PH3 Playtest Race: Wilden

Fallen Seraph said:

They are based off the Killoren.

Click to expand...

Woot! The killoren was my favorite "Races Of" race. I love that they're back.

chaotix42 said:

I especially like the fact that you can change aspects & encounter powers when you rest. Nifty.

Click to expand...

When I was idly statting up a homebrew killoren a while ago, that's exactly what I did, too. I'm glad that they kept the changing Aspects part of the race, it was the best part.

Somewhat disappointed to not see the Illumian or the Thri-Kreen.

The Wilden are OK I suppose, just not my particular cup of tea - the name though? Gots to go.

Moniker said:

What are the core conceits behind the design direction of 4E?

Click to expand...

"Here are a bunch of things that are awesome/totally sweet! Use them if you want! Or not! Whatever!"

And I totally want to jettison elves completely in my games and use Wilden in their place.

Won't you please let me have my non-traditional fantasy, side by side with your traditional fantasy, so we can both have fun? Thanks.

When I first saw the race title, and the fact this was going to be a nature race, I had horrible images of the wildren from 3e, the celestial dwarf-badgers. But after reading it and discovering it was a reconcept of the killoren, I was very happy! I loved the killorren race from 3e!

Overall, I'm very pleased with the 4e implentation of this race. I also don't like the name wilden and would prefer killoren. I don't like the art at all, even giving that it is black-and-white sketch work. The look described in the article sounds good, but the artwork is too alien. While I appreciate WotC is trying to push the fantasy envelope a bit, I don't think most players want to play "alien" characters . . . at least not in D&D. The artwork from 3e's Races of the wild was not perfect, but a step in the right direction. The poster above who suggested a "green man" look is also pointing in the right direction. And, of course, comparing this race playtest to the warforged playtest . . . . a more "full" article with feats and other crunchy bits would have been much better. Crunch-wise, I'm loving it!!!

For those who complain that the killoren, er, wilden, are too far away from the core ideas of D&D fantasy . . . what more traditional fantasy race concepts are left? I can't think of any right now, but then again, it's late Friday at work and the weather outside of my window looks soooo nice . . . .

I liked the Killoren, and I don't mind this new version ... except I prefer the old name. Powers seem a little finicky right now.

Overall, we would play a Wilden Druid ... but call ourselves Killoren.

Count me as someone who rather liked Killoren in 3.5.

The name is horrible though. 4e names have been hit or (very) miss, and this is so very miss. Come on guys, Wilden? "What should we name it?" "Something involving plants and wilderness" "Wilderness? Wilderness. Wilder. Wilden." "That works. Let's grab some beer."

Know what I want? I want a race with a name that they give themselves. Instead of Wilden, give them a cool sounding name that isn't immidiately connected to the concept, and then give the name fluff, like "They name themselves after their god of war" or something like that.

My reaction to this article was pretty mixed.

I like the core idea of the race, but I didn't much care for the background. It's a little ironic to see a generally negative response to the name of the race considering that the article, in reference to the 3rd Edition Killoren, mentions "the name in particular didn't strike anyone working on PH3 as especially compelling".

One minor nitpick with the fluff was that at one point it mentions individuality having no place in the lives of the Wilden, yet it goes on to list typical names. I understand that people want names for their characters, but it struck me as being at odds with the concept.

The Voyage of the Ancients racial power seems to indicate that the onslaught of teleportation powers will continue in PHB3, but I'll wait and see.

Overall it strikes me as an optional race from a supplement - such as Dragon - rather than a core race.

The_Fan said:

Also, identical racial stat bonuses to a dwarf are stepping on the poor dwarf's toes, <snip>

Click to expand...

This already happened with the Gnome and Tiefling, and the Elf and Razorclaw Shifter. It was bound to happen sooner or later in any case: with six attributes there are only so many ways to choose two of them.

ProfessorCirno said:

Know what I want? I want a race with a name that they give themselves. Instead of Wilden, give them a cool sounding name that isn't immidiately connected to the concept, and then give the name fluff, like "They name themselves after their god of war" or something like that.

Click to expand...

I now have this mental image of a race referring to themselves as the N'Tel'Quessir because the first people they ran into were FR Eladrin/Elves.

I imagine the elves would not be amused.

...I might have to use that someday now.

I also like Killoren, considering we already had a wildren in 3.5.

I mourn my planar baboon people

The Warforged article in Dragon isn't a Playtest, it's a full, official write-up. Or at least that's what is was meant to be, before WotC decided they just had to change it and put it in the EPG. But originally, it was official.