-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 4E The Ultimate PHBI4e Warforged Poll
- Thread starter Kae'Yoss
- Start date
Snapdragyn
Explorer
I voted ECS, because I don't feel there is a strong enough tradition of golems as fantasy characters to justify them in PHB1 (don't tell the Tin Woodman, or I could lose my 'Friend of Dorothy' card 
), & because I have concerns about their strength relative to other core races (an admittedly 3.5e viewpoint, but I haven't the data to inform another). I would like to see changelings, since I do find shapeshifters more common (though usually as a power of an individual, not as a race - but whatever). Tieflings I'd rather skip, just because of the whole 'celestials invading' bit they bring into the non-specific base setting.
I would like monks to be in PHB1, because I'm not so set on keeping my fantasy eurocentric as some (& it is eurocentric, not 'generic'). That's certainly up to personal tastes, of course, it just seems easier IMO to restrict a class rather than expect those who like it to invent the rules themselves in order to have it.
), & because I have concerns about their strength relative to other core races (an admittedly 3.5e viewpoint, but I haven't the data to inform another). I would like to see changelings, since I do find shapeshifters more common (though usually as a power of an individual, not as a race - but whatever). Tieflings I'd rather skip, just because of the whole 'celestials invading' bit they bring into the non-specific base setting.I would like monks to be in PHB1, because I'm not so set on keeping my fantasy eurocentric as some (& it is eurocentric, not 'generic'). That's certainly up to personal tastes, of course, it just seems easier IMO to restrict a class rather than expect those who like it to invent the rules themselves in order to have it.
I think the core PHB races should be the 1E/2E/3E PHB races.
However, I think many races in the core MM should be listed as playable as a PC if permitted by the DM.
This is a compromise which should work for many people. Traditional DND core races (including gnomes) in PHB, many additional races in MM, all core.
Why WotC thinks that people don't like DND racial flavor as previously specified is beyond me. Tradition is as important as change.
However, I think many races in the core MM should be listed as playable as a PC if permitted by the DM.
This is a compromise which should work for many people. Traditional DND core races (including gnomes) in PHB, many additional races in MM, all core.
Why WotC thinks that people don't like DND racial flavor as previously specified is beyond me. Tradition is as important as change.
Nyeshet
First Post
I think the first PHB should only deal with the common races of the presumed setting. Unless tieflings, warforged, etc are so common as to have entire counties composed only of such beings they should not be in the PHB #1. PHB #2 sounds like a good spot for such races: fringe and uncommon beings that perhaps are well enough known that no one stares in shock / horror / awe / incomprehension upon seeing them.
PHB #1 should have humans, elves, dwarves, and perhaps one or two other races in it. If half-orcs become the new 'orcs' - having entire tribes, hordes, etc composed of such - then they too should be in the PHB #1. From what I've heard it seems that gnomes may not be in the PHB #1, but if that is the case then Halflings definitely should be, as half-sized races seem almost as common a fantasy archtype these days as orcs or elves or dwarves.
So, I would expect in the PHB #1 the following races: Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, and (half) Orcs. I might be able to see Hobgoblins as a race in PHB #1 also. I would prefer no half races, and if half-orcs are included I will treat them as orcs and ignore any fluff that suggests otherwise (and the crunch of 'full' orcs, perhaps using them as a monster of another name).
And in PHB #2 I would expect: Gnomes (as they are not in PHB #1), Warfoged, Tieflings, Aasimar (or Eladrin, or whatever the good equivalent of the playable Tiefling race will be), Changlings, and perhaps Shifters &/or Genasi. Goblins might also work well as a race in PHB #2. With the exception of Gnomes (and possibly Goblins), these are odd, fringe races, often portrayed as low in number, diffused throughout populations largely of other (major) races or shunted into sparsely populated frontier / wilderness lands, and often looked upon oddly if not harshly by other races.
PHB #3 would / should be the first to start putting in the odd / new races for 4e, as the common and uncommon races have already been covered in PHBs #1 and #2. It probably will not work out this way. I expect to see fringe races mixed in with common races in the first PHB and arguably even with the second one.
I am beginning to wonder about some things. I recall when 3e came out some of the comments made about orcs when some of the books began focusing on odd combinations such as orc paladins and such. Over time it was viewed as less and less odd to see such strange combinations of class and race. I wonder if the Tieflings will take this role in 4e - such that we will start seeing Tiefling Paladins as suggested example characters in later suppliments and so forth. I hope not, but I would no longer be surprised.
PHB #1 should have humans, elves, dwarves, and perhaps one or two other races in it. If half-orcs become the new 'orcs' - having entire tribes, hordes, etc composed of such - then they too should be in the PHB #1. From what I've heard it seems that gnomes may not be in the PHB #1, but if that is the case then Halflings definitely should be, as half-sized races seem almost as common a fantasy archtype these days as orcs or elves or dwarves.
So, I would expect in the PHB #1 the following races: Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, and (half) Orcs. I might be able to see Hobgoblins as a race in PHB #1 also. I would prefer no half races, and if half-orcs are included I will treat them as orcs and ignore any fluff that suggests otherwise (and the crunch of 'full' orcs, perhaps using them as a monster of another name).
And in PHB #2 I would expect: Gnomes (as they are not in PHB #1), Warfoged, Tieflings, Aasimar (or Eladrin, or whatever the good equivalent of the playable Tiefling race will be), Changlings, and perhaps Shifters &/or Genasi. Goblins might also work well as a race in PHB #2. With the exception of Gnomes (and possibly Goblins), these are odd, fringe races, often portrayed as low in number, diffused throughout populations largely of other (major) races or shunted into sparsely populated frontier / wilderness lands, and often looked upon oddly if not harshly by other races.
PHB #3 would / should be the first to start putting in the odd / new races for 4e, as the common and uncommon races have already been covered in PHBs #1 and #2. It probably will not work out this way. I expect to see fringe races mixed in with common races in the first PHB and arguably even with the second one.
I am beginning to wonder about some things. I recall when 3e came out some of the comments made about orcs when some of the books began focusing on odd combinations such as orc paladins and such. Over time it was viewed as less and less odd to see such strange combinations of class and race. I wonder if the Tieflings will take this role in 4e - such that we will start seeing Tiefling Paladins as suggested example characters in later suppliments and so forth. I hope not, but I would no longer be surprised.
Primitive Screwhead
First Post
Irda Ranger said:
Just from a poll-question generation viewpoint, I think the use of the term 'Warforged' unintentionally slants the question.. as the quote by GreatLemur {below} explemplifies. The focus becomes too much on the Eberron race rather than the concept of a living construct race.
Your reply demonstrates some of this slant as well as your words reflect the intrinsic link of the Warforged and the Eberron setting. I consider the results of any poll based on how much of a slant the options inherently possess, and this poll, IMHO, is severely slanted.
And, don't forget this is the second poll on such a topic and there is less a chance of getting full participation the second time around.
GreatLemur said:
BryonD
Hero
I think this is a good point. The name itself carries baggage regarding both the origin of the race and the setting history. That kind of flavor thing is easy to work around, but it will still there sticking out. Rename it to something more generic and then just have then be called "warforged" in Eberron and you solve that issue.Primitive Screwhead said:
Though I still think it is almost completely certain that this is a pointless conversation. They are not going to stir up this kinda controversy when there is zero need.
FR has always included everything core. Would warforged suddenly appear in FR?
Should spellfire also be core and just get re-coned into Eberron also?
It is just so vastly much easier to make everyone happy with a consistent core combined with support for the more detailed settings as independent follow ups.
Kae'Yoss
First Post
Pygon said:
But I'm sure they will make sure that what they think is core won't drive away too many of their customers.
There's an easy way to do that: Write something like "Players need the PHBI to use this book" somewhere on the back cover of the Eberron Campaign Setting
The problem with this is player expectation: They get the shiny new PHBI, read about the warforged race, like it, and then expect that, since it's core, it will be playable. Then you have to tell them that you don't have them in your campaign. It's confusing for new players.
Should they be a core race, you can bet that the core adventures will feature them regularly. They would be a core race. It means that roughly 1/x (where x is the number of core races in the PHBI) of all NPC type enemies will be warforged. Just as many as there will be dwarf enemies.
Similar Threads
- Poll