No, core is an excuse still, just in the opposite direction - "It's core, allow it." And the fluff attached is specific enough to be hostile to worldbuilding. On one hand we have specific fluff removed from monsters, where it does no harm, and attached to PC races, where "tieflings had an empire" is a restriction enough to require ignoring in countless worlds. It's bizarre.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
PH3 Playtest Race: Wilden
- Thread starter Rani
- Start date
Klaus
First Post
First sketch time! I did a sketch next to a human and a dwarf to gauge how jarring it's look next to traditional races (and also it is halfway between them in size).
The hunched posture adds to the "cautious" demeanor. The overall body shape came from the Golden Lion Tamarin. I figure, if Nature would create an ambulatory plant race, it'd shape it after an animal of the wild, not after a civilized race. Hence the long arms and shorter legs, plus the "mane" of leaves.
Not too sure about the big eyes, gives it a fishy look. Big eyes make a character look younger/curious/cute. Since I'm aiming for wise/serene, I'll go with smaller eyes. They'll look good on a Green Man face (still no nose, but that's not set in stone... er, wood.
The hunched posture adds to the "cautious" demeanor. The overall body shape came from the Golden Lion Tamarin. I figure, if Nature would create an ambulatory plant race, it'd shape it after an animal of the wild, not after a civilized race. Hence the long arms and shorter legs, plus the "mane" of leaves.
Not too sure about the big eyes, gives it a fishy look. Big eyes make a character look younger/curious/cute. Since I'm aiming for wise/serene, I'll go with smaller eyes. They'll look good on a Green Man face (still no nose, but that's not set in stone... er, wood.
Attachments
Klaus
First Post
The next question is: is that a good thing or a bad thing?Claudio, it does look a little bit like Ookla.
'Cause D&D could really use Ookla The Mok...
fireinthedust
Explorer
Hey, I never said I didn't like exotic races. I'm a fan, and I enjoy playing the "creation of science gone mad" unique PC.
I just don't like the Wilden's look or fluff.
1) They're not Fey: they're plant people, that's PRIMAL. Fey are Redcaps, Pixies, Nymphs, Satyrs, Eladrin, Drow, Fomorians, whatever. They're not plant people like the Wilden.
2) They don't wear clothes: why would they dungeon crawl to get equipment?
3) I can see them as a one-time race or creation. Not as a long-term campaign-setting race. ie: Optional.
4) Driads/Nymphs would be a great FeyPC race for plant people. Mini-treants, another example. Lizard-like plant avengers vs. Cthulhu? wtf? How does that in any way compare or relate to the D&D level of Driads?
I mean, most of the players I get out are female; having a female race would be sweet.
I just don't like the Wilden's look or fluff.
1) They're not Fey: they're plant people, that's PRIMAL. Fey are Redcaps, Pixies, Nymphs, Satyrs, Eladrin, Drow, Fomorians, whatever. They're not plant people like the Wilden.
2) They don't wear clothes: why would they dungeon crawl to get equipment?
3) I can see them as a one-time race or creation. Not as a long-term campaign-setting race. ie: Optional.
4) Driads/Nymphs would be a great FeyPC race for plant people. Mini-treants, another example. Lizard-like plant avengers vs. Cthulhu? wtf? How does that in any way compare or relate to the D&D level of Driads?
I mean, most of the players I get out are female; having a female race would be sweet.
RefinedBean
First Post
Hostile? HOSTILE to worldbuilding. C'mon, really? That's a harsh term. What if your world doesn't have mountains? Are Dwarves "hostile" to worldbuilding, then?
They gave PC races their own pre-made fluff so that people could play them out of the box. A giant portion of groups are just going to change everything anyway, so what's the big deal?
Wilden don't make sense? Don't use 'em. Some people might. It's the PHB3, things are bound to get a bit wacky. I fail to see an issue here.
Absolutely. You've got non-optional wacky PC races coming out every year that you're supposed to adapt your world to, of course it's hostile to worldbuilders. Yes, you can ban things, you can also add things to fix the system, but that doesn't get around that as written, the game is a step backwards for worldbuilding purposes.
If your world doesn't have mountains, you're clearly breaking a lot of assumptions. It's on an entirely different level to saying tieflings and dragonboobs have never had an empire.
Dire Bare
Legend
Fey tend to correlate to the Arcane power source, of course, but there's nothing in the rules or fluff that lock that down. I have no problem with a fey creature preferring the Primal power source. However, I don't see how a plant person is automatically not fey and automatically primal in concept. Later down you mention a treant-style race? How is that all that different? Besides, the "green man" concept seems pretty fey to me . . .
Do you need clothes to wield a sword? If you're a toughie, you can wield just about any equipment without the need for clothes. Armor would be the big exception. Did the article actually say they don't wear clothes?!?! I don't remember this, but I'm too lazy to go back and reread right now.
I don't care for the artwork shown so far for the Wilden, but lizard-like? I do like the idea of a dryad-type of fey PC race, but in D&D lore dryads are already something quite different . . . and with some different artwork, the Wilden actually fit this bill pretty closely IMO.
RefinedBean
First Post
This is opinion, stated as fact. Even if Wilden are "core," it's a GAME. The players and DM figure out what's going to be the best way to have fun, and do so.
What is it about 4E that makes it harder to build a fantasy world? Is it some specific rule I'm missing? It seems like worldbuilding has been the same in every edition I've played (3.0, 3.5, 4E).
