Races & Classes spotted?

[Tquirky]

See, this is where we agree. Unfortunately, there's not much more we can say, though, because my opinion doesn't match yours after that.

We've established that, and I'm happy to agree that you're wrong, and you're happy to agree that I am.

Anyway, back to the real issue at hand:

Crabmen = new hotness
Dragonborn = old and busted

Clearly, crabmen in the core serves the most people. It's subjective, but just as appropriate as dragonborn in the core, because they both belong in every D&D campaign and world equally as much.

 

[Kintara]

We've established that, and I'm happy to agree that you're wrong, and you're happy to agree that I am.

As long as we're happy.

 

[Tquirky]

As long as we're happy.

"Cra-a-ab people, cra-a-ab people, taste like crab, talk like people."

Coming to your game, soon! Whether you want them or not! Only, less crabby, more dragony. Or something.

 

[Kintara]

"Cra-a-ab people, cra-a-ab people, taste like crab, talk like people."

Coming to your game, soon! Whether you want them or not! Only, less crabby, more dragony. Or something.

I could TOTALLY PLAY a Dragoncrab!

 

[Tquirky]

I could TOTALLY PLAY a Dragoncrab!

There's only one class for you then: Warlord! It makes about as much sense in an adventuring party as a dragoncrab PC does, so it's perfect! Those WOTC guys, always thinking ahead!

(Actually, it does have a certain illogical beauty to it, in a sort of half-vampire half-cow half-godzilla kind of way, as was the style at the beginning of 3E.)

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

What if I like demonpeople but not dragonpeople because the latter are lame-o furries? Well, you're kind of stuck with banning them, because WOTC didn't put them in a supplement.

What if I like halflings but not gnomes? What if I like elves but not half-elves? What if I don't like half-orcs? Or monks, or spiked chains, say? Well, I was stuck with them in 3.5 in exactly the same way that people will be stuck with tieflings and dragonborn in 4e.

The previous editions always made choices about what was in the basic rule books. While 4e is obviously making some big changes, I'm not sure that they're any bigger than the changes between OD&D and 1st ed AD&D.

 

[Kintara]

There's only one class for you then: Warlord!

He'd be a WarKING. Because he'd be King Crabantula! Inspirational Monster from the Depths of the Ocean!

 

[Tquirky]

Well, I was stuck with them in 3.5 in exactly the same way that people will be stuck with tieflings and dragonborn in 4e.

Yes...and WOTC have a choice - they could add to the pile of stuff in the core which is questionable whether it should be there, or put it in a supplement. I didn't like spiked chains either, but that's not an invitation to put in more of them. I don't hear anyone complaining about longswords in the core game though...maybe because, they fit.

 

[redmagerush]

Yes...and WOTC have a choice - they could add to the pile of stuff in the core which is questionable whether it should be there, or put it in a supplement. I didn't like spiked chains either, but that's not an invitation to put in more of them. I don't hear anyone complaining about longswords in the core game though...maybe because, they fit.

Well, I do know people who complained because in reality a longsword was more a DnD great sword. So there is that.

 

[Tquirky]

Well, I do know people who complained because in reality a longsword was more a DnD great sword. So there is that.

No, there isn't that. Most people can't agree on the difference between a flail, ball & chain, mace and morningstar (and yes, I know what the D&D definitions are), but that's neither here nor there with regard to the appropriateness of a spiked chain versus a long sword.