So far I came up with these:
- Drow: Personally I think it was time that the Drow were put in a PHB. Even in games that have little interest in them you can be sure that if there are Elves in the world, you probably have Drow. They began outside of FR and there is no reason for them to be treated as specific to that setting only.
- Duergar: Sticking to the "dark versions" of the standard races theme, this seems like the perfect place to present the "Gray Dwarves".
- Shadar-Kai: Once more a book centered around the "Shadow" power source needs to have iconic shadow races, and the Shadar-Kai fit the bill. With all the recent additional fluff (Dragon, MM2, etc.) they seem well poised to become a "core" race.
- Svirfneblin: These "Deep Gnomes" would probably need a name change. Currently the name Svirfneblin is almost painful to pronounce. Still given their existing fluff they walk a fine line between being both a good shadow and/or psionic race.
Thats all I could think of at the moment. I know they normally shoot for 5 races, but for the final slot I would like to see a new and original race put in to give us the unexpected...maybe a form of pseudo-undead.
Minotaur
Gnoll
Vampire
Ghost/Shade
Skeleton
Shadar-Kai
Incubus/Succubus
First the Drow. These have been in the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide. You are free to use them in any Setting, and if your DM won't allow them, because they are "Forgotten Realms Stuff" you should have a good word with him for having a stick up his ass.
Second, the Duergar. These are at the End of the Monster Manual 2. It's arguable if a DM would allow them, since they aren't RPGA legal (I however would allow them in a private Session, I don't think of them as unbalanced). Anyways, if we're gonna see Duergar as a PHB Race I'd really like to see them more on the "infernal" side than on the "dwarven" side of stats. Right now Duergar and Dwarves share the same Stat Bonuses (Wis & Con) which seems awkward to me, if they really should be intented to be a real race and not just an dwarven subrace.
Third, the Shadar-kai. These have been in the Dragon 372. While it'd be nice of "outsiders" to see Shadar-kai in a future PHB, it'd be a letdown for insiders, because it's original content right now. If Wizard would just release all "original" content for outsiders at one point, there'd be no real selling point for the insider.
Regarding the Svirfneblin, i'd really like to see the name change, as a German I can't even figure out how to spell it, bleh.
Smugmug: As a German I can't even figure out how to spell it.
Apparently the name Svirfneblin is Norwegian, tho I dont know which story it comes from, nor even what the name really means: except -neblin may derive from German nibel- (as in nibelungen) (compare Norse nifl) meaning 'mist', which connotes darkness and obscurity.
I suppose, Svirfneblin could make an interesting ghostly 'Shadow Gnome'. How many players would be interested in playing one?
Just because Drow are in the FRPG, it doesn't mean that drow are exclusive to FR anymore than Genasi and Swordmages are. Drow are not going to be in a PHB, as they're already available via the FRPG.
I know all that. It still is wholly unfair that all Drow material of any true meaning has to get lumped under FR. They began as a non-FR race, and now in 4e when everyone has Drows in their world, they should return to a more generic presentation. Just like standard Elves and Eladrin.
It may never change, but tossing them into a specific settings guide does give them the illusion of being for that setting only. In fact I find most people think of Genasi and Swordmages as FR only things, and their use always needs DM "approval" (may not be the official rules but it is how I see people handling it in their games). The same happens a lot when Warforged are brought up, only of course people attaching them to Ebberon.
In time Genasi, Swordmages, and Warforged will become so common that they lose all of their "setting stigma", and just be seen as part of every fantasy world. But that has yet to happen. Now the same can not be said of Drow. When folks think Drow they do not immediatly attach that "FR-only" tag to it in their minds. And as I have said nearly every DM has Drow in his world no matter the setting. I just think it was high time they got treated as the "standard" race they really are.
Again I understand this may never change, but it still dosen't make it fair, and until people start talking about making the shift it will never happen. So maybe if we all give it some thought, by 5e we will see Drow moving into the "core" universe.
Apparently the name Svirfneblin is Norwegian, tho I dont know which story it comes from, nor even what the name really means: except -neblin may derive from German nibel- (compare Norse nifl) meaning 'mist'.
From Wikipedia:
"The name svirfneblin originates in Scandinavian folklore. Presumably, the element -neblin derives from Old Norse niflinn 'the mist' from nifl 'mist', and is cognate with the German element nibl- in Niblungen literally 'the children of the mist'."
Apparently the name Svirfneblin is Norwegian, tho I dont know which story it comes from, nor even what the name really means: except -neblin may derive from German nibel- (as in nibelungen) (compare Norse nifl) meaning 'mist', which connotes darkness and obscurity.
Yeah, I looked it up on Wikipedia, it seems that Svirfneblin means roughly translated "the children of the mist". So I guess they'd pretty much fit the Shadow Theme. I could actually see them being renamed to Mist Gnomes or something along the lines.
Regarding nibl/nifl, this 'mist' is the kind of mist that shows up in spooky settings. Its the same as the cold vapor that rises from arctic waters.
Sepsis: tossing [certain classes or races] into a specific settings guide does give them the illusion of being for that setting only. In fact I find most people think of Genasi and Swordmages as FR only things, and their use always needs DM "approval" (may not be the official rules but it is how I see people handling it in their games). The same happens a lot when Warforged are brought up, only of course people attaching them to Ebberon.
I agree this is a problem. Hopeful 4e culture learns to mix-and-match between the various settings, since they now all share the same cosmology, and can port easily.
...First the Drow. These have been in the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide. You are free to use them in any Setting, and if your DM won't allow them, because they are "Forgotten Realms Stuff" you should have a good word with him for having a stick up his ass...
Exactly my point. There isn't a DM or Player out there that would expect to have to really ask if they can play a Drow (regardless of setting). This is why I believe they should have been placed in a PHB. Even if they never will.
...Second, the Duergar. These are at the End of the Monster Manual 2. It's arguable if a DM would allow them, since they aren't RPGA legal (I however would allow them in a private Session, I don't think of them as unbalanced). Anyways, if we're gonna see Duergar as a PHB Race I'd really like to see them more on the "infernal" side than on the "dwarven" side of stats. Right now Duergar and Dwarves share the same Stat Bonuses (Wis & Con) which seems awkward to me, if they really should be intented to be a real race and not just an dwarven subrace...
The fact they have NPC stats in the MM shouldn't matter (same can be said for Drow and Minotaur). And while it is true they may need some additional work to make them more unique, none of this prevents them from being upgraded into a true PC race. Duergar have been around almost as long as Drow, like them they should move beyond being simple clones and become a "standard" race.
...Third, the Shadar-kai. These have been in the Dragon 372. While it'd be nice of "outsiders" to see Shadar-kai in a future PHB, it'd be a letdown for insiders, because it's original content right now. If Wizard would just release all "original" content for outsiders at one point, there'd be no real selling point for the insider...
By the time the PHB4 will be released I hope that DDI will have much more "exclusive" content available to subscribers. Upgrading and publishing the Shadar-Kai into a hardback should not impact that much. The information will be quite old and very common by that point, so I doubt they will fear the loss of this particular exclusivity. They are doing something very similar with the Minotaur in the PHB3 (if all the rumors are true). Also it will help them sell DDI. They will be able to say; "see DDI subscribers got to use this race fully for years before you outsiders did. Now how about that introductory rate...", with proof that DDI content really is a window on what they will be publishing and doing in the future. If anything being in Dragon has only helped their chances of getting into a PHB.
Minotaurs will be in PH3 (they're on the cover along with a githzerai and the power sources listed are psionic, divine, and primal so no shadow or elemental yet) plus they're more primal themed (as well as gnolls) more than shadow themed.
Shadar-Kai would be likely since we're getting Minotaur in a PH when they're also in Dragon.
Drow are dark but not neccessarily shadow themed and are already in a print book. Despite the thick headedness of some players and DMs any print book as well as Dragon and Dungeon are considered core and standard. RPGA muddles things since they restrict material even from printed books (last I had heard you can't play a spellscarred even though that's from the FRPG and RPGA right now is FR set).
Dark Ones would work well.
Svirfneblin are possible though like others we may see them renamed. The 4e gnome has eaten a lot of the svirfneblin lore though so it'd be hard to make them distinct while still feeling like svirfneblin.
Duergar are more infernal than shadow. I think when we'll see shadow it'll be more just dark/shadowy than 'evil'. That may be why it's pushed off to at least PH4. They're still trying to work out the kinks so it works as a powersource for Heroes without being too heavily evil themed...
Then how about the Derro? Think they could bend toward a "Shadow Dwarf" role, or maybe "Ki"?
I don't think it matters if they're 'ki' though since ki is just a word now, not a power source.
The svirfneblin also have shown some psionic ability in previous editions so I think if they do show up they'll be more psionic leaning than shadow. Just because something lives underground doesn't make it shadow, look at the fomorians and gnomes (spriggans esepcially since they show the most signs of alteration from their time enslaved by the fomorians).
Do the new 'beard quills' for the 4e Duergar bother anyone?
Well technically they're infernal quills. The males are bald with beards but the females have no beards and have hair that has the quills in it, that way both sexes get the quills while avoiding 4e's phobia of circus sideshows
...The svirfneblin also have shown some psionic ability in previous editions so I think if they do show up they'll be more psionic leaning than shadow. Just because something lives underground doesn't make it shadow...
No...living underground dosen't automatically make you a "shadow" creature, but it is a nice easy basis for shadow themed fluff if the authors need it. I do agree Svirfneblin could work well with the "Psionic" power source, but I also think they work well for the "Shadow" or "Ki" power sources. They have quite a bit of potential. I hope the designers don't pass them by.
Ki can still remain a useful Psionic technical term. It can specify the influencial Lifeforce of the bodily aura.
"Ki" is one of the official power sources listed in the PHB pg. 54. Unless this has changed somewhere without my knowledge. Did I miss an errata?
No...living underground dosen't automatically make you a "shadow" creature, but it is a nice easy basis for shadow themed fluff if the authors need it...
I want to address a growing confusion I sense. When I titled this Thread "Shadow Races" I guess I should have pointed out I didn't necessarily mean races only native to the Shadowfell (or have the "Shadow" keyword). I meant all races that would have a tendency toward the Shadow power source classes (ie. Necromancer, Assassin, Death Knight, etc.). These races could have any origins, just that each has a proclivity toward the "dark side". Sorry if this was clear and I'm pointing out the obvious, it just seemed that maybe some folks thought I intended any proposed race in this Thread have a "Shadow" origin. I did not.
No...living underground dosen't automatically make you a "shadow" creature, but it is a nice easy basis for shadow themed fluff if the authors need it. I do agree Svirfneblin could work well with the "Psionic" power source, but I also think they work well for the "Shadow" or "Ki" power sources. They have quite a bit of potential. I hope the designers don't pass them by.
"Ki" is one of the official power sources listed in the PHB pg. 54. Unless this has changed somewhere without my knowledge. Did I miss an errata?
Actually yes ki has been scrapped. It's in the current playtest article about monks (both the playtest itself and more detailed in the dev & design article about it). They decided that they couldn't come up with a cohesive theme/mechanic for ki without it becoming the 'asian power source' so scrapped it to avoid cultural stereotyping. The various classes that would have been put in there are being spread out: monk to psionic, samurai most likely to MC feats rather than a full class, unsure status on ninja, shugenja, wu jen, sohei, and other possible classes. Mearls followed up the announcement with a post on enworld saying that shadow and elemental are still holding strong and being developed.
I want to address a growing confusion I sense. When I titled this Thread "Shadow Races" I guess I should have pointed out I didn't necessarily mean races only native to the Shadowfell (or have the "Shadow" keyword). I meant all races that would have a tendency toward the Shadow power source classes (ie. Necromancer, Assassin, Death Knight, etc.). These races could have any origins, just that each has a proclivity toward the "dark side". Sorry if this was clear and I'm pointing out the obvious, it just seemed that maybe some folks thought I intended any proposed race in this Thread have a "Shadow" origin. I did not.
I figured as much but the easiest races to place would be those from the Shadowfell. After all there are many races out already that would fit with shadow.
All said I don't know if svifneblin would fit with shadow, I see them going better with psionics.
As for non-shadowfell races (or monsters with the potential for being a race) that fit a shadow theme I can't honestly think of any without following hte underground=dark=shadow line of thought.
So far I came up with these:
Drow: Personally I think it was time that the Drow were put in a PHB. Even in games that have little interest in them you can be sure that if there are Elves in the world, you probably have Drow. They began outside of FR and there is no reason for them to be treated as specific to that setting only.
The devs have stated they aren't goign to republish races, so since the Drow are in the FRPG, don't expect them. Also, they are fey, not shadow, so there's that too.
Duergar: Sticking to the "dark versions" of the standard races theme, this seems like the perfect place to present the "Gray Dwarves".
I will admit my Duergar lore isn't that strong, but I don't necessarily see them as Shadow. An evil/subterranean race does not necessarily = Shadow.
Shadar-Kai: Once more a book centered around the "Shadow" power source needs to have iconic shadow races, and the Shadar-Kai fit the bill. With all the recent additional fluff (Dragon, MM2, etc.) they seem well poised to become a "core" race.
They were put in Dragon. So it's unlikely. i would expect to see them republished in the Dragon compendium but not a PHB.
Svirfneblin: These "Deep Gnomes" would probably need a name change. Currently the name Svirfneblin is almost painful to pronounce. Still given their existing fluff they walk a fine line between being both a good shadow and/or psionic race.
Again, I don't see the shadow connection. Elemental maybe (dpending on what direction they go with the elemental power source).
The Realms' Shades would be a good candidate.
Third, the Shadar-kai. These have been in the Dragon 372. While it'd be nice of "outsiders" to see Shadar-kai in a future PHB, it'd be a letdown for insiders, because it's original content right now. If Wizard would just release all "original" content for outsiders at one point, there'd be no real selling point for the insider.
Well, they'll test that. The Dragon Annual compilation book is out this September.
Upgrading and publishing the Shadar-Kai into a hardback should not impact that much. The information will be quite old and very common by that point, so I doubt they will fear the loss of this particular exclusivity. They are doing something very similar with the Minotaur in the PHB3 (if all the rumors are true).
I'll believe that when i see it.
I would find it much more likely that Minotaurs and Shadar-Kai see reprints in the Dragon Annual rather than in a future PHB. (along with Gnolls and any other "Playing..." articles) You also have to ask yourself what it would gain them to do so. Not much. If they want to offer it to non-subscribers, they put it in the annual. What good does it do to reprint them in a PHB? They've already been developed as a player race. What else would there be to do? Some racial feats? That's better suited to Dragon than to reprint them in a PHB where they could showcase other races old or new.They were put in Dragon. So it's unlikely. i would expect to see them republished in the Dragon compendium but not a PHB.
I'll believe that when i see it.
The Minotaur are going to be in the PH3. They're on the cover, the one officially released by WotC. And Warforged are in the EPG, so I unfortunately think that Shadar-kai will bein PH4 or 5, whichever has the Shadow source. I'm beginning to question why Dragon even has these "Playing 'X' Race" articles, when they're going to just put them in the PHBs & PGs later.
And minotaur was probably so people would shut up about the Oversized on the minotaur.
So you can play your favourite races now?
And minotaur was probably so people would shut up about the Oversized on the minotaur.
They had already lost Oversized in the Dragon write-up. Of course, the Dragon write-up introduces a whole different set of problems that have created threads that rival the Oversized debate.
Back to the topic of the thread, I'd like an intelligent undead race. Yes kinda like the Forsaken, which will just make the "zomg 4e=WoW!!!11!" yell more, but then again every new thing causes that ....
The Minotaur are going to be in the PH3. They're on the cover, the one officially released by WotC. And Warforged are in the EPG, so I unfortunately think that Shadar-kai will be in PH4 or 5, whichever has the Shadow source. I'm beginning to question why Dragon even has these "Playing 'X' Race" articles, when they're going to just put them in the PHBs & PGs later.
Warforged made sense to end up in the EPG because 1) they're from Eberron originally, 2) The Dragon article needs a major overhaul at the very least in regards to component/embedded items.
If Minotaurs are on the cover of the PHB3... that's unfortunate. I guess Dragon doesn't count for their "We won't be reprinting races" statement.
Back to the topic of the thread, I'd like an intelligent undead race. Yes kinda like the Forsaken, which will just make the "zomg 4e=WoW!!!11!" yell more, but then again every new thing causes that ....
A playable undead race would probably be a interesting idea for when the Shadow source is released. Maybe make them pseudo-vampiric in the same way Shifters are psuedo-lycanthropes.
We already have a write-up for Dhampyr in one of the Dragon articles, but that's more of a template/multiclass that can be added on to an existing race/class.
That said, Dragon material is core... save player options-oriented articles. We've seen the Warlock and Wizard powers from Dragon reprinted in Arcane Power, and it seems that at least some of the Playing... articles will be updated and reprinted in PHs. They've already stated that races will not appear in the Dragon Annual. This pretty much means Shadar-kai HAVE to be reprinted in PH4 with Shadow if other players are going to use them.
In any case, Blasphemes.
Actually yes ki has been scrapped. It's in the current playtest article about monks (both the playtest itself and more detailed in the dev & design article about it). They decided that they couldn't come up with a cohesive theme/mechanic for ki without it becoming the 'asian power source' so scrapped it to avoid cultural stereotyping...
Well thats actually good, I always thought "Ki" and "Psionic" stepped on each others toes too much. And not to go further off-topic, but did he mention if the source would be replaced or just dropped?
...I guess Dragon doesn't count for their "We won't be reprinting races" statement.
I would hope not. There is a huge difference between electronic publishing, and actual physical publishing. Someday the lines will go away, but in today's world there is a major difference between the two (at least as far as profit and marketing go). Besides if they plan on releasing an "annual" every year, they already plan on "reprinting" the vaious racial information.
Drow: The devs have stated they aren't goign to republish races, so since the Drow are in the FRPG, don't expect them. Also, they are fey, not shadow, so there's that too.
Yes, I know the Drow will not see a PHB write-up...in this edition. But I do want everyone (including future developers) to start seeing them as a "standard" race, not a "setting specific" race. We already do, now just make it official...someday (fingers crossed for 5e). And remember these races do not have to have a "Shadow" origin, the race just has to have a tendency to wield darker powers (aka Shadow power source classes).
Duergar: I will admit my Duergar lore isn't that strong, but I don't necessarily see them as Shadow. An evil/subterranean race does not necessarily = Shadow.
Once more they do not have to be a "Shadow" race, just a race with loose morals and a bend toward the dark side. Also while they may not be purely Shadow class centered, if Elemental shows up in this PHB they could work well for that source to.
Shadar-Kai: They were put in Dragon. So it's unlikely. i would expect to see them republished in the Dragon compendium but not a PHB.
Well we know the Minotaur will be in PHB3, and I still believe it is a much sounder move for WotC to use them as a race. They have already added Shadar-Kai lore into several sourcebooks, so making them a race available to all (for a price...even to those with a DDI subscription) so that they can use that fluff makes sense. And again they can crow about how "subscribers get it first", making it sound like a real benefit over outsiders.
Svirfneblin: Again, I don't see the shadow connection. Elemental maybe (dpending on what direction they go with the elemental power source).
Basically "Deep Gnomes" are a more somber, earthy, type of Gnome. Given there is some speculation that some Shadow classes will center around Illusions and/or controlling darkness and shadows, it seemed to fit a darker underdark Gnome. Also given that Elemental may well show up in this book both Svirfneblin and Duergar would fit those classes as well.
Playing... articles give us more race options and I think those that are popular enough may see a PH/PG entry, especially if they need tweaking and updating from the article feedback.
I know all that. It still is wholly unfair that all Drow material of any true meaning has to get lumped under FR. They began as a non-FR race, and now in 4e when everyone has Drows in their world, they should return to a more generic presentation. Just like standard Elves and Eladrin.
It may never change, but tossing them into a specific settings guide does give them the illusion of being for that setting only. In fact I find most people think of Genasi and Swordmages as FR only things, and their use always needs DM "approval" (may not be the official rules but it is how I see people handling it in their games). The same happens a lot when Warforged are brought up, only of course people attaching them to Ebberon.
In time Genasi, Swordmages, and Warforged will become so common that they lose all of their "setting stigma", and just be seen as part of every fantasy world. But that has yet to happen. Now the same can not be said of Drow. When folks think Drow they do not immediatly attach that "FR-only" tag to it in their minds. And as I have said nearly every DM has Drow in his world no matter the setting. I just think it was high time they got treated as the "standard" race they really are.
Again I understand this may never change, but it still dosen't make it fair, and until people start talking about making the shift it will never happen. So maybe if we all give it some thought, by 5e we will see Drow moving into the "core" universe.
The difference is that in most worlds Drow are an almost wholly villainous race with no iconic names who are out trying to "rebel" against the stereotype. This generally leads to 2 types of drow in most games:
1. The Evil Drow who drips with evil, is clad in black leather, and has a taste for Whips and Chains. In most games such characters are not welcome additions, especially if your party is mostly Good, or if you have a Lawful Stupid Paladin.
2. The Drizzt Clone. Because, let's face it, anyone who plays a Drow as an angst filled crusader for justice who is rejected by his people and so is rebelling against them by being good, Is basically Cosplaying as Drizzt.
I've seen characters who are not either of the two above, but they are far and away the exceptions and not the norm. And since Drizzt is an iconic hero of the FR setting, it only makes sense that the FRPG has his normally irredeemably evil race available for PCs.
Personally, I think Eberron Drow are the best Drow of them all. Tribal tatoo wearing Jungle Dwellers. mmm...Tasty.
2. The Drizzt Clone. Because, let's face it, anyone who plays a Drow as an angst filled crusader for justice who is rejected by his people and so is rebelling against them by being good, Is basically Cosplaying as Drizzt.
I have a halfling ranger who wears black face, throws rocks at enemies yelling "Attack, Guenwhyvar!" and calls himself Drizzt. He's such a fanboi...
The difference is that in most worlds Drow are an almost wholly villainous race with no iconic names who are out trying to "rebel" against the stereotype. This generally leads to 2 types of drow in most games:
1. The Evil Drow who drips with evil, is clad in black leather, and has a taste for Whips and Chains. In most games such characters are not welcome additions, especially if your party is mostly Good, or if you have a Lawful Stupid Paladin.
2. The Drizzt Clone. Because, let's face it, anyone who plays a Drow as an angst filled crusader for justice who is rejected by his people and so is rebelling against them by being good, Is basically Cosplaying as Drizzt...
Well in response to point 1, I have to say that mentality is more and more becoming a thing of the past, as 4e widened the grey area with the revamped alignment system, and the continued introduction of "anti-hero" type classes, feats, and races. Now having leather clad Tiefling Warlocks, teamed with Shadar-Kai Dhampyr Wizards, and Githzeri Monks is not uncommon. It is well past the time to begin to look past the "whole race is inherently evil" thing with Drow as well.
In response to point 2, well we still see cheerful Halfling Rogues, wizened Human Wizards, stalwart Dwarven Paladins, but it dosen't invalidate those as good role-playing examples of those characters. Maybe exiled crusader is cliche for them, but it is easy to identify and once done most players move on to other Drow character ideas. Eventually I think as the idea of Drow all having to be irredeemably evil fades we will see far more inventive iconic Drow come about.
We also need to remember that very few non elf/eladrin people know drows exist in 4e. Most never heard of them and when they see one they don't react violently, thinking them to be another elf.
This really depends on the setting. In the Forgotten Realms, for example, most folks in more civilized areas have heard of Drow. They know Dark skinned elves are bad news. Other settings? maybe not so much. So it all depends. It's hard to make a blanket statement of "No one really has heard of them."
This really depends on the setting. In the Forgotten Realms, for example, most folks in more civilized areas have heard of Drow. They know Dark skinned elves are bad news. Other settings? maybe not so much. So it all depends. It's hard to make a blanket statement of "No one really has heard of them."
True but now in FR it's 'most dark skinned elves are bad' since shortly before the Spellplague hit a sizable chunk of drow (though probably still less than 25%) became dark elves, removed from the curse and Lolth's influence and brought back under the 'protection' of Corellon. From all I've seen though they still use the drow writeup in the FRPG and are considered 'drow' for game mechanics. They are lighter skinned than drow and they don't have the traditional white hair though (they get described as mostly dark hair). So in FR white haired, dark skinned elves are bad news. Dark haired, not-so-dark skinned elves probably okay people.
This really depends on the setting. In the Forgotten Realms, for example, most folks in more civilized areas have heard of Drow. They know Dark skinned elves are bad news. Other settings? maybe not so much. So it all depends. It's hard to make a blanket statement of "No one really has heard of them."
Well I was referring to the fluff given in the "Ecology of the Drow" article in Dragon last year, that stated that most humanoids have never heard of drows and when they spot one they will most likely think it's a normal elf with black skin.
This really depends on the setting. In the Forgotten Realms, for example, most folks in more civilized areas have heard of Drow. They know Dark skinned elves are bad news. Other settings? maybe not so much. So it all depends. It's hard to make a blanket statement of "No one really has heard of them."
Very true. For example in my setting most people don't realize that Elves and Eladrin are two seperate species. They know about Drow (or "Dark Elves") and Elves, but the common man/woman think Eladrin are just pretty Elves. Although they are still a "standard" playable race.
In any case the general fluff given for any "standard" race seldomn depends on how "well known" a species is. Just look at the Deva, with so few in existence only the most travelled have heard of them, let alone ever seen one. And again they are still a "standard" playable race.
I just believe that since Drow are used in nearly everyones campaign setting, they deserve to be treated as a "standard" race. It seems unfair that Minotaurs (originally a very Dragonlance centered race...more so then Drow are FR) get to become a "standard" race before the Drow.
There isn't a DM or Player out there that would expect to have to really ask if they can play a Drow (regardless of setting).
That's a sweeping generalization, and apparently assumes that every allows every available race for PCs even in custom settings. One of the campaigns I'm in right now is all human PCs, with the "alien" races as monsters. I've played in others that didn't allow dragonborn or tiefling PCs and wouldn't have allowed drow or genasi if they'd been available at the time. I've never been in a game where bladelings were a legal PC race, and I don't really expect to be.
Letting everything into your game doesn't always make it better, you know. Sometimes it's better to reserve some races for Bad Guy status.
That's a sweeping generalization, and apparently assumes that every allows every available race for PCs even in custom settings. One of the campaigns I'm in right now is all human PCs, with the "alien" races as monsters. I've played in others that didn't allow dragonborn or tiefling PCs and wouldn't have allowed drow or genasi if they'd been available at the time. I've never been in a game where bladelings were a legal PC race, and I don't really expect to be.
Letting everything into your game doesn't always make it better, you know. Sometimes it's better to reserve some races for Bad Guy status.
Each DM can always make their own choices, but the fact remains most DMs will not ban a "standard" PHB race, or the Drow, out of hand...yes its a "sweeping generalization", its meant to be. This is a general fact, there are exceptions (of course), but I guarentee you know a handful of DMs yourself that wouldn't bat an eye at letting a Player run a Drow.
Each DMs setting can always have its own rules, but when we are talking about a "standard" race, we must speak in "sweeping generalizations" because they must be adaptable (or not) to any variety of settings. No DM has to (or even does) allow every race, but to deny that Drow have moved on from being a "campaign specific" race to a "standard" race used by most would be ignoring the obvious.
This isn't about "if" Drow should be included in every setting (that remains up to the DM). Its about the fact that they need to stop being treated like monsters that just happen to get PC write-ups in FR products, and start being treated like a race that tends to appear in most games (like it already is....just unofficially).
If you look you'll see drow, genasi, and swordmage support in the power source books which you wouldn't see if they were setting specific classes and races in the sense of previous editions.
It's only people's preconceptions of what is "core" based on older editions that marginalize the drow, genasi, swordmage, or anything else put into a PG rather than a PHB. The closest to non-core you'll see in 4e is the CG but even those have lots non-fluff content that can be useful in any setting.
If we're going to speculate I think the presence of the minotaur in the PH3 actually reduces the likelihood of seeing Dragonlance since that was one of the very few distinguishing races of the setting. Kender, tinker gnomes, and gully dwarves are all just flavored subraces and would/could be handled the same as the various elf subraces are in FR with racial feats to give them the extra flavor. The irda, minotaur, and draconians were the distinctive races and the draconian death-abilities don't really fit with 4e PC races in that it prevents the chance at resurrection (even Deva can be ressurected despite having reincarnation).
Dont' forget despite lingering biases that FRPG is considered just as core as the PH and that any class and race in it is considered a "standard" playable race...
That may be the truth, but any information that gets segragated into a campaign specific handbook can easily be excluded by a DM with the simple fact of "this isn't the (brand x) setting so I have to double check it before I allow it." (Drow are one of the few things most DMs don't normally do that to). As long as they present rules along with fluff in their settings WotC runs the risk of gamers not using either because it "isn't their world" (even if they should). I myself don't allow Genasi or Spellscarred in my world because I don't even own the FR books, and have no desire to run a FR game (or Eberron for that matter). I really believe that Drow should not have gotten lumped in with material that is setting specific. The setting handbooks should stick to maps and fluff and leave the crunch to the more generic books.
With or without optional support for setting specific material placed in other sourcebooks, the central article (in this case the Drow) should be placed in a generic handbook rather then a setting handbook if they really wish to overcome the mentality that somethings are not available to all. So far just repeating that mantra hasn't really worked. I have yet to see a non-FR DM allow everything in the FR handbook without some ado, and yes I know thats a generalization (there is always exceptions) but just because its a general fact means the "its all core" slogan isn't winning the day (at least not in all cases).
That may be the truth, but any information that gets segragated into a campaign specific handbook can easily be excluded by a DM with the simple fact of "this isn't the (brand x) setting so I have to double check it before I allow it." (Drow are one of the few things most DMs don't normally do that to). As long as they present rules along with fluff in their settings WotC runs the risk of gamers not using either because it "isn't their world" (even if they should). I myself don't allow Genasi or Spellscarred in my world because I don't even own the FR books, and have no desire to run a FR game (or Eberron for that matter). I really believe that Drow should not have gotten lumped in with material that is setting specific. The setting handbooks should stick to maps and fluff and leave the crunch to the more generic books.
With or without optional support for setting specific material placed in other sourcebooks, the central article (in this case the Drow) should be placed in a generic handbook rather then a setting handbook if they really wish to overcome the mentality that somethings are not available to all. So far just repeating that mantra hasn't really worked. I have yet to see a non-FR DM allow everything in the FR handbook without some ado, and yes I know thats a generalization (there is always exceptions) but just because its a general fact means the "its all core" slogan isn't winning the day (at least not in all cases).
Maps and fluff are mostly in the CG since that's DM material. The PGs are meant to focus on things for players and while they do have content specific to the setting (like FRPG has FR-specific backgrounds tied to regions) the bulk of the PG books is setting neutral. Also other than feats, and racial PPs the drow in the FRPG are statted out pretty close if not identical to the MM writeup on them (unlike some other races like minotaur that have been reworked to fit being a PC race better). Plus download the free CB demo version and you'll have all the info for the PC drow, genasi (plus their heroic feats) and level 1-3 of the swordmage without having to get the FRPG.
Blasphemes. They're intelligent undead that aren't necessarily evil (well, the Blaspheme Knight isn't). They're supposed to be like Frankenstein's monster, and I could easily see them with Str/Int, an ability score set that need more love (compared to ones like Dex/Cha or Dex/Wis).
I would support Blasphemes as the Undead Shadow race for PHB4, but they'd need to find a better name. Good concept, though.
- Drow (we know it won't happen, but they should have been here instead of in the FR guide)
- Duergar
- Shadar-Kai
- Svirfneblin
- Gnoll
- Dark Ones
- Derro
- Blasphemes
- Cambion
- New undead-like or elemental-like race created for the PHB4
If you have more to add or even just comments on the choices so far please toss in your 2 copper pieces.
The Drow had to be placed in the FRPG for the simple reason that when people think FR they think Drizzt. Taking it out would be taking the settings most infamous race and ignoring it.
Not to go back off-topic, but I have to comment. Even if the Drow ended up in a PHB, it would not effect the extensive Drow fluff that still exists for FR (leaving them an important part of the setting). That should all remain in the campaign guide, but the actual Drow crunch does not need to be there it would be better served by all D&D gamers if it had been placed in a PHB. No need to "ignore" Drizzt (he is good background fluff), just no need to have the mechanics behind his race jammed in next to it. Heck FR has some pretty iconic characters of other races (ie. Eliminster) and they don't get dibs on those races (ie. Human). Drow just tend to be universally accepted to exist in many campaign settings, so FR should not get to "own" the race just because of some character that appeared in a series of books written back in the late 80's (many many years after the race first appeared in Greyhawk).
Sorry for going off-topic again...back to the discussion at hand with a new suggestion. What about the Azer? They have a bit of a dark and forbidden history (good for Shadow class fluff), but they also have a very strong Elemental connection (good for Elemental class fluff). Any opinions?
BLASPHEME CRAFTED FROM PIECES OF CORPSES and given life through alchemy and magic, blasphemes are intelligent, cunning undead. They often guard ancient repositories of knowledge, such as wizards’ libraries or shrines to dark gods. Blasphemes have a variety of motivations, ranging from the worship of dark gods and obedience to sinister masters to the pursuit of redemption for their cursed existence. Blaspheme Unholy Slayer Level 12 Skirmisher Blaspheme Unholy Slayer Tactics A blaspheme unholy slayer thinks itself a monstrosity, and it believes with conviction that by sending the souls of other creatures to the afterlife, it can redeem its own tortured existence. It approaches assassination with religious devotion, targeting noble and righteous creatures in particular. A creature constructed from the parts of dead bodies and given life, a blaspheme serves as the Frankenstein’s monster of D&D. Its mindless cousin is the flesh golem, a hulking brute created for destruction. When you want a smart foe that is tactically savvy, learns from its mistakes, and talks to the PCs, a blaspheme is the better choice. Because of the combination of a devious intellect and the touch of madness, a blaspheme can make a compelling, capable villain. Here are a few quotes that reflect the philosophy of a blaspheme: “The void of death is cold and hungry. You’ll learn that soon.” “All things die in time. Life is unnatural; it is an abomination.” “My existence is proof that death is not final. Take comfort in that fact as I bring death to you.” “I am composed of many parts, and each has felt the pain of death—a pain you will soon know.” “Your perspective is limited by your experience. You have not died, and therefore you know nothing of life.”
I could really see these guys working really well as a player race for undead-oriented characters. A race of philosophical intelligent warrior poets comprised of dead corpses sewn together and animated via magic in a quest to protect something or preserve knowledge? Nice concept that goes beyond generic "Vampire" or "Zombie" race. But lord that name needs work.
Sidenote:Though from the look of PHB3 looks like the Minotaur and Githyanki are getting some Core love. Maybe Githzerai as well?
Well I don't know if you've red the June Editorial Calendar but there are is a spotlight article on Revenants on the 12th and on the 15th there is a Dragon article on Playing Revenants. Since it doesnt say playtest I'm assuming its a new race, sounds like its geared up for the shadow source, also the FRPG mentions Shades as a race but no appearing race stats or features, so they might be making those core for the shadow power source. I'm hoping WotC gives some love to some new races not just working older ones into play.
Sidenote:Though from the look of PHB3 looks like the Minotaur and Githyanki are getting some Core love. Maybe Githzerai as well?
That is a githzerai on the cover. 'Zerai are more commonly monks, 'yanki more commonly warriors or swordmages (gishes). Hopefully the 'yanki will be in too.
Quicklings - aren't those just evil superfast gnomes?
Yeah, I just tossed out the idea, unless these guys got some serious work they would be a rather dull race.
Well I don't know if you've red the June Editorial Calendar but there are is a spotlight article on Revenants on the 12th and on the 15th there is a Dragon article on Playing Revenants. Since it doesnt say playtest I'm assuming its a new race, sounds like its geared up for the shadow source, also the FRPG mentions Shades as a race but no appearing race stats or features, so they might be making those core for the shadow power source. I'm hoping WotC gives some love to some new races not just working older ones into play...
Both the Revenant and the Shade sound like good ideas. I know I grinned when I saw the "Playing Revenants", but I wonder if its going to be a Heritage feat (like Dhampyrs), wherein they fluff it so your Character would have died and then returned to life. Now Shades sound like they could be a "true" race, and if so they would make great Shadow source Characters.
Also I have to say I agree that it would be nice for WotC to throw in a new race or two, but I also don't want them forgetting about some of the great creations they (or their predecessors) have already made. There are many "classic" races that fit this source well, and I would love to see them step into the spotlight as it were.
...I know I grinned when I saw the "Playing Revenants", but I wonder if its going to be a Heritage feat (like Dhampyrs), wherein they fluff it so your Character would have died and then returned to life...
And of course now I'm wondering if they shouldn't include the Dhampyr in the PHB4. It would be a great place to put it, along with Revenants...and maybe one or two more Heritage feats...like maybe Death Knight .
Well its cool that it turns out Revenants will be a full race, I like the fluff of having returned from the dead to start your adventuring career. And I have have a strong feeling both they and the Assassin class will show up in PHB4. I guess only time will tell.
Except for the whoel statement of them being exclusive DDI material that won't be reprinted elsewhere...
This month, we kick off a new rollout of exclusive material for the Dungeons & Dragons game that you can only get as a D&D Insider subscriber. This exclusive material won't appear in any core rulebooks or supplements, but it will be totally official and ready to use if you're a D&D Insider subscriber.
Well its cool that it turns out Revenants will be a full race, I like the fluff of having returned from the dead to start your adventuring career. And I have have a strong feeling both they and the Assassin class will show up in PHB4. I guess only time will tell.
I remember reading in Ampersand that the Revenant/Assassin was a DDI "only" thing. Meaning it won't appear in a PHB, ever. Unless it's in a DDI compendium, it might not EVER hit actual print. Of course, since they come out this year, and the PHB3 is next year, it'd be just like WotC to put them in the PHB4. One of those "trying to make some fans happy but ultimately ******* off others" thing they seem to be so good at... (poor WotC
)EDIT: Sniped! (for those that won't see it because it's a new page)
So far here are the races that have been put forward for the PHB4:
- Drow (we know it won't happen, but they should have been here instead of in the FR guide)
- Duergar
- Shadar-Kai
- Svirfneblin
- Gnoll
- Dark Ones
- Derro
- Blasphemes
- Cambion
- New undead-like or elemental-like race created for the PHB4
If you have more to add or even just comments on the choices so far please toss in your 2 copper pieces.
Hmmm. Personally, I'd like to see new stuff, and leave stuff already in print (such as the Drow) where they are. I wouldn't want space that could give us a new race devoted to reprinting the Drow (of course, I see nothing wrong with a PHB getting paragon paths and racial feats for races in print in other sources, and the Shadow PHB seems like the place to do that for Drow)
Cambion sounds cool. Like a Half-Devil, but with a cooler name.
It'd be another Tiefling-esque race, with the "I could be evil and I look evil but I'm actually a badass good guy" theme.I'd like a Lycanthrope race. Shifters are cool, but they aren't Lycanthropes. Of course, I'd rather play a "natural" Lycan that can shift at will (like Shifters) and isn't inflicted with a disease (like the DMG lycans). Of course, with the Moonstalker Shifter Paragon Path in the PHB2, it looks like it'd be easier to play a Shifter and call myself a Lycanthrope than to expect a new race, eh?
I'd kinda like to see basic "archetypes" filled out. In list form, for ease of reading:
-Amphibious race. I could see a Merfolk or Frog/Toad race here.
-Reptillian race. Non-monster versions of Lizardfolk or Yuan-Ti. (complete with the "doesn't like to be associated with "insert appropriate monster race here", as opposed to just being "dumbed down to pc race level" versions of the monster)
-Avian race. (something with more color, maybe a flight power, as opposed to the Kenku, maybe an Owl or Parrot or something "obviously different")
-Any of a variety of "cool" monster races. Like a Gargoyle, or Medusa, or Vampire, or Treant.
Some would make more sense than others in a PHB focusing on "Shadow", like a Vampire race, or a "true" Lycanthrope, or a Yuan-Ti. (no idea how to justify that as a player race, but a "snake" option for players would be cool, and I personally think it would be MORE awesome if it had something to do with Yuan-Ti, as opposed to being "just a different snake race")
Shadar-kia (can already play them but can be expanded I suppose)
Shade
Kenku (has Asian feel and a bird wouldn't be bad-though we already can play them)
these are quite possible.
Nezumi (ratlings) something with asian feel
Faust (I love the d20 Faust from the Minions book. Anything even slightly simular would be awesome)
Another creature they dumb-down for pc would be (and it's shadowy) the Rakasha. I know it's an evil being of power, but you never know with 4e. Look how lessened the Minotaur is- and people like playing them.
And with the Revenant, I'm sure people are itching for Vampires, the worlds most popular undead. Again, a creature out of place in a low level campaign, but you never know.
I would much rather they move on from that, and give us something new. I would think Revenant would be best for a PHB, but we shall see. I would really hate to see any classicly evil undead stripped of their pure irrdeemable evilness just so people could play them (don't think they would be as cool or intresting if you take that away). To prevent that if they must have an undead race for a PHB then make it a new one...one that has little to no past D&D baggage (like maybe the Revenant...now I sound like a broken record).
That said, Dhamphyr does sound like an interesting race in eys own right, but ey doesnt enjoy the narrative potential to explore anti-culture motiffs, to the extent that the vampire (or drow) does. Personally, I could care less about the predation of vampires - what I like about them is their subversive mystique.
In any case, its easy to design a Vampire race that is balanced at lo-levels (for 'children'), as well as very powerful at hi-level (for 'parents'). This is the 21st century. D&D has enough room for both mythologically-accurate vampires, as well as pop-inspired vampires per Dresdon Files, Anne Rice, Twilight, Angel, or so on.
Most players want to play an actual Vampire, not a pseudo-vampire or 'vampire-lite' Dhamphyr, just like playing actual Doppelganger, not pseudo-doppelganger, actual Drow, not pseudo-drow, etc.
That said, Dhamphyr does sound like an interesting race in eys own right, but ey doesnt enjoy the narrative potential to explore anti-culture motiffs, to the extent that the vampire (or drow) does. Personally, I could care less about the predation of vampires - what I like about them is their subversive mystique.
In any case, its easy to design a Vampire race that is balanced at lo-levels (for 'children'), as well as very powerful at hi-level (for 'parents'). This is the 21st century. D&D has enough room for both mythologically-accurate vampires, as well as pop-inspired vampires per Anne Rice, Twilight, Angel, or so on.
But other than giving Dhamphyrs a weakness to clerics, what would you really do differently to make them "true vampires"? As I recall they are able to acquire nearly all of the abilities that vampires have, and the only real differences are the lack of the undead type and an inability to create other vampires.
Randiel: what would you really do differently to make them "true vampires"
To make ey a 'true Vampire', I would make ey an actual 'Vampire'.
In the same way, in order to make the 3e 'Changling' a 'true Doppelganger', 4e made it an actual 'Doppelganger'.
But other than giving Dhamphyrs a weakness to clerics, what would you really do differently to make them "true vampires"? As I recall they are able to acquire nearly all of the abilities that vampires have, and the only real differences are the lack of the undead type and an inability to create other vampires.
Thats correct, and why I doubt they would want to reinvent something they have already made. If a person wants they can always call their Character a "Vampire", and few would ever be able to tell the difference.
- Azer
- Duergar
- Shadar-Kai
- Svirfneblin
- Gnoll
- Dark Ones
- Derro
- Blasphemes
- Cambion
- Revenant
- Shade
- Quicklings
- Dhamphyr (Heritage Feat)
Again if anyone has more to add or even just comments on the choices so far please toss in your 2 copper pieces (although at some point we need to settle on 5 of them).
Wow...its been 4 months!
I know it may seem strange to "raise this Thread from the dead", but I thought the subject might enjoy a little reprise given the release of the first Shadow class; Assassin.
Aside from wondering if any additional future "Shadow" races leap to mind, I was also wondering which of the above races would best fit as an Assassin, and if anyone could think of an "iconic" Shadow class that would "optimal" (if made correctly) for any of them.
This morning I was struck with a new idea for a "Shadow" race; Catfolk.
I know in previous editions they have been built to work better with what we would now call "Primal" or "Martial" classes, but I believe they could work well as a "Shadow" class optimal race. As with thier namesake they are nocturnal, tend to rely upon stealth, and seem to have a semi-mystical quality ("linked to the Shadowfell"). Give them a slightly darker bend with a proclivity toward a Shadow Striker class and they would be purrfect (sorry...couldn't resist).