you could choose the rest. you already have them as monsters.
We already have a shapeshifter race and a feline race. What would Rakshasha bring to the table?
On the other hand, I like the Deva much more than I thought I would, and the Brink of Corruption background made me think of the other side of the coin. If there are Deva that have decayed so far on their cycles of reincarnation that they become Rakshasha, could there not be Rakshasha attempting to return to the light?
But mechanically, I see them stepping all over the Changeling's toes. In fact, with a little refluffing and swapping +2 Insight for +2 Intimidate, you could probably make Changelings into Rakshasha.
So, I would like to see them for RP purposes, but I don't see what they would bring that is entirely their own.
I have mixed feelings about the prospect of Rakshasha as a PC race.
We already have a shapeshifter race and a feline race. What would Rakshasha bring to the table?
On the other hand, I like the Deva much more than I thought I would, and the Brink of Corruption background made me think of the other side of the coin. If there are Deva that have decayed so far on their cycles of reincarnation that they become Rakshasha, could there not be Rakshasha attempting to return to the light?
But mechanically, I see them stepping all over the Changeling's toes. In fact, with a little refluffing and swapping +2 Insight for +2 Intimidate, you could probably make Changelings into Rakshasha.
So, I would like to see them for RP purposes, but I don't see what they would bring that is entirely their own.
This. Play an Int/Cha Changeling, describe your default shape as your favorite backwards-palmed anthro-feline, and there, it's a Rakshasa.
I have mixed feelings about the prospect of Rakshasha as a PC race.
We already have a shapeshifter race and a feline race. What would Rakshasha bring to the table?
On the other hand, I like the Deva much more than I thought I would, and the Brink of Corruption background made me think of the other side of the coin. If there are Deva that have decayed so far on their cycles of reincarnation that they become Rakshasha, could there not be Rakshasha attempting to return to the light?
But mechanically, I see them stepping all over the Changeling's toes. In fact, with a little refluffing and swapping +2 Insight for +2 Intimidate, you could probably make Changelings into Rakshasha.
So, I would like to see them for RP purposes, but I don't see what they would bring that is entirely their own.
what feline player race? I didn't notice any. I coukd have simply overlooked but I would to look at this race.
what feline player race?
Shifter, Razorclaw
That said, the rakshasa probably isn't a good choice for the role, for story and fluff reasons, much like the gith pairing.
There are other options though. The weretiger would be one, but probably brings more issues than is necessary. Various other cat-people appeared in old-E though. I found the 3E catfolk to be rather flat (and the game really didn't need yet another rustic tribal race), but the rakasta (note the difference in name!) from the Savage Coast/Red Steel setting had some possibilities (and thankfully *weren't* yet another rustic tribal primitive group).
Non-D&D games have some good examples too - The Elder Scrolls' khajiit are the best example of a cat-people race done well in my book, though again you could draw ideas from the ones in Everquest or even Wing Commander.
"Ugly human with a vaguely animalistic look" doesn't qualify as a feline race to most. That its sole racial ability is more evocative of The Incredible Hulk than a cat doesn't help matters. That said, the rakshasa probably isn't a good choice for the role, for story and fluff reasons, much like the gith pairing. There are other options though. The weretiger would be one, but probably brings more issues than is necessary. Various other cat-people appeared in old-E though. I found the 3E catfolk to be rather flat (and the game really didn't need yet another rustic tribal race), but the rakasta (note the difference in name!) from the Savage Coast/Red Steel setting had some possibilities (and thankfully *weren't* yet another rustic tribal primitive group). Non-D&D games have some good examples too - The Elder Scrolls' khajiit are the best example of a cat-people race done well in my book, though again you could draw ideas from the ones in Everquest or even Wing Commander.
Just because YOU have seen Razorclaw Shifters as looking more human than furry, doesn't mean that everybody does. There are a range of artworks, and some look distinctly more feline than others. Same goes for the Longtooths. Though I agree, Khajiit are a good example. In my setting, Razorclaw Shifters actually have entire cultures of their own, rather than being a hybrid descent race, and are a desert people (though other than that, they try not to invoke the Khajiit culture).
However, I would like a back of the MM write up for them - so as to more easily make Rakshasa NPCs.
what feline player race?
Shifter, Razorclaw
They don't seem as feline. longtooth shifters are less doglike than gnolls are. and gnolls, githyanki, genasi and bladelings are all now player playable races. githyanki has its telekenetic leap.
Now other supposed powerful races [at higher levels] seem to have been reduced down as player races level 1. Now weretiger, wererat, werewolf, etc might be welcomed as player races - again softened down considerably.
What do you say to wererat as a player race? lycanthropes as player races?
the rakshasa might have Deceptive Veil racial power, +2 cha +2 dex +2 bluff [only one skill bonus] and it could be brought in MM3 rather than PHB3. perhaps a 1d6 claw attack with STR or DEX as added bonus wouldn't even make it that powerful. What is so overpowering about that? the hands being backwards of others is interesting as well.
Thanks to fourth ed, it's not really about being an overpowered race. Fourth is doing a good job keeping the balance that was lost in 3.X.
Speaking for myself, A rakasha is meant to be a completely evil concept. They are not suppose to have a redeeming quality, in any edition this has been true. By giving over the making them neutral (to me) they lose alot of the essence that makes them fun villains.
Now, as has been posted, including a stat right up for NPCs and DMs that will/would allow that in a MM is a great idea. I admit I'd like them so I can make more flavorful NPC's quicker then breaking down the racial abilities for myself.
EDIT: Still very bitter towards 3.X lycanthropes and extremely reluctant to even consider a PC lycanthrope because of the fanboy/girls and WoD influence on some players.
I must say despite, my reservations towards the use of Rakasha, you have done quite a bit of leg work on the creation of such a PC race. Perhaps you should work a touch more and due a full write up posting it with the Homebrew section. Allow it to be PEACHED and work with others to perfect it. It may catch the attention of the right people.
Thanks to fourth ed, it's not really about being an overpowered race. Fourth is doing a good job keeping the balance that was lost in 3.X.
Speaking for myself, A rakasha is meant to be a completely evil concept. They are not suppose to have a redeeming quality, in any edition this has been true. By giving over the making them neutral (to me) they lose alot of the essence that makes them fun villains.
Now, as has been posted, including a stat right up for NPCs and DMs that will/would allow that in a MM is a great idea. I admit I'd like them so I can make more flavorful NPC's quicker then breaking down the racial abilities for myself.
EDIT: Still very bitter towards 3.X lycanthropes and extremely reluctant to even consider a PC lycanthrope because of the fanboy/girls and WoD influence on some players.
I might prefer it in the MM3 as it would better for making NPCs or with a DM's permission a PC. It says in each MM so far that they for NPCs and "
The DM should carefully consider which monster races, if any,
to allow as PCs in his or her campaign.
" - MM2
I will also post as per your suggestion in homebrew section as soon as I find it.
as far as lycantrope PCs , I feel that as monsters control was okay, but as PCs the state should beyond player control via a periodic [beginning of encounter?] roll of die or dice to have form dictated to you. [when the moon is full]. say roll 1d8 and on a 1,2,7 or 8 you are in the beast form otherwise in the humanoid for a set period of time [end of encounter?]. this might make some Players from taking it but makes it more fair. just an idea.
As interesting as it would be, I doubt wotc would ever allow the Rakshasa to be playable by default. Rakshasa are far too powerful.
That's because they're high level. High level members of every PC race that appear in a MM is powerful. A 1st level Rakshasa would be just as powerful as a 1st level Eladrin or Deva.
As interesting as it would be, I doubt wotc would ever allow the Rakshasa to be playable by default. Rakshasa are far too powerful.
That's because they're high level. High level members of every PC race that appear in a MM is powerful. A 1st level Rakshasa would be just as powerful as a 1st level Eladrin or Deva.
And similar with Drow (though there are a couple monster Drow written up for an Adventure or two that are Heroic tier rather than Paragon).
What it really boils down to is that Rakshasa are supposed to be the embodiment of sin and evil that happens when a Deva falls. A good Rakshasa would be rather strange.
WotC aren't going to release PC races that don't have at least a potential to be Good or Lawful Good in significant amounts. It's why they released Drow, but not Githyanki (as much as I wanted that Githyanki PC race, it's not going to happen).
Gnolls and Minotaurs are similar – they have counter-cultures, and alternative stories, rather than just the Demonic connection. Rakshasa have multiple stories of course; they are fallen devas, or alternatively, *evolved* from Arcanoloth Demons, just as Ravaastas did. The two origin stories are mutually exclusive, but in either case, they're equally villainous. Whether a reincarnated fallen Deva, or a developed demon, Rakshasa are evil embodied in some form. It's not like other usually-villain races that have good alternatives.
I heard they were popular aming others eberron fans.
If you're basing this off of eberron, let me tell you that Rakshasa would be the single worst race to add to that setting. In that setting Rakshasa are demons -- straight up fiends, supposedly the closest thing to pure evil in the whole world. Just like I wouldn't allow my players to play a demon or a devil or a dragon I would not allow them to play a Rakshasa. Not because they'd be too powerful, but because they're pure evil and the definition of the setting requires that from them.
WotC aren't going to release PC races that don't have at least a potential to be Good or Lawful Good in significant amounts. It's why they released Drow, but not Githyanki (as much as I wanted that Githyanki PC race, it's not going to happen).
That's complete crap and we all know it. WotC will release the Githyanki as a PC race. It's a matter of when, not if. They can claim they won't because Yanki are "too villainous" all they want; it's a BS excuse that they are not going to keep to.
Now, it's more likely it will be in Dragon instead of a PHB or PG, but it is going to happen eventually.
As interesting as it would be, I doubt wotc would ever allow the Rakshasa to be playable by default. Rakshasa are far too powerful.
That's because they're high level. High level members of every PC race that appear in a MM is powerful. A 1st level Rakshasa would be just as powerful as a 1st level Eladrin or Deva.
And similar with Drow (though there are a couple monster Drow written up for an Adventure or two that are Heroic tier rather than Paragon).
What it really boils down to is that Rakshasa are supposed to be the embodiment of sin and evil that happens when a Deva falls. A good Rakshasa would be rather strange.
WotC aren't going to release PC races that don't have at least a potential to be Good or Lawful Good in significant amounts. It's why they released Drow, but not Githyanki (as much as I wanted that Githyanki PC race, it's not going to happen).
Gnolls and Minotaurs are similar – they have counter-cultures, and alternative stories, rather than just the Demonic connection. Rakshasa have multiple stories of course; they are fallen devas, or alternatively, *evolved* from Arcanoloth Demons, just as Ravaastas did. The two origin stories are mutually exclusive, but in either case, they're equally villainous. Whether a reincarnated fallen Deva, or a developed demon, Rakshasa are evil embodied in some form. It's not like other usually-villain races that have good alternatives.
excuse me, but the monster manual lists it for npc or DM approved player use. That's where I'd like to see Rakshasa at. MM3
Githyanki are about the same evilness as rakshasa if not more. Tieflings are in as primary PC in PHB1! some people were enfuriated that tieflings and dragonborn were issued as PCs but they did it.
I heard they were popular aming others eberron fans.
If you're basing this off of eberron, let me tell you that Rakshasa would be the single worst race to add to that setting. In that setting Rakshasa are demons -- straight up fiends, supposedly the closest thing to pure evil in the whole world. Just like I wouldn't allow my players to play a demon or a devil or a dragon I would not allow them to play a Rakshasa. Not because they'd be too powerful, but because they're pure evil and the definition of the setting requires that from them.
if Rakshasa were issued in the MM3 then as a PC it would be subject to DM approval as a PC.
I would apreciate comments on what would go into it more rather than 'we can't allow demonic evil things as PCs.' - newsflash We already do and some of them are core.
a reincarnated Deva that did wrong returned as a rakshasa may seek redemption to return eventually as a deva again.
happy festivus! a festivus for the rest of us!
The main detraction for me and 3.x was that everything and it's mother included rules to make it a pc. Whether it be a human, a goblin, and illithid, or dragon there were stats for them. When you start giving every creature a stat write up to be used as PCs you start to take away their impact as villians, or NPCs.
On the tiefling note, that is a race thats ancestors made a faustin pact and their descendants carry that with them, not the same as a rakasha.
A Rakasha as it goes by all the rules is born evil with no desire to ever change it's ways, even after you kill it, if it's reincarnated during the adventure it actively seeks out revenge against those that killed it.
Final point is this, you made a request in an open forum where people have been posting their opinions on the matter. Some in favor to some degree and others not in favor. As an official release I would say right now your desire for it is out numbered, but as a homebrew there are more then enough will and creative people to see it into fruition.
I don't mean to put a downer on your hopes, I'm just saying what I think and what I see. Like everything else, every DM is different espessically when it comes to running their chosen settings.
There is much more to it then "not allowing evil things as PCs".
The main detraction for me and 3.x was that everything and it's mother included rules to make it a pc. Whether it be a human, a goblin, and illithid, or dragon there were stats for them. When you start giving every creature a stat write up to be used as PCs you start to take away their impact as villians, or NPCs.
On the tiefling note, that is a race thats ancestors made a faustin pact and their descendants carry that with them, not the same as a rakasha.
A Rakasha as it goes by all the rules is born evil with no desire to ever change it's ways, even after you kill it, if it's reincarnated during the adventure it actively seeks out revenge against those that killed it.
Final point is this, you made a request in an open forum where people have been posting their opinions on the matter. Some in favor to some degree and others not in favor. As an official release I would say right now your desire for it is out numbered, but as a homebrew there are more then enough will and creative people to see it into fruition.
I don't mean to put a downer on your hopes, I'm just saying what I think and what I see. Like everything else, every DM is different espessically when it comes to running their chosen settings.
then you wouldn't object it going in mm3 rather than phb3? the mm would allow DMs to make npcs and allow those mosters they wish allow as PCs.
It seems that only NEW race-like monsters get write-ups in the back of the MMs. That is, Duegar, Kenku, and Bullywugs were all new in the MM2, and no old races got write-ups in the MM2. Now, it's not a sequence yet, so I can't make full assumptions, but it seems like so. Rakshasa were in the MM1, so I doubt they'd get write-ups in the MM3.
That said, I wouldn't have too much of a problem with them getting a write-up in the MM3; however, if you really want a classed Rakshasa, it's rather easy as it is right now – just take a class template and apply it to an existing Rakshasa monster. NPCs should almost NEVER have full character-sheet write-ups anyways – it's much better to have them as monsters.
What would probably be better is if we get a couple lower-level Rakshasa monsters in a future MM.
I doubt it would be put in the MM3 though...
It seems that only NEW race-like monsters get write-ups in the back of the MMs. That is, Duegar, Kenku, and Bullywugs were all new in the MM2, and no old races got write-ups in the MM2. Now, it's not a sequence yet, so I can't make full assumptions, but it seems like so. Rakshasa were in the MM1, so I doubt they'd get write-ups in the MM3.
That said, I wouldn't have too much of a problem with them getting a write-up in the MM3; however, if you really want a classed Rakshasa, it's rather easy as it is right now – just take a class template and apply it to an existing Rakshasa monster. NPCs should almost NEVER have full character-sheet write-ups anyways – it's much better to have them as monsters.
What would probably be better is if we get a couple lower-level Rakshasa monsters in a future MM.
What if MM3 had a lower level Rakshasa? they could list it then as a racial traits section?
Did someone miss my point that mechanically speaking Rakhasa would be identical to Changelings based on their stats and racial power?
Point unmissed.
I would prefer having lower-level Rakshasa in the MM3 so if you WANTED NPC Rakshasa characters at lower level, you could have them without too much trouble. But Changelings make perfectly good Rakshasa PCs, if you HAD to have them – just define their *natural* form as the sdrawkcrab hands cat-people form.
Refluffing to the rescue again!
Refluffing to the rescue again!
Indeed. I've got a "Deva cursed by the primal spirits because of misdeeds in his past life" character made, but the comments of how a changling who's natual form is a tiger with backward hands is a better fit, are telling.
if Rakshasa were issued in the MM3 then as a PC it would be subject to DM approval as a PC.
I would apreciate comments on what would go into it more rather than 'we can't allow demonic evil things as PCs.' - newsflash We already do and some of them are core.
a reincarnated Deva that did wrong returned as a rakshasa may seek redemption to return eventually as a deva again.
happy festivus! a festivus for the rest of us!
In core setting fluff, rakshasas are possibly allowable.
In eberron fluff, rakshasas are not. They are not small time evil players. They are the setting's equivalents of serious, major time evils -- asking to play a rakshasa in eberron is similar to asking to play a pit fiend or a balor in the core setting.
It isn't that eberron rakshasa's are evil, it's that they're pure evil -- they are born out of the pure blood of khyber. It isn't that rakshasa's are alien, it's that they're immortal, each one having lived for over a million and a half years and they remember every second of it. They remember when demons ruled the world, they remember the war against the dragons, and they were there for it all!
Rakshasas in the core setting could conceivably be a suitable PC race. They'd need some serious softening just like the Drow needed, but it could work. But in Eberron it's completely unthinkable, so do not use Eberron as support for your ideas.
if Rakshasa were issued in the MM3 then as a PC it would be subject to DM approval as a PC.
I would apreciate comments on what would go into it more rather than 'we can't allow demonic evil things as PCs.' - newsflash We already do and some of them are core.
a reincarnated Deva that did wrong returned as a rakshasa may seek redemption to return eventually as a deva again.
happy festivus! a festivus for the rest of us!
In core setting fluff, rakshasas are possibly allowable.
In eberron fluff, rakshasas are not. They are not small time evil players. They are the setting's equivalents of serious, major time evils -- asking to play a rakshasa in eberron is similar to asking to play a pit fiend or a balor in the core setting.
It isn't that eberron rakshasa's are evil, it's that they're pure evil -- they are born out of the pure blood of khyber. It isn't that rakshasa's are alien, it's that they're immortal, each one having lived for over a million and a half years and they remember every second of it. They remember when demons ruled the world, they remember the war against the dragons, and they were there for it all!
Rakshasas in the core setting could conceivably be a suitable PC race. They'd need some serious softening just like the Drow needed, but it could work. But in Eberron it's completely unthinkable, so do not use Eberron as support for your ideas.
from which 4th ed material do you base that on. I saw where many rakshasa did evil thing in league with demons. I looked in the campaign setting and the player guide. at level 1 they would be very softened as most of rakshasas so far have been mid paragon level at least.
Did someone miss my point that mechanically speaking Rakhasa would be identical to Changelings based on their stats and racial power?
I had this idea awhile ago, as DM in an Eberron campaign.
A fellow is playing a rakshasa using stats for changelings. We've renamed 'changeling disguise' to 'deceptive veil'. The natural ability for powerful magic (a racial ability of the rakshasa) is reflected in his overall class level as a sorcerer (i.e. a compromise between the player and DM).
It's been fun; great roleplaying with this fella ;).
if Rakshasa were issued in the MM3 then as a PC it would be subject to DM approval as a PC.
I would apreciate comments on what would go into it more rather than 'we can't allow demonic evil things as PCs.' - newsflash We already do and some of them are core.
a reincarnated Deva that did wrong returned as a rakshasa may seek redemption to return eventually as a deva again.
happy festivus! a festivus for the rest of us!
In core setting fluff, rakshasas are possibly allowable.
In eberron fluff, rakshasas are not. They are not small time evil players. They are the setting's equivalents of serious, major time evils -- asking to play a rakshasa in eberron is similar to asking to play a pit fiend or a balor in the core setting.
It isn't that eberron rakshasa's are evil, it's that they're pure evil -- they are born out of the pure blood of khyber. It isn't that rakshasa's are alien, it's that they're immortal, each one having lived for over a million and a half years and they remember every second of it. They remember when demons ruled the world, they remember the war against the dragons, and they were there for it all!
Rakshasas in the core setting could conceivably be a suitable PC race. They'd need some serious softening just like the Drow needed, but it could work. But in Eberron it's completely unthinkable, so do not use Eberron as support for your ideas.
from which 4th ed material do you base that on. I saw where many rakshasa did evil thing in league with demons. I looked in the campaign setting and the player guide. at level 1 they would be very softened as most of rakshasas so far have been mid paragon level at least.
Spoiler Alert ahead! You've been warned.
Lord of the Wastes. He's a Demon Prince, and a Rakshasa as well. Apparently all Rakshasa are like this as well, only they're not Demon Princes...
Remember, 4e provided only the barebones, but you're supposed to draw on the old material from 3.5e as well. Nothing was retconned other than "adding" races in that weren't there before or defining this as that or what not. And Lord of the Wastes was detailed in the Eberron Campaign Guide.. o.o
if Rakshasa were issued in the MM3 then as a PC it would be subject to DM approval as a PC.
I would apreciate comments on what would go into it more rather than 'we can't allow demonic evil things as PCs.' - newsflash We already do and some of them are core.
a reincarnated Deva that did wrong returned as a rakshasa may seek redemption to return eventually as a deva again.
happy festivus! a festivus for the rest of us!
In core setting fluff, rakshasas are possibly allowable.
In eberron fluff, rakshasas are not. They are not small time evil players. They are the setting's equivalents of serious, major time evils -- asking to play a rakshasa in eberron is similar to asking to play a pit fiend or a balor in the core setting.
It isn't that eberron rakshasa's are evil, it's that they're pure evil -- they are born out of the pure blood of khyber. It isn't that rakshasa's are alien, it's that they're immortal, each one having lived for over a million and a half years and they remember every second of it. They remember when demons ruled the world, they remember the war against the dragons, and they were there for it all!
Rakshasas in the core setting could conceivably be a suitable PC race. They'd need some serious softening just like the Drow needed, but it could work. But in Eberron it's completely unthinkable, so do not use Eberron as support for your ideas.
from which 4th ed material do you base that on. I saw where many rakshasa did evil thing in league with demons. I looked in the campaign setting and the player guide. at level 1 they would be very softened as most of rakshasas so far have been mid paragon level at least.
Spoiler Alert ahead! You've been warned.
Lord of the Wastes. He's a Demon Prince, and a Rakshasa as well. Apparently all Rakshasa are like this as well, only they're not Demon Princes...
Remember, 4e provided only the barebones, but you're supposed to draw on the old material from 3.5e as well. Nothing was retconned other than "adding" races in that weren't there before or defining this as that or what not. And Lord of the Wastes was detailed in the Eberron Campaign Guide.. o.o
but until they put it in 4th ed it isn't set. mystra was was the chief magic diety, but... for now there is not yet a greyhawk until they issue a 4th ed campaign [maybe 2011?]. when you cite previous editions it is very subject to change and softening up or alteration.
when one goes on a tirade against "pure evil" relying on old editions, it reeks of somebody who can't come to grips with it is 4th not 3.5 or 2.0 or etc.
but until they put it in 4th ed it isn't set. mystra was was the chief magic diety, but... for now there is not yet a greyhawk until they issue a 4th ed campaign [maybe 2011?]. when you cite previous editions it is very subject to change and softening up or alteration.
when one goes on a tirade against "pure evil" relying on old editions, it reeks of somebody who can't come to grips with it is 4th not 3.5 or 2.0 or etc.
O.o WTF? The whole point of the Rakshasas in Eberron is that they are the most powerful of the unbound fiends of Khyber. Eberron recieved only minmal changes between editions, mostly consiting of additions to account for new 4th edition stuff. Rakashasa were not changed they still are reborn whenever they are killed. They still retain most of their memories and most still personally remember the Age of Demons. They are still the spawn of Kyber and are still fiends. Making them into a playable race would neuter them like the Drow have been. Are you going to ask for Pit Fiends as a playable race next? Really there isn't too much of a difference between wanting them as a playable race in general or wanting Rakashasa as playable in Eberron.
P.S. Yes I realize that it is possible to play characters like this, but that is the sort of thing that should be an exception and not the rule. Making official PC stats for these kinds of races implicitly makes them the rule no matter how much the fluff tries to say otherwise(hence the neutering of the Drow).
People don't really want it and Rakasha player race does not fit the setting.
The last piece of advice I'll give you is this, if you want rakasha's playable so badly take your homebrew and DM a game where your players are all Rakasha's or find a DM that will let you play it. You aren't finding much support here and you really don't seem to want to listen to the facts presented.
EDIT: In response to people bringing up the prior editions as examples. That's the history of the setting. The actual fluff and history goes back X amount of editions depending on the setting. Eberron received only a slight modification to include dragonborn and deva, very little was needed to change. Where as Forgotten Realms needed 100 year leap forward to explain the presence of 4th ed races and concepts. 4th ed doesnt erase the history or the story just changes the rules format.
simply saying can never allow because previous editions said they were pure evil incarnate is no reason to not even get a monster racial write up. I agree that the dm should decide, not a mob. Pit fiends are large, rakshasa medium. small and medium creatures are suitable for PCs not tiny not large, huge or gargantuant.
if they wish to cite a rule it should be current [citing work and page ##]. Dragonborn are pretty powerful at all levels compared to rakshasa - going by stats.
the drow were brought in as a npc then dm approved race first. the super bad rakshasas are all paragon level almost epic. a dragon born paladin at level 19 ain't too shabby themselves. I'm asking for a monster pc race like goblin or bullywug or gnoll. not phb3 but rather mm3. dm could decide to allow not.
simply saying can never allow because previous editions said they were pure evil incarnate is no reason to not even get a monster racial write up. I agree that the dm should decide, not a mob. Pit fiends are large, rakshasa medium. small and medium creatures are suitable for PCs not tiny not large, huge or gargantuant.
if they wish to cite a rule it should be current [citing work and page ##]. Dragonborn are pretty powerful at all levels compared to rakshasa - going by stats.
*sigh* Why am I still wasting my time on this? Fine page 28 of ECG.
Chief among the fiends who escaped imprisonment were the rakshasas
Even though rakshasa and demons can be killed, they eventually reincarnate with most of their memories and personality intact. As such most of the Lords of Dust have personal memories of the glorious days of the Age of Demons...
Page 36
Khyber's fiendish offspring overrun the surface world creating a hellish enviorment where rakshasa and night hags rule supreme
And really every race, even PHB races, require DM approval. The difference between the MM races and the PHB races is that the PHB races will recieve further support and have been more throughly playtested. There is no more need for Rakasha playable stats then there is for Draconian playable stats.
the drow were brought in as a npc then dm approved race first. the super bad rakshasas are all paragon level almost epic. a dragon born paladin at level 19 ain't too shabby themselves. I'm asking for a monster pc race like goblin or bullywug or gnoll. not phb3 but rather mm3. dm could decide to allow not.
simply saying can never allow because previous editions said they were pure evil incarnate is no reason to not even get a monster racial write up. I agree that the dm should decide, not a mob. Pit fiends are large, rakshasa medium. small and medium creatures are suitable for PCs not tiny not large, huge or gargantuant.
if they wish to cite a rule it should be current [citing work and page ##]. Dragonborn are pretty powerful at all levels compared to rakshasa - going by stats.
*sigh* Why am I still wasting my time on this? Fine page 28 of ECG.Chief among the fiends who escaped imprisonment were the rakshasasEven though rakshasa and demons can be killed, they eventually reincarnate with most of their memories and personality intact. As such most of the Lords of Dust have personal memories of the glorious days of the Age of Demons...
Page 36Khyber's fiendish offspring overrun the surface world creating a hellish enviorment where rakshasa and night hags rule supreme
And really every race, even PHB races, require DM approval. The difference between the MM races and the PHB races is that the PHB races will recieve further support and have been more throughly playtested. There is no more need for Rakasha playable stats then there is for Draconian playable stats.
The drow were condemned to the underdark and hated all surface races.
I would say you are not going to see them in a monster manual or as a playable race anytime soon, wizards realizes that most people do not want them and the established cannon on the rakshasa is that they are pure evil. I would agree with other posters that you should either refluff the changling or do a homebrew as that will likely be the only way you will see them as a playable race.
unfortunately our views of Canon differ drasticly. For me 4th ed is canon not something published prior and nothing by 3rd party publisher to be sure.
I would say you are not going to see them in a monster manual or as a playable race anytime soon, wizards realizes that most people do not want them and the established cannon on the rakshasa is that they are pure evil. I would agree with other posters that you should either refluff the changling or do a homebrew as that will likely be the only way you will see them as a playable race.
unfortunately our views of Canon differ drasticly. For me 4th ed is canon not something published prior and nothing by 3rd party publisher to be sure.
WotC said themselves that EVERYTHING Eberron that was canon in 3e is canon in 4e. There's just... more, in 4e, since we need space for the new races that weren't there, and some elements have been reinterpreted, such as whether someone or something used this mechanic or that one to represent what they did (such as with the Elven split and the introduction of new classes).
That said, did you read Renadiel's post at all? That was 4e canon words from the 4e Eberron Campaign Guide. Rakshasa are high tier enemies in 4e Eberron, and fiends on near par to lesser Demon Princes.
That said, that is Eberron canon. Rakshasa don't have as much detail in 4e generic Points of Light, but we know they are the descendants of the Arcanoloth demons, along with Ravaastas, or else are fallen Devas. These are beings that are manifest evil. There is no account of a Rakshasa that became a Deva because it was good, and Rakshasa seem to deny what Devas say about their origins (though they seem to deny the Arcanoloth origin as well, since they don't want to be associated with Ravaastas and their unrefined demonic origin). That said, Rakshasa are some of the worst and most powerful enemies in 4e, and they wouldn't give them stats, even as NPCs, unless SIGNIFICANT support was raised wanting them as PCs. Drow are in a VERY different situation from Rakshasa, because they have a history of heroic characters from their race, and by opening up them as a standard PC option, the heroic Drow won't all be Drizz't clones, hopefully – overtime the number of heroic drow should increase, making heroes not a subversion, but a siginficant counterculture. At the same time though, Drow have lost quite a bit of the dread associated with them. WotC isn't going to go there with one of their chief villainous monsters, the Rakshasa.
They're not going there for at least quite some time (and they hinted at possibly never) with the Githyanki, and while I was one of the big supporters of Githyanki as a PC race and finally getting that Con/Int race, I have to admit that the racial attitude of Githyanki puts them at odds with all other races, because by the nature of their people they aren't heroic. Their goals, desires, motivations are too selfish, vengeful, and deadly for them to be able to cooperate with other heroes, and any and all Githyanki that think differently are destroyed by their Queen. While Scales of War may undermine that assumption, Scales of War is only one adventure path that may or may not happen, and it's ramifications probably don't exist in your own setting. This isn't exactly the same issue, because Githyanki have MM1 stats, but Githyanki are a dime in the bucket compared to the Rakshasa. You might as well ask for MM stats for a Balor while you're at it. These are creatures with incomprehensible mindsets – mindsets that do not serve well for relations with other PCs.
The drow were condemned to the underdark and hated all surface races.
So? Being condemned and hated is different then being an immortal who has a body practically made of the raw essence of evil. Sure the drow committed some evil acts in the past and were cursed for that. However none of the modern drow were part of that original sin. Each of them has a clean slate, but most end up getting corrupted by their society. The Rakshasa in Eberron were the ones who were ruling over Eberron during the Age of Demons. They aren't the descendents of those Rakshasa who committed horrible acts of cruelty thousands of years ago. They are the same Rakshasa.
Really if you disagree with this view of Eberron so much then perhaps you should go ask in the Eberron forums whether they think that WotC should release Rakshasa as a playable race. I can't imagine you'll get many(if any) who agree with you at all.
Second, Drow are a terrible example to use as your basis for all your arguments. Within these forums you are going to find a 50/50 split of people that hate the fact that drow have become a "socially acceptable race" so to speak. This may or may not be because people have over played a certain character over and over again.
Third, why will you not get off this topic? The mindflayer and Yuan Ti Abominations fanboys got off there soapboxes long ago knowing they won't get them. But, I'll tell you what, even though you refuse to listen to the facts, I'll give you this. Start playing 3.X D&D or Pathfinder. Go find a cheap copy of Savage Species. Finally, find a group that is willing to use that, and in my experience it will be hard because MOST DM'S DONT WANT RAKSHAHA PLAYERS! Just saying.
Stats for the Rakshasa for D&D 3, 3.5, and Pathfinder can be found on PG.208. Level scheme on pg 191.
Gods willing they never stat Rakshasa's for 4th
I would say you are not going to see them in a monster manual or as a playable race anytime soon, wizards realizes that most people do not want them and the established cannon on the rakshasa is that they are pure evil. I would agree with other posters that you should either refluff the changling or do a homebrew as that will likely be the only way you will see them as a playable race.
unfortunately our views of Canon differ drasticly. For me 4th ed is canon not something published prior and nothing by 3rd party publisher to be sure.
WotC said themselves that EVERYTHING Eberron that was canon in 3e is canon in 4e. There's just... more, in 4e, since we need space for the new races that weren't there, and some elements have been reinterpreted, such as whether someone or something used this mechanic or that one to represent what they did (such as with the Elven split and the introduction of new classes).
That said, did you read Renadiel's post at all? That was 4e canon words from the 4e Eberron Campaign Guide. Rakshasa are high tier enemies in 4e Eberron, and fiends on near par to lesser Demon Princes.
That said, that is Eberron canon. Rakshasa don't have as much detail in 4e generic Points of Light, but we know they are the descendants of the Arcanoloth demons, along with Ravaastas, or else are fallen Devas. These are beings that are manifest evil. There is no account of a Rakshasa that became a Deva because it was good, and Rakshasa seem to deny what Devas say about their origins (though they seem to deny the Arcanoloth origin as well, since they don't want to be associated with Ravaastas and their unrefined demonic origin). That said, Rakshasa are some of the worst and most powerful enemies in 4e, and they wouldn't give them stats, even as NPCs, unless SIGNIFICANT support was raised wanting them as PCs. Drow are in a VERY different situation from Rakshasa, because they have a history of heroic characters from their race, and by opening up them as a standard PC option, the heroic Drow won't all be Drizz't clones, hopefully – overtime the number of heroic drow should increase, making heroes not a subversion, but a siginficant counterculture. At the same time though, Drow have lost quite a bit of the dread associated with them. WotC isn't going to go there with one of their chief villainous monsters, the Rakshasa.
They're not going there for at least quite some time (and they hinted at possibly never) with the Githyanki, and while I was one of the big supporters of Githyanki as a PC race and finally getting that Con/Int race, I have to admit that the racial attitude of Githyanki puts them at odds with all other races, because by the nature of their people they aren't heroic. Their goals, desires, motivations are too selfish, vengeful, and deadly for them to be able to cooperate with other heroes, and any and all Githyanki that think differently are destroyed by their Queen. While Scales of War may undermine that assumption, Scales of War is only one adventure path that may or may not happen, and it's ramifications probably don't exist in your own setting. This isn't exactly the same issue, because Githyanki have MM1 stats, but Githyanki are a dime in the bucket compared to the Rakshasa. You might as well ask for MM stats for a Balor while you're at it. These are creatures with incomprehensible mindsets – mindsets that do not serve well for relations with other PCs.
where in what published statement did they state that 3.0 and / or 3.5 was canon in 4.0? novels are not canon. until they are in rule setting format [core, supplement, adventure, dragon, or dungeon, or rpga doc or statement by wizards as such].
also where in 4th ed does it state that rakshasa are "pure evil".
First off, denying the actual cannon of the setting written by WotC just shows you aren't willing to listen to reason.
Second, Drow are a terrible example to use as your basis for all your arguments. Within these forums you are going to find a 50/50 split of people that hate the fact that drow have become a "socially acceptable race" so to speak. This may or may not be because people have over played a certain character over and over again.
Third, why will you not get off this topic? The mindflayer and Yuan Ti Abominations fanboys got off there soapboxes long ago knowing they won't get them. But, I'll tell you what, even though you refuse to listen to the facts, I'll give you this. Start playing 3.X D&D or Pathfinder. Go find a cheap copy of Savage Species. Finally, find a group that is willing to use that, and in my experience it will be hard because MOST DM'S DONT WANT RAKSHAHA PLAYERS! Just saying.
Stats for the Rakshasa for D&D 3, 3.5, and Pathfinder can be found on PG.208. Level scheme on pg 191.
Gods willing they never stat Rakshasa's for 4th
the canon is in 4.0 material not prior editions unless you can produce a published statement by wizards otherwise. novels are not canon until pertinent passages apear in 4th edition published adventures, core or supplemental rules, or background material in books or articles in dragon or dungeon or in direct statements by wizards.
remember THACO? it is now nostalia only. it apeared in a prior edition but has no meaning to 4th edition.
as pointed out no legal challenge can be brought by playing a changeling that looks in natural state like a rakshasa. If changelings are allowed, then a rakshasa as changeling must be allowed even in eberron. otherwise all changelings must be disallowed. if this is not correct then explain how?
"pure evil" is not assigned to it in 4th edition. working with demons is not "pure evil" nor "evil to the core". they may have been overseers for demons, and they remember past lives, it does say they can be killed with blessed weapons in the heart, not very immortal.
where in what published statement did they state that 3.0 and / or 3.5 was canon in 4.0? novels are not canon. until they are in rule setting format [core, supplement, adventure, dragon, or dungeon, or rpga doc or statement by wizards as such].
also where in 4th ed does it state that rakshasa are "pure evil".
Page 5 of the ECG. Unless the 3.X material is contradicted by a more recent book, the 3.X material is still canon. And Eberron novels are never canon(FR novels on the other hand always are canon).
Oh and quit double posting. It is both pointless and annoying.
the canon is in 4.0 material not prior editions unless you can produce a published statement by wizards otherwise. novels are not canon until pertinent passages apear in 4th edition published adventures, core or supplemental rules, or background material in books or articles in dragon or dungeon or in direct statements by wizards.
remember THACO? it is now nostalia only. it apeared in a prior edition but has no meaning to 4th edition.
as pointed out no legal challenge can be brought by playing a changeling that looks in natural state like a rakshasa. If changelings are allowed, then a rakshasa as changeling must be allowed even in eberron. otherwise all changelings must be disallowed. if this is not correct then explain how?
"pure evil" is not assigned to it in 4th edition. working with demons is not "pure evil" nor "evil to the core". they may have been overseers for demons, and they remember past lives, it does say they can be killed with blessed weapons in the heart, not very immortal.
Legal Challenge? O_o
And it is incorrect because playing a changeling as rakshasa is something that requires DM approval. I don't think anyone has stated that it impossible to play a rakshasa character well or just to make it work. However making playable stats in an official product implies certain things about a species which just cannot work with rakshasa as they are fiends themselves. If a player wants to play a Rakshasa then he should discuss things for a long time with his DM(something that never happens with MM races in my experience) as the presence of a rakshasa in an Eberron party should have a very large impact on the events that the party encounters.
And yes there are such things as pure evil in 4th edition. They are called demons, devils, and fiends. You might be able to interact with them without being evil yourself, but that doesn't change the fact that they themselves are evil incarnate. Rakshasa in Eberron aren't overseers for fiends, they are the same as the fiends themselves.
And care to cite a page number for blessed weapon thing? I'm pretty sure that is not part of Eberron lore.
Yet again hahnstak7 people are giving exactly what you ask for you references, reasoning and straight word of mouth from WotC why Rakshasa wont be a PC race and you still refuse to listen to it.
if you have material condemning from prior ,but most of us won't collect prior editions when 4th edition is what is the rule. I consider pre 4th ed NOT CANON. it is okay for lore but not gospel. If they want to instill a "pure evil" to them they will say so in 4th ed. now if a dm is very cantankerous and not allowing only the changeling who just happens to have a natural state of tiger with backwards claws, there is dmg pg 193.
new people are coming into D&D and saying that prior editions are required won't hold water. or are you trying to up the ebay value of old collections?
they are okay for lore not rulings. I'm only buying 4th edition stuff new. not old used material. sorry but ebay values should continue to rely on nostalgia alone for prior edition stuff. relics only like a dinosaur bones and old coins.
the cantankerous butt of a dm is why many wouldn't play Pnp D&D but would play the cards [MtG] and cprg. the dm can either make it a fun event for all or be replaced by random programs [automation]. I don't care for dragonborn or tieflings but others may want to play them. when you say "pure evil" you should cite something current not ancient ramblings that may not carry any weight.
most previous editions had favored class, now economics of game mechanics determine how favored classes are for a race. there is no favored class any more. some races just happen to play some classes better.
if you allow a changeling at all then any changeling - with changeling stats would do. saying this one passes but not that one will not fly.
saying one goblin passes but not the other ? this drow but not that?
you either allow a race or not - period. gnomes are either in or out, not only the ones you personally like. I prefer no dragonborn, but hey I welcome others to play them.
if the character is a team player all should be fine. if one has trouble accepting based on old prejudices, then they are stuck in a rut. If they don't publish any stats based on popular dislike it would be sad but I could live with it. but expecting the rest of us to buy your old collections is insane. rule wise they are worthless at this point. you need to accept that.
4th ed mm pg 217 bottom.
PoL fluff, not Eberron fluff.
the cantankerous butt of a dm is why many wouldn't play Pnp D&D but would play the cards [MtG] and cprg. the dm can either make it a fun event for all or be replaced by random programs [automation]. I don't care for dragonborn or tieflings but others may want to play them. when you say "pure evil" you should cite something current not ancient ramblings that may not carry any weight.
Already did and already cited where WotC said that old edition fluff for Eberron is still valid also just for good measure.
if the character is a team player all should be fine. if one has trouble accepting based on old prejudices, then they are stuck in a rut. If they don't publish any stats based on popular dislike it would be sad but I could live with it. but expecting the rest of us to buy your old collections is insane. rule wise they are worthless at this point. you need to accept that.
Yes you are absolutely right, now excuse me while I go make my team player Tarrasque character! -_-
So, by your logic the Time of Troubles in FR is no longer canon, because it was back in 2e, and there is no statement in the 4e players guide that says "The Time of Troubles happened time and this happened in it"? Just getting your logic straight.
What they said:
4e FR: 100 years after 3.5e FR. So everything that happened still happened, it's just been a while.
4e Eberron: Same time as 3.5e Eberron. Everything's the same, except there's allowance for the new races.
So, by your logic the Time of Troubles in FR is no longer canon, because it was back in 2e, and there is no statement in the 4e players guide that says "The Time of Troubles happened time and this happened in it"? Just getting your logic straight.
It can be considered for background lore not rules. until it apears in 4th edition it is only background lore and not worth buying any old editions. so don't bother trying to sell them.
4th ed mm pg 217 bottom.
PoL fluff, not Eberron fluff.the cantankerous butt of a dm is why many wouldn't play Pnp D&D but would play the cards [MtG] and cprg. the dm can either make it a fun event for all or be replaced by random programs [automation]. I don't care for dragonborn or tieflings but others may want to play them. when you say "pure evil" you should cite something current not ancient ramblings that may not carry any weight.
Already did and already cited where WotC said that old edition fluff for Eberron is still valid also just for good measure.if the character is a team player all should be fine. if one has trouble accepting based on old prejudices, then they are stuck in a rut. If they don't publish any stats based on popular dislike it would be sad but I could live with it. but expecting the rest of us to buy your old collections is insane. rule wise they are worthless at this point. you need to accept that.
Yes you are absolutely right, now excuse me while I go make my team player Tarrasque character! -_-
The pasage suggested you could expand background lore. It did not say the 3.5 edition material could form rules or rules were based on that. again an unopened major matt mason should get more than an entire collection of 3.5 material. Perhaps 3.5, 3.0 and 2.0 should get the rate of current sports trading cards [non autographed] but a very little over old telephone books. no one should be asked to pay money for pre 4.0. material. live with that.
Wizards has said at least for forgotten realms all the material from previous editions is still there as realms lore as it is 100 years later. This is estasblished fact. As for eberron they changed only what they had to to fit in all the new races of 4th edition and they do say that Rakshasa are evil but that does only apply to thet setting. On another note your all or nothing idea on the races stated above is extreme, I for one don't want races to be like in 3-3.5 where every creature and thing can be played as a PC. That in my mind was part of that editions problems I believe in the keep it simple rule. I would say you are not going to see stats for the Rakshasa anytime soon as a pc race or in a MM as an optional race, if you want to play one or want to allow them in your game then leave it up to your player's and DM.
key point As realms lore and that is as far as it goes. not rulings. background lore not filling in on rules.
well they do list changeling and any dm that disallows one changeling - just because its natural state resembles a rakshasa and doesn't disallow every changeling, deserves to replaced with some form of automation. it is a medium creature. dragons are usually large or even huge. Old editions are optional for background lore only, not for rules. perhaps a gang of rakshasa ganged upon one other rakshasa who did change his ways because of that betrayal at the hands of his fellow lords of dust. that could even apply for eberron: a rakshasa hunting vengeance against other rakshasa.
again changeling is still an allowed option. dm either allows any changeling or not. singling out a particular natural state is good reason to consider automation. yuan-ti were evil and yet it seems they allowed a pc in a d&d crpg.
my all or nothing idea is that if you allow changelings at all, then you have to allow any changeling that meets requirements of being a medium creature in natural state whether a tiger with backwards hands or multilegged arthropod or gelatinous blob. it is a changeling. putting your personal dislikes into the decision in that case to bar only one form is grounds for either shifting dm duties to another or even considering automation. nobody should reccomend people put down any money down for pre-4.0 material. if you fid some in an attic or online - nice for more fluff, but it has no bearing on rules. nor should it. like old comic books or copies of tv guide.
There can be plenty of arguments for a Rakshasa PC. Suggsting that there's precedent or even evidence of non-evil Eberron Rakshasas in any real way shape or form is something else.
The pasage suggested you could expand background lore. It did not say the 3.5 edition material could form rules or rules were based on that. again an unopened major matt mason should get more than an entire collection of 3.5 material. Perhaps 3.5, 3.0 and 2.0 should get the rate of current sports trading cards [non autographed] but a very little over old telephone books. no one should be asked to pay money for pre 4.0. material. live with that.
????
O_O
Where the fudge did you get the idea that people who are saying the lore from Eberron books is still valid are trying to sell their books? Personally speaking I would never sell my books, I've only got two 3.5 Eberron books, both of them are recieving 4th edition mechanic conversions(although I wish I had gotten myself more since I am currently playing in Eberron).
Oh Rakshasa being exclusively evil because they are the spawn of the setting's version of ultimate evil? Yeah, that is lore.
well they do list changeling and any dm that disallows one changeling - just because its natural state resembles a rakshasa and doesn't disallow every changeling, deserves to replaced with some form of automation. it is a medium creature. dragons are usually large or even huge. Old editions are optional for background lore only, not for rules. perhaps a gang of rakshasa ganged upon one other rakshasa who did change his ways because of that betrayal at the hands of his fellow lords of dust. that could even apply for eberron: a rakshasa hunting vengeance against other rakshasa.
again changeling is still an allowed option. dm either allows any changeling or not. singling out a particular natural state is good reason to consider automation. yuan-ti were evil and yet it seems they allowed a pc in a d&d crpg.
my all or nothing idea is that if you allow changelings at all, then you have to allow any changeling that meets requirements of being a medium creature in natural state whether a tiger with backwards hands or multilegged arthropod or gelatinous blob. it is a changeling. putting your personal dislikes into the decision in that case to bar only one form is grounds for either shifting dm duties to another or even considering automation. nobody should reccomend people put down any money down for pre-4.0 material. if you fid some in an attic or online - nice for more fluff, but it has no bearing on rules. nor should it. like old comic books or copies of tv guide.
Changlings only have one natural state, and that is a glam rocker. If you change the natural state then it no longer is a changeling but something which is simply using changling stats to be represented in game mechanics. A DM has a right to disallow any fluff changes that he feels will hurt his game.
Yes, it can be argued that any of these is 'not really a Rakshasa'. Well, yeah, if being evil is part of the definition of a Rakshasa (which I'd say it is) then a good Rakshasa is, de facto, as false a Rakshasa as someone in a Rakshasa's body, or someone transformed into one. Thus it's all equally valid. As long as there's a good story reason for a good-aligned (and in 4e being of any alignment is virtually meaningless as a definitive term anyway) Rakshasa, it doesn't tread on the toes of the classic lore that Rakshasa are even more evil than Ed Begley Jr.'s electric car.
Lastly, count me as another voice in favour of refluffing the Changeling. Hell, slap some 1d6 light/offhand Gnoll-like claws on it while you're at it; the Changeling has so little support and crunch that it'd take a lot to make them OP anyway.
The pasage suggested you could expand background lore. It did not say the 3.5 edition material could form rules or rules were based on that. again an unopened major matt mason should get more than an entire collection of 3.5 material. Perhaps 3.5, 3.0 and 2.0 should get the rate of current sports trading cards [non autographed] but a very little over old telephone books. no one should be asked to pay money for pre 4.0. material. live with that.
????
O_O
Where the fudge did you get the idea that people who are saying the lore from Eberron books is still valid are trying to sell their books? Personally speaking I would never sell my books, I've only got two 3.5 Eberron books, both of them are recieving 4th edition mechanic conversions(although I wish I had gotten myself more since I am currently playing in Eberron).
Oh Rakshasa being exclusively evil because they are the spawn of the setting's version of ultimate evil? Yeah, that is lore.
well they do list changeling and any dm that disallows one changeling - just because its natural state resembles a rakshasa and doesn't disallow every changeling, deserves to replaced with some form of automation. it is a medium creature. dragons are usually large or even huge. Old editions are optional for background lore only, not for rules. perhaps a gang of rakshasa ganged upon one other rakshasa who did change his ways because of that betrayal at the hands of his fellow lords of dust. that could even apply for eberron: a rakshasa hunting vengeance against other rakshasa.
again changeling is still an allowed option. dm either allows any changeling or not. singling out a particular natural state is good reason to consider automation. yuan-ti were evil and yet it seems they allowed a pc in a d&d crpg.
my all or nothing idea is that if you allow changelings at all, then you have to allow any changeling that meets requirements of being a medium creature in natural state whether a tiger with backwards hands or multilegged arthropod or gelatinous blob. it is a changeling. putting your personal dislikes into the decision in that case to bar only one form is grounds for either shifting dm duties to another or even considering automation. nobody should reccomend people put down any money down for pre-4.0 material. if you fid some in an attic or online - nice for more fluff, but it has no bearing on rules. nor should it. like old comic books or copies of tv guide.
Changlings only have one natural state, and that is a glam rocker. If you change the natural state then it no longer is a changeling but something which is simply using changling stats to be represented in game mechanics. A DM has a right to disallow any fluff changes that he feels will hurt his game.
1`. some people seem to imply pre 4.0 masterial influnces rules. it does not and as such no one should bid on such material or purchaes it beyond nostalia sentiment like old copies of tv guide. that is where they rank. if you have them fine, but don't expect anyone else to actually put any bids on the or post that gthey have much value in the current setting. they are not worth much - get used to it. no suggestion they are otherwise should be believed or considered. until it appears in 4.0 it is just fleeting memories only.
2. if a dm is being a butt, he or she can either be rotated to another or even automation. many of these self declared "guardians" are just butts that leave people to crpgs and cards [automation]. In most cases it isn't a cases of hurting the game but his own prejudices and attitude feeling a sting. In those cases he has no jusification aside from his pride which is of no importance. he should just swallow it and play the game. would a changeling looking like a tiger disrupt a game anymore than a bullywup or kenku? if not then what's the deal. and if the only reason is some ole gheezer's obession with pre 4.0, then the gheezer is the one with the problem. I favor everyone in a game taking turns at dming for that reason - so nobody gets a swelled head thinking they are king of the game for all time. one may disallow but next one being dm might. rotation is good.
The pasage suggested you could expand background lore. It did not say the 3.5 edition material could form rules or rules were based on that. again an unopened major matt mason should get more than an entire collection of 3.5 material. Perhaps 3.5, 3.0 and 2.0 should get the rate of current sports trading cards [non autographed] but a very little over old telephone books. no one should be asked to pay money for pre 4.0. material. live with that.
????
O_O
Where the fudge did you get the idea that people who are saying the lore from Eberron books is still valid are trying to sell their books? Personally speaking I would never sell my books, I've only got two 3.5 Eberron books, both of them are recieving 4th edition mechanic conversions(although I wish I had gotten myself more since I am currently playing in Eberron).
Oh Rakshasa being exclusively evil because they are the spawn of the setting's version of ultimate evil? Yeah, that is lore.
well they do list changeling and any dm that disallows one changeling - just because its natural state resembles a rakshasa and doesn't disallow every changeling, deserves to replaced with some form of automation. it is a medium creature. dragons are usually large or even huge. Old editions are optional for background lore only, not for rules. perhaps a gang of rakshasa ganged upon one other rakshasa who did change his ways because of that betrayal at the hands of his fellow lords of dust. that could even apply for eberron: a rakshasa hunting vengeance against other rakshasa.
again changeling is still an allowed option. dm either allows any changeling or not. singling out a particular natural state is good reason to consider automation. yuan-ti were evil and yet it seems they allowed a pc in a d&d crpg.
my all or nothing idea is that if you allow changelings at all, then you have to allow any changeling that meets requirements of being a medium creature in natural state whether a tiger with backwards hands or multilegged arthropod or gelatinous blob. it is a changeling. putting your personal dislikes into the decision in that case to bar only one form is grounds for either shifting dm duties to another or even considering automation. nobody should reccomend people put down any money down for pre-4.0 material. if you fid some in an attic or online - nice for more fluff, but it has no bearing on rules. nor should it. like old comic books or copies of tv guide.
Changlings only have one natural state, and that is a glam rocker. If you change the natural state then it no longer is a changeling but something which is simply using changling stats to be represented in game mechanics. A DM has a right to disallow any fluff changes that he feels will hurt his game.
1`. some people seem to imply pre 4.0 masterial influnces rules. it does not and as such no one should bid on such material or purchaes it beyond nostalia sentiment like old copies of tv guide. that is where they rank. if you have them fine, but don't expect anyone else to actually put any bids on the or post that gthey have much value in the current setting. they are not worth much - get used to it. no suggestion they are otherwise should be believed or considered. until it appears in 4.0 it is just fleeting memories only.
2. if a dm is being a butt, he or she can either be rotated to another or even automation. many of these self declared "guardians" are just butts that leave people to crpgs and cards [automation]. In most cases it isn't a cases of hurting the game but his own prejudices and attitude feeling a sting. In those cases he has no jusification aside from his pride which is of no importance. he should just swallow it and play the game. would a changeling looking like a tiger disrupt a game anymore than a bullywup or kenku? if not then what's the deal. and if the only reason is some ole gheezer's obession with pre 4.0, then the gheezer is the one with the problem. I favor everyone in a game taking turns at dming for that reason - so nobody gets a swelled head thinking they are king of the game for all time. one may disallow but next one being dm might. rotation is good.
I really don't like your attitude with "get used to it," hahntsak7. You're sounding mighty superior there, telling us we all have to let go and accept that 3.5e is over and nothing in there matters anymore. What makes it more rediculous is that you're the one who won't let go of your argument when presented with the facts that WotC themselves said that 3.5e material in Eberron applies DIRECTLY to the state of the world in 4e Eberron. That is, EVERYTHING THAT WAS PUBLISHED IN 3.5e FOR EBERRON IS CANON IN 4e. The rules use a different system, but the fluff in those books are canon.
Nobody's telling you to go and buy all the old 3.5e Eberron books to know what's canon and what isn't. That's not the point. part of the point of not republishing the material is that if you don't like the material, you're not restrained to it, since it's your Eberron, as the Dungeon Master. But that doesn't change the fact that in the communal setting of Eberron, all the 3.5e Eberron books still remain as canon elements.
What does this mean? It means that WotC's not going to publish anything Eberron that contradicts the 3.5e fluff, and they're unlikely to publish ANY more Eberron material outside of the Digital Magazines and their annual compilation best-of books.
It also means that races that wouldn't be accepted in 3.5e Eberron still aren't accepted, even if you don't see enough evidence in the 4e published material (and there is quite enough evidence against Rakshasas, mind you).
By corrollary, it also means that if we quote fluff from a 3.5e Eberron book, it should be counted as canon. But in this case, that's not necessary.
The pasage suggested you could expand background lore. It did not say the 3.5 edition material could form rules or rules were based on that. again an unopened major matt mason should get more than an entire collection of 3.5 material. Perhaps 3.5, 3.0 and 2.0 should get the rate of current sports trading cards [non autographed] but a very little over old telephone books. no one should be asked to pay money for pre 4.0. material. live with that.
????
O_O
Where the fudge did you get the idea that people who are saying the lore from Eberron books is still valid are trying to sell their books? Personally speaking I would never sell my books, I've only got two 3.5 Eberron books, both of them are recieving 4th edition mechanic conversions(although I wish I had gotten myself more since I am currently playing in Eberron).
Oh Rakshasa being exclusively evil because they are the spawn of the setting's version of ultimate evil? Yeah, that is lore.
well they do list changeling and any dm that disallows one changeling - just because its natural state resembles a rakshasa and doesn't disallow every changeling, deserves to replaced with some form of automation. it is a medium creature. dragons are usually large or even huge. Old editions are optional for background lore only, not for rules. perhaps a gang of rakshasa ganged upon one other rakshasa who did change his ways because of that betrayal at the hands of his fellow lords of dust. that could even apply for eberron: a rakshasa hunting vengeance against other rakshasa.
again changeling is still an allowed option. dm either allows any changeling or not. singling out a particular natural state is good reason to consider automation. yuan-ti were evil and yet it seems they allowed a pc in a d&d crpg.
my all or nothing idea is that if you allow changelings at all, then you have to allow any changeling that meets requirements of being a medium creature in natural state whether a tiger with backwards hands or multilegged arthropod or gelatinous blob. it is a changeling. putting your personal dislikes into the decision in that case to bar only one form is grounds for either shifting dm duties to another or even considering automation. nobody should reccomend people put down any money down for pre-4.0 material. if you fid some in an attic or online - nice for more fluff, but it has no bearing on rules. nor should it. like old comic books or copies of tv guide.
Changlings only have one natural state, and that is a glam rocker. If you change the natural state then it no longer is a changeling but something which is simply using changling stats to be represented in game mechanics. A DM has a right to disallow any fluff changes that he feels will hurt his game.
1`. some people seem to imply pre 4.0 masterial influnces rules. it does not and as such no one should bid on such material or purchaes it beyond nostalia sentiment like old copies of tv guide. that is where they rank. if you have them fine, but don't expect anyone else to actually put any bids on the or post that gthey have much value in the current setting. they are not worth much - get used to it. no suggestion they are otherwise should be believed or considered. until it appears in 4.0 it is just fleeting memories only.
2. if a dm is being a butt, he or she can either be rotated to another or even automation. many of these self declared "guardians" are just butts that leave people to crpgs and cards [automation]. In most cases it isn't a cases of hurting the game but his own prejudices and attitude feeling a sting. In those cases he has no jusification aside from his pride which is of no importance. he should just swallow it and play the game. would a changeling looking like a tiger disrupt a game anymore than a bullywup or kenku? if not then what's the deal. and if the only reason is some ole gheezer's obession with pre 4.0, then the gheezer is the one with the problem. I favor everyone in a game taking turns at dming for that reason - so nobody gets a swelled head thinking they are king of the game for all time. one may disallow but next one being dm might. rotation is good.
I really don't like your attitude with "get used to it," hahntsak7. You're sounding mighty superior there, telling us we all have to let go and accept that 3.5e is over and nothing in there matters anymore. What makes it more rediculous is that you're the one who won't let go of your argument when presented with the facts that WotC themselves said that 3.5e material in Eberron applies DIRECTLY to the state of the world in 4e Eberron. That is, EVERYTHING THAT WAS PUBLISHED IN 3.5e FOR EBERRON IS CANON IN 4e. The rules use a different system, but the fluff in those books are canon.
Nobody's telling you to go and buy all the old 3.5e Eberron books to know what's canon and what isn't. That's not the point. part of the point of not republishing the material is that if you don't like the material, you're not restrained to it, since it's your Eberron, as the Dungeon Master. But that doesn't change the fact that in the communal setting of Eberron, all the 3.5e Eberron books still remain as canon elements.
What does this mean? It means that WotC's not going to publish anything Eberron that contradicts the 3.5e fluff, and they're unlikely to publish ANY more Eberron material outside of the Digital Magazines and their annual compilation best-of books.
It also means that races that wouldn't be accepted in 3.5e Eberron still aren't accepted, even if you don't see enough evidence in the 4e published material (and there is quite enough evidence against Rakshasas, mind you).
By corrollary, it also means that if we quote fluff from a 3.5e Eberron book, it should be counted as canon. But in this case, that's not necessary.
there are some implying a great value in pre 4.0 when it has none. in stamp collecting if you use and old stamp at least it counts the face value towards postage. pre 4.0 has no rule value so old stamps are worth more. rakshasa can be played as a changeling. but this nostaligia of the days before 4.0 should not try and push its way around as it 4.0 not 3.5 or 3.0 anymore.
I don't feel ANY player should be superior and support regular rotation of dm duties lest anybody get the idea they are the king of the game.
they should get used to the idea that their old collection are not great treasures to the rest of us nor sould they be necessarily. They should accept that no one should be expected to pay much for their entire pre 4.0 collections should they wish to sell pre 4.0 material.
You, hahntsak7, and ONLY you, have brought that up, repeatedly, and without any basis in reality whatsoever. In fact, you seem obsessed with it, which is causing everyone else great confusion.
Furhtermore, if that's you in your avatar, I wouldn't go around slinging accusations of old geezer if I were you. Not to mention that people who prefer one edition over another has absolutely nothing to do with age, and it's highly insulting to insinuate that it does.
And further furthermore, as an ardent and sometimes very vocal supporter of 4e myself, I have to say you have absolutely no damn clue what you are talking about. 3.5 FLUFF is still canon, for both Forgottent Realms and Eberron in all cases. The only exceptions occur in Forgotten Realms, where specific things have changed.
Eberron however, maintains all the exact same 3.5 fluff as canon, per WotC's own admissions.
*sigh* I sooo love the idiotic software and the formatting issues it causes used by the new forums ...
I would love to see a Rakshasa write-up from Dragon Magazine. I came into the hobby during the 3.x era, and the first Dragon magazine that I bought included the Ecology of the Rakshasa. I've found ways to put these fiends in one of my games ever since.
In 4E, however, I have yet to use the rakshasas in an actual game. I just don't have time to play as much as I did during my college days, so my games are in early paragon at best. Add to that the fact that rakshasas are definitely not in the setting I'm using for the game that is in paragon, and you'll understand my sentiment for missing the backhanded felines.
That being said, the idea of rakshasas that want to return to their deva form is interesting enough to warrant a nice and playable race (while allowing options for groups that don't mind having unscrupulous characters). The rumored ties to the acranoloth, something the rakshasa kind denies, can be explored as well.
As a PC option, I get the chance to introduce Rakshasas earlier on in the game.
PS. I have to say it. I won't allow a rakshasa as a PC in my Eberron game either. <.<
I'm going outside the Eberron discussion for now (judging from the current state of things, I don't want to get into that particular facet of this thread >.>).
I would love to see a Rakshasa write-up from Dragon Magazine. I came into the hobby during the 3.x era, and the first Dragon magazine that I bought included the Ecology of the Rakshasa. I've found ways to put these fiends in one of my games ever since.
In 4E, however, I have yet to use the rakshasas in an actual game. I just don't have time to play as much as I did during my college days, so my games are in early paragon at best. Add to that the fact that rakshasas are definitely not in the setting I'm using for the game that is in paragon, and you'll understand my sentiment for missing the backhanded felines.
That being said, the idea of rakshasas that want to return to their deva form is interesting enough to warrant a nice and playable race (while allowing options for groups that don't mind having unscrupulous characters). The rumored ties to the acranoloth, something the rakshasa kind denies, can be explored as well.
As a PC option, I get the chance to introduce Rakshasas earlier on in the game.
PS. I have to say it. I won't allow a rakshasa as a PC in my Eberron game either. <.<
You know what? I'd rather see all that explored in an Ecology of the Rakshasa article. In core 4e fluff, all inclinations are that they are also utter evil, but at least they're not on the level of Demon Princes…
It would probably be more useful though to see all that in an Ecology article rather than a racial write-up.
The ecology article would be nice. I'd like it only in the aspect if they would answer the question on if the reincarnation of deva/rakshasa occurs. Rakshasa's deny it, and Deva's treat like as an ultimate punishment so it might not occur, could just be a cautionary tale about being evil.
Rakshasas deny all their origin stories…
It would be nice if we don't get a definitive answer, since it keeps the choice in the hands of the DM, and keeps up the mystery veil.
2, the real value of 3.0 and 3.5 is that they should always cost more to ship than the books themselves. anything else is vastly over priced. that you can all just get used to. they are canon only for vague lore not rules. only 4.0 published is valid for rules. the pre 4.0 material is for the most part obsolete. distant memories for lore and perhaps some maps but not rulings.
their value will not go up. if some people don't like that or if they have to sell for less than they paid for it, tough. bite the the bullet of obsolecense and deal with it. if some vendors didn't sell their stock of pre 4.0 yet, sorry but it's not worth as much anymore. perhaps when they are antiques you can recover your investment.
3. I support rotating the dm position so nobody gets a swelled ego. lest players choose automation over a dm that thinks he's lord of the game. no one is non-replacable.
4. passages encouraging eberron pre 4.0 materials use is only for more mere fluff lore if you want to expand it. it doesn't say its canon rules. you read more canon into their statement than they printed.
5. until it's printed in 4.0 I will never accept it as rules canon. EVER.
1. the rakshasas will probably not get even a monster race write up due to some people's attitudes towards it.
No, they'll never get an NPC write-up because of WotC's attitude towards it.
2, the real value of 3.0 and 3.5 is that they should always cost more to ship than the books themselves. anything else is vastly over priced. that you can all just get used to. they are canon only for vague lore not rules. only 4.0 published is valid for rules. the pre 4.0 material is for the most part obsolete. distant memories for lore and perhaps some maps but not rulings.
their value will not go up. if some people don't like that or if they have to sell for less than they paid for it, tough. bite the the bullet of obsolecense and deal with it. if some vendors didn't sell their stock of pre 4.0 yet, sorry but it's not worth as much anymore. perhaps when they are antiques you can recover your investment.
Dude. Seriously. WTF. Why the hell are you so obsessed with the monetary value of 3e books? No one else cares. NO ONE. You are the only one here obsessed with it, for reasons none of us can figure out. It has absolutely no bearing on anything, period.
3. I support rotating the dm position so nobody gets a swelled ego. lest players choose automation over a dm that thinks he's lord of the game. no one is non-replacable.
..... And?
4. passages encouraging eberron pre 4.0 materials use is only for more mere fluff lore if you want to expand it. it doesn't say its canon rules. you read more canon into their statement than they printed.
Actually, it does.
5. until it's printed in 4.0 I will never accept it as rules canon. EVER.
Yeah ... you do that. The rest of us will be happy over here in the real world.
Straight from the Source, the only thing changed is RULES not LORE.
EDIT: And if you want to stick on this money kick, for the Gods sake, all those 3rd ed books can be bought for under ten bucks in the used sections at many resale bookstores, or game stores.
1. the rakshasas will probably not get even a monster race write up due to some people's attitudes towards it.
2, the real value of 3.0 and 3.5 is that they should always cost more to ship than the books themselves. anything else is vastly over priced. that you can all just get used to. they are canon only for vague lore not rules. only 4.0 published is valid for rules. the pre 4.0 material is for the most part obsolete. distant memories for lore and perhaps some maps but not rulings.
their value will not go up. if some people don't like that or if they have to sell for less than they paid for it, tough. bite the the bullet of obsolecense and deal with it. if some vendors didn't sell their stock of pre 4.0 yet, sorry but it's not worth as much anymore. perhaps when they are antiques you can recover your investment.
3. I support rotating the dm position so nobody gets a swelled ego. lest players choose automation over a dm that thinks he's lord of the game. no one is non-replacable.
4. passages encouraging eberron pre 4.0 materials use is only for more mere fluff lore if you want to expand it. it doesn't say its canon rules. you read more canon into their statement than they printed.
5. until it's printed in 4.0 I will never accept it as rules canon. EVER.
1. You are probably correct. Wotc will likely not print a rakshasa pc write up in the back of a Monster Manual unless they think the majority will enjoy it. As interesting as it would be to play a Rakshasa, I doubt it will ever happen. Now if they ever release material for evil based games, then there is a greater chance.
2. I have no idea what you're getting at here. I personally have no plans to sell my 3x books off. I still use them and looking on craigslist and ebay, I can tell you they are still worth nearly full price, since people are buying them for such prices.
3. You obviously don't value your gaming buddies as much as others might. I find my gaming pals "non-replacable."
4. 3x Eberron and Forgotten Realms fluff IS still canon in 4e. The pre 4e fluff for the realms doesn't fit as well anymore, but it still works. The pre 4e Eberron fluff is the same in 4e. The rules don't matter. We no longer use 3x mechanics, so thats not even an issue. But the fluff is the same. 4e eberron didn't change 3x fluff, it just added to it. You don't have to use pre 4e fluff, but its more than valid. Beyond the mechanical changes and the addition of some planes, I dare you to find changes to the core fluff for eberron. I'm sure you could find one or two if you really try, but for the most part, there are none. 3x eberron books are still very useful with 4e eberron and the mechanics have absolutely nothing to do with it, which everyone should know. Its about the story, not the numbers.
5. Then you not only rob your players, but yourself of expanded knowledge of the world of eberron. Because wotc will probably never re-print all the old info and the old info is still consistant with the new beyond the additional info for 4e, like feyspires, the shadowfell and the feywild, baator and other 4e additions.
If you don't already own the older books and don't want to buy them, don't. Nothing wrong with that. But just saying something valid is worthless because its not reprinted with a new look is silly.
So far the only actual fluff that is basically useless from older editions is "core" fluff. The creation of the multiverse (no longer a multiverse in 4e) is different. But that has nothing to do with eberron. The great wheel is gone by default so thats useless in offical games for the realms, but they provide options to use the great wheel if the DM wants to.
Darksun fluff is being reset, but nothing says its useless. A DM can use whatever 2e/3x fluff he/she wants and shape the progress of the game.
I happen to have lots of older material, so I make use of it when I can. Lots of it is still very usefull. Especially 3x eberron. I ignore much of the pre 4e realms material simply because its such a chore looking through it all. I actually had to pack up my forgotten realms collections to make room, so I stick to 4e material and homebrew it to use 4e core fluff. (I don't run canon realms)
If I didn't have access to older material, I wouldn't worry about it or spend the money to track everything down. It would cost thousands to collect everything.
many would pull a john mackey to covertly adjust a price to their desired level.. as I stated, I would only pay less than shipping for pre- 4.0 stuff as anybody sensible.
Players or a dm can be enjoyable but if they they are too much trouble they can be easily be replaced.
4th edition is the only the thing needed to play, some would try to strongly imply that we obtain material from older editions. this entirely optional and not needed to play. I suspect if not owning or managing unsold stock of pre 4.0, perhaps some may be employees or friends of those with said interest in inflating value of old material.
rules matter.
I second the deletion of the topic by Admin.
I think your race on the P.E.A.C.H. board is the right place for talking about your Rakshasa race idea, but not here, and not zombifying this topic after nearly two weeks of everyone else giving up on it.
I respectively third this topic for deletion.