GOliaths hace the same stats as orcs, not because they're equal physically and mentally but because they share the same 2 most dramatic advantages statwise.
Gnome? Half Orc? Warforged? Wasn't these in the DDi "Dragon" articles?
The Warforged and the Wilden races were specifically marked as playtest articles, indicating that they will appear in a future release (Eberron and PHB3, respectively).
The Shadar-Kai, Gnoll and Minotaur articles were not listed as being preview or playtest, and therefore I think it is unlikely they will be printed in a book soon but that does not give evidence one way or the other.
I personally would be thrilled to see the Shadar-Kai make it into a core book since that means there will be more racial support for them for feats. I have friends who want more feats and options for their Minotaur characters in like manner. (Not to mention the RPGA players who have Orc creation cards who have nothing for racial feats.)
+2 Con means they are tougher than elves and your average human. In fact, it mechanically represents being as tough on average as a warforged or dwarf. That bonus seems to come way out of left field.
I do agree, I never imagined a Half-Elf getting +2 CON. Although I guess you could argue that they have lived with persecution their whole life and have had to "grow tougher" because of it.
In my own home campaign for 3e I would always give Half-Elves +2 CHA because they not only have the subtle nuances of both elves and humans (a human viewing relates to the human aspect and finds mystery in the elf aspect and vice versa), but also they have a strong personality because they have to distinguish themselves as individuals to stand apart from their ancestors.
If anything I would have seen Half-Elves get +2 DEX (from the Elven blood) and +2 CHA, but whatever.
As for races I'd like to see in PHB3, I'd say Muls. They were always a favorite from Dark Sun and I'd love to see a new version of the Half-Human Half-Dwarf combo. Plus, if PHB3 is the "psychic" source book it would fit well.
Muls are so iconic to Dark Sun that i cant imagine them not being one of the 2 campaign races introduced in the Player's Guide to Dark Sun.
Oh, was a "Player's Guide to Dark Sun" confirmed? If so then Mul will be in there, probably with Half-Giant or Thri-keen or Aarakocra. Also I wouldn't be surprised if there was a "Dark Sun" Elf variant, as they are pretty different from normal Elves.
I'm suspecting for PHB3 there will be a remake of the things featured in the Psionics handbooks (Dromite, Elan, Maenad, Synad, Xeph). Other possibilities would be Wemics, Bauriars, Mongrelfolk, Illumian, Sharakim, Raptorans, and the raven/crow race (I forget their name).
It really depends on what PHB3's power source is going to be. If it is Psychic or Ki then it is kind of obvious (previous Psychonic or previous Oriental races), if it is Shadow or Elemental or something it is less so. I think you can also figure they will try to include different niche races or ones that fit with upcoming classes (Necromancer, Elementalist, Monk, Empath).
If I had to put my money on something, it would be a mix of Psionic and Shadow or Ki.
The Warforged and the Wilden races were specifically marked as playtest articles, indicating that they will appear in a future release (Eberron and PHB3, respectively).
The Warforged was never marked as a playtest article, unless some developer came on to the forums and said so. No where in the ToC or the article is the word playtest used.
Now, since then, an editorial or Ampersand mentioned that there will be Warforged in the PEG, and that it will probably be different, which may be why people assume the original article was a playtest. But it was never listed as such.
I have a connection to the Minotaur because of the excellent book that featured Huma. I believe that it would be a lot better as a race than another Half bastard race like the Half Giant. I am still disappointed that the Half Orc was brought back after the first book replaced him with the Dragonborn.
Whatever is on DDi, is isn't gonna be exclusively online forever if it becomes popular enough. (at least with the limited suckers that have the service) The Dragon softback/hardback "best of" will not have races or classes within it's pages. This has been confirmed many times. The only place new races and classes will be in the PHB's and Setting's Player Guides. (And within 3PP books)
Have I mentioned this before?
Thank you, CM.
I have a connection to the Minotaur because of the excellent book that featured Huma. I believe that it would be a lot better as a race than another Half bastard race like the Half Giant. I am still disappointed that the Half Orc was brought back after the first book replaced him with the Dragonborn.
Whatever is on DDi, is isn't gonna be exclusively online forever if it becomes popular enough. (at least with the limited suckers that have the service) The Dragon softback/hardback "best of" will not have races or classes within it's pages. This has been confirmed many times. The only place new races and classes will be in the PHB's and Setting's Player Guides. (And within 3PP books)
Have I mentioned this before?
Except that you're still wrong, because "new," ie fully playable races are introduced in Dragon, which is Core, which is no more exclusive than buying a hardcover. So no, PHBs and setting PGs are not the only places they will be in. The only statement to such ends meant that you wouldn't find new fleshed out races in books like Open Graves or the Draconomicons.
Of course, Manual of the Planes shows that they aren't opposed to putting "NPC/Can be PC" stats in other books.
Except that you're still wrong, because "new," ie fully playable races are introduced in Dragon, which is Core, which is no more exclusive than buying a hardcover. So no, PHBs and setting PGs are not the only places they will be in. The only statement to such ends meant that you wouldn't find new fleshed out races in books like Open Graves or the Draconomicons.
Of course, Manual of the Planes shows that they aren't opposed to putting "NPC/Can be PC" stats in other books.
I should elaborate. The only books in the store that new races and classes will be published in is the PHB's and the Settings Player's Guides. That is not wrong.
DDi has been toted as "extra" material from the very off set, like it was before. It has become a bunch of Playtests and dungeon crawls.
Yes, Dragon is considered a part of the overall experience, and I am happy for those that have the service and use the material provided. It isn't in the stores, though. That's my point.
Yes, Dragon is considered a part of the overall experience, and I am happy for those that have the service and use the material provided. It isn't in the stores, though. That's my point.
It's also in a [expletive] printing format.
Why couldn't they publis it on NORMAL sized paper? Just what I want to do, pay for the subscription to a magazine, and then have to pay the overpriced Kinko's printing charge if I want a physical copy.
Printing cost at home(B&W): negligable.
However, Wait until the September, ThaX, when they publish Dungeon and Dragon in Omnibus format. Will that make you happy?
Just because material has been printed online does not mean it will not appear in a printed book. As has been mentioned before, Warforged are slated to appear in the Eberron book, and some of the content in Arcane Power is based off things which appeared on online previews.
Just my two cents here.
With that in mind, Minotaurs might be a good choice for a player race, but may be saved for later depending on if Dragonlance gets a 4E reprint, since they're a major race in that setting.
Probable featured races for different settings:
Eberron: Warforged, Kalashtar (Doppelgangers may also be featured, but kalashtar come out further ahead since they're more unique to the setting.)
Dark Sun: Muls, Thri-Kreen: (Half-giants have also been mentioned, but seem to overlap with the goliaths.)
Dragonlance: Minotaurs, Irda (Probably the most unique Dragonlance races. Kender are reflavored halflings, and draconians are reflavored dragonborn.)
Greyhawk: Can't think of any unique races from here, since it was the 'vanilla' setting of 3E. They'd have to do more to set it apart from Forgotten Realms if they decide to revisit it.
New Settings: The sky's the limit here. It's highly probable at some point that we'll see a completely new campaign setting make its way to 4E, and it's impossible to predict what we'll get until we see it.
New Settings: The sky's the limit here. It's highly probable at some point that we'll see a completely new campaign setting make its way to 4E, and it's impossible to predict what we'll get until we see it.
Agreed. I'd like to see that happen soon...but I'm not sure if I'd prefer something new or Darksun.
That said...the sky is the limit, at 76 miles (I think...it was bumped up to 70-something)...and right now the gaming industry is at 70 miles, IMO. Imagination is not infinite, and genuine possibility is even more limited. I wouldn't expect much more in the next few decades, then it'll all either be rehash or die off. Just look at TV, movies and books. Same stuff, over and over, with maybe a couple of genuinely new (and only occasionally interesting) things out of the slew of crap that gets put out every year.
However, Wait until the September, ThaX, when they publish Dungeon and Dragon in Omnibus format. Will that make you happy?
Well, any hard copy in the stores (annual, best of, or whatever) won't have any races or classes within the pages. I might end up getting a Dragon book if the content interests me, though, when one does come out.
When the mags was still out, there was a lot of good material within the pages, along with an occasional dud. Now, online, it is a commercial for the product in the stores, a ghost of what came before it, being paid for with a monthly fee that shouldn't be compared to a subscription cost for a physical product.
I think that Dragonlance is a long way off, and may still be contengent on the two authors of the books to make contributions for the setting for the new version. The hope, of course, is to forget that the 5th age ever existed.
My choices remain for the races...
Dromite for the small race,
Minotaur
Gith (two casts)
I think the Lupin would be a good addition, and a better choice than the Gnoll.
Have no idea what to expect with the Wilder, but the name reminds me of the wolf boy in one of the Mad Max films.
Yeah, I doubt it.
Well, any hard copy in the stores (annual, best of, or whatever) won't have any races or classes within the pages. I might end up getting a Dragon book if the content interests me, though, when one does come out.
When the mags was still out, there was a lot of good material within the pages, along with an occasional dud. Now, online, it is a commercial for the product in the stores, a ghost of what came before it, being paid for with a monthly fee that shouldn't be compared to a subscription cost for a physical product.
The races from Dragon almost certainly will be in the Dragon Annual. At least one will be.
And the subscription, which is LESS than a hardcover per month, covers two magazines, the character builder, and the compendium. You're right, it can't be compared to a sub for a physical product - it's superior.
Dark Sun - Thri-kreen and Muls. This is a given, there aren't any more races that are as iconic to Dark Sun than these two. Honestly, I think I would be very irritated if they showed up in a PHB.
Dragonlance - Tinker Gnomes and Minotaurs. Tinkers are very different from the standard gnome, not just a reflavoring. That said, there is still a place for the regular gnome with the Wild Gnomes. I have been mulling over ideas on how to include Draconians somehow, I think it would likely involve the Dragonborn. The could just be what the second generation of Draconians are once born. Minotaurs are a must for Dragonlance. As others have said, the halfling and the kender are too similar to warrant a new race write-up, especially with Afflicted kender running around.
Greyhawk - I think Greyhawk is better off being a catch all like Forgotten Realms.
As for the PHB3, I think it is all up in the air right now. I really am hoping for the Gith yanki/zerai. The Wilden is a neat new race, I like plant-based races.
The races from Dragon almost certainly will be in the Dragon Annual. At least one will be.
And the subscription, which is LESS than a hardcover per month, covers two magazines, the character builder, and the compendium. You're right, it can't be compared to a sub for a physical product - it's superior.
Perhaps it is the way the sentences are structured, or the words are not conveying the substance of the concept I am trying to relate here.
PHB/Setting players guides = new races and classes
Anything else = support
In my mind, you getting inferior articles that are stung together throughout the month and pasted into a mag when they are all out. OotS is not around anymore, and most of the material is stuff of previews for the real product in the stores.
Dungeon might be a good place for pre made hack and slash, but I would rather by the individual releases from the store instead of wasting ink printing out the pages. The Character "Builder," though not as error laden and broken as the first release of E-Tools (thanks again, Fluid), is still suffering growing pains and is not ever gonna have the power and versatility of a stand alone program.
When all the "apps" are done (2 years?) maybe the service will be worth the high price, but I doubt it will stay at the current price point at this time. The moving of the free tools to the new service for this new edition was a slimey move, in my opinion, though I really can't blame Wizards. They needed something else to show to get the late starting DDi a boost.
Perhaps it is the way the sentences are structured, or the words are not conveying the substance of the concept I am trying to relate here.
PHB/Setting players guides = new races and classes
Anything else = support
In my mind, you getting inferior articles that are stung together throughout the month and pasted into a mag when they are all out. OotS is not around anymore, and most of the material is stuff of previews for the real product in the stores.
There has yet to be an inferior race article. They're better than the race entries in the hardcovers. And for the last time, if they're not marked Playtest, they're not a preview.
Anyway, seems to be plenty of gith love, what are the odds for the goblinoids?
Thanks Doc.
Anyway, seems to be plenty of gith love, what are the odds for the goblinoids?
See Monster Manual. This is about PHB3, not MM3.
Remember, of course, that they still have Rich Berlew's setting still sitting around somewhere, with full rights to it, and it must have something going for it if it made it to the final 3. And I'm not sure if I ever heard anything about the other setting that made it to the finals (designer-wise, I mean--sounds like everyone got pretty harsh NDA's so that there's no info out there, just that Berlew was one of the guys beaten out by Eberron). Updates to OotS have been pretty scanty, lately, and it's taking them years to come out with an expansion that was apparently previewed back in '07 for the OotS game, so he's got to be doing something right now--maybe working on a new setting?
Updates to OotS have been slow due to Rich having a chronic health problem. Doesn't mean they wouldn't use his setting, but OotS updates aren't a clue towards it.
Point was, they should stay there. Monsters as player races is not very worthwhile. I expect to see the Kobold sometime in the future, but the goblinoids should stay within the pages of the MM, and the Players who want to play them to ask the DM about it.
I disagree with you. I think Monsters as player races are very worthwhile. They should appear in the PhB's.
I disagree with you. I think Monsters as player races are very worthwhile. They should appear in the PhB's.
Where would it stop?
Gnolls, Lizardmen, Troglodites, Ogres, and the list goes on.
Bad enough we got the Half Orcs back in PHB2. We already had their replacement in PHB1 (Dragonborn).
Just put the Playable stats in the back of the MM book and be done with it.
Seven of whom have already gotten a solid write up outside the MM, and The shifters got some love as well.
As for the remaining Gith there seems to be lots of support for that idea.
So what do you have against races from the MM?
Oh, was a "Player's Guide to Dark Sun" confirmed? If so then Mul will be in there, probably with Half-Giant or Thri-keen or Aarakocra. Also I wouldn't be surprised if there was a "Dark Sun" Elf variant, as they are pretty different from normal Elves.
I'd more expect Elves to get the same treatment as they received in the FRPG. The different elf variants there were given to Eladarin via feats as I recall. For example, Sun Elf Grace made you a Sun Elf and made you unable to take Moon Elf Resilience. Then for Elves they had Wild Elf Luck and Wood Elf Agility, if you took Wild Elf Luck you couldn't take Wood Elf Agility and vice versa.
That's how I bet they'd handle Elves in Dark Sun.
Um what? By that logic we shouldn't get gnomes, drow, warforged, shifters, gith, shadar-kai, minotaurs, or gnolls.
Seven of whom have already gotten a solid write up outside the MM, and The shifters got some love as well.
As for the remaining Gith there seems to be lots of support for that idea.
So what do you have against races from the MM?
Specifically? I don't want Goblins and other true monsters becoming stylized humans for a player to play. Gnomes, Warforged, Shifters and the Gith are races that are a part of the overall communities, with heroes and individual characters within their own societies, and mix well, or alright, with humans and the other already playable races. Drow was made as a fan favorite since a certain ranger graced the pages of some of the more memorable FR novels, and the Minotaurs has a soft spot for me particularly because of the story of Huma.
Goblins, on the other hand, are lackeys for the hobgoblins and orcs, and don't have a society that works well, or even wants to parley with the human kingdoms. There is a RPG out there called Goblins! that could be an alternative for those that want it, but I want real race choices. Goblins... they ain't it.
I humbly nominate the fugly shadow humanoids known as the Dark Ones to appear as a PC race in PHB 3 or 4.
Races
A
Aarakocra
Alaghi
Armand
Asherati
Aventi
Azer
Azurin
B
Beastman
Brownie
Bugbear
Bullywug, Advanced
C
Catfolk
Celadrin
Centaur
Changeling
Chaond
Chitine
Crucian
Cyclops
D
Darfellan
Derro
Deva
Dhampyr
Diabolus
Domovoi
Doppelganger
Draconian
Dracotaur
Dragonborn
Dragonkin
Dromite
Drow FR
Dryad
Duergar
Duskling
Dwarf
E
Eladrin
Elan
Elf
Elf, Avariel
Elf, Dark
Elf, Lythari
F
Fey’ri
Firbolg
Flind
Fomorian
Fremlin
G
Gargoyle
Garuda
Genasi FR
Ghost
Gif
Githyanki
Githzerai
Gloaming
Gnoll
Gnome
Goatfolk
Goblin
Goliath
Grimlock
Grippli
H
Hadozee
Half-Drow
Half-Eladrin
Half-Elf
Half-Giant
Halfling
Half-Ogre
Half-Orc
Harpy
Hobgoblin
Human
I
Illumian
Insectare
J
Janni
K
Kalashtar
Kenku
Kobold
Kuo-Toa
L
Lizardfolk
Lumi
Lupin
Lycanthrope
M
Maenad
Minotaur
Mongrelfolk
Mul
N
Neanderthal
Nixie
O
Ogre
Oni
Oni Mage
Orc
Orog
P
Phanaton
Pixie
Pterran
Q
Quaraphon
R
Rakshasa
Raptoran
Rilkan
S
Satyr
Saurial
Sea Kin
Shadar-kai
Shade
Shadow
Sharakim
Sharn
Shifter
Skarn
Skulk
Stonechild
Svirfneblin
Swanmay
Sylph
Synad
T
Tanarukk
Thri-kreen
Tiefling
Troglodyte
Troll
U
Uldra
Underfolk
Urdunnir
V
Vampire
Varag
Verbeeg
Voadkyn
W
Warforged
Wernic
Wilden
Wingwyrd
Woodwose
Worghest
X
Xeph
Xvart
Y
Yuan-ti
Z
Zenythr
A
Aarakocra
Alaghi
Armand
Asherati
Aventi
Azer
Azurin
B
Beastman
Brownie
Bugbear
Bullywug, Advanced
C
Catfolk
Celadrin
Centaur
Changeling
Chaond
Chitine
Crucian
Cyclops
D
Darfellan
Derro
Deva
Dhampyr
Diabolus
Domovoi
Doppelganger
Draconian
Dracotaur
Dragonborn
Dragonkin
Dromite
Drow FR
Dryad
Duergar
Duskling
Dwarf
E
Eladrin
Elan
Elf
Elf, Avariel
Elf, Dark
Elf, Lythari
F
Fey’ri
Firbolg
Flind
Fomorian
Fremlin
G
Gargoyle
Garuda
Genasi FR
Ghost
Gif
Githyanki
Githzerai
Gloaming
Gnoll
Gnome
Goatfolk
Goblin
Goliath
Grimlock
Grippli
H
Hadozee
Half-Drow
Half-Eladrin
Half-Elf
Half-Giant
Halfling
Half-Ogre
Half-Orc
Harpy
Hobgoblin
Human
I
Illumian
Insectare
J
Janni
K
Kalashtar
Kenku
Kobold
Kuo-Toa
L
Lizardfolk
Lumi
Lupin
Lycanthrope
M
Maenad
Minotaur
Mongrelfolk
Mul
N
Neanderthal
Nixie
O
Ogre
Oni
Oni Mage
Orc
Orog
P
Phanaton
Pixie
Pterran
Q
Quaraphon
R
Rakshasa
Raptoran
Rilkan
S
Satyr
Saurial
Sea Kin
Shadar-kai
Shade
Shadow
Sharakim
Sharn
Shifter
Skarn
Skulk
Stonechild
Svirfneblin
Swanmay
Sylph
Synad
T
Tanarukk
Thri-kreen
Tiefling
Troglodyte
Troll
U
Uldra
Underfolk
Urdunnir
V
Vampire
Varag
Verbeeg
Voadkyn
W
Warforged
Wernic
Wilden
Wingwyrd
Woodwose
Worghest
X
Xeph
Xvart
Y
Yuan-ti
Z
Zenythr
Where would it stop?
Gnolls, Lizardmen, Troglodites, Ogres, and the list goes on.
Bad enough we got the Half Orcs back in PHB2. We already had their replacement in PHB1 (Dragonborn).
Just put the Playable stats in the back of the MM book and be done with it.
Well, gnolls we have. I've seen a demand for lizardmen on the boards before and im sure people would love to see troglodyte and ogre PC write-ups.
The thing is that lot of people don't want to play the "human with pointy ears" races. A lot of people want to play things that are exotic and inhuman. A lot of people want their fantasy worlds to be..well...fantastical.
Okay, so I put together a list of 130+ races that have at one time or another been PC races (all editions).Races
A
Aarakocra
Alaghi
Armand
Asherati
Aventi
Azer
B
Beastman
Brownie
Bugbear
Bullywug, Advanced
C
Catfolk
Celadrin
Centaur
Changeling
Chaond
Chitine
Crucian
Cyclops
D
Darfellan
Derro
Deva
Dhampyr
Diabolus
Domovoi
Doppelganger
Draconian
Dracotaur
Dragonborn
Dragonkin
Dromite
Drow
Dryad
Duergar
Dwarf
E
Eladrin
Elan
Elf
Elf, Avariel
Elf, Dark
Elf, Lythari
F
Fey’ri
Firbolg
Flind
Fomorian
Fremlin
G
Gargoyle
Garuda
Genasi
Ghost
Gif
Githyanki
Githzerai
Gloaming
Gnoll
Gnome
Goatfolk
Goblin
Goliath
Grimlock
Grippli
H
Hadozee
Half-Drow
Half-Eladrin
Half-Elf
Half-Giant
Halfling
Half-Ogre
Half-Orc
Harpy
Hobgoblin
Human
I
Illumian
Insectare
J
Janni
K
Kalashtar
Kenku
Kobold
Kuo-Toa
L
Lizardfolk
Lumi
Lupin
Lycanthrope
M
Maenad
Minotaur
Mongrelfolk
Mul
N
Neanderthal
Nixie
O
Ogre
Oni
Oni Mage
Orc
Orog
P
Phanaton
Pixie
Pterran
Q
Quaraphon
R
Rakshasa
Raptoran
S
Satyr
Saurial
Sea Kin
Shadar-kai
Shade
Shadow
Sharakim
Sharn
Shifter
Skulk
Stonechild
Svirfneblin
Swanmay
Sylph
Synad
T
Tanarukk
Thri-kreen
Tiefling
Troglodyte
Troll
U
Uldra
Underfolk
Urdunnir
V
Vampire
Varag
Verbeeg
Voadkyn
W
Warforged
Wernic
Wilden
Wingwyrd
Woodwose
Worghest
X
Xeph
Xvart
Y
Yuan-ti
Z
Zenythr
Well, gnolls we have. I've seen a demand for lizardmen on the boards before and im sure people would love to see troglodyte and ogre PC write-ups.
The thing is that lot of people don't want to play the "human with pointy ears" races. A lot of people want to play things that are exotic and inhuman. A lot of people want their fantasy worlds to be..well...fantastical.
Well, there is the back of the various MM for them to pursue and for the DM to make use of.
BEL, unbold those that came in the dragon articles, they are for the select few that actually put out the loads of cash for the DDi.
Well, there is the back of the various MM for them to pursue and for the DM to make use of.
BEL, unbold those that came in the dragon articles, they are for the select few that actually put out the loads of cash for the DDi.
........... By loads of cash you mean less than 2 hardcovers a year, right?
You act as if it's some elitist thing. Guess what - it's not.
And monster races will be made for PCs, whether you like it or not. I can't wait til you see the Wilden ....
You are missing the Incarnum Races
Never got the book, so I didn't know it had races. I'll see if I can find them.
Bel
CAN YALL PLEASE SHUT THE **** UP ABOUT THE DAGON BEING CORE OR NOT PLEASE!
WHAT?! Dagon is in D&D? Ah crap... Everyone make a sanity check, stay away from the water, and don't even think about going to Insmouth on an overcast day.
WHAT?! Dagon is in D&D? Ah crap... Everyone make a sanity check, stay away from the water, and don't even think about going to Insmouth on an overcast day.
Too late, the Deep Ones have infiltrated Hasbro!
Bel
Kobolds.
Who brings humor and whimsy to a party without going over the top?
Kobolds.
Who can be cute, or creepy, or just plain crazy?
Kobolds!
Who makes dragonborn wish they had more personality?
KOBOLDS!!
Please... kobolds. Now.
1. Half-Ogres
2. Winged Elves
3. Lizardmen (not the version presented in 3.5 MM as lizardfolk, but more of the type presented in Savage Species balanced for 4E.)
Mostly, I want to see the return of the Half-Ogres.
What I hope is in PH3:
1. Goblins
2. Bugbears
3. Kobolds
4. Orcs
Thanks.
Never got the book, so I didn't know it had races. I'll see if I can find them.
Bel
Rilkan
Duskling
Skarn
Azurin (I think I spelled that right.)
There you go.
Where would it stop?
Why would it?
Personally, I would like to see the return of the following races:
1. Half-Ogres
2. Winged Elves
3. Lizardmen (not the version presented in 3.5 MM as lizardfolk, but more of the type presented in Savage Species balanced for 4E.)
Mostly, I want to see the return of the Half-Ogres.
What I hope is in PH3:
1. Goblins
2. Bugbears
3. Kobolds
4. Orcs
Thanks.
So you want to play the villains instead? Your looking for a different game, sir, not new races. Half Ogres? The Half Orc is already here, what would change with this race when you change the name?
Why would it?
You got it! better not to start in the first place...
So you want to play the villains instead? Your looking for a different game, sir, not new races.
Exactly. There are MM monster races, and there are PC races that are on lease until a future PH or PG. Orcs, Kobolds, Goblinoids, Ogres (Half-Ogres), etc are the former. I really don't get why people want all the monster races to be statted as Player races. WotC made it clear that in this edition, you play the good guys (or unaligned guys that are siding with the good guys). Not that you can't play evil or worship Bane or something, but that it's not a game about being evil. MAYBE they might make a Book of Vile Darkness 4e so you can play evil, but that probably won't come until we're several years into the system.
Of course, if we're talking about Goblinoids in Eberron, that's a different story. Still, I don't think that Hobgoblin will be one of the races in EPG; I'm still pretty certain it's Doppelganger, Warforged, and Kalashtar (with the exception being that if the Kalashtar happen to be Devas refluffed; THEN Hobgoblins could be PC race in the book).
I know Kobolds are loved for their craziness. But they're still evil. They worship evil dragons. Doesn't make them less lovable. That's why they'll be in Dragon, given time. That's why Gnoll and Minotaur made it there. I have no doubt that Dragon will be the mechanism for the majority of Monster Races from the MM. NOT the Player's Handbooks and Player's Guides.
So you want to play the villains instead? Your looking for a different game, sir, not new races. Half Ogres? The Half Orc is already here, what would change with this race when you change the name?
Exactly. There are MM monster races, and there are PC races that are on lease until a future PH or PG. Orcs, Kobolds, Goblinoids, Ogres (Half-Ogres), etc are the former. I really don't get why people want all the monster races to be statted as Player races. WotC made it clear that in this edition, you play the good guys (or unaligned guys that are siding with the good guys).
The point, as Marandahir even manages to point out and contradict his statement quoted above, is that not every campaign is set in a generic fantasy world. There are actually different settings out there. Even if we ignore the vast possibilities of DM-created settings with their own takes on races there is still the very prominent setting of Eberron, where at least goblinoids, half-orcs, orcs, warforged, gnolls, drow, lizardmen, dromites, duergar, doppelgangers (changelings), minotaurs and a bunch of others I'm probably forgetting are entirely plausible as good-aligned characters. Granted, there is a lack of planar races, but then you could turn to a setting such as Planescape, where basically anything is possible.
I don't care if you prefer running around in Dragonlance or Forgotten Realms, but please accept that others might have other preferences. I am personally running an Eberron campaign and I really hope to get goblinoids written as proper races (there is a real problem with balancing when you use the MM races), either in the EPG or in Dragon magazine. The Changeling would also be nice (especially since one in our current group is already playing one..).
That said, I have always liked the Githzerai and would love to see them (not as big a fan of Githyanki, but that's a matter of taste). Kobolds are fun, but I'm not sure I would risk the incredibly annoying roleplaying consequences of a mischievous kobold played by certain of my friends.. Aquatic races are probably best reserved for a separate book. Yuan-ti is a bit of an unlikely choice, but I could see some great roleplaying opportunities in an Eberron campaign set in Sarlona.. or maybe involving the Shulassakar and the Couatl.. hmmm, fetch me my notebook!
The point is, the main focus on this game is Heroes. It is the hope of many that those monstrous races that are within the MM's will not be made into character races, or half races. Wizards already slipped up with the Half Orc in PHB2 and to a lesser extent, the Tiefling in the PHB1. I know, it was a popular race to play in Planescape oh so long ago, but to me, it came from left field and was a bigger shock than the Dragonborn.
So, whether or not you will see them is up in the air, but I vote no for the MM races becoming heroes.
Yes, there are preferences. Yes, there are other settings where these races are viable. Heck, Minotaurs are a core race in Dragonlance. Does this mean they deserve a PH role? No. They MIGHT garner an reprint of the Dragon article + update + lots of new supporting material, if they came as a Dragonlance race. However, the PG races are supposed to be viable for core play no matter what setting you're in. Drow are no less evil in Forgotten Realms than in PoL, but they're fleshed out there the most, and that's why they got saved for that book. They're a popular and important playing option that fits into almost any campaign setting. Minotaur, not so much. Considering their society as seen in the Dragon article, I could just barely see them making it interesting enough to make them a core race, in a PG, and not until around PH4, when we'll get Elemental and they'll have a lot more to do with the main story.
I disagree about Tieflings and Half-Orcs: they are very viable characters that fit into the story very well, and aren't designated kill targets (they're not stupid or extremely monsterous). Well, Half-Orcs could be played as stupid rogues, fighters, and barbarians, but they're a much better choice than Orcs themselves. The fact that Half-Orcs exist is proof enough we won't get to play Orcs (beyond the MM NPC race, and possibly a Dragon article, which probably won't happen due to Half-Orcs).
These two races provide the edginess to the story that people try to provide by playing non-standard races like Gnoll or Hobgoblin - they're races that have a history of discrimination due to their heritage. They fit in with the fringe world of society, or in the shadows. But they can hardly be considered monster races, because they're full members of PoL cultures, as opposed to having their barely etched out monstrous culture that gets a few words in a MM, a couple paragraphs in a Creatures Incarnations article, and a few pages in an Ecology of... or Playing... article.
I'm fully aware that you like to play monsters. That's fine with me. There's Dragon magazine for that. However, it's not the core target audience, nor does it fit in with WotC's mission-statement for DnD; at least until they can flesh out the monsters enough so they aren't attacked-on-sight.
And besides, the magazine articles are CORE: read the Dungeon & Dragon magazines' Editorials this month for proof on that matter. Anything released in them is as core as hardcover books. They're just not for everyone because the larger amount of players aren't playing to be a kill-target and having to bluff, intimidate, or fight their way out of every single social encounter to avoid being lynched.
I agree that the game is about heroes... and Anti-heroes. Who's more fun, Frodo, or Riddik? This is the whole reason the Aasimar didn't come with the tiefling- they spent a year rebuilding it as the slightly creepy Devas. ("I knew your great great grandmother. We were on a caravan that was hit by raiders. I watched from the back of the wagon as the gnolls caught her, and I saw her ripped apart before me. You have her eyes...")
Everyone who's ever played through Kobold Hall and/or Irontooth's Lair, has tried getting one of those shifty little buggers to be a camp follower. The Character Development forum abounds with stories of kobolds cast out, adopted by dragonborn, or raised by paladins. Gnolls are less common, but still have a cult following, with all kinds of imaginative reasons to be heros despite their abyssal heritage- far more than you see on the typical drow ranger clone. (I havn't seen much for the Minotaur or goblinoids outside Character Optimization, so perhaps they arn't as interesting... but Hobgoblins are just as civilized as Dragonborn.)
Yes, the races are "typically" evil. Yes, this is a game for heros. But let me introduce you to what Dresden called the Vader Syndrome: "There is no ally as awesome as the enemy who had you quaking in your boots 5 minutes ago." Evil can do good... and "evil" races are still mostly unaligned, and can produce good and lawful good individuals.
So bring on the evil races. For that matter, put them in PHB 4, with the Shadow and Elemental (primordial) power sources for added edginess. DMG4 can have Channel divinities for evil gods... purely for DM use of course. After all, this is a game about HEROES!
heroes
:P
*spellchecks*
The keyword, of course, is "mostly". Outside of certain planar creatures like demons and devils (and even those have exceptions), no race is entirely evil.
One of the things that 4th Edition has drilled into our heads are that the PCs are exceptional. There could very well be a good kobold or orc or minotaur out there. Remember that Drizzt was an anomaly when he first appeared - a good drow was a novel concept back then. Now, thanks to all the clones, it's not quite as unusual to see a drow that isn't evil.
The bottom line is that PCs are supposed to be exceptional. If drow are stat'ed out in the books because one example in thousands was good, there is zero excuse for not having goblins or other "evil" races as core PC options.
So if this is a game about heros, and "evil" races need not apply... how did we end up with the Tiefling in PH1? The Drow has an excuse, but why can we now play lycantharopic shifters in PH2?
I agree that the game is about heroes... and Anti-heroes.
OK... stop, right there!
Anti-heroes are another setting or game, not the CORE part of the game and are discouraged. Perhaps we will get Ravenloft sometime in the future, or as a supplement like book much as what the Manual of the Planes was done.
I mentioned the questionable inclusion of the tiefling earlier and the post your replying to addresses this. The Drow has always been a favorite, as all here well knows, and I am glad they didn't make a PHB but was put in the FRPG instead.
Kobolds are popular because of the poorly written fluff for the sorcerer in the previous edition, one that has unfortunately made it's way back for the class in this new edition, though the choice between that and wild magic is an interesting way to go with the class. I don't think they deserve a PHB entry, but I can see them in a setting in the future, even taking a place of one of the horrible races that will be left out in Dark Sun.
Shifters are bred true race with Lycantharopic ansestry and was a great addition in the previous edition in the Eberron campaign and are most likely the closest we will get to "cat people" or the like in this new edition. I hope the Gith are handled in the same way, the Zari and Yanki being like the Longtooth and Razorclaw splits.
I maintain that the MM races like Goblins, Gnolls, and such should stay within those pages. A DM would be able to make the decision to use the playable stats in the back of the book if he so chooses to use in his own settings, and also be free to say no to players that want to play these monsters as a misunderstood punch dummies.
Indeed, your DM may have different styles and concerns when it comes to his individual campaign. I don't believe that the monster races need to be in the player's guides for that DM. It is easy enough to take the MM character payable races and fix up a guide for players for the races in his "world" and then run with it.
The point is, the main focus on this game is Heroes. It is the hope of many that those monstrous races that are within the MM's will not be made into character races, or half races. Wizards already slipped up with the Half Orc in PHB2 and to a lesser extent, the Tiefling in the PHB1. I know, it was a popular race to play in Planescape oh so long ago, but to me, it came from left field and was a bigger shock than the Dragonborn.
So, whether or not you will see them is up in the air, but I vote no for the MM races becoming heroes.
There's no such thing as genetic personality. There is absolutely nothing, NOTHING, preventing a kobold, orc, goblin, bugbear, etc. from being a hero. No race has every single member of it cling to stereotypes.
WotC should definitely do full racial writeups for the MM races in PHBs. If you don't want to use them for your PCs, or allow them in your games, that's your business. Just because it's core doesn't mean it's automatically allowed in every game.
If every race with arms and legs are player characters, there would be nothing to fight and everyone would live in peace. This wouldn't be much of a game. There is only so much hunting one can do before it becomes boring to role play.
Also, why would the races all live in peace, if their PC races. Not only are PCs exceptions in many cases, ie; Deva are rare but are a PC race. But also just because they are PC races doesn't mean they like or live in peace, hell people of the same race will have hatred toward others of their race. Most of my games generally speaking have normal PC races as the main antagonist and the most disturbing, and "evil" of anyone else.
The cultures of races is entirely dependent on what the DM and Players agree upon for their setting.
Hence, the DM would write up those races for his campaign, if he so chooses. My point, here, is that we, as normal players, don't need these races that are made as foes to be in Player's Guides as Character Races.
Squabbles in a society are different, and make for some nifty role playing in themselves, than the normal plots to subvert the humans and their perfect society.
It just isn't needed. MM has the stats for those that want that sort of thing, and us that want the true D&D experience will play the proper races as it should be.
Heroic and Goblin are not two words that go together well.
There is a game out there called Goblins, set in the 1700's England, if one so desires it.
Indeed, your DM may have different styles and concerns when it comes to his individual campaign. I don't believe that the monster races need to be in the player's guides for that DM. It is easy enough to take the MM character payable races and fix up a guide for players for the races in his "world" and then run with it.
The point is, the main focus on this game is Heroes. It is the hope of many that those monstrous races that are within the MM's will not be made into character races, or half races. Wizards already slipped up with the Half Orc in PHB2 and to a lesser extent, the Tiefling in the PHB1. I know, it was a popular race to play in Planescape oh so long ago, but to me, it came from left field and was a bigger shock than the Dragonborn.
So, whether or not you will see them is up in the air, but I vote no for the MM races becoming heroes.
Who in the hell wants to play good heroes all the time? That was the beauty of D&D, you were able to play both sides of the spectrum. Being forced to play on one side is just boring.
OK... stop, right there!
Anti-heroes are another setting or game, not the CORE part of the game and are discouraged.
Ahem. Unaligned.
Game. Set. Match.
You're wrong.
That doesn't mean that all the history of D&D will cease to exist. It is based on a heroic adventure, not some gloomy goth person wanting to get rich and thinks only of himself.
not some gloomy goth person wanting to get rich and thinks only of himself.
Drow, Shada-kar, Tiefling, Warlock, Assasins articles, Shadow power source, Primordial based Elemental power source.
Drow, Shada-kar, Tiefling, Warlock, Assasins articles, Shadow power source, Primordial based Elemental power source.
We don't actually know that the elemental power source is based on the primordials yet(I'm personally betting on it being based on the constant elelmental shifting of the Elemental Chaos). Otherwise a good list.
-=Edit: I should also point out that the primordials aren't even "technically" evil. They just have a different idea of what creation should look like than the gods.=-
As for 'evil' races being PC races: we have the drow (and while Drizz't was the first if you follow FR there was the others who followed Elistraee and are now 'dark elves' since Corellon freed them of the curse that made the dark elves seduced by Lolth into the drow to begin with). The tiefling isn't an evil race, just humans altered because of ancestors making deals with devils. The shifters aren't werecreatures, just with werecreature ancestors so have some traits of it.
We could have goblinoids (goblin, hobgoblin, bugbear) since they're just generally evil and more so 'primitive' than some sort of strong tie to evil, kobolds (they worship dragons, no reason some don't worship metallic dragons), minotaurs, gnolls, and a few others.
Some creatures are generally SO evil they wouldn't work as a PC writeup. This would include most free-willed undead (vampire, lich, etc.), orcs (they're portrayed as all fueld by Gruumsh and destruction and anti-society), demons, devils, giants and titans. Whle an individual here and there may break the mold its not enough to make them a full PC race and should be left up to the DM.
Half-orcs and half-elves may have a history of mixed blood but they now breed true and don't need to be half-breeds. In PH2 they even hint that the half-orc may not actually be half-human/half-orc but an 'orclike' race that others percieve as having orc ancestry.
Part of the reason not to have the Goblinoid as a Character Race is that any relationship between them and the human dominated populace is forever strained. This is not only more of a strain for the player of that race, but more work for the DM to work around the obvious disdain most NPC's will have for the player's character as well as make clear to the player that the race isn't looked well on.
Says who? It certainly doesn't have to be that way in Eberron. It doesn't have to be that way in any setting.
Anyone.
Any player can make a character to be a problem for the party and the GM. I've had a Paladin that was a Jerk who tried to dominate the party. Lawful Good and everything. He didn't last long. I had a Bard at my table who tried the same thing from the Neutral Evil side of the spectrum. He also, didn't last long.
Moral of the Story: Anti-hero concepts don't make bad characters, bad players make bad characters. End of Story.
*sigh*
Heroic and Goblin are not two words that go together well.
There is a game out there called Goblins, set in the 1700's England, if one so desires it.
You've never met Stank, heroic goblin Valet to Mindarthis Silverburg.
Granted, he is the worst Valet in existence, but he is truly a heroic Goblin. He is leading an entire Tribe of Goblins to a peaceful, Civilized existance, where they are buying land from the local kingdom in order to establish their own city. (we haven't advanced the story in a while, but it was going well last we saw, minus a few fearfuil townspeople from nearby. No deaths on this end, however.)
Says who? It certainly doesn't have to be that way in Eberron. It doesn't have to be that way in any setting.
Let's see, in the MM, past history, the fact that they have helped Orcs and Ogres war/pillage against the societal races (Humans, Dwarves, Elderan, Elves, ect) and mostly because that is what they know.
Most "anti-heroes" are a marked exception to that norm. When a player wants to go this route, the MM stats at the end of the book should suffice. When a race is put into the PHB or a Player's Guide for a player to choose from, it is assumed that the race in question has somehow formed a like society and works with those that they typically war with, in short, that they are no longer "monsters." That marked exception becomes the status quo. This is what I don't want to happen.
Tieflings makes a little more since, since most of the ancestry, considering all the editions like timelines, would come from those that have settled down from Plane hopping from Sigil. Half Orcs, and Drow, are fan service, and have become the very thing I am talking of here.
This is one of the reasons why I think the Dromite might make a good choice for the PHB3. They are not small humans but instead have a different overall vision of the world and how to relate to it. They also are markedly different looking and doesn't have the historical racial wars against the other races that the monster races have.
We don't need to savage the MM to find other races to change for Player consumption.
Let's see, in the MM, past history, the fact that they have helped Orcs and Ogres war/pillage against the societal races (Humans, Dwarves, Elderan, Elves, ect) and mostly because that is what they know.
Most "anti-heroes" are a marked exception to that norm. When a player wants to go this route, the MM stats at the end of the book should suffice. When a race is put into the PHB or a Player's Guide for a player to choose from, it is assumed that the race in question has somehow formed a like society and works with those that they typically war with, in short, that they are no longer "monsters." That marked exception becomes the status quo. This is what I don't want to happen.
Tieflings makes a little more since, since most of the ancestry, considering all the editions like timelines, would come from those that have settled down from Plane hopping from Sigil. Half Orcs, and Drow, are fan service, and have become the very thing I am talking of here.
This is one of the reasons why I think the Dromite might make a good choice for the PHB3. They are not small humans but instead have a different overall vision of the world and how to relate to it. They also are markedly different looking and doesn't have the historical racial wars against the other races that the monster races have.
We don't need to savage the MM to find other races to change for Player consumption.
Thankfully, WotC is well aware of how wrong you are.
I, on the other hand, believe that Wizards realizes that D&D isn't Wrestling. That races don't just turn babyface on a dime...
Dragon magazine proves you wrong.
* An amphibious race (though not fully aquatic - nobody ever wants to run a total underwater campaign: I've looked).
* A Psionic race.
* A flying race (probably reworked Raptoreans - I recommend making them less elfy and more badass bird of prey-y).
* A technological race - gnomes used to be this, but now some other new race has to step up and take the reigns.
* A totally non-humanoid race. I know the idea was kicked around for the Dragonborn, but I still think there's a niche for it as long as it was given sufficient justification and some way to manipulate equipment and items. I'm thinking that some tweaking of the Displacer Beasts could yield a successful take on this.
* Some race that has the quality of being undead, or having the characteristics of undead, for Gothic settings.
* One-gender race, this is a ridiculously popular concept, but I never could figure out why.
* There's room for at least 2-3 races based on Eastern mythology instead of western for settings based on the Middle-East or Asia.
* A race of plant people (nevermind).
Dragon magazine proves you wrong.
This has been my point. Dragon magazine is for those looking for these other options, and isn't the be all for what is in D&D future. Just because it is in Dragon doesn't mean that it will be in the Guides, or that it wouldn't be.
It doesn't prove anything.
This has been my point. Dragon magazine is for those looking for these other options, and isn't the be all for what is in D&D future. Just because it is in Dragon doesn't mean that it will be in the Guides, or that it wouldn't be.
It doesn't prove anything.
Official. Core. Yadda yadda. That proves you wrong.
Plus Githyanki, which fit every one of your complaints about Orcs & Goblinoids, are pretty much guaranteed for PH3 now.
Official. Core. Yadda yadda. That proves you wrong.
Plus Githyanki, which fit every one of your complaints about Orcs & Goblinoids, are pretty much guaranteed for PH3 now.
I'd rather have a different Psionic race besides Githyanki - they just strike me as a really weird concept of Psychic Orcs that doesn't really jell with me as archetypal. Feels like introducing hulking muscle-bound elves or 50-foot tall Halflings as a race.
Niches that need to be filled amongst core races:
* An amphibious race (though not fully aquatic - nobody ever wants to run a total underwater campaign: I've looked).I think the lizardmen like race is a possibility, though with a different name
* A Psionic race. Dromite?
* A flying race (probably reworked Raptoreans - I recommend making them less elfy and more badass bird of prey-y).yeah... not gonna happen. This is a munchkin/powergrab issue.
* A technological race - gnomes used to be this, but now some other new race has to step up and take the reigns. It needed to be done, the poor Gnome was everything, a doofus, tinkerer destined for explosive deaths, and a magic wielder given to fancy illusions. Gonna be interesting what Eberron does with this...
* A totally non-humanoid race. I know the idea was kicked around for the Dragonborn, but I still think there's a niche for it as long as it was given sufficient justification and some way to manipulate equipment and items. I'm thinking that some tweaking of the Displacer Beasts could yield a successful take on this. I like the Dromite on this...
* Some race that has the quality of being undead, or having the characteristics of undead, for Gothic settings.Why? Was you playing Fallout 3 or something?
* One-gender race, this is a ridiculously popular concept, but I never could figure out why.Dromite?
* There's room for at least 2-3 races based on Eastern mythology instead of western for settings based on the Middle-East or Asia.might be given, with the Ki power source being around at some point
* A race of plant people (nevermind).
Plant people?
watch out!!! Photosynthesis. Dangerous stuff!
I'd rather have a different Psionic race besides Githyanki - they just strike me as a really weird concept of Psychic Orcs
Psychic Orcs??? Bua... How are they like Orcs?
I am still gunning for Elan, their physical resilience would work well actually for the Monk.
* A race of plant people (nevermind).
I don't know if you said nevermind because you already found out, but PH3 will have the Wilden (name supposedly subject to change), which are fey plant people.
I'd rather have a different Psionic race besides Githyanki - they just strike me as a really weird concept of Psychic Orcs that doesn't really jell with me as archetypal. Feels like introducing hulking muscle-bound elves or 50-foot tall Halflings as a race.
Except maybe Dark Sun Gith (where everything was more savage anyways), Githyanki are more like a cross between Hobgoblins and Drow (militaristic + political backstabbing) than anything else.
Official. Core. Yadda yadda. That proves you wrong.
Plus Githyanki, which fit every one of your complaints about Orcs & Goblinoids, are pretty much guaranteed for PH3 now.
Core?
"With quick access to exclusive material and digital tools D&DI (tm) will help enhance every aspect of your tabletop game."
Core?
, but I am hoping for a Forsaken-like undead race to come with the Shadow power source, which is looking more and more likely for PH3.Officially Core
In case you missed the memo, or if we haven't been as clear as I think we have (which is a distinct possibility), I wanted to make sure I put this out there for D&D Insiders everywhere to read and digest. (Readers are kind of like gelatinous cubes in that regard.) Everything that appears through the online magazines that make up part of your D&D Insider subscription is official D&D material and part of the core rules of the game. For the first time in the history of D&D, the gatekeepers of D&D creative content (namely, myself and my R&D team) oversee all creative expressions of D&D. If it appears in a novel or a physical game product or in an issue of digital Dragon or Dungeon, it goes through the same process. It gets concepted or approved as a concept by my team. It gets designed by my team or by a freelancer (which includes new freelancers submitting material through the digital magazines for the first time). It gets developed by my team (which means it undergoes rigorous testing and power balancing and other mechanical adjustments). It gets edited by my team or by a freelancer. It goes through a final check (usually by me or one of the managers on my team). And then it finds a home in a product or a digital magazine. That makes everything you see here official and core. That was one of the goals for the new edition of the game, and I love the way the process has come together.
Core?
Core?
Yes. Core. A word you seem to have trouble with. In fact, this month's issue's Ampersand even includes a nice little section for people like you who can't seem to grasp that Dragon is core. It's there, in black and white, by WotC developers, stating that Dragon is core.
edit: Ninja'ed with super-skill!
Psychic Orcs??? Bua... How are they like Orcs?
I am still gunning for Elan, their physical resilience would work well actually for the Monk.
I was going more for the Tolkien definition. The Githyanki are a once proud race enslaved by an ultimate evil and perverted through crossbreeding experiments into a race of savages who take out their past enslavement on everything around them and are also reptilian humanoids with pointed ears. They're Tolkien Orcs + Psychic powers.
I don't know if you said nevermind because you already found out, but PH3 will have the Wilden (name supposedly subject to change), which are fey plant people.
Yes, hate the name. Think the concept is pretty good.
* A flying race (probably reworked Raptoreans - I recommend making them less elfy and more badass bird of prey-y).yeah... not gonna happen. This is a munchkin/powergrab issue.
I think there's a way to do it will good enough balancing and in a way that makes plenty of sense. They'd have hollow bones, so they couldn't take a punch, if the wings and the arms were the same body part that means they couldn't do anything while flying BUT fly, and they could obviously not carry as much crap as other races and still use their flight.
Why? Was you playing Fallout 3 or something?
Itd be more for an updated version of Ravenloft. Still, the undead creature type has always been a big part of DnD, and I think a race of them would be interesting. Not generic zombies or vampires or ghosts or something though, more like an original take on the concept.
It needed to be done, the poor Gnome was everything, a doofus, tinkerer destined for explosive deaths, and a magic wielder given to fancy illusions. Gonna be interesting what Eberron does with this...
"Aaah! Nobody remembers how to drive the trains anymore!"
I think the lizardmen like race is a possibility, though with a different name
That's definitely a possibility, if they want to do an amphibian/reptile aquatic take on it. They'd have to be careful to make them visually distinct from Dragonborn, though. Maybe like a frog/newt/lizard man design.
* A Psionic race. Dromite?
* One-gender race, this is a ridiculously popular concept, but I never could figure out why.Dromite?
A race of psionic eusocial antpeople is certainly and original and solid idea to base it upon, but they might want to update the visual design a little bit. All I'm seeing is gnomes dressed up as Kamen Rider right now. Another set of limbs, even vestigial ones would really help them stand out.
Meaning that the "rules" work with everything else that is around and is available in the RPGA sanctioned play. It isn't, however, in my books at home or on a printed page. CORE has become meaningless as a term.
In other words, you don't like it, so you won't use it. Fair enough. It doesn't change the fact that WotC disagrees with you over what constitutes acceptable PC races.
In other words, you don't like it, so you won't use it. Fair enough. It doesn't change the fact that WotC disagrees with you over what constitutes acceptable PC races.
Fan service through online ransom.
There is a reason is it a monthly paid service. Not everything has been placeholders for the real thing later, and there is a real desire for unique and out of the norm material such as Monster races and such. Dragon is there for this so that Wizards can concentrate on the core books without worrying about what to include because it isn't available elsewhere.
There had been an issue between CORE and Core, near the beginning of this new edition, and though the postings here have quieted down, the issue remains.
For the CORE vs Core issue. I'm not saying one is better than the other, you can have fun with both of them. However, elements relegated to back issues of Dragon are not going to see as much exposure or fan-following as those included in the actual sourcebooks. That's not saying one is better or worse, its just a simple fact.
Fan service through online ransom.
There is a reason is it a monthly paid service. Not everything has been placeholders for the real thing later, and there is a real desire for unique and out of the norm material such as Monster races and such. Dragon is there for this so that Wizards can concentrate on the core books without worrying about what to include because it isn't available elsewhere.
There had been an issue between CORE and Core, near the beginning of this new edition, and though the postings here have quieted down, the issue remains.
There is absolutely no difference between a one month subscription to DDi and buying a single 4e hardcover book. Oh, except, you know, the DDi description is cheaper, gets you 2 magazines (more if they still allow you to get all the previous months issues), full access to the compendium, and the full character builder with all updates.
Or in other wordes, it's actually a better deal. And once again, DRAGON IS A CORE BOOK.
Or in other wordes, it's actually a better deal. And once again, DRAGON IS A CORE BOOK.
But with less distribution, advertising, and the lower chance that non-hardcore players will access it. We're not saying its not core, we're saying the creations limited to Dragon are less featured and less prevalent than those that are not. It's not the same thing as saying one is core and one is not.
It's more like saying that for a movie, this scene was included in the version everyone saw in theaters and THIS scene was only included on the super extra special limited edition DVD that was released in a limited print. It's not a matter of canon vs non-canon, it's a matter of level of exposure as dictated by the publishers.
I know, the "Magazine" is considered a part of the whole, but it is material that most won't have since it is tied to a monthly service that is more likely used for other pursuits, like WoW, instead of incomplete digital tools (with a Character Generator that needs a current sub to be updated) and articles in a confusing web site compiled into "Magazines" at the end of the month.
I don't have this service, so I don't use any material within it's confines. I would be disappointed, though, if the Warforged that has been in it would somehow be excluded from the Eberron Campaign.
I understand what is trying to be said, but I maintain that it isn't in the books themselves.
Also understand, I expect Wizards to keep to their guns when it comes to new races and classes, keeping them just within the pages of PHB's and Player Guides, with "Dragon" being the exception online. That the annual will come out is great news, but the expectation is that it also will not contain any of the races or classes that have been online.
But with less distribution, advertising, and the lower chance that non-hardcore players will access it. We're not saying its not core, we're saying the creations limited to Dragon are less featured and less prevalent than those that are not. It's not the same thing as saying one is core and one is not.
It's more like saying that for a movie, this scene was included in the version everyone saw in theaters and THIS scene was only included on the super extra special limited edition DVD that was released in a limited print. It's not a matter of canon vs non-canon, it's a matter of level of exposure as dictated by the publishers.
this
Also understand, I expect Wizards to keep to their guns when it comes to new races and classes, keeping them just within the pages of PHB's and Player Guides, with "Dragon" being the exception online. That the annual will come out is great news, but the expectation is that it also will not contain any of the races or classes that have been online.
And I hope they break their word and put races out in the annual.
Different strokes, different folks. :D
*sigh*
Heroic and Goblin are not two words that go together well.
There is a game out there called Goblins, set in the 1700's England, if one so desires it.
You sir have never met the great and powerful Smastrik, Sovereign of Goblivania, have you?
Goblins are mentioned as living in major cities in Eberron, mostly as cheap labour living out of ghettos looking for better opportunities. Some Goblins sell Goblin cuisine to Humans who want something exotic. Overall it sounds much like many minorities in the real world.
Gremlins as a playable race. They're a small monster type associated with machines. I'm sure something could be worked out. A race of goblinoid creatures with artificial-looking skin (either metallic silver or electric gold), long and nimble hands, enlarged heads, and a penchant for futzing around with machines, magic, or both in dangerous combination with a nigh-suicidal thirst for fulfilling every curiosity they may have. True to their origins, their primary means of dress would be as WW II-era engineers and fighter pilots.
Gnomes used to be the crazy slapstick mad scientists, but there's no real mythology to connect them to that. But when you hear the world Gremlin as a playable race - that would immediately bring to mind the idea of wacky, destructive, suicidal little guys who like to screw around with machines.
Personally, I'd really like to see the two Giths as separate races. I guess the Shifter thing made sense because I always imagined their flavour as deriving from tribal differences backed up by differing takes on a base totemistic religion. I remember writing out a TLDR background for them that I never ended up using that focused on that aspect so it's kind of stuck in my head but the Githyanki and Githzerai are races that, although from the same root stock, have developed separately and thus there is a much larger rift between their cultures than with Shifters. To me, Githyanki and Githzerai represent the sort of difference one might observe between Chinese and Japanese cultures (from which both take very obvious influence).
Anyway, another given is the Wilden I guess. I haven't seen it so I can't judge it but I never had any attachment to Killoren back in the day so at this point I'm underwhelmed.
I think Eberron is very likely to take care of Kalashtar and Dopplegangers though I could possibly see the latter being included in the PHB3. Likewise, for Eberron I would cream myself if they managed to give us a Daelkyr Half-Blood with symbiont support support and such (by far my favorite race and mechanic flavor-wise in all 3.x) but I could just as easily see the Half-blood being released instead as a blood-line similar to Dhampir or left for PHB3 with more generic flavour/name.
I say Doppleganger and Half-Blood could show up in either because I personally believe that PHB3 will include 4 Psionic classes, 2 shadow, and 2 elemental, and both of these races would work well for psionic and/or shadow sources.
Beyond these, I could see elans in there acting as an alternative 'advantaged' race akin to humans as I think 4e would benefit from less pidgeon-holing of races overall. I suppose Maenads would make sense should they include a Wilder class/option and dromites I agree with others on this list would make a great small race.
Beyond this though I have only conjecture. After Daelkyr Half-Bloods, Thri-Kreen are my favorite old 3.x race and though it's likely they'll only be included in Dark Sun, I would very much enjoy seeing them in PHB3 as they have the potential to make great monks (need a spare hand?), psychic defenders (replace what was natural armor with boost to CON), or elementalists (pyrokineticist analog going with desert background). Hell, they could even be made into reasonbly good shadow characters using charmeleon-like mechanics, leap (mobility/creeping) and/or poison racial power (a very 'shadowy' power). Although they live in the desert, they could easily just be turned into a primarily nocturnal race that uses trance to make them playable, this would fix flavour inconsistency with the shadow source.
Wilden
Githyanki
Githzerai
Duergar
Xeph
Half-dwarf
Kalastar, Warforged and Doppelgangers (Changelings) will be in the Eberron book, I'm guessing.
Dromites would be cool, and I think it would be cool to see something with limited flight (encounter power, fly twice your speed or somesuch and land on solid ground?).
Off-topic: DDi is core. Developers say so, and in a game whose rule system is developed by the developers (as if there are ones that aren't), what the developers say goes on what's official. Everything else is houserules. ThaX, your posts imply that people who subscribe to DDi have an elitist mentality, yet those same posts also give me an impression of Dungeon and Dragon content being "not good enough" or "not official enough" for you because it's digital media and not print. If a band releases a CD online only, is that "not their music" because the music was stored on a harddrive, not a compact disc. Is content not as official because it's read on a screen and not off a page?
When it was done by Piazo, it was written with the notion that the article was standing alone among the rules of the edition it was written for. It made for far better articles than the homogenized content of this online ghost, but also made for some lousy write ups also. The mags could be put away, or the relevant articles could be copied and put in a notebook to be used in a home grown campaign.
The Online content, while working with the rest of the rules (and considered core for RGPA play and such), is not available to a lot of players out there simply because of a broken and out of date subscription service model. The character generator is dependent on updates that one can not get if the sub is let go, and is using programing through an online net protical when a stand alone program would serve the purpose much better with superior results. It is much like the E-Tools program data base, even having some of the same printing problems (skills running off page, settings not in line with 8 by 11 1/2 paper).
I don't see the material as worthless or less than the printed books, it just isn't worth the hassle of DDi.
- Wilden (renamed to "Greenfolk")
- Gith (Githyanki/Githzerai, presented similar to Shifters)
- Thri-Kreen
- Duergar
- Svirfneblin (given their fluff they would be a good "psionic" race)
wilden
minotaur
gith (i assume zerai and yanki)
also, since phb3 is primal, divine and psionic, i assume that shadar-kai will not see phb publication until the shadow source is released. if dark ones were to be phb published, then i would assume the same circumstances for them.
it looks like we need one or two (three?) more races for phb3.
modified speculations?
Warforged, which show up in the EPG,
Gnoll
Minotaur (confirmed for PH3)
Shadar-kai, (expected to come in PH4 with the Shadow power source)
If this is remotely chronological, I think we can expect Gnolls in either the EPG or PH3.
also consider this: if wotc were to interpret "divine" a bit more broadly, then minotaurs and gnolls in "divine" classes worshipping baphomet and yeenoghu would fit right in. assuming, of course, that we throw the whole heroic adventurers paradigm right out the window. lol.
As such:
- Elan (Psionics)
- Gith (Psionics)
- Dromite/Thri-keen or Mind Flayers (Psionics)
- Wilden (Primal)
- Minotaur (Primal or Divine)
The Gnoll can stay online or in the MM.
You've just convinced me it should be in the PH3. :D
You've just convinced me it should be in the PH3. :D
Actually of all the so far DDI races I would like to see get a ton more support that is the Gnoll. If they replaced the Minotaur with the Gnoll I be quite happy.
I think if we use Power Source as a guesstimate then Psionic-related Races will be in the majority given that it is the new Power Source being introduced and also have the majority of Classes most likely.
As such:
- Elan (Psionics)
- Gith (Psionics)
- Dromite/Thri-keen or Mind Flayers (Psionics)
- Wilden (Primal)
- Minotaur (Primal or Divine)
Now im kinda hoping that the 5th race is really thri-kreen, and they are waiting until Dark Sun is announced to leak the last race.
So, we've pretty much gotten confirmation of the following:
Races with a primal feel:
Minotaur
Wilden
Races with psionic feel/focus:
Githzerai
though not mentioned the githyanki are very likely to go with the githzerai.
So 3 races, and one VERY likely. Lets go under the assumption that we'll only get 5 races. There could also be more of course, but for arguments sake, we'll use 5. We have two surprising ones minotaur and wilden. We have the two most prominent psionic races in the Githzerai and Githyanki. So, will we get another divine themed race like the deva? I doubt it. Divine is a power source that doesn't really have a focus in races other than the aforementioned Deva. Do we get another psionic race? If we do, I'm going to hope for Dromite since they also have the small size, and a small races are getting little representation (pun intended).
I was expecting doppleganger, but considering one of the pictures shown in the Eberron previews showed what appears to be an doppleganger, I doubt they'll show up in the PHB3.
Regardless what the 5th race is, I'm betting it will be a small sized race. I'd rather see dromite, but kobolds would be a smart choice - especially if some of the divine classes focus on the dragon gods such as Tiamat and Bahamut.
In any case, kobolds would probably be a better fit since they are small and have a much greater fan-base than the dromites.
Bugbear
Doppelganger
Goblin
Hobgoblin
Kobold
Orc
And those from the Second Monster Manual are:
Duergar
Kenku
Bullywug
So, of these ones, who thinks what will be in the PHB3?
A list of races from the first Monster Manual that haven't even gotten a full race writeup yet (Not including, for obvious reasons, the Gith):
Bugbear
Doppelganger
Goblin
Hobgoblin
Kobold
Orc
And those from the Second Monster Manual are:
Duergar
Kenku
Bullywug
So, of these ones, who thinks what will be in the PHB3?
Doppleganger will be in the EPG, so not them. Kenku might be in the PH with Shadow. If WotC puts new martial classes in PH4 or 5, that's where I'd bet Hobgoblins and Orcs would show.
Doppleganger will be in the EPG, so not them. Kenku might be in the PH with Shadow. If WotC puts new martial classes in PH4 or 5, that's where I'd bet Hobgoblins and Orcs would show.
I was under the impression that we were getting warforged and kalashtar in the PGtE. Are we getting 3 races this time?
I was under the impression that we were getting warforged and kalashtar in the PGtE. Are we getting 3 races this time?
No idea. All I know is the Warforged are in, and there are pictures of Dopplegangers in the art. They wouldn't show Dopplegnager pics without them being in.
Doppleganger will be in the EPG, so not them. Kenku might be in the PH with Shadow. If WotC puts new martial classes in PH4 or 5, that's where I'd bet Hobgoblins and Orcs would show.
Which leaves:
Bugbear
Goblin
Kobold
Duergar
Bullywug
I'd favor the Duergar and the Bullywug, but maybe that's just me.
Doesn't the bullywug have an ability that only works AGAINST PC classes?
Wouldn't you expect a Bullywug's power to be changed if it were made into a PC race?
Anti-heroes are another setting or game, not the CORE part of the game and are discouraged.
May I suggest you actually read the chapter on character creation in the PH, at the very least the 'Alignment vs. Personality' sidebar on pg. 19. A lawful good aligned PC can be a real bastard if he chooses and still be a hero in the world. Just as an unaligned PC may end up doing questionable things for the greater good.
It seems to me, that most of this discussion revolves around the roleplaying styles people are using. Some groups tend to go for the generic fantasy, shining paragons of virtue style while others like the nitty, gritty, moral dilemmas thing. I happen to like both, but I don't consider either superior.
The reason for adding what some have referred to as "monster races" to the PH (or Dragon magazine, since as someone correctly pointed out, it's all CORE) is that the versions from the MM are inferior to the player races (fewer racial traits, no feats, etc.).
There's no such thing as genetic personality. There is absolutely nothing, NOTHING, preventing a kobold, orc, goblin, bugbear, etc. from being a hero. No race has every single member of it cling to stereotypes.
Can I get an Amen?
There is culture and history, with a backdrop of bad habits and a general dislike of the other races, like humans and dwarves. Characters of these races are an exception to the what the race normally represents.
Again this depends entirely on setting. In Forgotten Realms, it's one way; in Eberron, it's another.
If every race with arms and legs are player characters, there would be nothing to fight and everyone would live in peace. This wouldn't be much of a game. There is only so much hunting one can do before it becomes boring to role play.
What? I refer you to Salla's quote above. I also can't help but point out, that half-orcs were player races in the very first edition of D&D.
MM has the stats for those that want that sort of thing, and us that want the true D&D experience will play the proper races as it should be.
:OMG! I applaud you, sir! I can only hope that someday I will attain that level of arrogance.
Anti-heroes aren't neccessarily evil either. The anti-hero are the 'good guys' who do it through questionable moral choices. Think Riddick, Wolverine, The Punisher, Conan, Spawn, Robin Hood. The concept of the anti-hero/dark hero is the guy looked up to by the commoners who doesn't follow the law of the land and other modern concepts of good (or Lawful Good is closer). In a fantasy world anti-heroes are harder to pick out since killing the 'bad guys' isn't really seen as a moral dilema.
Well put.
Moral of the Story: Anti-hero concepts don't make bad characters, bad players make bad characters. End of Story.
/Somber nod. We've all been there.
Phew. There. Anger fading...
Why is it a problem if someone gets something that they want but you don't? What's it to you? Why can't we all just get along?
So we have a confirm on the minotaur, and at least one of the gith' races, in addition to the wilden.
Assuming 5 races like the Phb 2 that means we have 1 space left, seeing as how the gith guys are different enough to warrant seperate entries and bringing one out without the other would be poor form indeed.
So we have between 1-4 spots left, and given that we've been promised the hybrid classes as well I'd wager closer to to then 5.
So that leaves a small race, and possibly but not likely 3 others.
Well I thrive on being contrary and argumentitive. So I could be part of the problem.
So we have a confirm on the minotaur, and at least one of the gith' races, in addition to the wilden.
Assuming 5 races like the Phb 2 that means we have 1 space left, seeing as how the gith guys are different enough to warrant seperate entries and bringing one out without the other would be poor form indeed.
So we have between 1-4 spots left, and given that we've been promised the hybrid classes as well I'd wager closer to to then 5.
So that leaves a small race, and possibly but not likely 3 others.
I could easily see them not making the githyanki as a PC race. Making githyanki a PC race just because the githzerai is means there should be a PH writeup of orcs (due to half-orc), duergar (due to dwarf), as well as spriggan and korred (due to gnome). The githyanki were always painted as evil and opposed to the material world races while the githzerai were 'different' but not enemies of the material world races. The two gith races are related in ancestry to humans but have diverged significantly, even calling two different planes home (ones on opposite sides of the World).
I could also see them pulling a genasi/shifter - one 'gith' race with mechanical subtypes to distinguish between them. If it's done cleanly then it might actually be a better approach.
i agree.
I personally don't think we'll see githyanki. After all we don't have orcs, duergar, korred, spriggan, drakkoths, lizardfolk, or other races that are related to/similar to races we do have.
That's my thought as well - we're unlikely to see them both because they're very similar in theme, but it also what makes a subtyped race approach feasible if WotC decides that they just can't have one without the other.
The same could be said for both Genasi and Shifters. With seperate "Ability", and "Skill" bonuses, as well as different "Racial Powers", they can easily be presented as two subtypes (Githyanki/Githzeri) of the same race under one racial heading (Gith).
The same could be said for both Genasi and Shifters. With seperate "Ability", and "Skill" bonuses, as well as different "Racial Powers", they can easily be presented as two subtypes (Githyanki/Githzeri) of the same race under one racial heading (Gith).
The problem I see with that is the two gith races are more culturaly diverse and more distinct in abilities than even the eladrin and elf. While many seem to see them the same because they share a common ancestry (humans btw) they've evolved very differently, both physically (attributes) and culturally. I've always been able to look at them and tell them apart easily just by the shape of the head and other traits.
Although based on the MM writeups the two gith races have no stat in common, while shifters had one in common and genasi were all shown to vary more in power manifestation than in attribute scores.
I personally don't think we'll see githyanki. After all we don't have orcs, duergar, korred, spriggan, drakkoths, lizardfolk, or other races that are related to/similar to races we do have.
I'm sure that argument is some kind of fallacy, but I don't know which one. What I do know is the absence of the others does not mean the Githyanki should be excluded, and adding the Githyanki does not mean the others have to to be added. One does not equal the other. The Githyanki should be in not because they are related to the Githzerai, but because they have links to Psionics, the Divine source, and are the most organized opposition to the agents of the Far Realms in D&D's history.
I'm sure that argument is some kind of fallacy, but I don't know which one. What I do know is the absence of the others does not mean the Githyanki should be excluded, and adding the Githyanki does not mean the others have to to be added. One does not equal the other. The Githyanki should be in not because they are related to the Githzerai, but because they have links to Psionics, the Divine source, and are the most organized opposition to the agents of the Far Realms in D&D's history.
My point was the githyanki through the editions have been painted to be as evil if not more so than the other races I mentioned (many of them evil 'subraces' to PC races). Even in 4th Edtion the githyanki are still that way and their fluff so far doesn't have them opposing the Far Realm at all, just being 'pirates' on the Astral Sea for the most part.
I never read about them being organized opposition to the Far Realm, just bitter enemies of the Illithid (which most races are, just not always with the personal vendetta that the githyanki and their Lich Queen have).
I'm not saying that lack of the others means we won't see them. I'm just saying that the lack of the others who are similar to the githyanki in their role as monsters and their relation to races that are PC races weighs against the odds of githyanki being included as a PC race.
In large part I want it just so I can have my character in the middle of the night sneak over to one of his team mates, grab his head with tentacles only to have him wake up and then I would respond "Oh! Sorry friend. Sleep eating you know."
Wilden
Githzerai
Minotaur
Probable races:
Githyanki
Doppelganger or Kalashtar (Depending on which one doesn't appear in the Eberron guide. If both show up there, this slot is open for another race.)
Doppelganger would fit as a Psionic race, and Kalashtar as a Psionic/Divine race. If both appear in the EPG, we might see another psionic race like Dromite instead.
Confirmed races so far:
Wilden
Githzerai
Minotaur
Probable races:
Githyanki
Doppelganger or Kalashtar (Depending on which one doesn't appear in the Eberron guide. If both show up there, this slot is open for another race.)
Doppelganger would fit as a Psionic race, and Kalashtar as a Psionic/Divine race. If both appear in the EPG, we might see another psionic race like Dromite instead.
I'd expect the Githzerai and Githyanki to be lumped together like the Razorclaw and Longtooth Shifters. After all, the Giths are pretty much the same race.
Oh dear, it seems the boards got me a little.. agitated.
Welcome to the fray.
May I suggest you actually read the chapter on character creation in the PH, at the very least the 'Alignment vs. Personality' sidebar on pg. 19. A lawful good aligned PC can be a real bastard if he chooses and still be a hero in the world. Just as an unaligned PC may end up doing questionable things for the greater good.
Being a Paladin with a stick up his arse is completely different than playing an arrogant Evil bastard. Unaligned in this new edition is the new neutral, Wizards finally realizing that "True Neutral" is never a possibility in any circumstance. D&D, in the past and now, has always been slanted toward playing the "Good" heroes. The latest fad for the "Anti-Hero" that started in the Comics in the 90's is not a major event to change the that focus.
It seems to me, that most of this discussion revolves around the roleplaying styles people are using. Some groups tend to go for the generic fantasy, shining paragons of virtue style while others like the nitty, gritty, moral dilemmas thing. I happen to like both, but I don't consider either superior.
Those that want to play the darker game with Evil characters has the means to do so already. Adding Monster Races or narrow dark classes like the Assassin to the PHBs is simply not needed.
The reason for adding what some have referred to as "monster races" to the PH (or Dragon magazine, since as someone correctly pointed out, it's all CORE) is that the versions from the MM are inferior to the player races (fewer racial traits, no feats, etc.).
To be sure, being a Monster Race that denounces society and works to disrupt law and order gives one some disadvantages. To say that a reason to put them in with the law abiding citizens is to make them have the same advantage as one who works within society is a poor excuse.
Can I get an Amen?
I think that individual characters can get by the disadvantage left to him because of his meager beginnings within an adverse environment in the racial teachings. Dritz comes to mind as such a character.
Again this depends entirely on setting. In Forgotten Realms, it's one way; in Eberron, it's another.
So perhaps those races can be published in a particular setting's Player Guides, not in a PHB. The PoL setting is the standard for the PHB and it is my belief that the MM races don't need to be included in that particular setting.
I also can't help but point out, that half-orcs were player races in the very first edition of D&D.
There was a lot of things in that first edition that had been rethought when the second edition was released.
:OMG! I applaud you, sir! I can only hope that someday I will attain that level of arrogance.
I simply point out that the ability to play these races are already there.
Phew. There. Anger fading...
Yeah, I have been there at times. Recently it revolves around discussions about Assassins.
I could also see them pulling a genasi/shifter - one 'gith' race with mechanical subtypes to distinguish between them. If it's done cleanly then it might actually be a better approach.
Yeah, that's what they should do.
Welcome to the fray.
Thank you. :D Not least for a sober and clear response. However, I felt there were still a few things I needed to point out.
Being a Paladin with a stick up his arse is completely different than playing an arrogant Evil bastard.
Indeed it is. I'm not talking about evil campaigns. While those are certainly viable I see no need for PHB support for them (at least not yet). I was speaking of anti-heroes, which you claimed were not a part of the D&D experience. We may have differing interpretations of the concept. When I think of an antihero, I mean a hero (i.e. someone who fights for good (or some version of it)) whose character is very different from the classical or romantic heroes. He is frequently an outcast, often cynical and almost always at odds with authority figures. Classic examples are Alex, the main character from A Clockwork Orange; Holden Caulfiel, from Catcher in the Rye; Conan, from Robert E. Howard's books; Severus Snape from Harry Potter or even Clint Eastwood's nameless cowboy from Sergio Leone's wonderful films. These are certainly viable in a D&D campaign and for these characters what you call "evil" races would be very apt.
To be sure, being a Monster Race that denounces society and works to disrupt law and order gives one some disadvantages.
Again I must point out, that just because a race is considered evil, does not mean that every member of that race is also evil. As someone else pointed out above: "there is not such thing as genetic personality". This is the same reason it is considered rude to assume that all african-americans are naturally rythmic or jewish people naturally avaricious.
I think that individual characters can get by the disadvantage left to him because of his meager beginnings within an adverse environment in the racial teachings. Dritz comes to mind as such a character.
Your argument is unsound. I was arguing from a mechanical perspective and you respond in a narrative or roleplaying perspective.
I simply point out that the ability to play these races are already there.
No, what you said was:
..us that want the true D&D experience will play the proper races as it should be.
This is what drew my ire. You presumed that your interpretation of D&D was the one and only interpretation, which to me came across as incredibly arrogant. Especially since I cannot find anything in the recent official announcements from Wizards to support that interpretation.
an⋅ti⋅he⋅ro /ˈæntiˌhɪəroʊ, ˈæntaɪ-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [an-tee-heer-oh, an-tahy-] Show IPA
–noun, plural -roes. a protagonist who lacks the attributes that make a heroic figure, as nobility of mind and spirit, a life or attitude marked by action or purpose, and the like.
Conan's not really an anti-hero, and neither is Snape. Both of them have better qualities that really shine through. Conan looks out for the best interests of his kingdom. Snape...Snape isn't evil, he's just an *****hole.
An anti-hero would be more like Riddick. He's described as being Chaotic Evil (in the Complete Scoundrel), he's a wanted murderer, and something of a sociopath. But he's the protagonist of the stories he's in, thus: anti-hero.
Read John Gardner's Grendel? It's the story of the monster from Beowulf, from the monster's PoV. Grendel remains clearly not a good guy, but as the protagonist, is an anti-hero.
Indeed it is. I'm not talking about evil campaigns. While those are certainly viable I see no need for PHB support for them (at least not yet). I was speaking of anti-heroes, which you claimed were not a part of the D&D experience. We may have differing interpretations of the concept.
So, as you can see it's the same thing. Having a story of anti-heroes IS an evil campaign. The PCs are always the protagonists, whether or not they are good guys. You do have a different interpretation of the concept, and yours is wrong. When citing a literary device for use in defense of your arguments, you can't change the definition of the thing to suit your argument, when everything you say supports your opponents argument in light of the actual definition.
On monster races:
You don't HAVE to play a monster race just to have a somewhat "dark" character, or to have a character with a shady past he's looking to escape, or a noble individual from a race commonly viewed as evil. You can get all that in the tiefling for crying out loud.
In my experience (which is over 10 years playing DnD, 7 of which as a DM), people who want to play monster races want to play Drizzt. Now, this goes double for people who want to play drow (although I do recognize a few exceptions), this STILL counts for people playing goblinoids for example. They want a goblinoid version of Drizzt. Drizzt is a trite and overused literary concept. He was cool when he was unique, now we're sick of him.
EXCEPTION: Eberron specifically calls for goblinoids that are civilized and can function in humanoid society without having to be drizzt-like. These are acceptable.
That said, thaX point about MM races not being necessary in a PoL setting is a good one, but bears a caveat. Gnomes, Shifters, and Drow were MM races until later supplements came out. Now they are considered Player Races.
BACK ON TOPIC:
We know we've got Githzeri (and likely githyanki, to do one and not the other would feel silly).
We know Wilden (weird, but innovative)
And we know Minotaur.
Minotaur stands in direct contrast to what they said about those articles. Those playtest articles were supposed to be supplements that were not going to be re-released at a later date. With the exception of Warforged, which we knew would be released in Eberron. Does the release of the minotaur portend Gnolls and Shadar-kai as well?
As much as I don't like the idea of seeing Orcs and Goblinoids (namely because they're so ordinary), I have a deep seated feeling here that stands, almost hypocritically, to the rest of my points.
GNOLLS!
I love gnolls. I don't know why, I just think they are BA. In fact, when the PHB2 came out and one of my players decided to step up and take a turn DMing, allowing me to play 4e for the first time, the first thing I rolled up was a Gnoll Barbarian. Had a backstory ready for him and everything. He is not, however, some kind of "LawfulGoodGnoll", that's a ridiculous concept. He's Unaligned, with close ties to nature. In many respects, he's like a ranger. He is motivated to adventure by revenge and by his love of challenge.
....I seem to have drifted off topic again.
So I guess I just want to add that what I think will be in the PHB3 is:
SOMETHING NEW.
That's right, not suggesting a monster race, so no hobgobs or kobolds. I think we will see somthing that takes a lot of people by surprise, OR something that will tie in to the 2010 setting. For example, if it's Dark Sun, we will get Thri-kreen.
So, as you can see it's the same thing. Having a story of anti-heroes IS an evil campaign. The PCs are always the protagonists, whether or not they are good guys. You do have a different interpretation of the concept, and yours is wrong. When citing a literary device for use in defense of your arguments, you can't change the definition of the thing to suit your argument, when everything you say supports your opponents argument in light of the actual definition.
I think the issue at hand is more of a mix up of terms. What's been described is what's called a 'dark hero' in comics and movies. But to many dark=evil and hero=light so a 'dark hero' is an 'anti-hero'.
I think Riddick is closer to a dark hero than an anti-hero, at least in the second movie. In the first one they don't really reveal much of his motivations so it's hard to say if he's a dark hero or anti-hero at that time.
I actually was mildly surpried by the minotaur as I assumed anything printed in Dragon for races wouldn't re-appear in a PH or PG. Also the minotaur, gnoll, and shadar-kai articles were never labelled as a playtest article like the artificer and monk (been a while but pretty sure warforged wasn't either and assumed it was done so that Eberron players would have the race available from the start of 4e rather than have to wait over a year for it).
I can't say as I'm upset though since they've had feedback and we'll likely see some adjustments to the minotaur stats. The article also includes a lot more fluff than will make it into the ph3 so it's not a 'wasted article'. It seems if the race is in dragon first it'll be a "Playing..." article and if it's already in a PH/PG than it'll be an "Ecology of..." like the Deva article. I actually like this method, lets us have the crunch in a PH/PG and the fluff (plus extra crunchiness) in Dragon.
An anti-hero would be more like Riddick. He's described as being Chaotic Evil (in the Complete Scoundrel), he's a wanted murderer, and something of a sociopath. But he's the protagonist of the stories he's in, thus: anti-hero.
See, I still don't agree with CS calling him evil. IMO Riddick is chaotic neutral if anything. Just based off the movies, haven't played the games. The protagonist I think that best portrays chaotic evil and is still an anti-hero is Revy from the anime/manga Black Lagoon. She's far more murderous and sociopathic than Riddick could ever hope to be, and actively seeks out violent confrontations just for fun.
It's like this: Riddick - You stay outta my way, you don't bother me at all, and you're not part of my mission, then you're safe. Hell, I might even save your ass. I'm a nice guy like that once in a blue moon.
Revi - You stay outta my way, you don't bother me at all, and you're not part of my mission, but you're involved with the people who are, even if it's just as random employees with absolutely no knowledge of your bosses' real jobs? You better pray I don't see you, cuz if I do you're dead. Hell, I might even come looking for you and kill you just because I'm bored. The only way I will ever save you is if you're one of the 3 people I'm willing to call friends, I'm being paid, or my friend Rock is galloping off on his white horse to save you and I'm really just saving him. Even then I'll be trying to figure out how to get rid of you.
When citing a literary device for use in defense of your arguments, you can't change the definition of the thing to suit your argument, when everything you say supports your opponents argument in light of the actual definition.
These are indeed big words coming from someone who quotes dictionary.com (without actually sourcing it) as his only reference. Go look up 'hubris' in the same place. I'll wait...
Back already? On to the actual arguments then. I believe that I pointed out in my post, that this was my interpretation of the antihero, not a dictionary definition:
We may have differing interpretations of the concept. When I think of an antihero, I mean...
You do have a different interpretation of the concept, and yours is wrong.
Well, for a start, if we are going to discuss the antihero as narrative (rather than literary referring only to written works) device I for one will not accept any dictionary definition as argument. Not even the OED, which I regard with an almost religious awe. If we are to debate this, we need academic references. I will certainly grant you that my definition of antihero has much in common with the Byronic Hero, but that does not make it wrong. Claiming that an antihero is simply an evil protagonist or major character is highly reductionistic and warrants more than a reference to what I am not ashamed to call a third-rate action film. If you can provide actual scholarly research to back up your interpretation as superior, I will gladly listen.
That said, thaX point about MM races not being necessary in a PoL setting is a good one, but bears a caveat. Gnomes, Shifters, and Drow were MM races until later supplements came out. Now they are considered Player Races.
This is an excellent point. My main problem with thaX's point of view is that it presupposes a static view of races and their role in the setting (seemingly established somewhere between 2nd and 3rd Edition). He is certainly entitled to his view, but I don't feel it should stop WotC from publishing material for the rest of us. Perceptions change, D&D changes, even people change [cue Mr. David Hayward-Jones].
In my experience (which is over 10 years playing DnD, 7 of which as a DM), people who want to play monster races want to play Drizzt.
Yes, this is true of most of them. While I am willing to concede that the vast majority of the human race are idiots, it should not preclude the few of us who rise above the vulgar masses from enjoying ourselves. [Now that is hubris. If you are going to do something, do it right]
In my experience (which is over 10 years playing DnD, 7 of which as a DM), people who want to play monster races want to play Drizzt.
I want to play Drizzt? That's just depressing
Here I thought I wanted to play an Illithid who wears a monocle and a top hat and is a fine upstanding gentleman who happens to have a taste for the grayist of all matter.
Gnolls are in this area, but have been through a lot of changes since you saw them creeping around in the Baulder's Gate game. I still don't think they should be in a PHB.
I like the Minotaur being in the PHB3. The story of Huma was such a good read and I have had players play the race before.
My static view is only concerning their inclusion in the PHB's. I don't begrudge the player that wants to play these races at all. The ability to do so is there and I don't see an overwhelming reason to write up an entry in the PHB for them when it doesn't fit the overall heroic play of the game.
The disadvantage I mention was the lack of Racial Feats because of being a MM race instead of a Guide race.
I actually was mildly surprised by the minotaur as I assumed anything printed in Dragon for races wouldn't re-appear in a PH or PG.
I have repeated what wizards has said about this, that the only place that new races and classes will be put in the printed books will be the Player Guides (PHB and Setting Player Guides). Since it won't be in the Dragon Annual, I am quite certain that the inclusion of the Minotaur in the PHB3 is a better development than having it stay in the DDi online service, available to a select few.
> nobility of mind and spirit, a life or attitude marked by action or
> purpose, and the like.
While this definition is accurate (to a point), Chiba's interpretation of it is not.
Anti-hero != villain.
A more apt rendition (which I've seen elsewhere but can't remember the source) is: "A hero who is characterized by a lack of traditional heroic qualities."
The key point being they're still a hero - if they aren't heroic at all, they're neither a hero or anti-hero (though they aren't necessarily a villain either).
An awful lot of fictional protagonists (especially modern ones) actually fit the definition of an anti-hero, being heroic on at least some level, but not of the classical 'knight in shining armor' (or equivalent to the era) variety.
For races in PH3:
Gith (like Shifter, with Yanki and Zerai)
Minotaur would be good(and on cover of preview of book so probable)
Wilden already mentioned so know they are at least planned
Wouldn't mind seeing Aarakocra or some other flyer, but understand it's sticky
Don't want Duergar or Drow, Drow are already in FR, and not into the Anti-Hero/Villain/Evil Campaign, D&D is about Heroes
Wouldn't mind Centaur, Kobold wouldn't be bad either.
Thri-Kreen should be saved for Dark Sun (if it's planned) as should the Half-Giant(Mul) *even though I wrote up an Ecology of the Thri-Kreen back before Dark Sun released that I had to scrap after it came out.
As for Core vs Not Core: The only Core material is the PHBs, DMGs, and MMs, with the PHBs being Core for Classes/Races for players.
In addition to Core, there are the Campaign Specific Sources, that's the FRPG and upcoming Eberron PG.
There are then Optional Extras that expand Core, but aren't Core or guarranteed to be allowed, that's the Adventurers' Vaults, the Powers Books, etc...
Then there is Digital Support Material. Since it's not readily available in hard copy format (ie you have to print it out to use it, not just subscribe) it's totally optional. Dragon and Dungeon are not Core, they are "Official Optional Ways to Expand your Game" If it doesn't appear in a PHB, it's not a Core playable race, it's an optional one, or a setting specific one.
The official line from WotC was and I have not seen it different anywhere, that the DDi info is to help expand your game with other options, but that the PHBs and World-Specific books would be the only Official sources for Races and Classes, everything else is optional and should be only optional. I'm not saying Dungeon and Dragon Magazines are Ransoming us by being part of DDi, in fact, I like the DDi system and tools, and PDF copies of the mags, but they have always been optional source material, from all the way back when they first debutted. There are always plenty of "splat" books that you can get for gaming, and it's critical mass of these books that generally end up ruining campaigns and starting the clamor for a new edition or compiled official rules. If it's in Dragon, it's either officially a Preview, Unofficially a Preview, or just a completely Optional choice, neither recommended or unrecommended. PHBs are Core and recommended for use immediately.
Seuss
Wilden for the same reasons and they're plants!
I also picked Illumians for the simple reasons that the would make a great hybrid class race.
For the 5th race I'm not sure, either changelings, dromites, elans or thri-kreen.
Bel
The official line from WotC was and I have not seen it different anywhere, that the DDi info is to help expand your game with other options, but that the PHBs and World-Specific books would be the only Official sources for Races and Classes, everything else is optional and should be only optional. I'm not saying Dungeon and Dragon Magazines are Ransoming us by being part of DDi, in fact, I like the DDi system and tools, and PDF copies of the mags, but they have always been optional source material, from all the way back when they first debutted. There are always plenty of "splat" books that you can get for gaming, and it's critical mass of these books that generally end up ruining campaigns and starting the clamor for a new edition or compiled official rules. If it's in Dragon, it's either officially a Preview, Unofficially a Preview, or just a completely Optional choice, neither recommended or unrecommended. PHBs are Core and recommended for use immediately.
Anything that gets published in the Dungeon/Dragon end of month compliation is core. The FRPG and EBPG, they're core. Pretty much everything that gets published is core in 4th ed.
That would be the ultimate limited list of core material.
However, although it may be RPGA/Living Campaign legal, all the various books outside the PHBs, DMGs, and MMs are not Core, they are additional boocks, you can use or not as you see fit as a DM. World books are world specific obviously, which is why you couldn't have an Eberron character in your Living Forgotten Realms campaign. You could in your home none Living one, as all things are optional for your own game, but in a Living Campaign, you would be stuck with only the Living Campaign sanctioned material. Now, as new material becomes available, the people who organize Living play will sometimes publish addendums stating if any new material is legal, but you know right away that as soon as the PHBs cycle in to use, they are legal, no addendum needed. That is basically how you would come to know what is core and what isn't. What you consider core for your game is not the same as what is considered Core by the majority of GMs out there.
WotC did say that the PHBs would be the Official Core products for Races and Classes, with the World guides as well when dealing in specific campaign settings. Not everyone has internet access either, although we debaters obviously do, so to make Core products basically unobtainable to a segment of the gaming community would make no sense either.
Seuss
The meaning for core has changed in 4th edition. It's much broader than it once was.
I'd generally prefer to avoid anything that was previously a subrace. I don't feel that it's really necessary to treat (for example) svirfneblin as a separate race. I'd much rather they appear in the same fashion as FR's elves did - racial feats that distinguish one subtype from another. (This also avoids the design temptation to provide a perfectly-suited subrace for every class, aka the 'every-flavored elves' problem of old-E.)
My other thought runs along those lines - maybe some consolidation could happen. Old-E eventually ended up with a glut of races that were slightly different takes on the same idea; rolling some of those together into a new one would not only cut down on the (effective) duplication but if the differences that did exist between them were incorporated it would likely produce a more well-rounded final result.
But the more accurate meaning of this statement is that the supplements and the magazines are no longer places where you get contradictory rules that didn't go through the core product process; all books and magazine articles go through the same editing process. However, the magazines are a bit different, because unlike all other products, they can be written and conceptualised by 3rd party contributors, though the editing, playtesting, balancing, and publishing is all done by WotC, who then send it back to the writer/concept designer to just make sure they didn't murder their ideas, before it going back to be finalised and published. In this way, the magazine articles have a higher chance of being off-balanced, because they weren't always conceptualised by WotC staff members. But they're still core. The only thing is, races from Dragon aren't going to be published in the annual, so the only way you can get them is by either getting a DDi subscription, stealing them (bad, bad, you :mad
, or waiting for them to get published in a PH or PG. Because some, like Warforged, Minotaur, and Shadar-kai, belong in PHs and PGs, while others, like Gnoll, are too rare a PC race, and from too wholly evil an NPC race, to justify such a placement. Besides, if you republish all the races, what's in it for DDi subscribers? Oh, I know, there's a lot more than just races in Dragon and Dungeon, as well as the Compendium, Builder, and Bonus Tools, but the thing is, Gnolls (and Kobolds, Goblinoids (save perhaps Eberron Goblinoids), Orcs, Bullywugs, Duergar, etc) don't belong in a PH or PG (again, if Hobgoblins were in the EPG, that might work, but they really don't fit in any other setting, and the races are supposed to be transmutable from setting to setting). As for PC Mind Flayers... they don't belong even in a Dragon article, because there's no way you can justify eating brains as a good act.
In any case, what does this leave us with?
Githyanki, Githzerai, Illumians, Minotaurs, Wilden. That's 5. If Gith are combined, we can have a token small race, maybe Dromites. If not, we could still have 8 races like in PH1 (they may alternate between 8 and 5, or even do some other crazy number of races). If 8 is the case, I'm saying Gith are not combined, and we have:
Githyanki (Int/Con), Githzerai (Dex/Wis), Illumians (Any), Minotaurs (Str/Con), Wilden (Con/Wis), Dromites (Dex/Int), and two races that will be complete surprises. I don't think Kenku or Raptorans will be in it, because there's already a Dex/Wis race, and thus Raptorans won't go this time (though, with paragon path flight and the falling hover and bonus to acrobatics instead of actual flight at base race level, they could work). Kenku have Dex/Cha, which is already too popular, and they're somewhat similar in theme to Shadar-kai as well. I'd expect them to appear in PH4 with the shadow races. I'd like to see Vanara from Oriental Adventures (Wis/Cha?) as a race again though, and they could fill the Wis/Cha gap well. That would be a second small race though. Don't you like talking monkeys?:D
As for PC Mind Flayers... they don't belong even in a Dragon article, because there's no way you can justify eating brains as a good act.
Ever heard of head cheese? Some varieties of it are brain. Basically, a number of humans eat brain, clearly eating head cheese which you can buy at the grocery store is an irrevocably evil act!
I don't eat meat, so I'm free from that whole business. But the question of eating meat gets really sketchy when the meat you're eating is other people who can talk and create civilisations and communities and be heroes. That's cannibalism, and a big no-no for Good and Lawful Good characters in D&D.
Head cheese is the brains of domesticated animals. We're talking about brains of humanoid races. When it comes to the question of consciousness in D&D, domesticated animals are nothing like races. If you eat the brain of another humanoid, you're evil (in D&D morality, at least).
I don't eat meat, so I'm free from that whole business. But the question of eating meat gets really sketchy when the meat you're eating is other people who can talk and create civilisations and communities and be heroes. That's cannibalism, and a big no-no for Good and Lawful Good characters in D&D.
Cannibalism is only eating your own race. A human who eats say Minotaur is NOT a cannibal in any sense of the word.
Anyways, it would be rather easy to refluff so that they don't strictly need to eat the brains of sentient beings. That's actually a rather minor change.
Cannibalism is only eating your own race. A human who eats say Minotaur is NOT a cannibal in any sense of the word.
Anyways, it would be rather easy to refluff so that they don't strictly need to eat the brains of sentient beings. That's actually a rather minor change.
Seeing as how the definition of 'person' is expanded in a D&D world with multiple sapient races, I think 'cannibalism' might require a similar expansion.
Seeing as how the definition of 'person' is expanded in a D&D world with multiple sapient races, I think 'cannibalism' might require a similar expansion.
Exactly. Also, the material in MM1 on Mind Flayers specifically says they eat brains. WotC aren't going to retcon what they released in the first MM of 4e, and if they only mentioned their diet of brains, I would assume that's all they eat.
These are indeed big words coming from someone who quotes dictionary.com (without actually sourcing it) as his only reference. Go look up 'hubris' in the same place. I'll wait...
I'm sorry if the words I used were too big for you. Dictionary.com happens to be more reliable than wikipedia, and I wasn't about to scan a page out of my home paper copy of a dictionary for you.
I believe that I pointed out in my post, that this was my interpretation of the antihero, not a dictionary definition:
And if your "interpretation" of, say, a duck, is in fact, a cow. That is a failing on your part and NOT on ours when you claim that milk comes from ducks.
Your "interpretation" is different than the TRUTH, the FACT and DEFINITION of what the word means. Thus your little "interpretation" FAILS when it comes to trying to argue your point since you are arguing something different that what the people you are discussing with understand you to mean.
You say "anti-hero", but that isn't what you're talking about. You've decided that since using what anti-hero actually means doesn't cater to your point, you're going to interpret it in a whole new way. Language doesn't work that way, home slice.
Well, for a start, if we are going to discuss the antihero as narrative (rather than literary referring only to written works) device I for one will not accept any dictionary definition as argument. Not even the OED, which I regard with an almost religious awe. If we are to debate this, we need academic references. I will certainly grant you that my definition of antihero has much in common with the Byronic Hero, but that does not make it wrong.
It does if you're using anti-hero as your argument instead of something like "dark" or "Byronic" heroes.
Claiming that an antihero is simply an evil protagonist or major character is highly reductionistic and warrants more than a reference to what I am not ashamed to call a third-rate action film. If you can provide actual scholarly research to back up your interpretation as superior, I will gladly listen.
And what can I quote to you as research that you're not going to dismiss? This is an online forum, I can copy and reference online resources, most of which are not considered scholarly, because they are easily comprimised.
However, do your own searching and you will find the same, the term anti-hero is a non-heroic protagonist. Faust, for example. The man sells his soul, is not a hero, but is the protagonist. Ironically, your earlier example of Clockwor Orange supports my definition rather than yours. Alex is clearly a Chaotic Evil individual who cares for nothing but himself and his own enjoyment, which is frequently at the expense of others.
Oh, and I reference THREE literary characters and ONE movie one, and you're going to dismiss my argument as only being referenced by a "third rate action film"?
At any rate, you will note if you look for yourself that the difference is that the Byronic hero, while perhaps being rebellious, or rejecting traditional virtues (especially sexual ones), is still overall a character with integrity.
Sadly, modern literature (including comic books) have come to use the term "antihero" just as you have, INCORRECTLY. People refer to Batman or the Punisher as antiheroes, when Byronic heroes is really more appropriate. The Punisher, for example, refuses to (intentionally) kill innocents, and, during the Civil War storyline, refuses to even fight back against Captain America when the latter is pinning him down and rearranging his face. He has his own code of honor and he sticks to it.
> a protagonist who lacks the attributes that make a heroic figure, as
> nobility of mind and spirit, a life or attitude marked by action or
> purpose, and the like.
While this definition is accurate (to a point), Chiba's interpretation of it is not.
Anti-hero != villain.
A more apt rendition (which I've seen elsewhere but can't remember the source) is: "A hero who is characterized by a lack of traditional heroic qualities."
The key point being they're still a hero - if they aren't heroic at all, they're neither a hero or anti-hero (though they aren't necessarily a villain either).
An awful lot of fictional protagonists (especially modern ones) actually fit the definition of an anti-hero, being heroic on at least some level, but not of the classical 'knight in shining armor' (or equivalent to the era) variety.
Again, that would be Byronic hero, as well as some tragic heroes. Modern writers have used the term anti-hero incorectly. The term orginally intends a protagonist who is NOT a hero, but instead shows more villainous traits. The vigilante, especially the ruthless one is a classic example of a Byronic hero. Those that still have a heroic sense of integrity. An anti-hero is, at best, amoral as opposed to immoral.
To the point, though, Grazel sums it up well:
I think the issue at hand is more of a mix up of terms. What's been described is what's called a 'dark hero' in comics and movies. But to many dark=evil and hero=light so a 'dark hero' is an 'anti-hero'.
This is an excellent point. My main problem with thaX's point of view is that it presupposes a static view of races and their role in the setting (seemingly established somewhere between 2nd and 3rd Edition). He is certainly entitled to his view, but I don't feel it should stop WotC from publishing material for the rest of us. Perceptions change, D&D changes, even people change [cue Mr. David Hayward-Jones].
The way I see it, the constant demand for goblinoid and orc PC write-ups is exactly like the constant incessant demand for a 'martial controller' as ridiculous as THAT is. People want the power source/class role "grid" filled up. This is an artificial grid that does not exist and has no need to be filled. Likewise, people have seen 4 of the races from the back of the MM1 get write-ups, and just want to see the rest of them. Now, there might be people out there with genuine concpets for, say, a hobgoblin character, or a kobold one. But the guys you see crying out for all of them? Likely just want the "grid" filled.
Granted, I was fortunate enough that at least Keith Baker seems to share my love for one monstrous humanoid race, so I got my gnolls and can call it good. And I know there arte some unique concepts out there. Like, I see people who are REALLY into kobolds. As a DM, I've made some memorable kobold NPCs (like Tik-Snak the Small and Annoying, a kobold paladin with a Dire Weasel mount), and on the character development boards have seen some great concepts, but thaX, like myself, sees that many, if not most of the people asking for monster races don't really want them for anything unique and specific, and thus WotC's energy could be better spent bringing us, something NEW, perhaps.
Exactly. Also, the material in MM1 on Mind Flayers specifically says they eat brains. WotC aren't going to retcon what they released in the first MM of 4e, and if they only mentioned their diet of brains, I would assume that's all they eat.
It certainly helps if you bother actually reading what somebody actually posts. Here, I'll quote something from my previous post.
Anyways, it would be rather easy to refluff so that they don't strictly need to eat the brains of sentient beings. That's actually a rather minor change.
They're not going to change Mind Flayers to not eat brains in canon so that PCs can play them. That defeats the purpose of the Mind Flayer in the first place being so creepy and disturbing, and it would require lore errata, something WotC are very hesitant to do.
Also, READ MY POSTS. I'm tired of you clearly not reading my responses.
If we take that as the case, then our problem rests on the fact that most people talking about anti-heroes in a campaign are likely referring to what you're calling the Byronic hero, not the 'anti-hero who is defined as a villain' one.
Though it's really something of a red herring in any case. There's no reason why gnolls, orcs, or minotaurs have to be anti-heroes of either definition, unless you're going by the (apparent) Thaxian philosophy that all non-human looking races are invariably evil and villainous to the last - by 4E doesn't do that (and for that matter, neither did 3E or 2E). It's perfectly viable to have a heroic member of those races, and it may not even be all that exceptional with many of them.
Thank you.
Wilden
Minotaur
Githzerai
Probable
Gith'yanki
Small Race
Also the gith are unlikely to be done up the way the shifters were. They have about as much in common as half-orcs, and half-elves.
I am quite certain that the inclusion of the Minotaur in the PHB3 is a better development than having it stay in the DDi online service, available to a select few.
That's like saying anything in PHB3 is only available to a select few. Its available to anyone willing to pay for it. The fact I'm now forced to pay for it twice or do without PHB3 is definitely not a good development IMO.
As for Core vs Not Core: The only Core material is the PHBs, DMGs, and MMs, with the PHBs being Core for Classes/Races for players.
What you've done here is taken a word and completely made up a definition for it. I understand the people say only PHB1, DMG1 and MM1 are core. They're using an outdated definition that the company they're referring to has redefined. But its still understandable.
However saying PHB2 is somehow more core then Open Grave or Dragon magazine requires you to make up an entirely new definition. One that has never been used before and isn't being used by WotC.
WotC has changed the definition of the term core when used by WotC. Anyone who comes to D&D new to 4th ed is going to use WotC's current definition. Holding onto old definitions or making up entirely new ones does not aide discussions. It unduly muddies the water.
If you want to use the old definition of core without confusing people, stick to the 3.5e forums. If you want to confuse people, feel free to define core as being things Jim likes.
That would be the ultimate limited list of core material.
One contradicted by the "D&D Core" Brand on the very same page and also contradicted by everything WotC has said.
You can't play without those books, so they'll be "MORE CORE" in their words, than other books.
Which applies an unnecessary attribute to the term core. Replacing this use of core with "mandatory" or "needed" would be much clearer as it better expresses what your trying to say (you're not really talking about whether or not its core and are mainly talking about whether or not its necessary to play the game). It also has the added benefit of not contradicting the definition used by WotC and thus cutting out any confusion for new players and new DMs.
The problem is that Core used to equal mandatory, and now it doesn't. That friend I mentioned says that WotC definition is a delusional one made to sell more products. Doesn't mean he doesn't buy all the books, but just that it's practically incorrect, because the magazines are still made a bit differently from everything else, and have different logic when it comes to PC races released through them. We had a huge 5 hour long argument about this topic a couple weeks ago over IM.
However, people so attached to the old definition of Core, which meant mandatory, aren't going to let go easily. Even though WotC have told us to our faces on the website.
I get that. Although I personally think its mainly held onto so desperately by those who can't come up with an actual argument to say why something shouldn't be allowed. Because it makes the assumption that because its core it must be allowed which again is false. Any DM can ban any class or race from the PHB1.
The problem is, that while EVERYTHING IS CORE, in practicality, all you need to play is PH1, DMG1, and MM1. That's it.
Incorrect, you only need Keep on the Shadowfell to play the game. Everything beyond that is optional material. :P
Because it makes the assumption that because its core it must be allowed which again is false. Any DM can ban any class or race from the PHB1.
Quite true. This is the most infuriating aspect of certain "core only" mindsets. Orb Wizards must be in every game but "weak option X" from Dragon cannot be allowed! Eladrins must be in every game but gnomes are completely optional! Its a totally nonsensical and ridiculous view that some folks have.
When is comes to issues of balance, there is overpowered stuff in every book, including the first 3. There is actually more overpowered stuff in the dead-tree books than in Dragon! The thing that some people need to realize is that every player option in the entire game is optional, no matter what book or webpage it comes from.
How I see Core is those materials that are part of the standard system, expected to make open world systems easily transferrable as far as characters go, from one DM to the next, even without the "Living" brand attached.
A Core game is advertised at a Convention, that means that characters out of the PHB are acceptable without having to get GM's approval, anything out of Non-Core material needs GMs approval before being included in an open public event. To some exstent, even the sequels to the open Core books aren't completely core, because you can advertise a Pre-PHB2 Core adventure for a Con for instance. If you were to schedule a Core adventure for a Con, it's reasonably expected that if you show up with a legal character by what every system of generation is allowed (Method 1, 2, or 3, as stated in the announcement for the game) It is not reasonable to expect to automatically be allowed to play a Minotaur or a Kobold or a Gnoll at a Con, if the only stipulation that is on the event schedule is bring a Core D&D 4e character using the _____ Method of stat generation.
As I run store sponsored games for instance, I'm expected to run and include all Core material for My players. This means they are allowed instant access to use the PHB1, 2, 3, etc... within a month of it's release. However, I can forbid Dragon Magazine, Forgotten Realms (as I am running a non-Faerun adventure) feats and such out of Adventurers' Vault, Martial Powers, etc...
Because this is a Core game, I have certain limitations I am expected to run under, based on the definition of Core meaning not mandatory, but reasonably expected material under the definition "Core"
Some may see it differently, some may not, again it's definition. Some might say that the store I run at is only saying no to Dragon/Dungeon is okay because they don't have a chance to sell it, and yet, I'm allowed to exclude Martial Powers, FR, etc... if I want, and they sell alot of that as well.
Seuss
Core is something that means "works with the rest of the rules" now instead of Mandatory materials. That doesn't mean that everything other than the PHB1, DMG1 and MM1 is extra/optional material. DDi, though, had been advertised as additional material for the more the dedicated player/DM. I don't think this has changed.
If a player buys a book that has rules in it that the DM doesn't have, however, like the Adventurer's Vault, I don't see any good reason for that DM to deny that player the use of those rules. Especially since the Transfer Enchantment is within those pages.
I agree with a poster from one of these threads, that the cover shows a Gith(Yanki?) and the other cast may be a MM race. It makes sense since the races are so close to one another and have the two sides of a coin makeup.
I figured there would be more support, but i guess shadow will probably never get the attention fey enjoys.
Bug races seem a little bit of a stretch for phb but I guess in this age nothing is impossible.
More Gith love would be appreciated, those guys are so one dimensional right now.
I'm more expectant about more "monster blooded" humans, but perhaps that will exist in a supplement.
Hopefully they will do something similar with types of monstery races, like a savage book for kobolds, lizardfolk, minotaur, etc.
A dark places book covering ilithids, medusea, Yuan-ti
DDi, though, had been advertised as additional material for the more the dedicated player/DM. I don't think this has changed.
If a player buys a book that has rules in it that the DM doesn't have, however, like the Adventurer's Vault, I don't see any good reason for that DM to deny that player the use of those rules.
Differentiating between the dead-tree books and the DDI is totally and utterly arbitrary distinction though. They are both made by the same people. They supposedly both get a measure of playtesting (according to Bill).). They are both "core".
The simple fact is that more unbalanced stuff has come out of books this edition than out of Dragon (take a gander at the CharOp board) so far, and as a DM I am at least as hesitant to automatically allow core material out of a new book than I am to allow core material out of the latest Dragon article.
Core is something that means "works with the rest of the rules" now instead of Mandatory materials. That doesn't mean that everything other than the PHB1, DMG1 and MM1 is extra/optional material. DDi, though, had been advertised as additional material for the more the dedicated player/DM. I don't think this has changed.
Actually, DDi content has been said to also be core.
Actually, DDi content has been said to also be core.
Not listening, are we?
This is an argument about Core vs CORE. My stance, what I have always posted here, is that DDi, as advertised, is material that is an extra bonus for those that subscribe to the service. It is up to the DM and the players whether or not to include the material in their game. I, myself, think the Dungeon is skewed toward the harder side of the encounters, and does not take into account how many players are in the game (assuming 4 or 5, depending on when and who made the dungeon) or is not in line with the new rules about resting or the restrictive healing within an encounter.
Most of the Dragon material is one of three things, previews for upcoming books, playtest articles, or exclusive material that expands on what is already out there.
The Mags are a ghost of the Printed issues that came before it. Makeshift articles that are pulled and put together at the end of the month to make a "Magazine." Whether or not they are Core, anything within their electronic pages can and will be reprinted into the books, PHBs, Guides, Power Books and Annuals included. The advantage to having DDi is that you get it first.
All of the WotC Sanctioned material works together, sanctioned and core I think are the words that are causing the confusion. Sanctioned material has gone through the fires of WotC's approval and thus works in the balance of things, but Core is more what is automatically acceptable when you see a "Core 4e Game" advertised.
If a Core game is advertised/scheduled for a Con, you still need to get approval for 1. Any book new since the scheduling of the session and 2. any material outside of the PHBs and/or PGs if it fits the system (ie: a Core 4e Forgotten Realms Game would allow the FRPG)
I would call the rest Sanctioned, as in, legal and balanced in the game according to WotC;s standards.
Seuss
Not listening, are we?
This is an argument about Core vs CORE. My stance, what I have always posted here, is that DDi, as advertised, is material that is an extra bonus for those that subscribe to the service.
Just like buying individual books.
It is up to the DM and the players whether or not to include the material in their game.
Just like every single one of the books.
Most of the Dragon material is one of three things, [...], or exclusive material that expands on what is already out there.
Just like every single one of the books.
The Mags are a ghost of the Printed issues that came before it. Makeshift articles that are pulled and put together at the end of the month to make a "Magazine."
Completely and utterly wrong. They are written and developed with the same amount of attention as the printed material.
Not listening, are we?
This is an argument about Core vs CORE. My stance, what I have always posted here, is that DDi, as advertised, is material that is an extra bonus for those that subscribe to the service. It is up to the DM and the players whether or not to include the material in their game. I, myself, think the Dungeon is skewed toward the harder side of the encounters, and does not take into account how many players are in the game (assuming 4 or 5, depending on when and who made the dungeon) or is not in line with the new rules about resting or the restrictive healing within an encounter.
Most of the Dragon material is one of three things, previews for upcoming books, playtest articles, or exclusive material that expands on what is already out there.
The Mags are a ghost of the Printed issues that came before it. Makeshift articles that are pulled and put together at the end of the month to make a "Magazine." Whether or not they are Core, anything within their electronic pages can and will be reprinted into the books, PHBs, Guides, Power Books and Annuals included. The advantage to having DDi is that you get it first.
Actually I'd say you aren't the one listening. There's one single definition of Core, trying to give it multiple definitions when the devs only use 1 definition is simply confusing.
Just like buying individual books.
Just like every single one of the books.
Just like every single one of the books.
Completely and utterly wrong. They are written and developed with the same amount of attention as the printed material.
Books have covers, and stay on a book shelf. I know the articles are written with care and go though a lot before appearing on the site. My point is that there is no central theme, or a single editor for the "Mag" and that everything is put in through a time table. Mags are gathered up at the end of the month after everything is put out.
Core and CORE. It is an argument that will never be resolved.
Actually I'd say you aren't the one listening. There's one single definition of Core, trying to give it multiple definitions when the devs only use 1 definition is simply confusing.
I think that Shamanstarr has it explained in a better way than I. Wizards stretched the definition rather than provide another classification for DDi and 3pp. It is confusing for all because if this.
Look at the back of the PHB1, and read. It says "Exclusive" material within the DDi. Not exactly a Core meaning there.
I think that Shamanstarr has it explained in a better way than I. Wizards stretched the definition rather than provide another classification for DDi and 3pp. It is confusing for all because if this.
Look at the back of the PHB1, and read. It says "Exclusive" material within the DDi. Not exactly a Core meaning there.
PHB1 has exclusive material as well. It doesn't mean that only select people can get it. It means that the D&Di material can only be gotten there.....just like with every single book.
PHB1 has exclusive material as well. It doesn't mean that only select people can get it. It means that the D&Di material can only be gotten there.....just like with every single book.
Books have one price...
This service, with the shoddy web page and the still need of a patch character generator, is a monthly fee, and when that fee ain't paid, there goes your access.
no, it is not the same.
And yes, having to pay a monthly fee for something is different from buying a book once and having it. The Exclusive content in DDi material is all exclusive and additional/optional content, Sanctioned and put through the evaluation process of WotC's playtesters and design team perhaps, but still additional/optional content. I like the DDi, I'm not anti-DDi, I download copies of Dragon and Dungeon every time new ones come out, and update My Character Builder, and use the Encounter and Monster Builder tools. I still don't see it as Core. Sanctioned, but not Core.
PHBs are Core, shoot, by My thinking, even Martial Powers, Divine Powers, etc.. aren't Core, they are optional splat books.
Seuss
Thanks ThaX.
And yes, having to pay a monthly fee for something is different from buying a book once and having it. The Exclusive content in DDi material is all exclusive and additional/optional content, Sanctioned and put through the evaluation process of WotC's playtesters and design team perhaps, but still additional/optional content. I like the DDi, I'm not anti-DDi, I download copies of Dragon and Dungeon every time new ones come out, and update My Character Builder, and use the Encounter and Monster Builder tools. I still don't see it as Core. Sanctioned, but not Core.
PHBs are Core, shoot, by My thinking, even Martial Powers, Divine Powers, etc.. aren't Core, they are optional splat books.
Seuss
Yet Wizards disagrees with you and since Wizards are the ones who decide what is and is not core I'd say we go with their definition as it's their definition to make.
There is absolutely no difference between paying a monthly fee for DDi, and buying a single D&D book every month, except that you arguably get more for your DDi dollar than your book dollar.
Except you only have the DDi for a limited amount of time but you keep the books forever. DDi is like renting sourcebooks.
Except you only have the DDi for a limited amount of time but you keep the books forever. DDi is like renting sourcebooks.
Well more like buying a magazine subscription really-you just sign up, you get access to the articles, the character builder, and the compendium and then you can save the articles so even if you don't keep up your subscription you can still look over them any time you want. Honestly, in my opinion it's a whole lot better than a magazine subscription because you get all of the back issues as well. Lets say you wanted a subscription to Food Network Magazine- you pay for a subscription and get a new magazine every month, starting with the magazine corresponding to the starting month.
To continue this analogy, getting a DDi subscription is much like paying for a subscription and then getting every issue of Food Network magazine printed during the past year and a half sent to your door, in addition to getting the new stuff. Personally I think that's a pretty damn good deal.
In any case, we've all gotten slightly off topic, so how about we just go back to the discussion of what the PHB 3's racial lineup will be and what the races in that line up will look like mechanically and fluffily?
Thing is, not everyone uses a computer, most game tables don't have even laptops there, and if they do, they don't have internet access all the time. I know I don't get internet where I DM at the game store, even if I do have My laptop there.
As to races for PHB3, The Gith, done like the Shifter is good as I said before, Minotaur is on the cover, so I see it going official Core too. Again the Aarakocra would be nice, even if it can't fly until racial paragon. I wouldn't mind seeing some demifey types, pixies, brownies, always good to have more magickal/less martial types. Centaurs are always make good hero types, even if their a little problematic in some venues. I don't want to see Goblins, or any of the Goblinoid races. Kobolds might be fun, as distant cousins to Lizardmen or Dragonborn, but smaller and shiftier. For that matter, Lizardmen of some kind would make a good race, as would some aquatic race, like Koa-Toa, Slaad, or Bullywugs. Sure, they are mostly monster races, but they are good for specific homebrewed exotic settings. Inspired by the "Land of the Lost" Marathon I'm watching, as well as the new movie, wouldn't mind a version of the Sleestak or the Pakoona to play with.
Seuss
Except you only have the DDi for a limited amount of time but you keep the books forever. DDi is like renting sourcebooks.
Uh ... no. Unless you enjoy only looking at the articles while online, you can download and keep the articles/magazines forever. Or until your hard drive crashes, which is little different, and probably easier to recover from, than a book getting irreparably damaged. You get to keep the entire, full character builder, completely up to date as of the last month you made a payment. The only thing you don't keep is the compendium, and that's one thing out of 4.
Except in the case of the DDi membership, you have to wait until the issue is a month old before you can download it. Also, the tools, although available, are only available while your a member, where if you buy software, or a book with a disk added in the cover, you have the version you started with, you may not get the updates, but you do get what you pay for.
Seuss
You can download each article as they come out. Only someone who just has to have the whole thing at once will wait until the end of the month. And that's not really a month old. And frankly, how is that any different from waiting for a book's release date, especially if you ordered it online? Or having to wait a month or two or more for a printed book due to availability?
And like I said above, only the compendium is only available while a member. Everything else is completely yours and up to date as of your last payment for as long as you want to keep it. The full thing.
The Character Builder can be used without a membership, you just can't get more content updates from the new books and mags without a membership (and any new program features that get added in).
The magazines are yours to keep if you choose to download them (either the compilatons or the individual articles) since they are pdfs and not encrypted in any way so you don't need to be online to open them, or know some special password or changing keyphrase.
The only way you would lose access to most of the content of a DDi subscription would be to cancel your sub then have a hard drive crash without a backup. Heck you could subscribe to DDi right now and get ALL the content you passed up by not having a subscription preivously at no extra cost.
I agree with a poster from one of these threads, that the cover shows a Gith(Yanki?) and the other cast may be a MM race. It makes sense since the races are so close to one another and have the two sides of a coin makeup.
The cover shows very clearly a minotaur and a githzerai. If it's not a minotaur than WotC has broken their own rule about races and being easily identifiable. I'd hate to be the new player that sees a bull-headed man and gets told "oh that's the fluffyones race not a minotaur, minotaurs are just monsters and are another race that you can play if you have the Character Builder because they were part of the e-zines that are for D&D". The other is a githzerai by appearance not a githyanki. The githyanki look less human than the githzerai (though not as much in 4e as they were in 1e).
The other is a githzerai by appearance not a githyanki. The githyanki look less human than the githzerai (though not as much in 4e as they were in 1e).
I've always been a little confused as to the actual physical difference. Was this detailed at some point in 3.5? All I can tell from the MM is that the Githzerai are slighty more green. Since I'm considering using them at some point in my campaign I would appreciate any references.
Regarding the Core vs. CORE discussion.
I don't see it as terribly relevant. Is it not up to the DM in concert with his players to decide what is and isn't possible in their particular version of the game? I do not share the worry that others have expressed about inclusion of "monster" races in the PHBs. I reserve the right as DM to rule out anything printed (even in the PHB) if I feel it doesn't fit the campaign.
I've always been a little confused as to the actual physical difference. Was this detailed at some point in 3.5? All I can tell from the MM is that the Githzerai are slighty more green. Since I'm considering using them at some point in my campaign I would appreciate any references.
In 2e 'zerai were basically really skinny looking humans, and 'yanki were really skinny humans with yellow skin, black hair, sharp teeth, and flat noses. 'Yanki had pointed ears, I don't recall if 'zerai did.
3e began the move to the current appearance where they both look pretty much the same. The most difference I'd say is the 'zerai are slightly more human shaped in the face, while the 'yanki are slightly more feral or elfin looking in the face.
Clearly, we need to borrow from Star Wars and create a system of different levels of Core to satisfy all uses of the word!
- H-Core: Hyper-Core includes only the first three 4e books, core above all other core!
- C-Core: Cover-Core includes every subsequent PH, MM, and DMG, because they all say core on the cover.
- P-Core: Physical-Core includes every other published WOTC book.
- E-Core: Electronic-Core includes all the PDFs and other electronic material WOTC produces.
- G-Core: Gleemax-Core includes everything developers talk about on these forums or their own blogs.
- N-Core: Not-Core includes all third party published materials.
- B-Core: Brewed-Core includes all home brewed materials (but we couldn't call it H-Core, and HB-Core looked silly and was kinda confusing).
- U-Core: Un-Core includes all the things that players come up with that the DM won't approve of.
Just like with Star Wars different levels of canon, each level of core includes all the core material from the higher levels. So, C-Core includes all H-Core. The only exception to this rule is where material from a lower level of coreness specifically replaces material from a higher level. In those cases, the replacement gains the level of the original element (minotaurs from DDI replace minotaurs from MM, so are H-Core, despite being in a E-Core source), while the original version of those rules becomes F-Core (Former-Core).
It is, of course, up to the individual DM to decide which levels of core he is respecting, but if he attempts to accept U-Core, he will create a rift in the time-space continuum because that level is unaccepted by definition, SO DON'T DO IT!
Whew, I'm glad we got that cleared up. Now we can all discuss core objectively and meaningfully.
But, seriously...
The word "core", looked at to mean a kind of canon, can only be meaningfully defined if there is something that is "not-core". WOTC claiming that everything is core seems to suck all the meaning out of the term, or at least simply redefine it was "We did that", so of no more value than the WOTC name on the product is to begin with. It deprives the word of independent meaning. You could say it means that 3rd party products aren't Core, but we knew that already, didn't we?
The other way to look at the word "core" is as a kind of promise. Everything they produce is core means that everything they produce will be respected in subsequent releases. I could buy that, and they've done a fair job so far. Swordmage is introduced in FRPG, and gets supplemental material in Arcane Power. Genasi get feats in Martial Power. So far, so good. I respect this because it's exactly what Core should have meant in 3.5, but didn't. (Everyone remember, "Psionics is Core" in 3.5? It was in the SRD and everything, and got basically squat in the way of support. LIARS!)
Except, of course, that it isn't true that everything is core in 4e. Specifically, by this definition, DDI material is not. Neither are the races in the back of the monster manuals. We know they aren't because they get no subsequent support from anyplace else. There hasn't been a single kobold feat in any of the books, for example. Thus, as promises go, DDI material is clearly less core than the books are because the books are ignoring it unless and until it does, in fact, appear in a book.
So, there you go. Arguments about core are currently kinda silly because "core" is grossly underdefined. It's either not-really-meaningful or a promise unkept. Either way, there seems little point in worrying about it.
A Core game is advertised at a Convention, that means that characters out of the PHB are acceptable without having to get GM's approval, anything out of Non-Core material needs GMs approval before being included in an open public event. To some exstent, even the sequels to the open Core books aren't completely core, because you can advertise a Pre-PHB2 Core adventure for a Con for instance. If you were to schedule a Core adventure for a Con, it's reasonably expected that if you show up with a legal character by what every system of generation is allowed (Method 1, 2, or 3, as stated in the announcement for the game) It is not reasonable to expect to automatically be allowed to play a Minotaur or a Kobold or a Gnoll at a Con, if the only stipulation that is on the event schedule is bring a Core D&D 4e character using the _____ Method of stat generation.
Reasonable, as far as what core meant in previous editions, but incorrect for what WotC has put out for 4e. If you are advertising a "Core" Game at a Con, the only assumption is that the character must be LEGAL. So as, long as I use the prescribed PHB method of point-buy stat generation, I can bring in a Gnoll (DDi) Beastmaster Ranger (MP) wielding a fullblade (AV), and with a feat from the FRPG, and the character is considered LEGAL. As such, the character is viable in a CORE game, because the CORE rules have now been changed to anything published, in a paper or electronic format, by WotC.
As I run store sponsored games for instance, I'm expected to run and include all Core material for My players. This means they are allowed instant access to use the PHB1, 2, 3, etc... within a month of it's release. However, I can forbid Dragon Magazine, Forgotten Realms (as I am running a non-Faerun adventure) feats and such out of Adventurers' Vault, Martial Powers, etc...
I myself run a non-Faerun adventure, but in the spirit of 4e, I've still allowed my player to take options from there. I had a guy who wanted to play a Dark Pact warlock. Thematically and story-wise, that works best for drow, and I had actually already decided to start my players near the one city in my game that actually HAS a small surface drow population, so I allowed him to play a drow. Furthermore, Genasi and Swordmages are SWEET, why shouldn't they have a place?
The best argument for this come from that article they put out (I know I'm using DDi to support my arguments, which is kind of unfair to non-subscribers), that SPECIFICALLY covered Genasi in Eberron and Warforged in Faerun. I don't remember how much the article covers what is official and "core", but I do know the context of the article is about not restricting stuff from setting-specific books to that setting.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20090116
need to be a subscriber to read it.
Because this is a Core game, I have certain limitations I am expected to run under, based on the definition of Core meaning not mandatory, but reasonably expected material under the definition "Core"
Really, tho, any game that is not a Living Campaign, which must follow specific rules, or at a Con (which is USUALLY a Living Campaign), is a HOME GAME. As a home game, the DM reserves the right to (dis)allow anything he or she pleases, because Rule 0 still applies.
But don't come onto these boards and tell the rest of us that allowing only what you allow is core. That reeks of an "I'm the only one who knows how to play the game right" attitude, and we, the forum community don't want that here. What you run at your game is YOUR GAME, what I run in my game is MINE. We're both DMs acting on our perogative of what to allow and what not to.
What is CORE? What's legal in Convention play sactioned and overseen by WotC in a game where RPGA Herald-level (and above) judges. And last time I checked, DDi material becomes legal for RPGA play at the end of the month when the compiled "magazine" is released. All hardcover books are also legal.
Moving on...
Shardra-kai the only shadow race?
I figured there would be more support, but i guess shadow will probably never get the attention fey enjoys.
I find this statement just a TINY bit ironic since shadar-kai were originally dark fey.
I've always been a little confused as to the actual physical difference. Was this detailed at some point in 3.5? All I can tell from the MM is that the Githzerai are slighty more green. Since I'm considering using them at some point in my campaign I would appreciate any references.
Well, they obviously both share common ancestry, but Githyanki tend to be more emaciated, and (from what we've seen) more likely to be clean shaven. Not to say that some githzeri won't be, but you see one with koi whiskers, he's prolly a githzeri.
Biggest way to tell the difference would be dress. Githzeri tend to be simple, functional, with dull colors, etc. Githyanki like Heavy Armor, Big, flashy swords, and jewelry. They tend to be more concieted and vain than their monastic cousins.
The cover shows very clearly a minotaur and a githzerai. If it's not a minotaur than WotC has broken their own rule about races and being easily identifiable. I'd hate to be the new player that sees a bull-headed man and gets told "oh that's the fluffyones race not a minotaur, minotaurs are just monsters and are another race that you can play if you have the Character Builder because they were part of the e-zines that are for D&D". The other is a githzerai by appearance not a githyanki. The githyanki look less human than the githzerai (though not as much in 4e as they were in 1e).
I never got that much into them, sorry. Yanki or Zerai, it may be one for the PHB and the other for the MM, or the Gith would get the Shifter like treatment. I don't think you will see two separate entries of the Gith like the Elves/Eladrin got.
They may have yet, we only have seen the one rendition of one race (whichever one it is) and the other may look completely different.
Well, i was just going by the MM art where they look pretty interchangeable.
Revised Gnoll Claw Fighter feat: Your unarmed attacks are treated as Light blades for the purposes of feats and powers, and do +2 damage. You gain a +3 proficiency with your unarmed attacks.
IMO, +2 damage interacts better with the Monk rules than a boosted damage die, despite being weaker for multi-[w] powers.
Considering all the other "Playing (race)" articles seem to be leading to PHBs (Warforged to EPG, Minotaur to PH3) I would not be suprised to find the Gnoll (shown between the above) to appear in PH3 alongside the Monk. In which case the Gnoll Claw Fighter feat will almost certiantly see a revision:
Revised Gnoll Claw Fighter feat: Your unarmed attacks are treated as Light blades for the purposes of feats and powers, and do +2 damage. You gain a +3 proficiency with your unarmed attacks.
IMO, +2 damage interacts better with the Monk rules than a boosted damage die, despite being weaker for multi-[w] powers.
I would hope the Gnoll would be saved for the MM only or be in a Setting Player's Guide. Not a PHB.
I think the Lupine is a better choice here.
I would hope the Gnoll would be saved for the MM only or be in a Setting Player's Guide. Not a PHB.
I think the Lupine is a better choice here.
The feat was the point of the discussion. Would it make an OK Lupine feat?
The feat was the point of the discussion. Would it make an OK Lupine feat?
Yeah, just allow people to enchant the claws so they remain useful.
Seems to me that means that those are at least 2 races that will be in. I said minotaur before, and some kind of gith, but after looking at both illustrations side by side, it looks to be a sure-win for the githyanki, so I'm going for doing the Giths like the shifters, 2 subraces.
Seuss
Update: Looking at both the new PHB3 cover and in the Monster Manual illustrations, the Female on the cover of PHB3 is a dead ringer for the Female Githyanki in the MM. The other race is definately a minotaur too.
Personally, I don't think they look anything alike, the only similarity they have are the spots. Githyanki seem to have wild and loose hairstyles, while the githzerai, who are traditionally monks, may have long hair but keep it in short, less likely to be grabbed, styles. The same goes for clothing.
Seems to me that means that those are at least 2 races that will be in. I said minotaur before, and some kind of gith, but after looking at both illustrations side by side, it looks to be a sure-win for the githyanki, so I'm going for doing the Giths like the shifters, 2 subraces.
I doubt that the Githyanki and Githzerai will be under the same heading. The way shifters are done they are technically two races, that have the same fluff, whereas the gith are two races that only share a common ancestry, but diverted in two different paths, mindsets, and powers.
Either way, the gith would make sense done as the Shifter is done, as has been said here before, The shifter is done as 1 race, with a common origin, but with a different power set. The Gith are one race, with a common origin, that diverges and thus has a different power set. Shoot, if they had wanted to, they could have done the Elf and Eladrin that way too, they are both Elven Fey races, shared origin, but divergent powers and history, so different power set. It just depends on how the authors/designers want to approach it.
Seuss
Goblins seems like a possibility, but still too silly. That seems like it belongs in Eberron, not core. Reworking the blue goblins into a more distinct race would be hilarious and adorable. Telepathic smurves for the win!!!
Minotaurs, Githyanki, Githzerai, Elan, Maenids, one or both of those insect guys with mind powers, and reflavored blue goblins seems like it would cover all their bases. A primal answer to the Tieflings and Deva a la retooled spirit folk would be great, too.
Seriously, though. Githyanki live in the Astral Sea, many of them in their capital city built into the corpse of a dead god. Conflicting fluff hints that the lich-queen may or may not be dead, and no fluff ever said what the final fate of Gith herself was. She went to go meet with Tiamat to broker the pact between Githyanki and Red Dragons, Gith never returned, but one of Tiamat's consorts did, with many Red Dragons. This is the event that left Vlaakith in charge,
Githzeri live in the Elemental Chaos (almos wrote Limbo there, lol). They split from the githyanki when their leader Zerthimon, consort to Gith, disagreed on how the Gith should live after being freed from the Illithids. Gith wanted her people to be warlike conquerers, to never be slaves again. Zerthimon wanted that they should be meditative and introspective, harnessing the power of their minds and bodies. Zerthimon's followers went with him and became githzeri.
That split was thosands of years ago, and the societies are so wildly different now that they don't even resemble each other.
The Gith races definetely need 2 seperate entries.
The 2 Gith races may have common ancestry and similar origins, but lifestyle and society are wildly different. Unlike shifters, who may have mixed communities of longtooth and razorclaw, the Gith races hate each other. Their last remaining thing in common is the only thing they hate more than each other, the Illithids.
Seriously, though. Githyanki live in the Astral Sea, many of them in their capital city built into the corpse of a dead god. Conflicting fluff hints that the lich-queen may or may not be dead, and no fluff ever said what the final fate of Gith herself was. She went to go meet with Tiamat to broker the pact between Githyanki and Red Dragons, Gith never returned, but one of Tiamat's consorts did, with many Red Dragons. This is the event that left Vlaakith in charge,
Githzeri live in the Elemental Chaos (almos wrote Limbo there, lol). They split from the githyanki when their leader Zerthimon, consort to Gith, disagreed on how the Gith should live after being freed from the Illithids. Gith wanted her people to be warlike conquerers, to never be slaves again. Zerthimon wanted that they should be meditative and introspective, harnessing the power of their minds and bodies. Zerthimon's followers went with him and became githzeri.
That split was thosands of years ago, and the societies are so wildly different now that they don't even resemble each other.
The Gith races definetely need 2 seperate entries.
And that reasonably parallels eladrins v elves in terms of how it should be handled. Unless, of course, they handle githyanki like drow, leaving them as enemies of the PC race githzerai. That could also make sense.
Her mode of dress, hairstyle, face, everything is almost exactly the same character.
Seuss
You seriously think the female character in this:
has the same mode of dress, hairstyle - practically everything is the same as in this:
Do you have the braille version of the monster manual? Because they don't look anything alike.
Minotaurs, Githyanki, Githzerai, Elan, Maenids, one or both of those insect guys with mind powers, and reflavored blue goblins seems like it would cover all their bases. A primal answer to the Tieflings and Deva a la retooled spirit folk would be great, too.
While I love the heck out of the Elan, considering that they're just psionic transhumanists rather than a true race, I think I'd rather see them done as a bloodline feat chain like Dhampyr were. If they're made into race, the Devs would probably redo their fluff, taking out what's cool about them, and turning them into red haired psychic deva or something.
While I love the heck out of the Elan, considering that they're just psionic transhumanists rather than a true race, I think I'd rather see them done as a bloodline feat chain like Dhampyr were. If they're made into race, the Devs would probably redo their fluff, taking out what's cool about them, and turning them into red haired psychic deva or something.
While there are differences and all, the Elan and Kalashtar share enough traits that the fact that Kalashtar are in Eberron I think gives a nice hope for Elan in PHB3. Especially since Elan are probably one of the most popular psionic-based races.
Show
You seriously think the female character in this:
has the same mode of dress, hairstyle - practically everything is the same as in this:
Do you have the braille version of the monster manual? Because they don't look anything alike.
The 2 Gith races may have common ancestry and similar origins, but lifestyle and society are wildly different. Unlike shifters, who may have mixed communities of longtooth and razorclaw, the Gith races hate each other. Their last remaining thing in common is the only thing they hate more than each other, the Illithids.
Seriously, though. Githyanki live in the Astral Sea, many of them in their capital city built into the corpse of a dead god. Conflicting fluff hints that the lich-queen may or may not be dead, and no fluff ever said what the final fate of Gith herself was. She went to go meet with Tiamat to broker the pact between Githyanki and Red Dragons, Gith never returned, but one of Tiamat's consorts did, with many Red Dragons. This is the event that left Vlaakith in charge,
Githzeri live in the Elemental Chaos (almos wrote Limbo there, lol). They split from the githyanki when their leader Zerthimon, consort to Gith, disagreed on how the Gith should live after being freed from the Illithids. Gith wanted her people to be warlike conquerers, to never be slaves again. Zerthimon wanted that they should be meditative and introspective, harnessing the power of their minds and bodies. Zerthimon's followers went with him and became githzeri.
That split was thosands of years ago, and the societies are so wildly different now that they don't even resemble each other.
The Gith races definetely need 2 seperate entries.
Exactly. Shifters are like the Genasi - one race with a few variations, and one culture. The Gith split is definitely a parallel to the eladrin/elf/drow split.
The biggest problem I see with splitting the entries, is the race portraits. As the above discussion shows, even a side-by-side comparison has a hard time telling them apart, so having two different entries could cause confusion.
You mean like with the Eladrin/Elf entries that no one has ever complained about being able to tell apart?
You mean like with the Eladrin/Elf entries that no one has ever complained about being able to tell apart?
Eladrin are pale, have light-colored hair and solid orbs for eyes. Elves are described as being swarthy and having dark hair. The difference is immediately recognizable, while it really isn't with the gith unless you look at their clothes.
I mean really:
The githyanki on the right and githzerai on the left are practically the same dude! So you think he is really a githyanki trying to infiltrate githzerai society or a githzerai trying to infiltrate githyanki culture?
They should have just made them actually look different from each other. Something as basic as making one grey and the other green or yellow would have been alright. As it stands, they all look like the exact same race but with different fashion sense (culture). Hell, 2 humans standing side by side have the potential to contrast far more than a githyanki next to a githzerai, at least based on what we've seen so far.
Eladrin are pale, have light-colored hair and solid orbs for eyes. Elves are described as being swarthy and having dark hair. The difference is immediately recognizable, while it really isn't with the gith unless you look at their clothes.
I mean really:
[pics edited out]
The githyanki on the right and githzerai on the left are practically the same dude! So you think he is really a githyanki trying to infiltrate githzerai society or a githzerai trying to infiltrate githyanki culture?
Maybe your monitor needs adjusting, but to me (and I looked at the MM itself as well just now, so it's not just my monitor) the 'Yanki are clearly yellow, and 'zerai are green. Plus there are plenty of differences with the two guys you pointed out. For one, the 'yanki has circuitry tattoos, the 'zerai doesn't.
Maybe your monitor needs adjusting, but to me (and I looked at the MM itself as well just now, so it's not just my monitor) the 'Yanki are clearly yellow, and 'zerai are green.
So the girl on the cover of the PHB3 must really be a githyanki because she is more yellow than any of the the MM pics. lol
So the girl on the cover of the PHB3 must really be a githyanki because she is more yellow than any of the the MM pics. lol
*shrugs* She's still a 'zerai, because 'yanki aren't monk material. It doesn't change the fact that they need two separate entries.
The girl Yanki has almost exactly the same hair style, is wearing a vest/halfshift top (one looks armored, one cloth, but both practically the same outfit) Same ears, same spot patterns, and definately the same eyes and facial structure (so definately the same model) The body shape is hard to determine exactly because they are in two different positions relative to different light perspectives, and can just be slight differentiation in artist style or to depict a more monk'esk figure. Yes, I know, Githyanki don't generally go for the Monk class, but remember, any class is open to any race, so if they introduce the Gith races you can expect people to play Githyanki monks just like I have a Dwarven Wizard in one party, and both a Tiefling and a Half-Orc bard in other games. Some people like to mix it up.
The Githzerai are similar enough to the Githyanki in looks that it can be hard to tell them apart. Individual differences might only be slight (Like style of dress, baldness or close cropped hair, and I think the Githzerai seem to have closer to a normal nose than the Githyanki although both are mainly two slits. The Githyanki seem to be portrayed as more skeletal, skin tightly stretched over their entire body, where the Githzerai seem fuller fleshed, except directly in the face, their bodies and the shape of their skulls seem fuller, less emasciated.
As for the way they should be listed in the PHB3, you could do the Elf/Eladrin/Drow method, or the Shifter method and do justice even with the cultural differences that are so wide, BECAUSE look at the racial entries in the PHBs now, they don't go into alot of details anyway. you get less than a page and a half really, much of that taken up by suggested names and the generic stat-block entry in the beginning. Not even two full pages because half of the first page is a picture, which could easily show a Githyanki and a Githzerai fighting each other. Just depends partly on space and what way they want to go with it. The Elf and Eladrin and even Drow could have been done the same way, the Human and Half-Elf could too, they are similar enough, but they weren't, but you really don't have any more information on an Elf than you do on a Razor Claw shifter, doing it either way. Just depends doesn't it.
I still say ultimately, PHB3 should include:
- Giths - Like Shifters, 2 subsets -Githyanki and -Githzerai
- Wilden (as they are already previewed/playtesting in Dragon for it)
- Minotaur (as that's clearly a bull-man on the cover)
- a Small or Tiny race, Brownies, Pixies, Leprecauns, even Kobolds
- a new large or brutish race, not Goblinoid, unless it's Hobgoblin, but mayhaps Gnolls or 1/2 Ogre/ 1/2 Giant types would be okay(although come to think on it, the Minotaur does fit that bill too)
- a new fey type, although if you do Brownies, Pixies, etc... you might have this covered. I'm not a fan of "construct" races like the Warforged or Elan(Psionic Construct) or converted human races (Dhampir, Lycanthrope, or again Elan)
- a lizardman race similar to the Sleestaks from Land of the Lost as I said earlier wouldn't go over badly. Have both the potential brains of Enik and the more barbaric generic Sleestak possible.
- Finally, I just like the flavor that could be added with a race like the Aarakocra or another avian race, even if they don't get true flying until paragon level, or get a Fly move power as their racial Encounter power
Seuss
I do wish they'd made them more distinct in 4e. Back in 1e they were much easier to tell apart. Heck even in NWN2 the Githyanki looked more angular in head and hair than the 4e ones.
Sure they are the same race, heck they were originally humans, but after millenia living in different environments there's plenty of reason they'd look distinctly different while having enough 'markers' to show a common ancestry (like the ears and spots).
They need more subracial markers to show them as distinct.
I only say the one on the cover is a Githyanki because it looks like the same girl just about in every way, with maybe a slight wardrobe change and posture. The little markers that are there (that may only be intended to show racial diversity in overall looks rather than racial differences between yanki and zerai it's true)
The original entry for both in the Fiend Folio back in 1st Edition had them as much more drastically different a racial look, while still leaving it obvious enough that they could have come from the same genetic stock.
Seuss
The PHB3 gith looks no more like the female MM githyanki than it does the female MM githzerai! Its obviously a githzerai since the only differences between the races are their clothes and hairstyles. The PHB3 gith has the pulled back githzerai hair and githzerai handwraps. She is a githzerai, no doubt about it.
Its obviously a githzerai since the only differences between the races are their clothes and hairstyles. The PHB3 gith has the pulled back githzerai hair and githzerai handwraps. She is a githzerai, no doubt about it.
Plus monk is a favored class for 'zerai, and is a Dex +Str/Wis class. 'Zerai are Dex/Wis. 'Yanki are more swordmage, wizard, and Psion before, probably whatever the Psionic controller is now, and they're Con/Int. It makes more sense to show a race as its iconic class, than just some random class that's also in the book.
Course, the whole thing could be moot. WotC could go chicken on us and just put in the 'Zerai, and not the 'Yanki. But I really hope they don't do that.
Although I see differences in the races pics, and think the one from the PHB3 is a Yanki (a specific yanki actually, the one from the MM) the green tenge that you see in the Zerai is supposed to imply shadows on the yellow skin according to My view of the scene.
There's not even the slightest of hints of yellow skin in the 'Zerai MM pic. That is definitely green skin, not yellow darkened by shadows.
As for the way they should be listed in the PHB3, you could do the Elf/Eladrin/Drow method, or the Shifter method and do justice even with the cultural differences that are so wide, BECAUSE look at the racial entries in the PHBs now, they don't go into alot of details anyway. you get less than a page and a half really, much of that taken up by suggested names and the generic stat-block entry in the beginning. Not even two full pages because half of the first page is a picture, which could easily show a Githyanki and a Githzerai fighting each other. Just depends partly on space and what way they want to go with it. The Elf and Eladrin and even Drow could have been done the same way, the Human and Half-Elf could too, they are similar enough, but they weren't, but you really don't have any more information on an Elf than you do on a Razor Claw shifter, doing it either way. Just depends doesn't it.
Seuss
The Eladrin/Elf/Drow write-ups still include plenty of cultural info, enough to show they're completely separate races. You don't get more info on Razorclaws than Longtooths because they are not separate races. The three "elves" have been separate races for thousands of years. So have the Gith. The Shifters have not.
If both Gith are in the PHB3, there is absolutely no logical reason to give them the Shifter treatment at all. The only possible reason would be to save space, which frankly would be a pretty poor excuse.
I still think there is still a possibility that the Zaria will be kept in the MM.
With the history lesson (That I never really knew about before, thanks Chiba_Monkey) I have to say that a Shifter like write up just wouldn't do for the Gith. It is to bad that their names are so simular, but they really are quite different from one another, sorta like the Vulcen vs Romulin.
I keep saying, the small race is gonna be the Dromite.
Although I see differences in the races pics, and think the one from the PHB3 is a Yanki (a specific yanki actually, the one from the MM) the green tenge that you see in the Zerai is supposed to imply shadows on the yellow skin according to My view of the scene.
The girl Yanki has almost exactly the same hair style, is wearing a vest/halfshift top (one looks armored, one cloth, but both practically the same outfit) Same ears, same spot patterns, and definately the same eyes and facial structure (so definately the same model) The body shape is hard to determine exactly because they are in two different positions relative to different light perspectives, and can just be slight differentiation in artist style or to depict a more monk'esk figure. Yes, I know, Githyanki don't generally go for the Monk class, but remember, any class is open to any race, so if they introduce the Gith races you can expect people to play Githyanki monks just like I have a Dwarven Wizard in one party, and both a Tiefling and a Half-Orc bard in other games. Some people like to mix it up.
However, Regardless of class, Githyanki are always depicted with braids in their hair (assuming they have hair) and they are heavily adorned with jewelry. The PHB3 Gith has her hair in a tight bun, something that is exclusively a style choice of the githzeri.
You make plenty of good arguments on why it's a 'zeri, though (such as the "green" being shadows on yellow-which I agree with), and yet you still maintain that it's a 'yanki?
As for the way they should be listed in the PHB3, you could do the Elf/Eladrin/Drow method, or the Shifter method and do justice even with the cultural differences that are so wide, BECAUSE look at the racial entries in the PHBs now, they don't go into alot of details anyway. you get less than a page and a half really, much of that taken up by suggested names and the generic stat-block entry in the beginning.
But the separation between the gith cultures more closely resembles the split of elf/eladrin/drow culture than the shifter culture. Namely because all shifters associate with each other as one race "Shifters", with Longtooth and Razorclaw being subsets. The two shifter groups might cohabitate in the same tribe. Gith, just like Elves and Drow, would not.
I still say ultimately, PHB3 should include:
[*]Giths - Like Shifters, 2 subsets -Githyanki and -Githzerai
While I want to see both races. In no edition of DnD to date have they been considered so similar as to be considered one race. Their fluff write up has not changed so dramatically as to indicate that they would.
[*]Wilden (as they are already previewed/playtesting in Dragon for it)
[*]Minotaur (as that's clearly a bull-man on the cover)
No arguments here, as these are pretty much confirmed.
[*]a Small or Tiny race, Brownies, Pixies, Leprecauns, even Kobolds
Hate to burst your bubble, but kobolds are not likely.
Mike Mearls Interview.
He mentions that kobolds are too powerful (not a joke) to be made into a player race without re-working them a lot.
[*]a new large or brutish race, not Goblinoid, unless it's Hobgoblin, but mayhaps Gnolls or 1/2 Ogre/ 1/2 Giant types would be okay(although come to think on it, the Minotaur does fit that bill too)
[*]a new fey type, although if you do Brownies, Pixies, etc... you might have this covered. I'm not a fan of "construct" races like the Warforged or Elan(Psionic Construct) or converted human races (Dhampir, Lycanthrope, or again Elan)
I think the minotaur covers the first, and Wilden covers the second.
I was a big fan of the elan however, even if they re-work the abilities so that mechanically they are nothing like the old ones. I just really liked the fluff of the Elan race.
[*]Finally, I just like the flavor that could be added with a race like the Aarakocra or another avian race, even if they don't get true flying until paragon level, or get a Fly move power as their racial Encounter power
Seuss
I don't think you'll ever see a PC race that can fly in any meaningful manner. Look at how limited flight is. Also, the Mike Mearls interview mentions that during playtesting they found that player flight in anything but a very limited fashion was not balanced. Look for it under the question regarding rings of feather fall.
And look how long it took us to get non-item realted flight. The Scion of Arkhosia.
Favored class? We all talking about the same edition of the game here?
I still think there is still a possibility that the Zaria will be kept in the MM.
With the history lesson (That I never really knew about before, thanks Chiba_Monkey) I have to say that a Shifter like write up just wouldn't do for the Gith. It is to bad that their names are so simular, but they really are quite different from one another, sorta like the Vulcen vs Romulin.
I keep saying, the small race is gonna be the Dromite.
Yes we're talking about 4e here.
Or do you gloss over the section in the racial write-ups where it goes something like "play race X if you like class Y?" Those are favored classes. The classes a races ability scores or racial traits are most complimentary to.And what is a Zaria?
If you mean Githzerai - the cover confirms they're in the PH3. I don't see how you can possibly think otherwise. If you mean Githyanki, then yeah there's a chance they'll stay in the MM. But only if the developers are stupid.You're the only person I see clamoring for the Dromites. Even the other people who mention them come off as apathetic. Frank;y I think there doesn't even need to be a small race in PH3. Just like the martial controller, there's not some grid per bokk that demands each one to have a small race. But if there is one, I doubt it'll be Dromites.
There has been others that have suggested that the Dromite might be a good choice. Think it, there isn't very many other small races, unless you count a lot of MM races like Goblin and Kobold.
I am just going by the posts here that have the major concenses that the girl on the cover is Yanki. *Shrug*
There has been others that have suggested that the Dromite might be a good choice. Think it, there isn't very many other small races, unless you count a lot of MM races like Goblin and Kobold.
What consensus is that? Most people agree it's a 'zerai, not a 'yanki. And while I wouldn't mind goblins, I'd be perfectly happy with no small races at all, until WotC fixes the problem with small races getting shafted. But if there has to be one, I'd prefer something completely new instead of a barely remembered race from the XPH.
Shamanstarr - Although I see differences in the races pics, and think the one from the PHB3 is a Yanki (a specific yanki actually, the one from the MM) the green tenge that you see in the Zerai is supposed to imply shadows on the yellow skin according to My view of the scene.
Ok, I see the sense and comparison between the pics, and that girl looks to have Yellow Skin.
I have said before that I haven't paid much attention to the Gith races.
Perhaps it is like Ghoststepper said, they may green her up if it come down to it...
Yes we're talking about 4e here.
I have to say, I look at these little blurbs and shrug. Any race can be any class, no matter the stats. To say that these "Suggestions" is the same as the previous editions "favored class" mechanic for Multi-class is silly.
Perhaps the one Gith's culture will have the class Monk as a common class for them to aspire to, but it isn't "favored" within the mechanics of the rules as it was in the previous edition.
This was where my confusion with the use of the term was.
I have to say, I look at these little blurbs and shrug. Any race can be any class, no matter the stats. To say that these "Suggestions" is the same as the previous editions "favored class" mechanic for Multi-class is silly.
Perhaps the one Gith's culture will have the class Monk as a common class for them to aspire to, but it isn't "favored" within the mechanics of the rules as it was in the previous edition.
This was where my confusion with the use of the term was.
When the Monk's stats are Dex primary, Str or Wis secondary, and the 'Zerai is Dex/Wis and the 'Yanki are Con/Int .... yeah, I'm going to say it's favored for one and not the other in the mechanics ...
When the Monk's stats are Dex primary, Str or Wis secondary, and the 'Zerai is Dex/Wis and the 'Yanki are Con/Int .... yeah, I'm going to say it's favored for one and not the other in the mechanics ...
You miss my point. There is no more "Favored class" mechanics. Multiclassing has changed. It is no longer pick and choose, scattered three or four levels of each class as it was.
You miss my point. There is no more "Favored class" mechanics. Multiclassing has changed. It is no longer pick and choose, scattered three or four levels of each class as it was.
No, I got your point. You're missing mine. I never once made any mention of things working like in 3e, except to say that I wasn't talking about 3e. I've been talking 4e this entire time, and in 4e favored classes exist. They are the classes a race has the best mechanical compatibility with. And the 'Zerai has perfect compatibility with the monk. The 'Yanki do not.
I don't think there is exactly a formula for what needs to be in a PHB, shoot, if there was, you wouldn't expect the PHB3 to be Primal and Divine, as the 4 Slots have already been filled there for roles. I do think they have something of a plan however, and think that as players want both larger and smaller characters, they will keep filling that demand. Personally, I think the PHB3 should be about 2 or 3 new power sources, especially as Primal and Divine have filled out the grid as it were, and with plans for like 10 total power sources via PHBs, would be better to introduce 2 at least, and maybe come up with an Arcane Defender type (I see problems with a Martial Controller, however, as Grenadier is more a weapon choice than a class one)
Seuss
And currently it's only 7 power sources, not 10. It was going to be 8, until they scrapped Ki. One new source a year makes perfect sense with their release strategy. And there is no grid that needs to be filled. No grid that demands a martial controller, or exactly 4 classes per source, or at least one class per role per source, or one small race per PHB. If the developers come up with an idea that they like, then it happens. Hence the new Primal/Divine classes we will be getting in PH3.
Yes, there is no grid, but it would be nice to see the kind of diversity that a grid would mandate, 1 a year is a bit slow for My tastes, I already have people clamoring to be monks and psionicists as it is, and I don't allow Dragon at the table, so they have to wait for PHB3 to get it.
Not the fault of WotC, My own hangup, and having seen the SwordMage played, so far, I don't see it as a great defender, but then, it wasn't one of our strongest players playing it either. If we ever do venture into Forgotten REalms again, mayhaps I will play one and try it out, who knows
Seuss
Just like Drow and Genasi aren't FR specific. All the stuff in the FRPG can be used in any game. In fact, all the stuff that doesn't specifically refer to the Realms is supposed to be used in all settings, and even the stuff that does specifically refer to the Realms can just be re-flavored.The Swordmage is the arcane defender for all of DnD 4e. It is just as much part of the entirety of DnD 4e as the fighter or paladin. The very first 4e novel was about a swordmage in Eberron. Drow are a fairly significant part of Eberron and Greyhawk.
Really, if you refuse to use it in non-FR settings, that's your choice, but that's not what WotC's intentions were. The fact that the Swordmage is in Arcane Power should be more than proof of that.
It's inclusion into Arcane Power is not because it's Open world Core material, but because Arcane Power is meant to support not only Open World 4e material, but also each official Campaign setting that has come out prior to it's release. When Divine Power comes out, and later Primal, there will be elements there that are usable on Eberron only material I'm sure, specifically because the Eberron Setting material will come out before them. It does not make the information in Forgotten Realms core and relevent to an open world game.
The argument for use of Dragon Magazine material as "Core" material is better than the argument for Forgotten Realms material being used as Core, Forgotten Realms is a specific setting, and if you aren't playing in that setting, you don't have a reason to get the FRPG or FRCG at all, so would never be tempted to discover the Sword-Mage, until it's mentioned elsewhere. Dragon at least supports both open world gaming and campaign specific gaming and thus can logically be assumed would hold some appeal for ALL gamers of D&D 4e, whether they intend to use their home world, the "generic" world from the PHBs, or a specific world, sanctioned or not by WotC/RPGA
Yes, anyone can choose to include or exclude any material from their game, in either direction, however, something appearing in a campaign specific sourcebook is by definition intended for it's specific campaign, and using it elsewhere is not the intent, but is allowed. Dragon material might actively be encouraged to be used (especially to push the DDi subscriptions) but FR is just an option.
Drow and Genasi, as PC races are again setting specific, and what happens in the novels doesn't automatically equate to core either. The novels in every edition have introduced things that were off the wall BEFORE they were introduced in the rules. Case in point: Drizzt D'Orden the Drow Ranger was a Protagonist in the novels before they ever put forth rules to play a Drow Character, same thing with Pikel Bouldershoulder being a Dwarf Druid, now granted, some may say that it was almost preview material for the open class system that was coming out, and maybe they were right, but really, I choose to believe that it was because the Author chose to make a unique character for the book, and it was the exception to the rules, not a basis of them.
Drow and Genasi both exist in other worlds besides Faerun of course, but generally as Monstrous Races. Thri-Kreen are PC races in Dark Sun, which is technically on the same planet/plane (Toril) as Faerun, but they are PC races only in the Dark Sun setting, although you are welcome as a DM to allow them elsewhere, it's obvious they aren't meant to be so. Shoot, Greyhawk Drow and Forgotten Realms Drow as written in the old modules were two different critters anyway, although similar in some ways. Shoot, the Evil elven race in Hollow-World were pale albino elves, not Drow.
Diatribe over, continue with your regularly scheduled debate...
Seuss
Fact is, as some say, all things are Core now, but not everything is Open World Core, just because it's passed the crucible of playtesting and has been found worthy doesn't make it canon for the game.
Yes, the Sword Mage is an Arcane Defender, yes it's usable in other worlds than Faerun, doesn't mean it was meant to in any way. Like I've said previously, Core material is what you can logically expect to be allowed to play if you were going to a scheduled Public WPN event that advertised "D&D Core 4e" without having to get prior approval from the DM. Granted, a DM still might allow or disallow it, but if it's advertised as Core, you know if it comes from the PHBs it's generally allowed (unless the new PHB came out since the announcement of the event, as usually you have to wait a month for it's inclusion, or always did, now I think you at least wait until it's updated in the character builder, although just being in the character builder doesn't make something canon or core either)
You and I can debate this until we are blue in the face, and will probably never agree on it, however, it is a fact, not an opinion, that Campaign Guides, by their very nature, are Campaign-Specific information. They aren't part of the Core product line, and they aren't intended for the Core audience, but rather for a specialized group. If the information was meant for Core, it would be in a book/source much more likely to be used and available to DMs that don't run that Campaign setting. Just by putting it in that Campaign Setting book instead of the PHBs, it more than implies that it's FR canon, not D&D open world or "generic" world canon material. Any DM can add or remove anything from their games, and I will stand by this til my dying breath, but that doesn't make it canon or core, it just makes it a viable option, that's all!
FACT: the Sword-Mage as a Class with it's Background and Mechanics appears in a Campaign Setting, and, as any logical person knows, Campaign settings, unlike other gaming manuals, are intended to support a specific Campaign, hence the name "Campaign Guide" attached to them.
FACT: yes, the Sword-Mage is mentioned in the Arcane Powers book, but then, the Arcane Powers book is meant to be an optional Accessory sourcebook not supporting a specific Campaign setting, but one supporting all current D&D material of an official nature, Setting-specific or otherwise. Which also goes along with My previous argument of why Dragon material is not Core or Canon, because if it was even as official as Setting specific material, it would be covered in the pages of such Accessory books. But at least Dragon is targetted at the Generic world audience and doesn't specifically say on the cover that it's for adventuring in the "Forgotten Realms"
Seuss
Seuss
Sorry, had to comment, as George Carlin was My favorite standup comedian!
Back to your regularly scheduled thread and sorry for the OT post.
The disagreement and dispute of what does or doesn't count as canon/core material os relevant to the subject matter of the thread, as it influences some people's opinion (but not all) as to what should or shouldn't be included in future books. For instance, if Sword-Mage is meant to be Canon/Core material, then it should be included in a future installment of the PHB series. Same holds true for the Drow and Genasi. What's that you say, but they have already been covered, why reprint, Answer: Because they have been covered by an outside source not relevant to mainstream gaming, but specific to a setting. Want further proof: The PHB2 although mentioning the Genasi and Drow in their optional section on Backgrounds for fleshing out a character, does not include a Drow or Genasi Racial Paragon Path, even though it goes back and handles every other official race thus far. The FRPG was out before PHB2, so if it was meant to be Canon/Core material, it would have a new Racial Paragon Path, or at least, like the Half-Elf, have a footnote on what it gets instead of a racial paragon path. Shoot, even Humans, a race historically ignored for specialty paths in the past because of their "generic" nature as a race get a racial paragon path. All the races from PHB1 and 2 are addressed in this section, but Drow and Genasi are not.
Seuss
If their intent was for all of D&D, their mechanics and background would not be in a campaign world sourcebook.
Fact is, as some say, all things are Core now, but not everything is Open World Core, just because it's passed the crucible of playtesting and has been found worthy doesn't make it canon for the game.
From the FRPG
Forgotten Realms Player's Guide
NOT JUST AN “FR” BOOK
You can take advantage of the FORGOTTEN REALMS Player’s Guide (and your DM can use its companion volume, the Campaign Guide) even if the campaign you play in is not set in the world of Toril.
All of the concepts and details in this book can work just as well in a setting that your DM has devised. In other words—with your DM’s approval, of course—you can pick and choose, using the parts of this material that you find most interesting or most compatible with the setting you’re already using. By doing so, you can inject the wonder and intrigue of Faerûn into your game while keeping all the elements of your existing world that you and the other players have become accustomed to.
For example, the swordmage class described in Chapter 2 of this book has its conceptual roots in the
FORGOTTEN REALMS setting, but nothing about the class prevents it from being used in any D&D game. Similarly, the new dark pact for warlocks and the rules for creating spellscarred characters can be a feature of any setting. The same is true of the genasi, a new race found in Chapter 1; the new feats presented in Chapter 4; the unique geography of the land of Thay (see page 122); and virtually any other part of this book.
If you’re intrigued by something you see inside the Player’s Guide, talk to your DM about incorporating it into your game. After all, the best D&D experience is one in which the DM and the players cooperate to create a world that’s fun for everyone at the table.
You can take advantage of the FORGOTTEN REALMS Player’s Guide (and your DM can use its companion volume, the Campaign Guide) even if the campaign you play in is not set in the world of Toril.
All of the concepts and details in this book can work just as well in a setting that your DM has devised. In other words—with your DM’s approval, of course—you can pick and choose, using the parts of this material that you find most interesting or most compatible with the setting you’re already using. By doing so, you can inject the wonder and intrigue of Faerûn into your game while keeping all the elements of your existing world that you and the other players have become accustomed to.
For example, the swordmage class described in Chapter 2 of this book has its conceptual roots in the
FORGOTTEN REALMS setting, but nothing about the class prevents it from being used in any D&D game. Similarly, the new dark pact for warlocks and the rules for creating spellscarred characters can be a feature of any setting. The same is true of the genasi, a new race found in Chapter 1; the new feats presented in Chapter 4; the unique geography of the land of Thay (see page 122); and virtually any other part of this book.
If you’re intrigued by something you see inside the Player’s Guide, talk to your DM about incorporating it into your game. After all, the best D&D experience is one in which the DM and the players cooperate to create a world that’s fun for everyone at the table.
You can take advantage of the FORGOTTEN REALMS Player’s Guide (and your DM can use its companion volume, the Campaign Guide) even if the campaign you play in is not set in the world of Toril.
All of the concepts and details in this book can work just as well in a setting that your DM has devised. In other words—with your DM’s approval, of course—you can pick and choose, using the parts of this material that you find most interesting or most compatible with the setting you’re already using. By doing so, you can inject the wonder and intrigue of Faerûn into your game while keeping all the elements of your existing world that you and the other players have become accustomed to.
For example, the swordmage class described in Chapter 2 of this book has its conceptual roots in the
FORGOTTEN REALMS setting, but nothing about the class prevents it from being used in any D&D game.
All this quote truly states is that it can be optionally added into other worlds, outside of Forgotten Realms, which I already agreed with, as an option, not Canon/Core. I highlighted the relevant parts.
I may add Sword-Mages into one of My private games, I may not, but would be added as an optional outside element, not initially intended for the Core system, but fully compatible with that system. That is what is meant. Otherwise, your basically saying just because of that statement, the Forgotten Realms book(s) are worth purchase and inclusion in an established core campaign, simply for the inclusion of 1 class, 2 races, and 1 magical background option.
To some, yes, it might be worth that, but to someone who is trying to keep up with the Core of the game, alone, the FRPG would not be considered a mandatory purchase, the PHBs would. Although not as specific, it's similar to saying that Knights of Solamnia(sp) from Krynn aren't world specific and can be included, maybe with a slight cosmetic change. I'm not saying the information won't work in the game, it will, I'm not saying there aren't going to be DMs and PCs both clamouring to have such brought into their games, because there obviously will, but I still hold to My original point: If you schedule a "Core 4e D&D Event" for a public venue, just telling people to use "Method 1 of character generation, bring a 1st level Core D&D 4e Character for a Generic (or Homebrewed) Adventure" you can reasonably expect information from PHB1 & 2 to be allowed, but information for FR, Eberron, Dragon Magazine, even Martial and Arcane Powers would be expected to get prior DM's approval before being admitted.
Not saying using any of the material available is wrong or right, but to say that it's core is a falicy.
Seuss
I tire of such arguements. I think that FRPG is more likely to be used within home brew campaigns than Dragon myself, though that is just logisticts speaking, having a book in hand rather than a web page.
Arguments about what is core or not are ultimately pointless. No material is more viable than other material. The DM is free to use or disallow anything from the books, campaign settings, or the online sources as he sees fit. He is not obligated to use something just because it's in the PHB1 (for instance, if he feels tieflings or dragonborn don't fit into his setting, he's free to disallow them).
Back to the topic at hand.
It's still not known whether they'll go with 8 races like the PHB or 5 races like the PHB2. It's possible they could add more or less. They'll probably include at least one more psionic-flavored race such as the Dromite.
Minotaurs in PHB3 seem to point less toward the Dragonlance setting for 2010, since they're being included there instead of in the player's guide for that setting. The third setting is more likely to be Dark Sun or something completely new.
Not saying using any of the material available is wrong or right, but to say that it's core is a falicy.
Seuss
No, saying it's core is 100% accurate.
Anyways, on to more important matters. I know what the other race for PHB3 is. It shall be the .... ABOLETH!
....Anybody?
Ok, how about Modrons?
.... No?
Ok, more seriously - PH2 & 3 include races first introduced as PC options in specific settings - Shifter (Eberron), Minotaur (Dragonlance), Gith (Planescape - I think, they may have been playable earlier). Going by that, and completely wild and unsubstantiated speculation, I can only assume the other race will be another one introduced first in a specific campaign setting.
What could it be? Not modrons (we already have the Gith). Not Sidhelien (Birthright - just use Eladrin). Not Thri-kreen or Muls (99% guaranteed to be in the DSPG, which is pretty likely to be the 2010 CS). Not Half-Giants (Goliaths). Not Vistani (Ravenloft, gypsies, will shatter WotC's legal department's political correctness division).
So what does that leave us with? Going with the assumption (wild speculation) of one race per setting (Gith are special that way), then there's only one setting and one race left.
Spelljammer.
GIFF
Awww yeah. Get on with yo bad self!
:P
Back to the topic at hand.
It's still not known whether they'll go with 8 races like the PHB or 5 races like the PHB2. It's possible they could add more or less. They'll probably include at least one more psionic-flavored race such as the Dromite.
Minotaurs in PHB3 seem to point less toward the Dragonlance setting for 2010, since they're being included there instead of in the player's guide for that setting. The third setting is more likely to be Dark Sun or something completely new.
I'm going to go with 5 races, if only to make room for the hybrid classes and any surprises they may be keeping from us. Rune magic, maybe?
In the latest podcast someone mentioned bringing back monsters from some of the old BECMI adventures in MM2, this may be a clue that Mystara is the 2010 setting.
Bel
I know it's been said somewhere that Greyhawk is not really planned to be a 4e organized setting, but I would love to see greyhawk getting the full treatment.
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing Al'Quadim as a setting, even though it didn't have alot of following in it's previous incarnation. Dragonlance may or may not get a sourcebook series, but they are Weis and Hickman products and would necessitate WotC being more flexable, after their previous stance after the D20 phenomena, I don't know.
There are all kinds of break-out races that could be conceptualized and used for the PHB3, completely new races might make the pages, as could such possibilities as the Giff, Thri-Kreen, Druegar, Snirfneblin(sp), etc... it is exciting speculating on the possibilities. Factors including will or won't something go into a Campaign specific book? Will or won't it fit the concept of the current PHB3 theme? Will it add to the game, or just duplicate something that's already there, with a coat of paint?
Personally, if everything from a Campaign Setting is supposed to be considered Core for open world gaming, then they shouldn't be considering reserving certain races/classes for those play guides, and put them out in the PHBs, and put other world specific information such as background options custom world-only feats and items and things like that in the Player Guides. Obviously, the draw of a player's guide to a setting is color for the player as far as the setting goes, as well as Classes and Races specific to that setting, as all other classes and races in the official PHBs are allowed as well as any specialty stuff in the PGs.
Seuss
Personally, if everything from a Campaign Setting is supposed to be considered Core for open world gaming, then they shouldn't be considering reserving certain races/classes for those play guides, and put them out in the PHBs, and put other world specific information such as background options custom world-only feats and items and things like that in the Player Guides.
It doesn't really matter where they put the races and classes since all of the mechanics in the Player's Guides are considered core. There will be drow in Eberron, for example, and you'll have to look at the Player's Guide Forgotten Realms for the PC rules since the rules part is core. Warforged are "core" by any and every person's definition of the word since they are in the MM, so even though they are in the Player's Guide to Eberron, they are also present in the Forgotten Realms.
It doesn't matter where the races show up since they are all intended to be used in any game. It doesn't matter what you consider "core" since every single option in any book or article is completely optional.
Bel
It doesn't really matter where they put the races and classes since all of the mechanics in the Player's Guides are considered core. There will be drow in Eberron, for example, and you'll have to look at the Player's Guide Forgotten Realms for the PC rules since the rules part is core. Warforged are "core" by any and every person's definition of the word since they are in the MM, so even though they are in the Player's Guide to Eberron, they are also present in the Forgotten Realms.
2 points, first, it has already been stated in several places that the statistics for races in MMs is not meant for PC use, which is also evidenced by such comments as "having to rework X before making it a PC race" comments on converting such races as Gnolls and Kobolds. This being the case, PC Warforged out of the MM are not considered Core at all. It is allowed, as everything is allowed, optionally, but they are very specific when they say that the racial traits for a race in the MM are not there for PC use of said monsters.
Several of the monsters in the Monster Manual have racial
traits and powers, not unlike the races presented in the
Player’s Handbook. In general, these traits and powers are provided
to help Dungeon Masters create nonplayer characters
(NPCs). This information can also be used as guidelines for
creating player character (PC) versions of these creatures,
within reason. Note that these traits and powers are more in
line with monster powers than with player character powers.
A player should use one of the following races to create a
character only with the permission of the Dungeon Master.
The DM should carefully consider which monster races, if any,
to allow as PCs in his or her campaign.
from the MM
2nd point, there is very little motivation to buy a PG for a setting you are not using as a player or a DM. Sure, collectors will want all the books, and it's not too inconscievable to buy a book a month reasonably, however, by putting a setting specific name on a sourcebook, you have already biased the sourcebook to the setting and created an impression in the audience's mind that this material is specific for the setting it's marketted for, not general Open World D&D. Putting the name Player Hand Book, especially with a byline like "The Second in a Series of Books providing options for your Character...." type of thing (Paraphrased) puts it forth that this unlike the CS book is actually meant to be Core/Canon information and meant for any open world adventure.
I really think every world should have limits, and you as a DM can choose what to allow, and what not to allow, especially for getting over the OPTION OVERLOAD syndrome. This is why when I do make My arguments for Core vs non-Core, I give as an example an open, publicly advertised WPN game like at a Con or Gameday, or even a Public Play Store game that's open to everyone. By advertising Core, you set a standard of what can be and can't be used in these public play events, while leaving some other material up for DM approval as well. If you advertise a Forgotten Realms campaign at the same convention let's say, you can expect to see Drow, Genasi, and even possibly Spellscarred (even though they are even an aside option in that book) as well as all the races in the PHBs that are currently out, and all the classes in both sources. If it advertises Eberron, you expect to see whatever races/classes are in the PHBs, and the CS guides for Eberron, but not what's in Dragon or the FRPG books.
The use of language is a science, not a generalization and thus, the mean of Core is different than what others might intend the meaning of Core to be, even WotC. WotC wants to use the most broad definition of Core, because it sells more products, nothing wrong with that, but the underlying meaning of Core still exists, Core means the Default Options for the Generic version of the game.
Seuss
My vote for PHB3 for the smaller race....Kender.
while i am nowhere NEAR qualified to distinguish between and kender and a halfling based on the Dragonlance novels i read 8 million (yes, again, 8 million) years ago. I leave you with this... Kender FTW.
> publicly advertised WPN game like at a Con or Gameday, or even a
> Public Play Store game that's open to everyone. By advertising Core,
If it's advertised as Core, then people will expect that to mean WotC's definition of Core, not your own personal one. WotC's definition is very clear, and does include the races, classes, feats, and other content from the FRPG and similar books.
You may feel that's wrong, and choose to assess material differently in your own personal games, but that doesn't change the official view that the material is as core as anything in the PHB1.
In My experiences, not My way of doing things, advertising as Core, I get questions about things in Campaign Settings, Dragon, even Martial/Arcane Powers, but I don't from PHB, so obviously it's not just Me, like I said, I run actively 2 open games a week, open in, open out, so a rotating level of interest, and it's been consistant all the way through. If they want to use something out of the PHBs, they just make their character, if they want to use something from Dragon, they ask, only exception being if they do use the Character builder and don't realize that said feat/power/etc... came from Dragon, then they immediately, upon realization, ask if it's allowed.
Seuss
It seems with 4e they've realized the mistake but now they have the stigma from 3e of this split between core and non-core. In 2e it was all 'core' but anything beyond the first 3 was considered purely optional and requiring DM approval (as theoretically was the material in the first 3 books but those were considered 'safe bets' without DM approval).
The PG's have the setting name because they do have some setting-specific material in them, but only what a player in that setting would need. Most of the content is setting neutral though (like the races and classes) while others may take some reflavoring (paragon paths, backgrounds).
The Campaign Guide has the real setting-specific material with some setting neutral stuff (various items, monsters, etc.) so is the book only needed if you want some ideas or to run a game in that setting. The CG is also a DM book while the PG is a player 'option' book. There are no races and calsses in the CG so they're not tied to the setting at all.
I don't think they're so much 'reserving' certain classes and races for the PG's for a setting (otherwise minotaur would be held off until DL, and shifters for Eberron) as they're providing a space beyond just the PH's to put in options for players. Genasi and Drow and Swordmages all play big roles in FR so they got put in that PG. Assuming limited space would you rather they put the wizard in the FRPG so the swordmage could be in the PH1, since wizards are even bigger in FR than swordmages. What if the human and elf were put in the FRPG so drow and genasi could be in the PH1? I think the choice has more to do with the best fit for the race and class within space restrictions than it does any sort of campaign setting biases.
The Sword-Mage and Genasi and Drow are most appropriate for FR games, so they are included there, if it was a matter of space, they would have just published another PHB, or included more races and classes in the PHB2 for instance. They couldn't do the Wizard in the FRPG because the Wizard is an Iconic Class for D&D, and Fantasy in particular. The Sword-Mage is not Iconic by any means, and Drow are a monster race. Even your argument that they won't reprint stuff from one to another breaks down, when you see Drow Racial Traits in the Monster Manual, and then low and behold, they are reprinted in the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide. Obviously such was done as an exception, for setting material. I expect that the Warforged will get the same treatment in the Eberron Campaign setting. Genasi are also a Monster Race more than a PC race, although a variation on humans, and they are printed in the Forgotten Realms Players Guide because the Campaign Setting currently features them as a standard race there. Shoot, they aren't even in the MM1, let alone the PHB1 or 2, and barely included in the MM2.
We know that the Minotaur is slated to be in the PHB3, and it has a stat block in the MM under Racial Traits, the Gnome was reprinted in the PHB2, but has a slot in the MM as well. The whole claim that they won't reprint things in more than one place when it comes to Monstrous races, it's obvious if they are meant to be standard player races, they will get the PHB treatment, OR, in the case of a Setting Specific suitability, in that Setting's Player Guide. The background of their culture fits the setting, not the open setting of Open Worlds. Some DMs will mix and match stuff, that is fine, everything is an option, but everything I see, read, and experience supports that there is a vast difference between a Setting book and a PHB, one is Core and Canon, one is purely optional.
Seuss
After all Warforged and minotaur are already in Dragon. Drow, gnome, minotaur, and shifter alll have MM NPC race writeups.
They aren't reprinting material by making PC race writeups for those races but it can be said they're reprinting Dragon content by putting the Warforged and Minotaur in a printed book (neither of those articles were labelled as playtests like monk, artificer, and barbarian were).
My point was to show that the choice to put them in the FRPG (which came out shortly after the PH1 not a year later like the PH2) was to show that they weigh a race and classes location based on content. I would have said fighter or paladin rather than wizard but decided to keep it within the same power source, but honestly wizards have a bigger limelight in FR than swordmages (a term in 4e, though they are based loosely on the bladesinger kit of 2e which was 'setting neutral').
They knew the drow and genasi were popular races, and the swordmage made a good arcane class but there wasn't space in the PH1 and two races + 1 class can't constitute a whole other PH, especially so close to the first one's release. They wanted to put them out there but couldn't squeeze them into the PH1 so put them in FRPG which they knew was coming out shortly after and the PG needed enough player material to be worth buying (otherwise they could just put out the FRCG and call it good).
It's others views about core/non-core that marginalizes the races and classes in the PGs, not WotC. WotC's inclusing of drow, genasi, and swordmage feats, PPs, and options in other books outside ones with an FR label should be proof that WotC sees the setting books as core, just themed. Honestly if I DM'ed and a player made a character without asking me they could expect to get it denied. They shouldn't assume PH1 is safe after all maybe I don't like halflings or allow paladins or warlocks. Maybe I don't allow certain feats. With you they've been lucky. Also it is safe to ask for anything outside the PHB since many DMs don't allow something from a source they don't have and the only source it's safe to assume they have is the PHB, that doesn't mean the PHB content shouldn't be considered any more core or safe though.
I personally HATE paladins, and always have, yet I allow them in the game because they have a role to represent, and they are Core.
if you really want to get technical, as I've said before, go to the Product Lists, put down Sort by D&D Core, and the only books that come up are PHB, DMG, and MM, along with some tiles and dice, tha's it.
Seems pretty official to Me.
Seuss
it is to be expected, however, that an Open, Public, WPN game unless otherwise footnoted, allowed Everything in the PHBs that have been out before it was announced. A Store Public Play game, for instance, is expected to support the basics.
I personally HATE paladins, and always have, yet I allow them in the game because they have a role to represent, and they are Core.
if you really want to get technical, as I've said before, go to the Product Lists, put down Sort by D&D Core, and the only books that come up are PHB, DMG, and MM, along with some tiles and dice, tha's it.
Seems pretty official to Me.
Seuss
But if the store is running an RPGA legal game the allowed is different (RPGA despite the claims doesn't allow everything in print, hell they don't allow spellscarred despite that being FR based).
Also I think that product pull-down still uses the 3.5 coding and hasn't been updated for 4e. Besides I considered what R&D says is core as more ofificial than what marketing says is core
I RPGA Sanction everything. I don't run "Living" campaigns, but everything I run is reported, even My private games.
Seuss
I'm not one of the 'no reprinted!' types.
After all Warforged and minotaur are already in Dragon. Drow, gnome, minotaur, and shifter alll have MM NPC race writeups.
Whoah... hold up.
Dragon is not print, it is a web page. Though it is considered "Core" as far as the rules go, the material inside can and will end up elsewhere in the future, whether it be the Dragon Annual, PHB, or another book.
Not that all the stuff within its electronic pages is gonna be reprinted.
Seuss
Who wants Dromites? Goblins (my fave:D ) (possibly with a feat for blues)? or Kobolds?
Goblins (blues) and Gnolls are my bets for PH3- when it comes to opposing the Far Realm, EVERYTHING has a common cause.
2 points, first, it has already been stated in several places that the statistics for races in MMs is not meant for PC use, which is also evidenced by such comments as "having to rework X before making it a PC race" comments on converting such races as Gnolls and Kobolds. This being the case, PC Warforged out of the MM are not considered Core at all. It is allowed, as everything is allowed, optionally, but they are very specific when they say that the racial traits for a race in the MM are not there for PC use of said monsters.
Who said i was talking only about the PC version? All i stated was that 'warforged' are in the MM and in the eberron book. Its a creature that is in a setting book and also in a book that even you would consider core. Obviously warforged are core no matter what book they happen to show up in, just like the drow.
Be it tiny, small or large, fey, brute or plant, I don't really care what kind of race it is as long as it's balanced and interesting. Let's not put a restriction on how races are presented.
Bel
The discussion on Core vs Not Core is basically concerning PC races, not Monster races. a DM is free to use any Monster He wants, even one he makes up on the spot and needs not worry about approval, as He is the DM of the game, thus the one who gives the approval.
The discussion, rather, was on PC versions of races being core, the Monster version of a race has nothing at all to do with the PC version, just because there is a monster version, with a racial trait entry in the back of a MM, doesn't make that race also a viable PC race, but it does make it an Optional one. Really, if I was the one to put together the MM, I never would have put WarForged in that book either. I have never been a fan of Eberron, especially with their Steam-punk feel, and the WarForged are the race that most exemplifies the Steam-punk theme of the setting. As a DM, I would probably never use them, and unless they were put in a PHB, I would never even allow them at a Con or WPN event I was running, unless it's a pre-gen gameday event where all the characters are supplied of course.
Seuss (note, if it's included in the PHB, however, for WPN play, I would allow it)
Well if one looks at the Races you can see some correlation towards this (simply talking on a fluff level) I find:
- Deva: They cover both Primal and Divine. Primal given their connection to the Primal Spirits and ditto with their connection to the gods of good.
- Gnome: They fit Arcane and Primal as well. Arcane because of their natural illusion and magical air. Primal because of how they prefer the wilderness.
- Goliath: Primal here as well. They are nomadic tribal warriors a perfect match for the fluff feel for Primal.
- Half-Orcs: Primal given that they are more human then their orcish brethren but they tap into a more basic side and are more suited to less civilized life.
- Shifter: Primal. I think this is fairly obvious their connection to the Primal side what with their animal characteristics.
As such one can see a pretty strong connection between the Races and the dominant Power Source in the book. So for PHB3 I think the majority of Races will have a Psionic bent. My bets (hopes) right now are:
- Wilden: This covers the Primal side. Obvious reason why.
- Minotaur: This covers both Primal and Divine. Primal because of their animal nature but Divine because of being worshippers of Demonic forces (this can translate into other Powerful forces such as gods too)
- Elan: This one for Psionics. I think there is good chance of this because it is probably the most popular race that came from the Psionics books. Also I think WoTC are somewhat a fan of created races; Warforged in MM then right after in DDI and Eberron, Kalashtar in Eberron, Deva in PHB2, Dhampyr in DDI, in some regards Tieflings as well. They also have a very distinctive fluff and are exotic without needing to be so physically.
- Githzeria/Githyanki: Psionics obviously. We already know they are in.
- Another Psionic Race: I dunno which but I think Thri-keen, a Aberrant race or a new race all entirely are fairly good bets. Thri-keen are another popular race, Aberrants play a strong role in PHB3, and a new race since well why not it is the third PHB lets see more experimentation.
Elan have inner psionic potential or something? I honestly think they're a waste of space in that case, since psionic power should come from the class, and not the race. I really hope wizards doesn't put them in.
Dromites I wouldn't mind. An insectoid race would add a bit of diversity to the table and let more characters play new concepts instead of playing refluffed humans with tattoos.
What's the difference between elan and humans?
Elan have inner psionic potential or something? I honestly think they're a waste of space in that case, since psionic power should come from the class, and not the race. I really hope wizards doesn't put them in.
Elan are a created race. They were once human but no longer. There are secret Elan councils who choose candidates to become Elan, and perform secret ritual to turn the human into the Elan. While the Elan retains his basic personality and memories he becomes a whole new being infused with a new psionic-oriented existence. They have natural psionic potential, are immortal, quite resistant to physical harm and physical limits.
The major fun with the Elan comes with their potential in stories and character concepts as they are:
- They have a great mystique around them. From their choice of which human to turn. The ritual to turn them into Elan. The secret Enclaves and so forth.
- Adaptable, thanks in part to their mystery they can be easily adapted to multiple plots and settings.
- They are Psionic which is always fun.
- They have a bit of "wolf-in-sheeps-clothing" feel. They appear human but are not and have distinct abilities and altered personality. Which helps in making them exotic but not in the "weird looking" way.
- They bring up ideas of identity and what makes you, well you. The Elan becomes a new person, but retains his old memories and base personality but is that simply the past or does that still mean something to this newly forged being.
- The idea of starting over, or beginning again. A Human who turns into a Elan is usually fully grown and as such becoming a Elan is a prime example of someone going to the extreme to escape their past or to begin again.
Elan are a created race. They were once human but no longer. There are secret Elan councils who choose candidates to become Elan, and perform secret ritual to turn the human into the Elan. While the Elan retains his basic personality and memories he becomes a whole new being infused with a new psionic-oriented existence. They have natural psionic potential, are immortal, quite resistant to physical harm and physical limits.
Forgive me, but that sounds more like a psionic class than a race. The "Ritual to be able to channel power" is exactly what most of the Divine casters go through to channel astral power.
It would also end the "Humans are special" aspect of Elan.
I don't see Divine classes becoming a entirely new being when they use Divine rituals?
I don't see also how this eliminates the Humans being for unknown reasons the prime-candidate for becoming Elan.
In my opinion, the fluff of the Elan (as presented in that quote) would work just as well as a Psionic class, and it would open the race/class to other base rases than just humans. You can still multiclass and hybridize, though...
As such, making it a class would force that focus onto Psionic aspect which compared to some Psionic races Elan has much less of. Plus you couldn't have for instance full class Elan Paladins, and one of the nice things with Elan in previous game is since you became a new being you can start again with your class and such. So you could branch off in any direction, that be gone if it was made into a Psionic class.
Plus I don't think that many people would be happy to have a class that takes up so much space and taking this class would fundamentally alter the personality, physical potential, etc. of that character. You also couldn't multiclass into Elan or hybridize into Elan.
I just don't see the benefit of making it a class over a race when all you get is the ability to have it being a different race then Human but you would still lose that race's racial abilities in the process. Or if you went in another direction all you would get would be a Psionic class that goes through a ritual to gain its powers, this could be any class and not something to distinguish it as being Elan.
I go with Illumians simply because they might make a good hybrid race, especially if at character creation you get to choose what you bonus stat will be by choosing your sigil.
Bel
To me it sounds like the Elan could be a EPG race since it's fluff is more in line with that setting than a PHB race.
To me it sounds like the Elan could be a EPG race since it's fluff is more in line with that setting than a PHB race.
I go with Illumians simply because they might make a good hybrid race, especially if at character creation you get to choose what you bonus stat will be by choosing your sigil.
Bel
Elan and Kalashtar seem to overlap a bit thematically (though the former is transformed by psionic rituals while the latter fuses with a psionic outsider). It's possible that the Kalashtar will take up the same niche and absorb the Elan like the Goliath absorbed the flavor of the half-giant races.
Not sure about Illumians; don't know much about them. Other than their mechanical attributes (good at multiclassing), they seem like just another 'specialized human offshoot'.
- Kalashtar are true-breeding and Elan are not.
- Kalashtar are generally good-aligned and have connections with one another with being possessed by aspects by a certain number of Quori. Elan each have their own distinct personality.
- We know the past of Kalashtar the Elan are kept mysterious.
- I am fairly certain the Kalashtar are out in the open. Generally speaking the Elan are not.
The true-breeding or not is one of the biggest aspects. The fact that a person can be a human one day and the next not is a big thing in my eyes.
The true-breeding or not is one of the biggest aspects. The fact that a person can be a human one day and the next not is a big thing in my eyes.
Sounds like the usual crappy origins of vampires to me, except they're dressing it up as having psychic powers instead of drinking blood.
Sounds like the usual crappy origins of vampires to me, except they're dressing it up as having psychic powers instead of drinking blood.
In fact, I'm thinking Elan would best go the way of PC Vampires; I mean, the Dhampyr - as a Multiclass. That's probably the best way to handle race-classes.
Besides, they want to break-away from typical fantasy races (i.e. tolkienism). It would seem, as well, that they want to do this by having a physically striking race as well as uniquely written fluff race. The Thri-Kreen would fulfill that, as does the Gith and Minotaur and Wilden - the latter three already being confirmed for PHB3. The Elan, while certainly a unique creation, is for all intensive purposes a human with slightly different powers.
The race I would actually like to see? The Diopsid. Another insectoid race, but they're beetle people instead. Only received one article written and not really detailed, but remain - TO THIS DAY - my favorite race.
EDIT: Next to Modrons of course. ;)