It case you haven't guessed Im a novice at best with D&D.
The hope is that the second one, slated to come out next year, is going to bring back the rest of the stuff from the 3.5 PHB. For sure the half-orc and gnome are back. The bard, sorcerer, druid, and barbarian are expected to all return as well. The monk is forthcoming, but I don't think we'll be seeing it this next time around.
That said, a lot of the races and classes that felt like they were at the edges of the old game have gotten pulled into the core. Goliaths will be in the second PHB, as are races like Dragonborn and Tieflings that never really got much spotlight in the old edition are now right out there in the first book.
It's really pretty exciting. I'm pumped.
Just a little correction Grimcleaver: Bard, Barbarian and Druid are confirmed 100%, Sorcerer not 100% AFAIK.
Sorcerers are confirmed, though indirectly through their confirmed inclusion in Arcane Power.
I've heard gnomes (which are already in the MM and thus don't need a reprint in a 2 year old edition, which I also hate), Half-orcs (Again, orc is already in the books.) and goliath (which need to be punched in the face).
I don't want to just be getting this book for the Bard and Sorc.
The monk is forthcoming, but I don't think we'll be seeing it this next time around.
I checked out the cover of the PHB2. The subtitle says, "Arcane, Divine and Primal Heroes." This would indicate that the Monk is not going to be in the PHB2 because supposedly, the Monk uses the Ki power source.
In the PHB1, there were 4 Martial classes, 2 Arcane and 2 Divine classes. I'm speculating that there will be approximately 2 Arcane, 2 Divine and 4 Primal classes in the PHB2. This would work out to 4 classes of each power source in PHB1 and PHB2. This sounds pretty even, but there may be good reason to not have the numbers work out perfectly evenly.
The Swordmage is already in the FRPG, so the other Arcane classes I can think of are the Bard and Sorcerer. The Barbarian and Druid are pretty much a lock for the Primal classes. I heard of a few other classes thrown around (cannot remember which ones), but there are supposedly more controllers. I'm thinking 3 controllers, 2 strikers, 2 leaders and 1 defender. This is my WAG. :lightbulb
Are there going to be any good races in PHII?
Deva?
Half-orcs (Again, orc is already in the books.)
"Just play an orc" is a stupid suggestion and has been since the words were first spoken/written. Half-orcs are different from both humans and orcs.
Rules for playing a few monster races as PCs are in the back of the Monster Manuel. One of those is the orc, so you can slap a "half-" on its name for a stop gap solution.
No druids as of yet, but you can try a animal companion ranger from martial power and and multiclass as a cleric.
Not perfect solutions, but these should help.
Deva?
Link to proof?
"Just play an orc" is a stupid suggestion and has been since the words were first spoken/written. Half-orcs are different from both humans and orcs.
Yeah, orcs and humans aren't dumb concepts, you're right.
Link to proof?
Aren't Devas (alongside Goliaths and Half-Orcs) mentionned in the FRPG?
Aren't Devas (alongside Goliaths and Half-Orcs) mentionned in the FRPG?
They are, but while I suspect that does mean PHB2, it isn't concrete proof.
"Just play an orc" is a stupid suggestion and has been since the words were first spoken/written. Half-orcs are different from both humans and orcs.
I always hated the concept of a half-orc. Orcs were evil, but they were strong. People wanted a strong character, DnD gave them half-orcs because they aren't all evil. Being half human makes creatures socially acceptable, somehow.
And then god forbid you think about how the half-orc came to be and you start to realize he could not have had anything close to a normal childhood.
I always hated the concept of a half-orc. Orcs were evil, but they were strong. People wanted a strong character, DnD gave them half-orcs because they aren't all evil. Being half human makes creatures socially acceptable, somehow.
And then god forbid you think about how the half-orc came to be and you start to realize he could not have had anything close to a normal childhood.
One of the things that WotC said they were working on is changing that 'assumed background' so that half-orcs aren't a result of **** any more than half-elves are.
As far as no barbarians, druids, or half-orcs ... well, no great losses, in my opinion. I'd be happy if none of the above saw print ever again.
The assumed background still involves literally bumping uglies though.
Well, yes, that's where babies come from.
The fact that nobody is, shall we say, forcing the issue is the main point.
This raises even more horrifying questions about the human involved.
Hey, orc girls can be cute. Husky, yes. Slightly hairy, perhaps. But cute.
This raises even more horrifying questions about the human involved.
Not really. In a world with multiple sentient creatures, diversity in standards of beauty (or, whether or not beauty is even important) would be a natural development. Looking past appearances would be par for the course.
Are there going to be any good races in PHII?
I've heard gnomes (which are already in the MM and thus don't need a reprint in a 2 year old edition, which I also hate), Half-orcs (Again, orc is already in the books.) and goliath (which need to be punched in the face).
I don't want to just be getting this book for the Bard and Sorc.
You probably will be, based on this post.
Another race confirmed to be in is the Shifter race (also in the MM).
The difference between those races being reprints from the MM is that there might be some changes (See player race minotaur from the DDi, compare to the MM). Not only may there be changes, but there will be feats for those races as well. I'm going to get the book for Shifters and Bards. I might find the rest of it interesting, but those are my primary reason for purchase.
Are there going to be any good races in PHII?
Gnomes (which are already in the MM and thus don't need a reprint in a 2 year old edition, which I also hate)
Half-orcs (Again, orc is already in the books.)
Goliaths (which need to be punched in the face).
Well as has been mentioned before you're also looking at Shifters and Devas (angelfolk)--and I'm getting this from the list of confirmed stuff in the Future Releases board. They do tend to do their homework if you want to check their references.
As for guys you hate and/or want to see punched in the face, I'd recommend giving them a lookthrough. Where 4e really tends to shine is in the player race fleshout pages. I could see them doing really cool things with any or all of these races. Granted, there's some big things I would like to see changed about all of them--but I think they all have potential. As with all things 4e, my suggestion would be to at least give it a flip-through before you decide to hate it or not.
As long as they don't try to print the Raptorians again. I will NOT buy a book with Raptorians no matter if they print a class in it that's perfect for me.
Link to proof?
Dunno. That part was supposed to serve the purpose of two questions: "Will there be a Deva in PHB II?" and "If so, would you like it?"
Yeah, orcs and humans aren't dumb concepts, you're right.
Whether or not anybody thinks humans and/or orcs are dumb may or may not factor into whether they like half-orcs based on what I said (that they're different; like half-elves are different from both elves and humans).
Hey, orc girls can be cute. Husky, yes. Slightly hairy, perhaps. But cute.
Big, hairy, toothy girls need lovin', too. But they gotta pay.
Big, hairy, toothy girls need lovin', too. But they gotta pay.
A player of mine once made a half-orc druid (3.5) that used the shapeshifter variant in the PHB2. His backstory was that his mother was a regular human druid, and his father was an orc werewolf. The two had met in animal form, and continued a relationship when each found out the other was a shape shifter.
It was kind of a neat concept that worked for one very specific character. And hey, if there's anyone in the world who wouldn't judge you based on your looks, it's a druid.
It would be neat if the other half of 'Half-Orc' wasn't even a human half! Throws us off for a loop if we find out Half-Orcs are now...who knows a dwarf-orc mixture XD Now that would make for some SOLID critter!
Teh women, well, I am thinking Paris Hilton.
Teh women, well, I am thinking Paris Hilton.
More like Britney Spears. Paris may be loosey-goosey, but Brit's actually had children. And with something that's not entirely human, too. :P
I always think of Benn'Joon of Looking for Group when I think of a half-orc female.
I've always thought of Bludlemon's comics from By Way of Booty Bay when thinking of female orcs. I was never really interested in LFG due to my strong anti-horde bias, but I think I need a change in reading material.
Personally, I think half-orcs are a dumb idea and people should just "man" up and go full orc. I'm also of the opinion that there should be quite a few well developed and interesting options for an "evil" group of adventurers.
I also believe that druids need to come back into the game. However, they need to be hybrids capable of fulfilling any of the roles they are designed to fill as well as a "pure" class in power, but should be balanced by not having the breadth of options within said role.
I'm thinking the Half-Orc will go like the Half-Elves and become a race of their own and not just random mongrels. That would probably be best.
That's the approach I've always taken with half-orcs; they're a common enough race in our D&D games, especially in FR and in my homebrew. Is this an unusual view? How many see half-orcs as simply "mongrels"? My take is, half-orcs are like half-elves; they breed true among their own kind; they're distinct, a race of destiny (so to speak) ;).
For now, we've been using the racial traits for orcs in the MM, adding the prefix "half-" to any such characters. I remember reading that half-orcs would appear in D&D Insider. I'm looking forward to seeing it. Anybody hear any more recent info?
That'd entail no more need for half orcs, wussy drow gods, and half-vampires. Just have orc, drow and vamps that aren't jerks.
Really, I was hoping the days where you needed to make exceptions instead of just removing the concept of 'always chaotic evil' from races were behind us.
That'd entail no more need for half orcs, wussy drow gods, and half-vampires. Just have orc, drow and vamps that aren't jerks.
I think I might be able to tolerate subraces of orc that weren't so savage, you know, like eladrin and elf, but something tells me whatever story they had would just make me mad.
"Most people view the Half-Orcs are descendants of an unholy union between barbaric men and savage Orcs, but the truth is that the name 'Half-Orc' is a misnomer, maybe introduce to hide the truth about their origin or distance them from the savage Orcs. In a time lost to the memory of all but a few ancient beind Orcs were actually far more gentle, civilised and humanoid than the beings known as 'Orcs' of today. Children of a potent spirit of nature, and some say of Melora herself, Orcs lived in harmony with nature on vast and rugged empty plains. They co-existed with other folks in peace until Gruumsh took interest in them. Toying and influencing the Orcs over century to fester their more aggressive and savage traits the evil god turned the Orcs into the beastly marauders they are today. Half-Orcs are in the effect the descendants of the Orcs who were spared from Gruumsh's meddling. While their savage brethren took to the hills and mountains, the Half-Orcs kept their nomadic ways and still ride around the plains on horseback, praying to the mysterious spirits of nature that brought them to this world and fighting against the monstrous beings that have stolen their names."
Imagine a mongolian horseman with green skin, pointy ears and small tusks. Now I'd play that!
Really, I was hoping the days where you needed to make exceptions instead of just removing the concept of 'always chaotic evil' from races were behind us.
That'd entail no more need for half orcs, wussy drow gods, and half-vampires. Just have orc, drow and vamps that aren't jerks.
Agreed.
The only reason halforcs were made was because the devs of the old games were so riggid about making races that are ALWAYS evil and heartless (so that players didnt have to worry about silly things like "morals"), but were stuck in a hole when they said "Maybe someone might want to play this". So they have to halfass a "less evil" version of the race.
The worst of the worst of this, for me, was the Deathless. They were so unwilling to make it so that not all undead are freaky evil murder cannibals that they devised a "good" undead. And ALL of them were good! Apparently the living dead are incredibly binary. Then again, Deathless were powered by POSITIVE energy, You know, the thing LIVING creatures worked on. IE, they were alive.
Grr, it boils my buttons when I think about it...
Ravages? Disease that only hurts you if you fit a certain qualification? That's genocide!
If we talk about things we hate about supplements, half of the BoED was in conflict with the other half.
Ravages? Disease that only hurts you if you fit a certain qualification? That's genocide!
Oh, but that only works on EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEBIL creatures, so it doesn't matter.
The old alighnment system used what I often call "Saturday Morning Cartoon Alighnment".
Good was all shiny and pretty and always nice.
Evil was gross and dirty and constantly did bad things to everyone including their allies.
Lawful was riggid, like a robot, and never did anything creative and had no emotions.
Chaotic constantly runs around screaming and giggling and doing cartwheels.
Everything was clearcut, everyone fit into a nice little hyper-exagerated box, hell, dragons were colour coded for your convienience for finding out which to kill and steal form!
Oh, but that only works on EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEBIL creatures, so it doesn't matter.
The old alighnment system used what I often call "Saturday Morning Cartoon Alighnment".
Good was all shiny and pretty and always nice.
Evil was gross and dirty and constantly did bad things to everyone including their allies.
Lawful was riggid, like a robot, and never did anything creative and had no emotions.
Chaotic constantly runs around screaming and giggling and doing cartwheels.
Everything was clearcut, everyone fit into a nice little hyper-exagerated box, hell, dragons were colour coded for your convienience for finding out which to kill and steal form!
This is my favorite summation of the old alignments of all time.
This is my favorite summation of the old alignments of all time.
It's also the dumbest one I've ever read. Just because alignment doesn't fit into the stupid-ass post-modernist worldview that the idea of a "truth" is to be abhorred, doesn't make it "Saturday Morning Cartoon" morality or a bunch of narrow boxes that no "real" person fits into (srsly, snowflake complex, much?).
So, Good is still shiny and pretty, always nice. Evil is still gross and dirty, always doing bad things. Lawful is still a rigid robot and Chaotic still runs around giggling (cartwheels are optional, I guess ;)).
How have things changed in the new edition? In my mind, D&D alignment is cut and dried, black and white, never ambiguous. D&D is a game of make-believe, not a simulation of real life good or bad.
I'm getting PHB2 mostly for the Shifters. I'll never play a bard, sorc is questionable (I'd have to look at it), the two divine classes might warrant a look-see, and the primal power source makes me roll my eyes at best, laugh at it more commonly.
As far as what races are or aren't dumb concepts, that's pretty subjective. I find halflings to be pretty dumb, at least in previous editions. Fourth does them some justice, finally. Kender, however, are stupid. Lots of folks think Tieflings and Dragonborn are stupid (the Tolkien fetishists, I guess).
I'm getting PHB2 mostly for the Shifters. I'll never play a bard, sorc is questionable (I'd have to look at it), the two divine classes might warrant a look-see, and the primal power source makes me roll my eyes at best, laugh at it more commonly.
I loved halflings when they were down to earth hobbit ripoffs. Now that they are smart assed kender ripoffs, I wish nothing but plague and genocide upon them.
The important part is that Unaligned lets you have 'leave me alone, your pointless, wrongly skewed objectivism sickens me' as an alignment.
In previous editions, this was (true) Neutral. The alignment that gave me an excuse to be a Lawful robot one second and a giggling Chaotic the next :P.
There's less actual rules tied to alignment this time, which is nice I think. Still, D&D wouldn't be the same without alignment, whether it's an actual rules system or simply a guideline. Gotta be able to tell the good guys from the bad girls; dragons are still "color-coded" after all ;).
My favorites:
The Tauric Lashay-Otyugh (also known as the Le Pyew):
Half of them, (from the waist up) is the most beautiful and legendary of all creatures, melancholy that they alone wander the dreary universe as paragons of elfy perfection: wondersome magic, heartsinking music, and devastating grace and beauty. From the waist down they are a disgusting creature that lives in cesspools and under outhouses. The tauric combination sees itself as the most beautiful and perfect thing in existance...and just cannot understand why the "lesser races" run away from them in horror and disgust. It must just be...awe, yes, and silly lack of appreciation because of their superstitious, undeveloped minds. Yes, indeed.
The Tauric Gnome-Rustmonster:
Upper half gnome tinkerer, lower half rustmonster. Driven by insatiable curiousity they are driven to pick up and examine rare and interesting bits of steam-tech and artifacts. They are so perfect and wonderful in all their clicking, whirring...they just can't help themselves to just pick...it...up...and...*dink* Ahhh! No! Please! Why!
I love hybrid races--particularly tauric template races!
My favorites:
The Tauric Lashay-Otyugh (also known as the Le Pyew):
Half of them, (from the waist up) is the most beautiful and legendary of all creatures, melancholy that they alone wander the dreary universe as paragons of elfy perfection: wondersome magic, heartsinking music, and devastating grace and beauty. From the waist down they are a disgusting creature that lives in cesspools and under outhouses. The tauric combination sees itself as the most beautiful and perfect things in existance...and just cannot understand why the "lesser races" run away from them in horror and disgust. It must just be...awe, yes, and the silly lack of appreciation from their superstitious, undeveloped minds. Indeed.
The Tauric Gnome-Rustmonster:
Upper half gnome tinkerer, lower half rustmonster. Driven by insatiable curiousity they are driven to pick up and examine rare and interesting bits of steam-tech and artifacts. They are so perfect and wonderful in all their clicking, whirring...they just can't help themselves to just pick...it...up...and...*dink* Ahhh! No! Please! Why!
I loled IRL.
Still, D&D wouldn't be the same without alignment, whether it's an actual rules system or simply a guideline.
Yeah, it'd be 200% better.
Gotta be able to tell the good guys from the bad girls
Not really. Not the way DnD tries to do it at least.
There's less actual rules tied to alignment this time, which is nice I think. Still, D&D wouldn't be the same without alignment, whether it's an actual rules system or simply a guideline. Gotta be able to tell the good guys from the bad girls; dragons are still "color-coded" after all ;).
I have to agree. While they did leave the alignment system in, it is easily dropped. Unlike previous editions that had mechanics tied to alignment, this edition has forgone them. No more Detect Evil or aligned weapons. You can choose to totally ignore the alignment system, if you want to. Personally, I like the alignment system as it is now.
The worst of the worst of this, for me, was the Deathless. They were so unwilling to make it so that not all undead are freaky evil murder cannibals that they devised a "good" undead. And ALL of them were good! Apparently the living dead are incredibly binary. Then again, Deathless were powered by POSITIVE energy, You know, the thing LIVING creatures worked on. IE, they were alive.
Deathless weren't good guys. This is Eberron that we're talking about. You might consider them good if you were one of their Aerenal Elf worshippers, but if you happened to be one of the other races, they were scary and twisted terrors. They also made perfect sense in the Eberron cosmology with its orbiting positive and negative planes (amongst others). They were like the Mummy from the modern films compared to the Mummies from the old Hammer films. Similar in some ways, completely different in others.
As to excitement about upcoming half-orcs or whatever, I'm afraid that excitement has been severely dampened for me by 4e's bizarre and irritating fixation on +2 / +2 ability scores for all races and no negatives. Minotaur, elf, halfling, dwarf... feh! They're all as big and strong or small and weak as each other now. Makes no sense at all.
How have things changed in the new edition?
Well, for one thing, 90% of people are Unaligned - only mortals truly devoted to serving a higher power ever pick an alignment. Unaligned is "I'm just trying to get by." Sadly True Neutral was never an adequate box for this outlook - there was too much 'seeking the balance' and 'alternate good/evil and lawful/chaotic acts'.
As to excitement about upcoming half-orcs or whatever, I'm afraid that excitement has been severely dampened for me by 4e's bizarre and irritating fixation on +2 / +2 ability scores for all races and no negatives. Minotaur, elf, halfling, dwarf... feh! They're all as big and strong or small and weak as each other now. Makes no sense at all.
Oh no! People won't be punished for playing the race they want with the class they want anymore! What will we do?!
Deathless weren't good guys. This is Eberron that we're talking about. You might consider them good if you were one of their Aerenal Elf worshippers, but if you happened to be one of the other races, they were scary and twisted terrors. They also made perfect sense in the Eberron cosmology with its orbiting positive and negative planes (amongst others). They were like the Mummy from the modern films compared to the Mummies from the old Hammer films. Similar in some ways, completely different in others.
Deathless were introduced prior to Eberron. Eberron just made them less crappy and more awesome, like it did with Gnomes, Goblinoids, Half-Orcs, Half-Elves, Drow, Alignment, and a whole slew of other things.
Just by changing the fluff.
I had this random idea for a different take on the whole thing...
"Most people view the Half-Orcs are descendants of an unholy union between barbaric men and savage Orcs, but the truth is that the name 'Half-Orc' is a misnomer, maybe introduce to hide the truth about their origin or distance them from the savage Orcs. In a time lost to the memory of all but a few ancient beind Orcs were actually far more gentle, civilised and humanoid than the beings known as 'Orcs' of today. Children of a potent spirit of nature, and some say of Melora herself, Orcs lived in harmony with nature on vast and rugged empty plains. They co-existed with other folks in peace until Gruumsh took interest in them. Toying and influencing the Orcs over century to fester their more aggressive and savage traits the evil god turned the Orcs into the beastly marauders they are today. Half-Orcs are in the effect the descendants of the Orcs who were spared from Gruumsh's meddling. While their savage brethren took to the hills and mountains, the Half-Orcs kept their nomadic ways and still ride around the plains on horseback, praying to the mysterious spirits of nature that brought them to this world and fighting against the monstrous beings that have stolen their names."
Imagine a mongolian horseman with green skin, pointy ears and small tusks. Now I'd play that!
I doubt it was intentional, but this is almost exactly how warcraft lore played out. The orcs were a bunch of hippy shaman living in harmony with nature till the demons got a hold of them. Only a few orcs were untouched by the demonic taint, and they continued to be hippy shaman who lived in harmony with nature.
Oh no! People won't be punished for playing the race they want with the class they want anymore! What will we do?!
Agreed racial penalties suck.
Eberron did a good job of mostly doing away with half-orcs being the product of ****. Orcs from Khorvaire's Western regions were a mostly non-evil druidic culture, and when human immigrants arrived on Khorvaire's Western shores they were accepted and helped by the orcs there. In Khovaire's "present day" there are many tribes made up of a mix of humans, orcs, and half-orcs. As far as "what human would willingly bump uglies with an orc?", well, I look around my town and see plenty of ... um ... large, scary-looking women running around town with six kids in tow, as well as extremely big, sloppy-looking men with reasonably nice-looking wives, so somebody's willing to do it. And consider that your typical orc — male or female — while big, is big in a fit and muscular way, not in a sloppy, obese way, and the attraction makes more sense.
As to excitement about upcoming half-orcs or whatever, I'm afraid that excitement has been severely dampened for me by 4e's bizarre and irritating fixation on +2 / +2 ability scores for all races and no negatives. Minotaur, elf, halfling, dwarf... feh! They're all as big and strong or small and weak as each other now. Makes no sense at all.
Technically in 3rd edition Dwarves and Elves were equally adept at the Wizardly arts, even though Dwarves are generally considered a race that distrusts magic and Elves were a race that lived and breathed magic.
Oh no! People won't be punished for playing the race they want with the class they want anymore! What will we do?!
QFT
It's also the dumbest one I've ever read. Just because alignment doesn't fit into the stupid-ass post-modernist worldview that the idea of a "truth" is to be abhorred, doesn't make it "Saturday Morning Cartoon" morality or a bunch of narrow boxes that no "real" person fits into (srsly, snowflake complex, much?).
Yes, since I don't like the little-box mentality of the old editions, I think everything is gray and there is no good and evil.
I think there are those who do good, and those who do evil. However, the old way of doing this was ridiculously straightjacketed. Tons of the ideas I had were shot down because of alighnment ands it's iron hold of the rules.
Why do I have to be Lawful to be a Monk? Because Chaotic can't stand still for two seconds! They can't have silly things like "personal discipline". They have to come from a monestary and study for years under hard-ass teachers. If they were Chaotic, they would be too busy bouncing off the walls!
Why do I have to be Chaotic to be a Bard? Well, if you were Lawful, I would just sing (in a monotone, of course) a string of ones and zeros! I wouldn't be able to think of any inspiring songs, because I'm too inflexible. I can't have been trained in a royal court to play for the king or anything like that. No, I need to be a globe hopping vagabond, springing merilly to all the people and singing silly songs!
Why does my Cleric have to be Good to channel positive energy or turn undead? Because Evil clerics hate everything, including their friends! They would never concider healing anything. What silliness! They also can't want to destroy undead. Everyone knows that every undead, even the ones who can't decide to be Evil because they are mindless*, are pure unadulterated EEEEEEEBIL! Therefore, an Evil cleric MUST like them and use them against all those shiny Good guys (and of course the Evil allies they betray!).
I could go on, but I've already derailed enough.
I'm not saying that everything is gray and that there is no Good or Evil actions, as you seem to imply. I just found it stupid how "Good" and "Evil" were applied unquestionably to different things. As well, the practice of making creatures that were always Evil so that the players would know exactly what to kill was stupid. I'm not saying every encounter should be a moral dillema. I just hated how almost EVERYTHING in the game was put into nice little boxes so the players didn't have to think at all. Orc? It's Evil, let's kill and loot it. Kobold? Evil, let's kill and loot it. Goblin? It's Evil, let's kill and loot it.
I understand that some players like clean-cut worlds like that, were there are no suprises, and where you didn't have to worry about negotiating with certain races, because you know they were Evil just by looking at how ugly they were. You didn't have to worry about this guy secretly manipulating you, just cast a Detect Align spell and TADA! Plot arc solved. If someone didn't have the same ideoligy as you, there were meriod spells that allowed you to physiclly attack someones morals.
Long story short: Personality (which is what Alignment is, pretty much) should not be put into little boxes so that they can more effectivly be used as mechanical effects. I am still peeved that Alignment, albit in a neutered form, is still in the rules.
Personality (which is what Alignment is, pretty much) should not be put into little boxes so that they can more effectivly be used as mechanical effects.
That's a clear example of the sort of depressed narcissism people today tend to have in spades. "All these little boxes! How dare they categorize me?!"
You also made a number of false assumptions about the system itself. "He's Evil and therefore it's okay to kill him"? Hell no.
Why does my Cleric have to be Good to channel positive energy or turn undead? Because Evil clerics hate everything, including their friends! They would never concider healing anything. What silliness! They also can't want to destroy undead. Everyone knows that every undead, even the ones who can't decide to be Evil because they are mindless*, are pure unadulterated EEEEEEEBIL! Therefore, an Evil cleric MUST like them and use them against all those shiny Good guys (and of course the Evil allies they betray!).
What!?!? Evil people never have teamwork or character depth and most of all they definitely don't heal each other! This is blasphemy! May the good aligned deities have mercy on your soul!
Oh no! People won't be punished for playing the race they want with the class they want anymore!
Which is an interesting re-phrasing of my observation that nothing can be stronger than a human, even if it's, you know, an eight-foot minotaur. That wee little gnomes will be just as strong, in fact. Aside from straining believability, it leaves no room for upward expansion. Any race that ever gets statted will have these same limitations. Pixies hurling boulders and tap-dancing ogres.
By all means break out the ridiculous mocking sarcasm if you're unable to deal with someone having an opinion you don't like, but it wont make any difference to my opinion. Just as valid as yours is mate.
Deathless were introduced prior to Eberron. Eberron just made them less crappy and more awesome, like it did with Gnomes, Goblinoids, Half-Orcs, Half-Elves, Drow, Alignment, and a whole slew of other things.
Just by changing the fluff.
Interesting, I must have missed their pre-Eberron appearance. Having seen Eberron make even Gnomes interesting and integrated into the setting, I'll take your word for it that the original Deathless were as naff as you say.
Evil in DnD was almost defined by it's lack of basic, simian common sense.
Like it is in real life? Immorality is inherently (self-)destructive. If you are lacking one of the basic premises (such as "Until you prove otherwise, the exact same rules apply to you as to everyone else"), all of your rationalizations will lead to craptastic results.
As far as "what human would willingly bump uglies with an orc?", well, I look around my town and see plenty of ... um ... large, scary-looking women running around town with six kids in tow, as well as extremely big, sloppy-looking men with reasonably nice-looking wives, so somebody's willing to do it. And consider that your typical orc — male or female — while big, is big in a fit and muscular way, not in a sloppy, obese way, and the attraction makes more sense.
I'll add to that. The world of most D&D campaigns is not a world of prosperity and easy living. Sure, it might be nice to go for a guy that has a beautiful face and smooth, youthful skin, but the guy who can work eighteen hours in the field, or scare off the local bullies and predators has to have enhanced appeal in that world. What I'm saying, is that sometimes a girl's got to go for the guy that can leap between her and a hungry owlbear. And actually, with orc girls, a lot of guys might feel the same.
And then there are diplomatic marriages. Many a warring tribe or city-state sealed a peace treaty by marrying the children of the respective chiefs. Imagine being that young prince / princess! :D
The alignment system in Eberron was a very good way to quickly describe how an NPC would behave, but no guarantee as to her allegiance to some bizarre and unrealistic alliance of good / evil. I keep the system in my setting. No need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Like it is in real life? Immorality is inherently (self-)destructive. If you are lacking one of the basic premises (such as "Until you prove otherwise, the exact same rules apply to you as to everyone else"), all of your rationalizations will lead to craptastic results.
So because I like jailbait, I can't understand the notions of team work and basic human decency?
Which is an interesting re-phrasing of my observation that nothing can be stronger than a human, even if it's, you know, an eight-foot minotaur. That wee little gnomes will be just as strong, in fact. Aside from straining believability, it leaves no room for upward expansion. Any race that ever gets statted will have these same limitations. Pixies hurling boulders and tap-dancing ogres.
Umm... so, the Minotaur, with a +2 to STR, will have less STR than the Halfling who does not have a +2 to STR? The Halfling is just as strong, despite having less Strength? Contrary to what you might think, not having a STR penalty does not equal "hurling boulders".
What Val was saying is that now no race is "Bad" at any class. He, as well as I, believe that this is a good thing. In old editions, if I wanted to play a Kobold, not playing a Caster was pretty much not an option. Now I can play a Kobold Fighter without dying the first time I fight anything.
However, unlike what you imply, no race is "Bad" at a class does not mean that they are all the same in every class. You would be silly to think that. Would you honestly say that the Minotaur, with a +2 to STR, will not have an advantage as a Fighter as opposed to if he had been a Wizard? A Minotaur Fighter will be a better Fighter than a Halfling Fighter, but it isn't to the point where it is a no brainer to not play a Halfling Fighter*.
By all means break out the ridiculous mocking sarcasm if you're unable to deal with someone having an opinion you don't like, but it wont make any difference to my opinion. Just as valid as yours is mate.
Yes, it is valid. As an opinion. However, saying "A 4E Halfling is as strong as a 4E Minotaur" is not valid. It is false.
*I once had an idea for a campaign where your class WAS your race. Basiclly, it was sort of a fantasy setting Brave New World, although no class was discriminated against per-say. But they were all bred for different purposes. All Fighters are "Orcs". All Wizards are "Elves". Never ended up doing it, though. I'm lazy.
if the alignment system has no effect on gameplay, why keep it? i never knew why eberron kept the alignment system if it played it blurry. seriously, why have boxes if you're not going to use them? i love eberron as a setting but why have LE and then a full description of the character's personality when only the latter actually matters?
if it does have effect on gameplay, it had better be VERY well described as how it's intended usage is otherwise i'll just keep writing down CN all the time i'm actually asked to do so. why? it's the closest thing i can do to "i'll act however natural it feels for the character" and most DMs who follow a strict alignment policy i've played with never have problems with that. otherwise, those DM's that have a very strict view of the alignment system are not afraid to have you just lose your class abilities. i've seen it (almost) happen twice. the character was fine due to the group saying "dude, it's one infraction... it shouldn't merit a change!"
So because I like jailbait, I can't understand the notions of team work and basic human decency?
Don't forget that you always backstab your friends.
But let's get off the alignment topic. I should have known better than to bring it up. It is and always has been a hotbutton issue, and isn't 100% on topic anyway.
If the alignment system has no effect on gameplay, why keep it? I never knew why Eberron kept the alignment system if it played it blurry. Seriously, why have boxes if you're not going to use them? I love Eberron as a setting but why have LE and then a full description of the character's personality when only the latter actually matters?
In 3.5, there were a lot of spells and other things which depended on the alignment system. A lot of cleric spells only affected creatures of a particular alignment, or had different effects depending on the target's alignment. There were a lot of classes and prestige classes with alignment restrictions. It wasn't practical to ban or rework all those spells and classes, especially with new ones coming in with each splatbook. It was a lot easier to just write two little letters next to each NPC's name.
4E Eberron won't have that problem. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if they kept alignment, but made 99% of NPCs unaligned.
Umm... so, the Minotaur, with a +2 to STR, will have less STR than the Halfling who does not have a +2 to STR? The Halfling is just as strong, despite having less Strength? Contrary to what you might think, not having a STR penalty does not equal "hurling boulders".
I was expecting that. There is a +2 difference between the halfling and the Minotaur. It seems pretty piddling when the Minotaur weighs eight times what the Halfling does. And importantly, a large proportion of Halflings would be stronger than the average Minotaur (assuming even minor variation between individual halflings). And note that Minotaurs get no strength advantage over humans. Have you ever met anyone over eight foot tall? That's big.
And please note that I offered more extreme-examples. It was the pixie that was hurling boulders at people. There is no pixie PC race in the book and because of the restriction there never can be. In renouncing racial penalties and fixing upper limits, I'd say we are confined to a limited range of close-to-human races. Although that has been slightly violated (at the cost of realism) with things like the Minotaur. Basically, there's a very minor space in which races can be put and overlap is likely. Anything that is big, whether its minotaurs, bugbears, half-orcs, golliaths, dragonborn, half-ogres, half-giants - they're all going to have +2 to strength. Forced overlap is bad, imo which is why I would have liked to have seen a greater range available.
Don't forget that you always backstab your friends.
But let's get off the alignment topic. I should have known better than to bring it up. It is and always has been a hotbutton issue, and isn't 100% on topic anyway.
Doh! I forgot about that part.
Anyways, I'll get back on topic. How about when they release druids? Are you guys hoping for druids to be controllers, defenders, strikers, or leaders? Or maybe the first class able to fill many roles and be labeled as a hybrid? If they were a hybrid would they fill many roles at once, but not to the extent that a pure class would or would they be able to fill any one of the roles depending on how their ability scores, power selection, and feat selection turned out?
I, at the very least, want Druids to be able to heal and shapeshift(which shapeshifting is a given if you read the 4E Classes and Races book).
I was expecting that. There is a +2 difference between the halfling and the Minotaur. It seems pretty piddling when the Minotaur weighs eight times what the Halfling does. And importantly, a large proportion of Halflings would be stronger than the average Minotaur (assuming even minor variation between individual halflings). And note that Minotaurs get no strength advantage over humans. Have you ever met anyone over eight foot tall? That's big.
And please note that I offered more extreme-examples. It was the pixie that was hurling boulders at people. There is no pixie PC race in the book and because of the restriction there never can be. In renouncing racial penalties and fixing upper limits, I'd say we are confined to a limited range of close-to-human races. Although that has been slightly violated (at the cost of realism) with things like the Minotaur. Basically, there's a very minor space in which races can be put and overlap is likely. Anything that is big, whether its minotaurs, bugbears, half-orcs, golliaths, dragonborn, half-ogres, half-giants - they're all going to have +2 to strength. Forced overlap is bad, imo which is why I would have liked to have seen a greater range available.
I'm sorry that lack of stat penalties hurts your suspension of disbelief, but stat penalties was hurtin' mah gameplay.
Like it is in real life? Immorality is inherently (self-)destructive.
Ha-ha. No.
Anyways, I'll get back on topic. How about when they release druids? Are you guys hoping for druids to be controllers, defenders, strikers, or leaders? Or maybe the first class able to fill many roles and be labeled as a hybrid?
Back before 4E was released, WotC said that Druids would be hybrid. That there would be two paths - weather magic and shapeshifting. However, later on they said that it didn't work out, and that they split the class into two.
I hope that the Druid is a wild-shaping defender. I want a Druid who can turn into a literal mama-bear and rend apart anybody who dares try to hurt her friends. Turning into some gigantic animal just screams defender to me. The increased number of threatened squares really helps. It'd probably be a defender secondary-striker, like the fighter (WotC started acknowleding secondary roles with the barbarian, which is a striker secondary-defender).
Actually, I don't care if the class I just described is called "Druid," "Shaman," "Warden" or "Happy Animal Fun Time Class." I just wants it. I'll be slightly disappointed if the Druid turns out to be a wild-shaping striker, since that lowers the chances of getting a wild-shaping defender later on.
I doubt it was intentional, but this is almost exactly how warcraft lore played out. The orcs were a bunch of hippy shaman living in harmony with nature till the demons got a hold of them. Only a few orcs were untouched by the demonic taint, and they continued to be hippy shaman who lived in harmony with nature.
Yeah I played a bit of Warcraft 2 and that's all. I never had the computer to play the other games.
I was thinking more 'native american' harmony than 'hippy' harmony. I.E. they still hunt but just for sustenance and use all of the animal. That sort of thing.
I was expecting that. There is a +2 difference between the halfling and the Minotaur. It seems pretty piddling when the Minotaur weighs eight times what the Halfling does. And importantly, a large proportion of Halflings would be stronger than the average Minotaur (assuming even minor variation between individual halflings). And note that Minotaurs get no strength advantage over humans. Have you ever met anyone over eight foot tall? That's big.
Do you think that the Minotaur should have a +8 then? How big should the bonus be? And why would I want to play anything else if my class choice uses STR?
And please note that I offered more extreme-examples. It was the pixie that was hurling boulders at people.
Again, how would not having a STR penalty allow them to throw boulders? Do Humans get to do this? This really seems just like hyperbole.
There is no pixie PC race in the book and because of the restriction there never can be. In renouncing racial penalties and fixing upper limits, I'd say we are confined to a limited range of close-to-human races.
There can't be a Pixie race...
Because they wouldn't be penalized?
Although that has been slightly violated (at the cost of realism) with things like the Minotaur.
Realism is not an argument in a world of magical elves and dragons who can fly without shattering their entire bodies.
I think your problem may be that you think that a Minotaur should be like the old ones, where they were immensly stronger than other things. Then again, they were Large sized and had racial HD. The player Minotaur is Medium. IE, they are likely about the size of a buff Human. That isn't "unrealistic", unless you think "It isn't like 3E" to be "unrealistic".
Basically, there's a very minor space in which races can be put and overlap is likely. Anything that is big, whether its minotaurs, bugbears, half-orcs, golliaths, dragonborn, half-ogres, half-giants - they're all going to have +2 to strength. Forced overlap is bad, imo which is why I would have liked to have seen a greater range available.
Yes, let's give the Orc a +2 to STR, and the Minotaur a +4, +6, +8, whatever you think is reasonable.
Then watch as no Fighter chooses anything but a Minotaur because it would be silly to not do it.
What I like about the new way racial bonuses are given is that, yes, I am not restricted as to who can be what class, and no, I don't feel like a fool for chooseing a race without a +4 to their class primary ability. You may not like that, and think that races should be restricted as to what classes they can take. But that is not the focus of 4E. In 4E, you are not penalized for taking the "unoptomized" choice. This makes more room for creative character concepts, because I don't have to worry that my Halfling Fighter has a 12 STR, while my Minotaur Barbarian buddy over there has a 22.
I'm sorry that lack of stat penalties hurts your suspension of disbelief, but stat penalties was hurtin' mah gameplay.
We each have our priorities. I'll respect yours, you respect mine.
Lurkalot.
I was thinking more 'native american' harmony than 'hippy' harmony. I.E. they still hunt but just for sustenance and use all of the animal. That sort of thing.
That's the Tauren though.
What a stupid-ass objection. No, because you couldn't understand the basic notion of human dignity.
So you got it both backwards and completely wrong. Congratulations.
This just in, all evil characters will now be self centered, psycho murdering, undead loving (litterally), ****, dead baby belt having smuchks.
This just in, all evil characters will now be self centered, psycho murdering, undead loving (litterally), ****, dead baby belt having smuchks.
Will you ever stop failing?
That's the Tauren though.
:P
Screw the harmony then...they're just green Mongols and Gruumsh was responsible for Gengis Khan! How about that? Horsemen True-Orc with bows! And furry caps! :p
Screw the harmony then...they're just green Mongols and Gruumsh was responsible for Gengis Khan! How about that? Horsemen True-Orc with bows! And furry caps! :p
That's Metal.
You may not like that, and think that races should be restricted as to what classes they can take. But that is not the focus of 4E.
Let's get one thing straight - I'm saying what I like in the game. I'm not saying that 4e has to be this or that, or other people have to play that way. But I am saying that there is something I don't like about it. And that's the lack of realism and the lack of variety space for races.
Now to your post, I'll offer my opinions:
Do you think that the Minotaur should have a +8 then? How big should the bonus be? And why would I want to play anything else if my class choice uses STR?
I don't know. In other game systems such as Shadowrun this is balanced somewhat through point-buy. If you spend your points on being a troll in that game, you have less points to spend on equipment. I believe that in the previous edition, balance was achieved through a level adjustment (i.e. a minotaur started out as a level 4 character or whatever), yes? You might think it bad form of me to complain about something without offering a solution as to how I would fix something, but I'm not one of the game designers and a solution for this might need to have been designed in at a more fundamental level. At any rate, it's something I see as a flaw.
Again, how would not having a STR penalty allow them to throw boulders? Do Humans get to do this? This really seems just like hyperbole.
Humans do get to do this. By boulder I don't mean some eight-foot ball of masonry. Just a grapefruit of rock lobbed at someone's head. A human can have Str 18 and quite comfortably hurl such a boulder a goodly distance. Our hypothetical pixie race can likewise have Str 18 and throw it just as far. Even thought the boulder ways more than the pixie itself. It strains all credibility and is thus why we can't have our pixie race. Only by lowering the pixie race's Str could we make it more believable and that's been forbidden.
Realism is not an argument in a world of magical elves and dragons who can fly without shattering their entire bodies.
The presence of elves and dragons doesn't make realism less important. It makes it more important. There's all the world of difference between a magical beast that breathes fire and a 2' guy throwing things four times his weight. The one might contravene our knowledge of science, but the latter contravenes all our most basic intuition of movement and weight. When you see the oliphants in LotR marching, well you might think that their legs wouldn't be able to support them with real world biology, but you'll be okay with them in the film - it's fantasy. But if Legolas suddenly picks up one of those massive bits of Gondor tower they were trebucheting about the place and chucks it at the Oliphant, then that's no longer fantasy - it's Japanese Magic Schoolgirl Anime. It would launch the film into a very different level of suspension of disbelief. Same with this. I don't like people weighing 50lbs flipping minotaurs weighing 300lbs over their shoulders and pinning them to the ground. But that's what we have.
IE, they are likely about the size of a buff Human. That isn't "unrealistic", unless you think "It isn't like 3E" to be "unrealistic".
You've actually got me wondering now if the reason Minotaurs are human sized is so that they can be fitted into the +2 max rules. I always pictured them as great big things.
Btw, at some point, people here are going to have to drop the assumption that everyone criticising 4th is doing so because of it differing to 3rd. I only ever played one game of that, years ago. I'm quite capable of judging 4e on its own merits. ;)
I'm not trying to argue some absolute condition of how 4e should or should not be. I'm just saying that this problem of belief is a natural consequence of a fixation on the +2/+2 and no penalties and its one that bothers me.
You've actually got me wondering now if the reason Minotaurs are human sized is so that they can be fitted into the +2 max rules. I always pictured them as great big things.
They changed them because they wanted them to be available to players, and since they knew that LA and Large size were problematic for a player race, they dropped them to Medium.
There still are the "great big" Minotaurs, but not as a player race. Seriously, I always pictured Minotaurs as Human (Medium) size anyway. The myth of the Minotaur and the Labrinth never said that the Minotaur was 10 feet across.
Btw, at some point, people here are going to have to drop the assumption that everyone criticising 4th is doing so because of it differing to 3rd. I only ever played one game of that, years ago. I'm quite capable of judging 4e on its own merits. ;)
Then why don't you accept that 4E Minotaurs are only 5% stronger than other races? That is how they are in 4E. But you seem to think that 4E is wrong on that. What are you using as a precident as to why it is wrong? The reason I brought up 3E was because that is the most often cited source.
I'm not trying to argue some absolute condition of how 4e should or should not be. I'm just saying that this problem of belief is a natural consequence of a fixation on the +2/+2 and no penalties and its one that bothers me.
I am still having trouble understanding why you feel not giving a penalty to things breaks you suspension of disbelief. Why does a creature only being 5% better at something stop you from believing they are better at it? How does not having a penalty to abilities suddenly make a race a paragon of the things they don't get a bonus to? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just honestly do not understand.
How does no race having a stat penalty and no race having a bonus above +2 hurt your perception of the game?
Will you ever stop failing?
Will you?
Except Pixies wouldn't be in the same size class as Minotaurs and thus a Pixie's 18 STR is not the same as a Minotaur's 18 STR.
Really? How does that work? (not sarcasm - genuine question).
Then why don't you accept that 4E Minotaurs are only 5% stronger than other races? That is how they are in 4E. But you seem to think that 4E is wrong on that. What are you using as a precident as to why it is wrong? The reason I brought up 3E was because that is the most often cited source.
Ah, Games Workshop stuff, actually. That and all the artwork I've seen for them in 4e - it makes them look huge. Anyway. it sounds like the Minotaur fluff was changed to make them fit the new rules better. Which is pretty much one of my main points - we have a limited space in which we can have playable races. Things outside that either can't be playable races or have to be cut down to fit. Now of course there is going to be a boundary at some point: You can't have Titans and Dragons as a playable race. But the +2/+2 no penalties fixes that boundary fairly close to human when it could be further away perhaps.
I am still having trouble understanding why you feel not giving a penalty to things breaks you suspension of disbelief. Why does a creature only being 5% better at something stop you from believing they are better at it? How does not having a penalty to abilities suddenly make a race a paragon of the things they don't get a bonus to? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just honestly do not understand.
No problem - I'm happy to discuss and my response isn't meant to be argumentative either. Firstly, +2 is a small thing on the scale of D&D abilities, it's the difference between a slightly strong human and an average human. It's a difference easily negated by advancing a few levels. Without penalties, this means that all races are very close in their range of abilities. Extremely close in fact. Joe Halfling is very close to Joe Minotaur. The reason it is a problem for me is that I am very keen on internal consistency and believability and the fluff gives me a halfling that weighs 1/6th that of his Minotaur friend. A stronger than average halfling is going to be able to wrestle the average Minotaur to the ground and pin him there. If that image doesn't damage your immersion in the game, then you have a more generous suspension of disbelief than I do. ;) Stat penalties would address this to some extent, I think. I'm not necessarily arguing for stat penalties. Larger bonuses for those creatures the fluff makes me think would have it would also work. There are a number of approaches out there, I would imagine. Anyway, this is where I'm coming from and I hope it clears it up.
Regards,
Lurkalot.
Lurkalot, when you're describing the pixies throwing around boulders four times their weight, all I can think of is little ant people.
:D
Now I have an image in my head of tiny pixie people singing. "But he's got hi____gh hopes, he's high hopes."
We were having a good time, bagging on some of DnD's blooper races and then alignment enters into it and BAM! Multi-level flame war.
Look what happened to this thread when alignment touched it.
We were having a good time, bagging on some of DnD's blooper races and then alignment enters into it and BAM! Multi-level flame war.
Well you were the one that asked if there were going to be any "good" races in the PHBII. ;)
A stronger than average halfling is going to be able to wrestle the average Minotaur to the ground and pin him there. If that image doesn't damage your immersion in the game, then you have a more generous suspension of disbelief than I do.
Uh, by the rules in 3e, Halflings already had a penalty to Grapple and Minos already had a bonus to it for size. The two point swing from penalty vs bonus hardly ever makes a difference.
Uh, by the rules in 3e, Halflings already had a penalty to Grapple and Minos already had a bonus to it for size. The two point swing from penalty vs bonus hardly ever makes a difference.
I repeat (again), I'm not comparing to 3e. I'm judging 4e as a standalone system. At some point, people are going to have to stop attacking every criticism of 4e by saying 3e was the same or worse. 3e is not the sole frame of reference for some of us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aicHsMC6rxM
Ah, Games Workshop stuff, actually. That and all the artwork I've seen for them in 4e - it makes them look huge. Anyway. it sounds like the Minotaur fluff was changed to make them fit the new rules better. Which is pretty much one of my main points - we have a limited space in which we can have playable races. Things outside that either can't be playable races or have to be cut down to fit. Now of course there is going to be a boundary at some point: You can't have Titans and Dragons as a playable race. But the +2/+2 no penalties fixes that boundary fairly close to human when it could be further away perhaps.
This is pretty much the point, yes. A race that is playable fits into the template of player races. In this way, all races are balanced and viable. A win win, in my opinion.
And yes, you likely won't be able to play things like Dragons Or Titans (arn't those things size HUGE anyway?). But I would never have expected them to make EVERYTHING playable. We would then run into the problems with 3E ECL.
ECL... *Shudder*
No problem - I'm happy to discuss and my response isn't meant to be argumentative either. Firstly, +2 is a small thing on the scale of D&D abilities, it's the difference between a slightly strong human and an average human.
It is a 5% bonus. Picture someone able to lift 100 pounds. Well, the guy with the +2 can lift 110 pounds. I would not personally call that a "slight" difference, but YMMV.
I think, however, that this was a design goal. It all goes back to making a racial bonus a bonus, not the entire focus of everything that character will be capable of.
It's a difference easily negated by advancing a few levels.
Two levels, to be exact. That is one fifth of the way to a new Teir. That, again, does not seem "slight".
Also, remember thta it will not help your damage.
Without penalties, this means that all races are very close in their range of abilities. Extremely close in fact. Joe Halfling is very close to Joe Minotaur.
The Minotaur will be 5% stronger on average. Again, how much stronger do you think the Minotaur should be?
The reason it is a problem for me is that I am very keen on internal consistency and believability and the fluff gives me a halfling that weighs 1/6th that of his Minotaur friend. A stronger than average halfling is going to be able to wrestle the average Minotaur to the ground and pin him there. If that image doesn't damage your immersion in the game, then you have a more generous suspension of disbelief than I do. ;)
Strength, as I look at it, is not just about bulging muscles. It is also about being able to USE your strength. That Halfling may not be as big as the Minotaur, but he knows how to throw what weight he has around.
PS, where are you getting the "1/6th the weight" thing? A 4E Halfling is 80 pounds, according to the PHB. Minotaur weight is not listed, but for what you say to be true, they would need to be 480 pounds. Remember they are Medium. I must ask, where are you getting that figure?
Stat penalties would address this to some extent, I think. I'm not necessarily arguing for stat penalties. Larger bonuses for those creatures the fluff makes me think would have it would also work. There are a number of approaches out there, I would imagine. Anyway, this is where I'm coming from and I hope it clears it up.
Regards,
Lurkalot.
Firstly, yes, it clears a few things up, thank you.
But now, on a more "continuing to not get it" note, why do you feel the fluff for Minotaurs justifies a bonus bigger than 5%? They are big and strong, yes, but it never says "They are much stronger than Humans". The fluff justifies them being stronger, and +2 STR is plenty stronger. It seems from your posts, and this is just how I read it, you are using a fluff other than 4E for your arguments. Is that so?
Plus you ever saw little people wrestle? They're nippy.
:D
I'd figure the same way 'Small' creatures have special rules
I think you mean special rule, without the s. As far as I remember, the only extra "rule" is the illogical weapon restriction. Which, again, makes no sense to em and burns me up, but which I will not go into because I will derail quite a bit.
I didn't say titans and dragons should be playable. I used them as examples of things that wouldn't be. What I did say is that the design of the existing system as forced the boundary to be set very close to the level of human ability. We can't see a playable ogre race for example, just as we can't see the playable pixies. That seems a shame to me.
What is ECL? (Sorry).
Regarding the 5% bonus. It's only 5% if you're on score 20, but I see why you picked that and I'm okay with you calling +2 a 5% if you like (though I'll continue to call it what it is: +2). I think that is a slight difference. Sure, I might have to work to increase my max weight on a bench press by 10lbs, but it's a very slight difference when you're comparing halflings with minotaurs. Or our hypothetical pixie (which I include because part of my point is demonstrating that the design prevents there being such a race). It's a difference too slight to account for what we expect from fluff.
You asked where my figures came from for relative weights. You're right - I just looked up halflings and they're listed as about 80lbs. I'd guessed around 50lbs. Hard to peg a minotaur, but I was picking around 300lbs. I'm 6'1", fairly muscular and I weigh approx. 230lbs at fighting weight (bit over at the moment). I'd have to put a minotaur at more than me, surely. 260lbs, minimum and that's a concession for the sake of argument. So we have something weighing 3x the weight carrying an extra 20lbs? That's absurd (no offense - I'm directing that word at the rules, not you).
I'm passably bad at judo. I know the difference weight makes. And Undrave's Akido link aside (I can tell you that those "attackers" are being very generous in going with the throw), it just doesn't work the way the rules say.
And we shouldn't get hung up on the fluff of Minotaurs. The point is that all "strong" races are going to be equally strong. And all non-strong races are going to be a hairs-breadth aside. We've seen minotaurs made smaller and we've seen halflings made larger. It just shows what I'm saying - that everything has to be brought into a narrow range to fit in the +2/+2 no penalties boundary. You called it a "design goal." I agree that it was a design goal. I say that for my tastes, it wasn't a good one.
I'm passably bad at judo. I know the difference weight makes. And Undrave's Akido link aside (I can tell you that those "attackers" are being very generous in going with the throw)
I can tell too...it was just the first video on the page when I searched on Youtube. Lazy like that XD
What is ECL? (Sorry).
"Effective Class Level". It was the 3E way of allowing non-standard races to be played (By making you count as X levels higher than your actual class level, but with less Hit Dice). Trust me, if you had known about it, you would probably be more likely to like the new style. ;)
Regarding the 5% bonus. It's only 5% if you're on score 20, but I see why you picked that and I'm okay with you calling +2 a 5% if you like (though I'll continue to call it what it is: +2). I think that is a slight difference. Sure, I might have to work to increase my max weight on a bench press by 10lbs, but it's a very slight difference when you're comparing halflings with minotaurs. Or our hypothetical pixie (which I include because part of my point is demonstrating that the design prevents there being such a race). It's a difference too slight to account for what we expect from fluff.
A +2 to an ability score is a +1 on a d20 roll. That comes out as 5% better, no matter the score.
And again, I got exactly what I expected from the fluff. Strong races are 5% stronger. Agile races have 5% more Dexterity.
You asked where my figures came from for relative weights. You're right - I just looked up halflings and they're listed as about 80lbs. I'd guessed around 50lbs. Hard to peg a minotaur, but I was picking around 300lbs. I'm 6'1", fairly muscular and I weigh approx. 230lbs at fighting weight (bit over at the moment). I'd have to put a minotaur at more than me, surely. 260lbs, minimum and that's a concession for the sake of argument. So we have something weighing 3x the weight carrying an extra 20lbs? That's absurd (no offense - I'm directing that word at the rules, not you).
Yes, it is absurd if you look at it as every point of strength being a certain amount of muscle mass. Then again, that doesn't appear to be the case.
I'm passably bad at judo. I know the difference weight makes. And Undrave's Akido link aside (I can tell you that those "attackers" are being very generous in going with the throw), it just doesn't work the way the rules say.
How so?
And we shouldn't get hung up on the fluff of Minotaurs. The point is that all "strong" races are going to be equally strong. And all non-strong races are going to be a hairs-breadth aside. We've seen minotaurs made smaller and we've seen halflings made larger. It just shows what I'm saying - that everything has to be brought into a narrow range to fit in the +2/+2 no penalties boundary. You called it a "design goal." I agree that it was a design goal. I say that for my tastes, it wasn't a good one.
Here is the short of it: Giving huge bonuses to stats, or penalizing them, severly pidgeonholes not only what classes a race can play viably, but also what races are viable for each class. If the Minotaur has a +4 STR, and an Orc has +2, which would you use for your Fighter? 4E does have a rather delicate balance set up, that relies on characters not being able to have more than a 20 or less than an 8 at character gen. It is ingrained and expected in most of the game rules.
What sort of range do you want? Should we have races with a +6 STR along with those with a -4 STR, just so that players can play everything? How many types of race really need to be stated? It just so happens that Small or Medium humanoids is the best fit for players.
Should we make it so players can play dragons, and have to make a whole new system for them as they can't use weapons or impliments, as well as make adjustmesnt for increased size? How would you balance out how much better than a normal race they are? Should players be allowed to play humanoids that are size Huge? Gargantuan? How would you balance out their advantages? How would you write adventures for characters of those sizes? Would they be allowed in a party of creatures who are not that big?
What do you want the range of player races to be, and how would they be balanced out with the other races?
I think we are getting somewhere, but to just cut to the chase, I want you to tell me right now: What range of races do you think should be playable? What range of size? What range of ability bonus/penalty? What range of body shapes? And how would you balance out how overpowered some of those would be?
Will you?
LOL at the irony. You didn't even touch my post, nor contribute anything useful, yet you have the almighty gall to accuse me of failing. There are a couple of intellectual failures in this thread, and I'm not a part of that set.
(I can tell you that those "attackers" are being very generous in going with the throw).
I don't want to derail the thread, so I'll be very brief.
Those "attackers" have most likely practiced aikido for a while, so they are familiar enough with the techniques to know that if they don't play nice and play along, they'll get seriously injured. When an aikido master grabs your arm and twist, you have two options: play along and hit the floor, or break your arm. The "being generous" is as much due to self preservation as it is to actually being generous to the defender.
almighty gall to accuse me of failing.
This made me chuckle.
You've actually got me wondering now if the reason Minotaurs are human sized is so that they can be fitted into the +2 max rules. I always pictured them as great big things.
6-8 feet large, has always been my image. Started from a Labyrinth variation, which was a man born from a human woman, the seed was from Zeus in the form of a bull. He was therefore technically a prince, but was put into the labyrinth for his protection. He grew stronger than the average human, as well as larger, but I don't recall any mention of being twice the size of a human.
That and all the artwork I've seen for them in 4e - it makes them look huge.
Yes, and I have never seen a human for 4e look like I do in RL (skinny, bottle-glasses, and no muscle definition). The images are for atypical, exemplary examples.
So we have something weighing 3x the weight carrying an extra 20lbs? That's absurd (no offense - I'm directing that word at the rules, not you).
Problem here is... we DON'T have anything to compare this to in our world. Closest thing we can compare is midgets and full-grown adults. But the majority of midgets are that way due to metabolic issues caused by genetic mutations. This interferes with the normal way to build muscle. Some midgets have become wrestlers and strongmen (lift weights in front of an audience). Since the sample pool is so small, it's hard to tell their capability relative to 'normal' humans. If I had hard data, I'd offer it for you.
I'm passably bad at judo. I know the difference weight makes. And Undrave's Akido link aside (I can tell you that those "attackers" are being very generous in going with the throw), it just doesn't work the way the rules say.
I have not clicked the link, but I do not need to. I am familiar with some martial arts, and most especially with the Ki-Aikido philosophy. Yes, the attackers (or 'uke', as I shall say) are going with the throw. The first thing you are trained in is the ability to take a fall. This ensures the safety of the uke. Many of the moves are built around redirection, which means the throws feel natural as the uke, and you have to consciously go against it. Then, if you do go against the throw, you discover what it means to go against your body's natural movement (pain).
For these reasons, uke tend to go with the throw instead of trying to stop it (once they learn how to take it, of course).
This style of martial arts is a very natural fit for people having less than average strength because it relies on human anatomy, not muscle v muscle. Judo is different, some throws are done over the shoulder, requiring a certain amount of lift to encourage the uke to go down. Aikido is very impractical as a combat style, the Ki-Aikido style itself having no offensive techniques.
As far as "doesn't work the way the rules say", the only rules we have for hand-to-hand combat right now are grabs. Aikido is remarkably short on grabs.
Which is an interesting re-phrasing of my observation that nothing can be stronger than a human, even if it's, you know, an eight-foot minotaur. That wee little gnomes will be just as strong, in fact. Aside from straining believability, it leaves no room for upward expansion. Any race that ever gets statted will have these same limitations. Pixies hurling boulders and tap-dancing ogres.
Even though a Human can have the same +2 bonus to strength a Minotaur does, Minotaurs can use larger weapons than Humans.
Gnomes don't have a +2 bonus to strength, and cannot use the majority of 2 handed weapons.
The two don't have equal strength scores, and don't use the same size weapons. In the end, the Minotaurs will still be the favored by players looking for the strong brutish character in comparison to Humans, and the Gnomes will still be favored by those who want weaker characters in comparison to Humans. Most minotaur characters are still going to be using Intelligence and Charisma as a dump stat, and likewise will Gnome characters tend to forgo high Strength or Constitution scores.
However, they don't necessarily suck as much in other areas. A Minotaur Wizard, or Gnome Fighter, although not playing fully to the race's strengths, is still very much a viable character compared to how one would have fared in past editions.
The mechanics for player characters are to help you make the kind of fantasy hero you want. They don't apply to the NPCs, who will have whatever stats the DM assigns to them. Compare Human, Minotaur, and Gnome NPCs in the monster manual, and you'll see how different they all are.
The player character traits aren't based on some sort of hypothetical analysis of various race's abilities. They're to facilitate the particular kind of experience the player is going for when they play the game with a particular kind of character.
The full Code of Conduct is at http://forums.gleemax.com/community_coc.php
What a stupid-ass objection. No, you'd you couldn't understand the basic notion of human dignity.
So you got it both backwards and completely wrong. Congratulations.
LOL at the irony. You didn't even touch my post, nor contribute anything useful, yet you have the almighty gall to accuse me of failing. There are a couple of intellectual failures in this thread, and I'm not a part of that set.
Please explain to me this thing you call "human dignity". I have an interest in hearing about it.
Please explain to me this thing you call "human dignity". I have an interest in hearing about it.
I'd rather explain to you the logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent.
Also, note that Paradox ruined my post, showing his lack of capacity for grammar. Go back and read it the way it was meant to be written.
Since I was showing my compassion for trying to at least keep the post/argument up, it over-rode my lack of capacity for grammar. So, I removed the whole post since it once again fell into CoC territory.
Do NOT re-post it again.
I only removed the part that violates the Code of Conduct, rather than remove the whole thing.
Since I was showing my compassion for trying to at least keep the post/argument up, it over-rode my lack of capacity for grammar. So, I removed the whole post since it once again fell into CoC territory.
Do NOT re-post it again.
None of it was against the Code of Conduct. You removed the most important part of it, and worse, made me look like an idiot. Give me one good reason not to take this to CS for misrepresenting and lying about me.
Thx for the replies guys, much apreciated.
The thread probably should be closed anyway since everyone obviously answered the OPs question and the discussion has pretty much gone offtopic. People can just create a new thread for their ran... uh discussion.;)
I'm done here.
L.
I checked out the cover of the PHB2. The subtitle says, "Arcane, Divine and Primal Heroes." This would indicate that the Monk is not going to be in the PHB2 because supposedly, the Monk uses the Ki power source.
In the PHB1, there were 4 Martial classes, 2 Arcane and 2 Divine classes. I'm speculating that there will be approximately 2 Arcane, 2 Divine and 4 Primal classes in the PHB2. This would work out to 4 classes of each power source in PHB1 and PHB2. This sounds pretty even, but there may be good reason to not have the numbers work out perfectly evenly.
The Swordmage is already in the FRPG, so the other Arcane classes I can think of are the Bard and Sorcerer. The Barbarian and Druid are pretty much a lock for the Primal classes. I heard of a few other classes thrown around (cannot remember which ones), but there are supposedly more controllers. I'm thinking 3 controllers, 2 strikers, 2 leaders and 1 defender. This is my WAG. :lightbulb
I assume they'll put the warden in there.
I think I might be able to tolerate subraces of orc that weren't so savage, you know, like eladrin and elf, but something tells me whatever story they had would just make me mad.
I'll agree that the less savage orc subrace concept would be preferrable to half-orcs being the way to define NPC/enemy/monster "orc-like" critters (and I loved the ideas that came later about a sort of Mongol-esque subrace, or one sort of like the original Mag'har orcs in Warcraft/WoW--except Garrosh Hellscream. I want to smack him one, having finally encountered him in-game). The whole concept just has a better flow than simply saying that everything's changed because the creature is only half an evil race, especially when it was implied in the 3.5 MM that the willing interbreeding of orc and human was typically done by savage or otherwise vile-seeming humans, and the rest were...well, who knows? Furthermore, if one really wanted a "half-orc" race, why couldn't it then be some offshoot of this subrace, which would therefore make it seem less like they should still have some of the orc inclinations toward evil (as it always seemed implied it was simply nature, not nurture among D&D races of beings)?
But I was wondering, E_W, what you thought about something like the Sharakim race that appeared in Races of Destiny; a race of relatively peaceful beings cursed to have a monstrous appearance by an accidental act of brutality against a sacred creature, forever ranked in among the orcs as brutes and savages simply because they have a physical resemblance to them? They were actually a quite intellectual race, and made for good Wizards and the like (I think this was mostly done as a way to make "Orc Mage" a viable concept, but it was still interesting), and worked very carefully to distinguish themselves as much as possible from their more barbaric "cousins."
I'd always wanted to include those as a PC race substitute for half-orcs in my campaign, simply because I really didn't care for the whole "half-something" fluff that just seemed so common in 3.x, and wanted something a little more intriguing...but it never worked out very well, because the Sharakim were a LA+1 race, which made things just a trifle messier than I wanted, being a relatively new DM at the time with two newbie players and an experienced player who wanted to avoid backseat DMing. It's still somewhere in my world notes, just never implemented in actual play.
Of course, I might just consider either trying to recreate them in 4e, given how much easier race creation looks, or I might wait until the PHB2 hits and then just do like everyone else here seems to be thinking--reflavor the half-orc as a sub-group of orcs without the more barbaric stigma, or just use the MM orc PC-playable race if the half-orc doesn't thrill me. I seriously loved some of the stuff I saw in this thread, and may nab some details for that eventuality.:D