So I brought up in another thread that someday down the road WotC may explore this avenue again, and I am curious on if there people that would be down with it.
For me I would buy it if it was a little bit better designed then 3.X which wouldn't be hard given the design of 4th. I mean no LA it would just be difficult choosing which monsters to give stats out and designing them as PC options with adequate feat options. Also, I'd want to see PP and ED's to accompany them, mostly generic but maybe a few specific here and there, maybe a broad specific (like must be goblinoid, or draconic if that makes sense).
So what are your thoughts on it, For? Against? What would you want to see done/used?
The 3.5 one seemed to be very badly done in terms of balance, however, I can see it working for the simpler race design of 4th.
#*&@. Yes.
Though hopefully it wouldn't try to be so inclusive and end up tripping over itself this time around. If all the book did was implement simple balance and feat/paragon support for a swath of common monster races, I'd be pleased enough. I don't need them trying to break races into a bunch of templates again.
Though if they managed to figure out a working system to make use of the less balanced-for-level-1 races and solved a few of the long-standing issues of race creation (Large size, flight, etc), I'd wave an extra pair of tickets in the air.
Since they don't need alternate rules for 'monstrous' races now (no racial HD or LA, no need for racial 'class' rules), I can't imagine they'd ever have a reason to print it. Races go in Player's Handbooks exclusively now (barring Dragon articles, yadda yadda), so they'd just be in a Player's Handbook.
True, but I see a book like this as an avenue to explore/attempt figuring out large races and providing a fully optional outlet for some of the more exotic desires (mindflayers/yuan-tis etc.). Where if you placed the Mindflayer in say PH4 then all the sudden the luster disappers from the Mindflayer or they show up at tons of LFR events, an SS supplement makes it easier for them to keep their enemy luster and easier grounds for a "No, the Mindflayer is to exotic for my game" then if he showed up in PH4.
Since they don't need alternate rules for 'monstrous' races now (no racial HD or LA, no need for racial 'class' rules), I can't imagine they'd ever have a reason to print it. Races go in Player's Handbooks exclusively now (barring Dragon articles, yadda yadda), so they'd just be in a Player's Handbook.
True, but I see a book like this as an avenue to explore/attempt figuring out large races and providing a fully optional outlet for some of the more exotic desires (mindflayers/yuan-tis etc.). Where if you placed the Mindflayer in say PH4 then all the sudden the luster disappers from the Mindflayer or they show up at tons of LFR events, an SS supplement makes it easier for them to keep their enemy luster and easier grounds for a "No, the Mindflayer is to exotic for my game" then if he showed up in PH4.
Putting a playable mindflayer in a PH is no different than putting in a hypothetical 'Savage Species' supplement. It still makes it available for PC use in any game that allows it. If a DM chooses to prohibit a race, it doesn't matter what book it's in, he can do so.
False argument, no points.
False argument, no points.
Not entirely so. The presumption is that races appearing in a PHB are supposed to always be fair game, where as a Savage Species book could have a disclaimer similar to the one for the races appearing in the back of the MMs. One need only look at the volumous threads on weather or not a DM should be allowed to restrict PC creation options to understand why that might be important. It could also provide a resource for expanding PC option without overly degrading the race's 'villain cred', as the source material would specifically read that heroic examples should be viewed as the exception rather than the rule.
A Savage Species species book would also allow a good outlet for more complex races. Some races simply have powers and abilities that go beyond the basic layout for racial traits. Implementing these races would require some new kind of design balancing. Alternatively, such race might simply be more powerful, with no counter balancing factors save a notice that this particular race may be unsuitable for use in a typical campaign.
False argument, no points.
Not entirely so. The presumption is that races appearing in a PHB are supposed to always be fair game, where as a Savage Species book could have a disclaimer similar to the one for the races appearing in the back of the MMs. One need only look at the volumous threads on weather or not a DM should be allowed to restrict PC creation options to understand why that might be important. It could also provide a resource for expanding PC option without overly degrading the race's 'villain cred', as the source material would specifically read that heroic examples should be viewed as the exception rather than the rule.
A Savage Species species book would also allow a good outlet for more complex races. Some races simply have powers and abilities that go beyond the basic layout for racial traits. Implementing these races would require some new kind of design balancing. Alternatively, such race might simply be more powerful, with no counter balancing factors save a notice that this particular race may be unsuitable for use in a typical campaign.
This was the point I was trying to make, thanks for the assist. Much like the original Savage Species went on to point out as a disclaimer it was optional to use it, I propose that the first page of this hypothetical book be met with the same page, that this be completely DM discretion.
Anyway, like I said early I do see a book like this to be a very good venue to explore Large races and the Centuar or flying races for that matter.
At Paragon tier the Mind Flayer could choose to continue developing it's innate psychic powers with the Mind Flayer PP which would give it more iconic abilities of the Mind Flayer. And then when the Mind Flayer reaches Epic Levels it could pursue the Ultrathillid Epic Destiny which represent the culmination of it's racial potential. Mindflayers that didn't pursue these paths would essentially represent less developed individuals or "runts", but would still be able to pursue PPs for their class.
This system of balancing would require nothing in the way of new rules or systems and would result in a balanced play experience for those who want to play unusual races like Mind Flayers, Yuan Ti, or even Devils like the Succubus.
No, see that makes perfect sense, definitly would set things apart, I would actually love to watch a table of three people each take different directions one be a "runt illithid" as you put it, one take the PP and be standard, the have Super Ithy.
Nice one John.
Give us a few "race classes", appropriate paragon paths and epic destinies, and a lot of fully supported race write-ups (like 2x normal), along with viable and plentiful racial feats, and I'd buy it in an instant. Heck, even if I didn't like 70% of the content, that would be about the same feeling I have going in to PH3.
Oh so long as it's in a book that said "DM's discrestion only"
Hybrid race/classing would be different, and I could see that working for some races, but my only fear in a system like that is we start toeing that line of Monster Levels, which becomes a pain to deal with. A feat or two here or there might work though. Sort of like a MC feat like the whip feats from the one Dragon article awhile back.
I kind of like the idea of "hybrid classing" a race, so that such monsters can access a little more of their monstrous talents earlier on. Plus, those kind of beasts tend to naturally fit one role a little better than others anyway.
This.
At one time I was considering how to make a playable TRUE dragon, and this was more or less the answer I came up with (though it was pre-hybrid). This makes perfect sense to me as such powerful creatures should be more defined by what race they are rather than class. If they want a class they can take multiclass feats (or possibly hybrid, now that the option exists). Also, this is just one more reason why I'd like to see a new Saves Species book, as the concept of a combined race/class is likely beyond the scope of what could be easily printed in a PHB.
@LizardMage: I don't see any problem of 'monster levels'. This isn't anything like LA or hit die progression charts as presented for such races back in 3e. This would be a fully functional 30 level class, though it would likely be more narrow than a standard class (with fewer builds and powers per level).
Oh so long as it's in a book that said "DM's discrestion only"
Every book is DM's discretion only.
I kind of like the idea of "hybrid classing" a race, so that such monsters can access a little more of their monstrous talents earlier on.
Aye, hybrid racial blocks would be awesome.
You could even do it by monster subtype to make it easy. For example, you could have the Undead Block of powers, which contains everything from paralyzing touch to wailing scream, blades of bone to ethereal flesh. By picking and choosing, you could build the undead that's right for you (so a ghoul PC and a wight PC might both take a sinister touch attack, but one would be going for corporeal buffs while the other took phantasmal floating).
Not only would this provide you with a means to build a monster PC (who could have balanced racial writeups in a different part of the book), but it would ALSO allow you to build a Touched-By-The-Monster character, such as someone turned undead, bitten by a werewolf, or infected by a transmutation spell.
A short two or three page racial entry for about 5 races, a paragon path for each, and then a bunch of feat support, perhaps?
There is enough call to play Kobolds, Goblinoids and Mindflayers if you take a peek at the homebrew boards...
So what are your thoughts on it, For? Against? What would you want to see done/used?
I didn't buy the 3e version. I doubt I would by the 4e version.
I didn't buy the 3e one either though.. cause by the time i really got into DnD again all my 3.5 stuff was obsololete and it was only 4e stuff availible.
Also I keep hearing the "no evil races" stuff. But seriously.. Come on. Dragonborn, Tieflings, Drow, Half-Orc, Golaith, Warforged, Shartminds, Wilden, and a few others.. When the heck did these become little angels decendiant from above?
And I'm sick of that excuse too. Its like the excuse in MMOs when they are in beta. Something sucks and its broken. "Oh Its only beta they will fix it." which turns into "The game just released, they will fix it." which turns into "Hey man, you better be just freeking glad they made this game, because it is awesome!"
And so it never gets fixed. And for me, I see a whole there. Mostly because the races i at least think are "cool" don't have a convenient "goodie little two shoe race" that WotC can just plug in to attempt to make me happy.
Which strikes me really funny with the minotaurs. Oh we don't want to make no more 'evil' races!... Oh but we will make a minotaur! Relax! Its not the evil race, cause its medium sized! :D
Oh yeah, and Catfolk ROCK. They should definitely be expanded upon, and then there should be like a Dogfolk or something... NOT like a werewolf, but like a dog verson of the catfolk.
I am running a campaign where catfolk are the primary civilized race and it's awesome. Everyone enjoys it, and they laugh when the catfolk druids smoke catnip and get "nipped up" for ceremonies ROFL...
Also I keep hearing the "no evil races" stuff. But seriously.. Come on. Dragonborn, Tieflings, Drow, Half-Orc, Golaith, Warforged, Shartminds, Wilden, and a few others.. When the heck did these become little angels decendiant from above?
Um..other then teifling and Drow those were never strictly evil races. Dragon born are the adaptation of the Dragonborn of Bahumut from races of dragon in 3.5 not the draconians from dragon lance, and if I recall they were supposed to be lawful good last edition. Half-Orcs got a pr boost, but they were neutral in the past (having been in phb in3.5). Goliath are nomadic barbarians, and heavy athlettes who value fair play, same thing they were when introduced in 3.5. Warforged have been presented as a sympathetic slave race struggling with identity since Eberron was released. Shardminds are a brand new race to my knowledge, WIlden are an adaptation of the Kiloren, once again a neutral race , as they are focused on protecting the natural world, you know much like many primal heroes would be.
Did these races have evil members? SUre most of them do, but they are at least depicted as a nice mix. And let's face it Dfrow haven';t been evil since Drizz't clones showed up.
I know it seems alittle odd being against something like that then saying "Hey lets hope they redo Savage Species" but there are always races that even more stricter DMs want, plus there are some races I agree would be interesting that are neutral or just haven't seen the light of day.
Seeing a well done Centaur, possibly bringing in an updated Raptorian, my desire to have Lizardfolk and a return of Saurials. The current push for Catfolk. Hell, Draconians could even make their apperance where you probably wounldn't see alot of complients of "Wow draconians got 10+ pages because of how many types there are" or that they got short changed pages.
Also I keep hearing the "no evil races" stuff. But seriously.. Come on. Dragonborn, Tieflings, Drow, Half-Orc, Golaith, Warforged, Shartminds, Wilden, and a few others.. When the heck did these become little angels decendiant from above?
Um..other then teifling and Drow those were never strictly evil races. Dragon born are the adaptation of the Dragonborn of Bahumut from races of dragon in 3.5 not the draconians from dragon lance, and if I recall they were supposed to be lawful good last edition. Half-Orcs got a pr boost, but they were neutral in the past (having been in phb in3.5). Goliath are nomadic barbarians, and heavy athlettes who value fair play, same thing they were when introduced in 3.5. Warforged have been presented as a sympathetic slave race struggling with identity since Eberron was released. Shardminds are a brand new race to my knowledge, WIlden are an adaptation of the Kiloren, once again a neutral race , as they are focused on protecting the natural world, you know much like many primal heroes would be.
Did these races have evil members? SUre most of them do, but they are at least depicted as a nice mix. And let's face it Dfrow haven';t been evil since Drizz't clones showed up.
However My point in there really is the fact that maybe some players wanted to play golems. Instead of going on and on about how you can't play them because they are a MM creature thing... Poof! We have warforged, and now also shardminds.
Dragonborn, was for people who wanted to play dragons, but again, instead of allowing people to play dragons, they came up with something somewhat close to it. Half-Orcs didn't really exist before 3.x for players. least not in the PHB.
If we had the "No evil races!" 'campain' back then, we wouldn't really have any of these races now. Cause someone would say "I wanna play a golem! WotC print a golem please?" and immediatly get attacked for trying to remove the villianous light off them. Though golems are mindless neutral things, players typically have to fight them, not be or create them.
So we say, hey let us play gnolls. Instead of chanting "no evil races" thing, why not do what they did to the minotaur? Badda boom, we now magically have an offshoot race of gnolls that arn't the evil bloodthirsty ones who are just slightly different.
Perhaps we ressurrect the Lupin race, allowing play of this dog like race in place of having gnolls.
Wanna play a goblin? New race makes the goblin maybe something else. Kobold? same thing. Doppleganger? Changeling. Werewolf? Lupin or Shifter.
Some races become playable/acceptable due to settings. Drow became playable through FR, Minotaurs as far as I know became viable as an option in Dragonlance first (please if someone has a prior source correct me) but even then in all the source books you were encourged to treat other races like second class citizens from Minotaur perspective and worship an evil god. There was a small group that worshiped a good god, but they always got one to two paragraphs and you were still not welcomed in the greater world.
The point of a book like this would be to play something that other consider "evil race" without standardzing it. (I use standardzing in a PHB sense not a setting sense.)
But yeah, I know what you mean by standardizing it. Part of the reason why i enjoy playing gnolls and revenants is that they are not widely accepted in the world.
Aarakocra .....................................................
Alaghi..............................................................
Beastman ........................................................
Bugbear..........................................................
Bullywug, Advanced...................................
Centaur...........................................................
Fremlin ..........................................................
Giant-kin, Firbolg..........................................
Giant-kin, Voadkyn ......................................
Gnoll ...............................................................
Gnoll, Flind ....................................................
Goblin..............................................................
Hobgoblin.......................................................
Kobold ............................................................
Lizard Man.....................................................
Minotaur.........................................................
Mongrelman...................................................
Ogre, Half-Ogre.............................................
Ogre Mage......................................................
Orc, Half-Orc..................................................
Pixie.................................................................
Satyr ...............................................................
Saurial............................................................
Swanmay.......................................................
Wernic
Alignment. Gnolls tend toward chaotic evil.
PC gnolls may be of any alignment, but are
usually some form of neutral.
Alignment. Kobolds tend toward lawful evil.
PC kobolds may be of any alignment, though
they are usually lawful neutral.
Alignment. Minotaurs tend toward chaotic
evil. PC minotaurs may be of any alignment.
Alignment. orcs tend toward lawful evil,
half-orcs tend toward true neutral. PC orcs and
half-orcs may be of any alignment
But the minotaur thing.. Oh dragonlance huh? So basically what that means is there needs to be a module that makes X race into a 'good' race and then its perfectly fine.
The Complete Book of Humanoids(CBoH) for 2nd ed was a great book (imo) I have lots of fond memories of it. That was my first Lizardfolk and saurial pcs, but nostaliga always looks better.
Anyway, Many races people want have been done before just usually in a setting standard, CBoH was originally a supplement for FR if I remember right. Draconians, Half Ogres, Minotaurs, Dragonspawn saw some light in DL. Thrikreen, Muls, Pterrans, in DS.
Settings tend to beat out a flat "Generic" book. Hence why I do hope sometime in the future we see a Savage Species.
edit/response: Save a very small population in DL Minotaurs are still evil. Much like drow in FR, they are just an acceptable player race in that setting. They have a viable government and background, (Very greek/roman and sailing). In fact within DL only a handful of the populace even know about the "good" minotaurs and even they are met with disdain. No you don't need a module that makes them good and then they are in like flint, they need a valid reason to be there and playable imo. Like I said, in DL you are encougred when you play a Minotaur to play them evil.
In this case there is no need for a setting. My idea behind this was seeing a fair amount of push for races that are typically considered monsters and traditional villians. I happened to look at a book shelf saw my Savage Species and thought "Hmmmm there is an idea."
Much like how Savage Species was presented in 3.X, this idea is simple, here is a book that details playing 20 monsters from lvl 1 to lvl 30 in various ways (whether it be a race, hybrid classing or some of the other suggestions already thrown out). There wouldn't be a need to devote any space to a setting format for it.
Now, you could include a small section saying "Reverse Setting ideas A, B, C" but the my intent is to just put out there a complete redo of Savage Species, that accomadtes players and dms that want their monstrous heroes, regardless of whether or not I want/like the idea of people playing Ithy the Illithid Psion or Tigre the Rakasha Sorcerer. There are people that want it, and WotC is in the business to make money, so it is an avenue that can easily lead to Savage Species 2#Goblinoids/#3 Lycanthropes etc.
We already have a PC writeup for gnolls in 4E, and they're not a different 'subrace'.
The comment by the devs at the time was not "no evil races", it was that they don't want to weaken the status of some *iconic* villainous races (who may or may not actually be evil) by making them standard PC options, the one under discussion at the time being the githyanki.
Many evil and unaligned races that show up as 'monsters' have had heroic/PC-worthy members or adaptations throughout the editions though - these guys are fair game for a writeup, though that certainly doesn't mean that they'll all get one.
--
I don't really see the need for a 'Savage Species' style book because all PC race writeups follow the same format and can easily be included in the standard PHBs. I suppose there could be a 'big book of races' but there's no reason why they'd all have to be 'monstrous' ones; SS 3E existed because of the ECL/must-use-MM-stats-exactly issue, which 4E doesn't have.
> So we say, hey let us play gnolls. We already have a PC writeup for gnolls in 4E, and they're not a different 'subrace'.
Well True and false. I won't really consider them to have a write up until they have a paragon class that nobody will use, and their racial feats become less mishmash. Lucky claw fighter is being fixed up fairly well. Its also why I'm extreamly annoyed at the write up for shifters and changelings. Shifters get no racial traits beyond thier stat, skill, and power. Changelings have like 1 racial feat until 21st level where you get another one.
I've tried hitting all of these three races several times. But would a book be needed for them? probally not. ButI do think shifters need a remake.
The comment by the devs at the time was not "no evil races", it was that they don't want to weaken the status of some *iconic* villainous races (who may or may not actually be evil) by making them standard PC options, the one under discussion at the time being the githyanki. Many evil and unaligned races that show up as 'monsters' have had heroic/PC-worthy members or adaptations throughout the editions though - these guys are fair game for a writeup, though that certainly doesn't mean that they'll all get one. -- I don't really see the need for a 'Savage Species' style book because all PC race writeups follow the same format and can easily be included in the standard PHBs. I suppose there could be a 'big book of races' but there's no reason why they'd all have to be 'monstrous' ones; SS 3E existed because of the ECL/must-use-MM-stats-exactly issue, which 4E doesn't have.
So basically everytime someone starts going off about how "no evil races!" they don't actually know what they are talking about?
And that last sentence is a good point that had been overlooked.
Well if we need a setting... perhaps Thats what the savage species could be then? A world were humans, elves halfings and the like don't exist, or are the rare species. Then beastmen, gnolls, kobolds, catfolk, minotaurs, bullywugs, ect are the main races and can hit the full spectrum.
The Setting you're looking for is Eberron. Check out Droam (spelling?) a land ruled by hags, medusa, mintoaurs, ogres, and several other monstrous races. There's also a whole nation run by goblins. The main continent was also once ruled by a hobgoblin empire if I'm not mistaken.
I'd totally go for a monstrous race book. Some of these races are far more iconic then the new crap we're getting now.
Blessing of Zehir * Poison, Yuan-ti racial power
As you attack, you invoke the cunning of the Serpent Lord to debilitate your enemy.
Free action
Trigger: You hit with an attack.
Effect: The attack deals poison damage instead of its normal damage type, and one target hit by the attack is weakened until the end of its next turn.
For feats, I can see one making the attack deal additional poison damage, and changing it so the power makes the attack deal poison damage in addition to its normal type, rather than instead of. I can so imagine a yuan-ti wizard throwing a flaming ball of snakes.
I'm in full support of a 4e Savage Species. I'd be really thrilled if they had something for beholders. After yafgc.shipsinker.com/, the idea of a beholder flying around telekinetically wielding a sword sounds awesome.
I hope this is a joke.
Beholder PCs is a really good example why -NOT- to release such a book.
Having 'bad' races described as having these grand civilizations, and then describing their natures as being such that they would never be able to work together for more than 5 minutes without putting a knife in each others back is a big pet peeve of mine.
Human fascist regimes can be described as being 'evil', but they would not be able to have formed in the first place if all of the members of that culture were 'evil' on an individual level. And it doesn't even have to be that clear-cut, as a lot of it is a matter of perspective. The way American settlement of the west took place, and what that did to the Native Indian societies that were there first can be thought of as evil - I'm sure a lot of the Native Indians at the time would have thought so anyways. But using that to say all Americans must therefore be evil is rediculous. Even if you are saying these D&D societies are functioning on a very primal, very tribal level, there has to be some sense of 'the good of the group' and it does not strike me as too odd that a heroic character (who by their nature are exceptions to the general rule) can not have a background that causes him or her to view their fellow adventurers as a surrogate tribe.
I think the key point in my ramble is that the characters that form an adventuring party are unique and delicate snowflakes, destined for greatness (or ugly deaths) and a step apart from their average kin anyways. If their race is one that is able to work together enough to build some sort of common culture then it should be possible for individuals of that race to rise above and work with other adventurers.
That is all true.
For humanoids.
Beholders are different. They're alien entities, whose mindsets cannot be comprehended by mortal humanoids, who care not about humanoid ethics but play to their own, utterly hostile tune that would destroy everything in their wake.
The Aberrations of the Far Realm and the Primordials may not be necessarily evil. But their ethos is essentially hostile to all that lives, and thus they can NEVER be PCs.
Beholders are different. They're alien entities, whose mindsets cannot be comprehended by mortal humanoids, who care not about humanoid ethics but play to their own, utterly hostile tune that would destroy everything in their wake.
The Aberrations of the Far Realm and the Primordials may not be necessarily evil. But their ethos is essentially hostile to all that lives, and thus they can NEVER be PCs.
Even if true for 99.9% of the population there are always exceptions. One reason to play a 'monster' race is to be one of those exceptions. Also as their mindsets are as you put it 'alien', it is possible for such a creature to be entirely true to the tendencies of its race yet for some bizarre logic that might only be sensible to itself has a reason to work with the other PCs.
Such races would be completely unreasonable in a PHB, but relegated to their own book they have some interesting potential for interested play groups.
The race needs to have some sort of humanocity to it, otherwise it just can't really work too well. Hence if gnolls could be viewed by most people as humans with dog heads, then I'd get to play gnolls. Which are actually in truth a surragate for the race i really want to play, which is Lupin.
But now that I'm falling down a rabbit hole where i get to step back into time, I get to play the super neato 2.0 version of lupin where you could play as a chiwawa! Now thats just awesome. Would be Kinda cool if there was someway to do that in 4e like the gensai, shifter or wilden. So we can have an entire race, composed of (bad term) 'subraces' of dog.
Beholders are different. They're alien entities, whose mindsets cannot be comprehended by mortal humanoids, who care not about humanoid ethics but play to their own, utterly hostile tune that would destroy everything in their wake.
The Aberrations of the Far Realm and the Primordials may not be necessarily evil. But their ethos is essentially hostile to all that lives, and thus they can NEVER be PCs.
Even if true for 99.9% of the population there are always exceptions. One reason to play a 'monster' race is to be one of those exceptions. Also as their mindsets are as you put it 'alien', it is possible for such a creature to be entirely true to the tendencies of its race yet for some bizarre logic that might only be sensible to itself has a reason to work with the other PCs.
Such races would be completely unreasonable in a PHB, but relegated to their own book they have some interesting potential for interested play groups.
WotC has said time and time again: alien logic of Primordials and Far Realm is innately hazardous to humanoidity, and such beings will always be at conflict with the heroes. Word of God says they're not heroes.
Besides, only humanoids can be PCs.
Beholders are different. They're alien entities, whose mindsets cannot be comprehended by mortal humanoids, who care not about humanoid ethics but play to their own, utterly hostile tune that would destroy everything in their wake.
The Aberrations of the Far Realm and the Primordials may not be necessarily evil. But their ethos is essentially hostile to all that lives, and thus they can NEVER be PCs.
Even if true for 99.9% of the population there are always exceptions. One reason to play a 'monster' race is to be one of those exceptions. Also as their mindsets are as you put it 'alien', it is possible for such a creature to be entirely true to the tendencies of its race yet for some bizarre logic that might only be sensible to itself has a reason to work with the other PCs.
Such races would be completely unreasonable in a PHB, but relegated to their own book they have some interesting potential for interested play groups.
In the twisted logic department, there was a show called Chromarti High.
Basically the entire school was composed of people who tended towards the more evil and chaotic sides, except for one person. The one person transferred over and tended more towards lawful good.
All the delinquents dubbed him as the biggest baddass in the school as their logic that if there was a rabbit (the transfer student) who was sleeping around with the lions (the normal population) Then that has to be one badass rabbit.
****ADD Moment!****
When I played a gnoll, I didn't play a gnoll per say, but a 8 foot tall walking goofball of a dog. Who would put on disgueses in order to fool people. Had high enough bluff score too to cause people to think he was only a little old lady or the docter.
Sometime I've got to start playing my gnoll again.
As for the aberrant issue... where to start.
I think some of them could be playable, to an extent. I have a character who is a star pact warlock. In her backstory: she was touched by an aberrant creature and went insane. She was sent to live with an astrologer who was knowledgeable about aberrations and could speek Deep speech (she finds it soothing). Her backstory is basically the fluff given in the MM for a foulspawn. Which she basically is, except with a mostly human outer shell (she has a tentacle-like tongue and claw-like fingers). While still insane, she is a functional character that is exceptionally creepy but works well in a group. She occasionally feels things crawling in her skin, wakes up screaming (soaked in sweat and/or urine), intesntly watches her party-mates sleep, and sometimes flies into a rage upon seeing her reflection. Creepy? Oh hell yes! But functional and not essentially toxic to the natural order.
Besides, only humanoids can be PCs.
Says who? There are plenty of examples of non-humanoid protagonists in fiction. It is entirely reasonable for players to desire to emulate such characters (including characters alien mindsets that may be fundamentally dangerous). Are there difficulties balancing such characters? Yes, but that's no reason not to at least try. Such creature are not for every group, which is why they should never appear in a PHB, but as I said, relegated to their own book such races are just fine for those groups that are willing to make the extra effort (or who simply don't care if their game looks like a wacky frolic though wonder land).
Such a product is obviously not for you, but this thread shows that an audience that would desire and appreciate such material exists.
My Changeling assassin.. Cheshire Cat. Looks kinda like a cross between cheshire cat and david bowie as his "standard" appearance. Ironically i find out that both of which are protrayed in some form of media as shapeshifting assassins.
My Kalaster cleric... Mad Hatter. He runs around in the big had spouting off random things from time to time. Has actually distracted guards by asking them riddles and the like.
My Shifter fighter... Malice. Okay that one doesn't work as well. But I'll do something with Alice eventually.
Once the PHB3 comes out, I'll be looking into monks and making the White Rabbit. (Or maybe battle mind.)
I won't stop till i achive all forms of the members of Wonderland. Bwahaha!
Fixing their power level vs. iconic abilities is another problem altogether.
Still, there are far less exotic races that I would like to see covered first -- namely those that are shapeshifters, fliers, aquatic, Tiny, or Large or larger. I know that there are serious problems with trying to make creatures of these types into PCs -- I am interested in seeing how these problems might be resolved.
If something was to be released, it would be, as suggested earlier in the thread, a Dragon article. (most likely, a serries of articles accross several months, put into multible issues)
No, the Beholder is not a PC race in any way, shape, or form. It wasn't in the previous edition either, if that tells you anything.
About the "no evil race" thing. This is something that has always been the case in the TSR days, and Wizards went away from it in 3rd edition, making every monster into something that can get character levels and have PC stats. 4th edition is returning to the standard set in the TSR days, where a monster race is an enemy, not a teddy bear. The return of the Half Orc and Bladeling aside, I think they have done an alright job.
SS in 4th edition is not something that is really needed. We have the Racial Traits for some races in the back of the MM to use for PC's with the DM's permission. For those willing to pay the Ransom, DDi had the Gnoll, a soon to be obsolete Minotaur (I believe), some undead thing and others to browse about, and the Assassin class for the fan service.
If something was to be released, it would be, as suggested earlier in the thread, a Dragon article. (most likely, a serries of articles accross several months, put into multible issues)
No, the Beholder is not a PC race in any way, shape, or form. It wasn't in the previous edition either, if that tells you anything.
About the "no evil race" thing. This is something that has always been the case in the TSR days, and Wizards went away from it in 3rd edition, making every monster into something that can get character levels and have PC stats. 4th edition is returning to the standard set in the TSR days, where a monster race is an enemy, not a teddy bear. The return of the Half Orc and Bladeling aside, I think they have done an alright job.
We agree again, thaX. Guess we have more in common than I thought.
They start with Complete Book of Humanoids. It's primary function is to flesh out the races in the back of the Monster Manuals, but hopefully we can get Centaurs and Lizardfolk and some other iconic D&D races too. A page for the illustration/race stat block, a page for fluff, maybe two with a few suggestions of how to work a _____ PC into a "standard" game for the DM, a PP for each race, and a decent amount of feats. Probably some items too. Maybe a small chapter for the DM.
Then they do Savage Species. It contains monsters which need more than a racial stat block, a PP, and some feats to feel like you're actually playing as the monster. Different monsters might be created different ways, multiclassing, hybrid, full classes.... Give the DM a small advice chapter on integrating monstrous PCs into an otherwise "normal" campaign (and permission to say "no" for those who don't like saying it) or how to develop and run an ongoing campaign focusing on monstrous PCs.
Mysterously/frustratingly, there are no rules for Dragon PCs.
Finally, they give us a setting: Council of Wyrms.
If Savage Species is successful, they print a second one with more monstrous races. They might save the crazier races like the Beholder for this second volume.
Yes, purely evil races are a boon to most settings, I'd say, and a staple of the fantasy genre. While it's fun to have darker or more moralistic games of play (and I do like to get nitty gritty myself), by and large fantasy is supposed to be dramatic, dare I say symbollic. Good and evil are cosmic forces, and sometimes simple association corrupts the mind. Star Wars has the Dark Side of the Force, Warcraft treats Arcane magic as a slippery slope of corruption that most warlocks and necromancers can't help but fall into. In most games, the undead are evil by their very nature - it doesn't matter if they're unintelligent or not a threat, the very things that create and sustain them twist the world in unnatural ways and define them as evil. It's the whole reason D&D used to run on a wheel cosmology back in the TSR days and straight up to 3rd edition.
Which is why I like the idea of a savage book. It makes the options available for use, but at the same time stands apart from the more 'standard' PHBs, and gives the DM more power to disallow it as standing outside the theme of his game.
I am honestly surprised that Council of Wyrms wasn't brought up sooner then this. Really I am.
Same.
Chanter mentioning we would need a setting is what made me think of it.
Having CoW as a setting guarntee a dead tree release of dragon PC rules is what made me say it.
Besides, only humanoids can be PCs.
And that's what I'd like a 4e Savage Species to change. Look to fantasy novels (especially things of the Aesop's Fables variety). You'll find non-humanoid heroes. I mean, A Wizard in Rhyme introduced a dracogriff as one of the main heroes (by main I mean sidekick to the main character, but in a D&D game, they'd all be part of the same adventuring party). In fairy tales and such, a talking animal might aid the hero. Currently, D&D can't handle that. I'll admit that it would be really tough to balance these challenges (and hence it ought to be relegated to a niche book rather than a Player's Handbook), but I strongly believe that the effort should at least be made. It probably will be insanely difficult to pull off, but we should give it a try.
For good or bad I would still like to see this book, I was looking back through the 3rd Ed book and if you will allow me to point out a few oddities, not so much counter arguements, just randomness, but in the right circumstances can be fun.
The Barghest (2nd lvl to shapechange to a gobo)
The Griffon (yeah)
Mind Flayer (15 lvls....)
The Treant (Who probably got pissed when he saw his cousin Ash as the bar at the tavern....if he got in)
Umber Hulk (Which who hasn't wanted to play a Umber Hulk mage...really. ((Confension long lived desire to play a one shot game as a Grey Render Mage...just saying)) )
The Vrock
Not to mention the Anthropomorphic Animals table at the back.
If Savage Species is successful, they print a second one with more monstrous races. They might save the crazier races like the Beholder for this second volume.
Personally I think WotC should start with Savage Species 1, which would be mostly savage humanoids with only a few exotic races, then move onto Savage Species 2 and beyond, with each product consisting of fewer basic humanoids and more exotics. I understand you desire for a Complete Book of humanoids, but considering that each race would likely take around 4-6 page (1 for illustration/traits, 1 for fluff/advice, 1 for feats, 1 one for paragon path, and up to 2 more for whatever miscellaneous extra might be appropriate) and that the smallest hardbound is 160, do we really need 30ish humanoids all at once? Surely out of that many entrants some would be better off in a PHB.
Not that when I say I want the first volume to include exotics, I do NOT mean the more extreme exotics (like beholder). First and for most I'd be interested in semi-humanoids (races that due to body structure might stray from typical PC expectations) and 'powerful' races that require more than just racial stat block (such as lycanthropes, likely a multiclass or hybrid class).
If Savage Species is successful, they print a second one with more monstrous races. They might save the crazier races like the Beholder for this second volume.
Personally I think WotC should start with Savage Species 1, which would be mostly savage humanoids with only a few exotic races, then move onto Savage Species 2 and beyond, with each product consisting of fewer basic humanoids and more exotics. I understand you desire for a Complete Book of humanoids, but considering that each race would likely take around 4-6 page (1 for illustration/traits, 1 for fluff/advice, 1 for feats, 1 one for paragon path, and up to 2 more for whatever miscellaneous extra might be appropriate) and that the smallest hardbound is 160, do we really need 30+ humanoids all at once.
Not that when I say I want the first volume to include exotics, I do NOT mean the more extreme exotics (like beholder). First and for most I'd be interested in semi-humanoids (races that due to body structure might stray from typical PC expectations) and 'powerful' races that require more than just racial stat block (such as lycanthropes, likely a multiclass or hybrid class).
Definitly the right way to start. Though, we know that WotC likes to throw things for a loop, I would put good money down that if this went through, we would see something strange like the return of the Treant or dare I say the Griffon
.Definitly the right way to start. Though, we know that WotC likes to throw things for a loop, I would put good money down that if this went through, we would see something strange like the return of the Treant or dare I say the Griffon
There would indeed be a reasonable chance for 1 ,2, or maybe even 3 such races in the first volume. WotC needs to test the waters, see what gets people most excited about the book, and run with it for volume 2 (which itself would include a few test races for the primary content of a potential volume 3).
Possible three suggestions
1) Centuar...exploring large race rules
2) Werewolf...Hybrid Race/Class option given their abilities
3) Raptorians/Saurials...Both races have true flight (forgot the varient in the Saurial) and Saurial also have a Large race as it is (but medium being adjust to close to 8ft removes the Hornhead from large I believe)
SS in 4th edition is not something that is really needed. We have the Racial Traits for some races in the back of the MM to use for PC's with the DM's permission. For those willing to pay the Ransom, DDi had the Gnoll,
Wrong. Gnolls are actually free content that WotC gave everyone. Strange I know, and thats what it was probally assumed they where ddi, but its true.
Also, TSR produced the compleate book of humaniods, which I'll already posted all the races it allowed you to be.
If Savage Species is successful, they print a second one with more monstrous races. They might save the crazier races like the Beholder for this second volume.
Personally I think WotC should start with Savage Species 1, which would be mostly savage humanoids with only a few exotic races, then move onto Savage Species 2 and beyond, with each product consisting of fewer basic humanoids and more exotics. I understand you desire for a Complete Book of humanoids, but considering that each race would likely take around 4-6 page (1 for illustration/traits, 1 for fluff/advice, 1 for feats, 1 one for paragon path, and up to 2 more for whatever miscellaneous extra might be appropriate) and that the smallest hardbound is 160, do we really need 30ish humanoids all at once?
I'd rather see it as a $20, 96 page paperback if it was just humanoids.
I'm biased for the format since I liked all the d20 Modern setting/genre books that were 96 page paperbacks and $20 is a price-point that doesn't make me uncomfortable.
I wouldn't object to the format you propose. Some people might complain about having more exotic races forced upon them to get their monstrous humanoids though.
All jokes aside (Treant, Griffon, Beholder), I would say the best races to test the waters easily fit what several people have requested.
Possible three suggestions
1) Centuar...exploring large race rules
2) Werewolf...Hybrid Race/Class option given their abilities
3) Raptorians/Saurials...Both races have true flight (forgot the varient in the Saurial) and Saurial also have a Large race as it is (but medium being adjust to close to 8ft removes the Hornhead from large I believe)
I'd be careful using the Centaur as a test to base future races on. You could get size right and screw up the quadruped part of it or you could get the quadruped part right and screw up the size.
That thing is Minitures of course. Do you know how bleeding hard it is to find character races that arn't human? And by that I mean races that couldn't easily be mistaken as humans, like lupins and stuff.
If WotC was to publish a savage specieses moduel and it took in traction, then we could get more of the minitures I'm looking for, as are many people who want to revision thier character but have a hard time getting a miniture that isn't very human-like in appearance. 99% of gnolls, lupins and werewolves right now are naked or in tribal clothing. Same goes for catfolk. Warforged are pretty much non-existant. (For that matter, it is bloody hard trying to find a human in fullplate armor with no face showing as well. :/ )
Far Realm and Primordial: I don't think we're looking at 'the PC primordial' but rather creatures of the aberrant and elemental origins. Elemental origin is fairly reasonable - just because something was created by the primordials doesn't mean it shares all of their mindset and motives, and the primordials certainly didn't create everything with the elemental origin. Aberrants are a bit of a stretch, though with a strong enough story justification a PC aberrant race could be done. (I don't think it's *likely*, mind you.)
Beholders (and mind flayers) are unlikely in any circumstance since they're pretty clearly an 'iconic villain' of the game.
I agree with you, if a product were to come out like this, it would focus more on Elemental origins, and I think a varriant of the Planes Touched also, like a race infused from the Shadowfell, or one that has a connection to the Astrial Sea.
Templates might also be used to work with the existing races.
I still don't think it is gonna happen, but stuff like this may make it to the various PHB and Setting Player's Guides in the future.
What I meant was comparative psychology. The very order of the world and the cosmos is anathema to Primordials, Titans, and Giants, since they see it as an obstruction of their "art." If they could, they'd destroy everything to rebuild it over and over again. That's not a "racial" tendency; it's a mindset so alien to humanoids and in constrast to their survival that it is inreconcilable.
If we had elemental races, it would be more like Genasi already are: they don't necessarily share the mindset of their creators.
Aberrants are a bit different: we can comprehend what Primordials, Giants, and Titans want to do, even if we don't know -why- they want this rather than our survival and continued existence (especially when many of the Giants and Titans would go down too with the destruction). Aberrants, on the other hand, we can't comprehend -what- they'll do any more than -why- they do it: their entire psychology is so alien to the universe that the only thing we know is that it's -hostile.-
If we had an aberrant race, it would have been the Githzerai (or something similar): a race enslaved by aberrants; taken to the Far Realm or some mad place reflective of it but less mind-crushing; and slowly changed into an aberrant themselves, though they retain their humane mindset. I also felt the Gith should have been this, but that ship has sailed.
And what N_D said is right: iconic villains should never be PCs, especially the less humanoidal ones. So that rules out Aboleths, Beholders, Illithids, Giants, Githyanki, Devils, Demons, etc.
Drow were once that, but ever since Drizzt, they've created a subculture of iconic dark heroes. If they made an evil race a PC race without that significant subculture already existing amongst players, the race would feel rather oddly placed amongst the hero races.
FOR DEEKIN!
Dragonborn, Tieflings, Drow, Half-Orc, Golaith, Warforged, Shartminds, Wilden, and a few others..
Sorry... but I read Shartminds and nearly fell out my chair laughing...
The new art today however i've seen has changed my mind and now consider them a more feral race than a human with mushrooms going out of him.
Biggest thing for me is the legs. Digitgrade vs plantigrade.
Basically my idea of savage species is that include all or some of these.
1) animal heads. Dog, cat, Bull, Platapuyse (I've found the perfect mini for a platapus palidin.)
2) tail, thieflings and dragon born kinda get this, but the tieflings tail is kinda a bit think.
3) Digitigrade legs.
-4) if they don't have digitigrade, then if they can't were normal boots
5) Hightended Senses. In game it is so much cooler being the one character who can sniff out the enemy, or hear or see better than rest of the party.
6) Natural Weapons.. Like Gnoll Claws. Can be a feat, as long as it is good for its cost.
7) Unusual ability.. also could be a feat, like a perhensial tail or the ability to breath underwater.
8) They are not too accepted. Like my Lupin for 2.0 was immediatly attacked by the main party group. (He looked like a werewolf, which they just happen to be fighting.)