New Playable Races?

[Wednesday Boy]

Goliaths are, quite frankly, a poor attempt to give players a big race without actually giving them a big race. Mechanically, all medium races are the same size, so goliaths are a fake big race. You could play a tall human or half-orc and have all the RP benefits/penalties that goliaths have, so they aren't that much of a rp/fluff big race, either.

There are PPs for goliaths and minotaurs (Stoneblessed and Beastblooded Minotaur, respectively) that have a feature which increases their reach by 1. And there's an ED (Eternal Defender) that increases your height and weight and increases your reach by 1. But that's the closest way to emulate being Large. You're still a Medium 1x1 square creature instead of a Large 2x2 square creature though, so you'd still be a fake big character.

I don't see large ever happening, as it would be completely and totally broken. Defenders and anyone with close burst/blast powers would become off the wall. Think about a large fighter, for instance. Now you have that much extra area threatened with combat superiority alone. Not gonna happen.

There is a Druid ED (Sovereign Beast) that lets you turn Large when you wild shape. They have a fair number of close burst powers. But then again, it's an ED.

I have tabaxi and merellin (essentially dolphinweres) in my campaign.

I love tabaxi! I had one in a 2nd Ed. game. Good times!

 

[Dungeoneer]

PHB 3 gave us the option of playing rocks and bushes . That was just silly. How can anyone have a problem with kobolds or hobgoblins after these?

But they're heroic rocks and bushes!

 

[Dungeoneer]

Goliaths are, quite frankly, a poor attempt to give players a big race without actually giving them a big race. Mechanically, all medium races are the same size, so goliaths are a fake big race. You could play a tall human or half-orc and have all the RP benefits/penalties that goliaths have, so they aren't that much of a rp/fluff big race, either.

btw, I am not targeting your statement in particular, but I've been thinking of this whenever someone brings up the "No Large Races" thing. I just came across yours at the point that I decided to post about it.

Here's the thing: I think that in 4e 'medium' represents a much larger range of sizes than in previous editions. Thanks to the grid system, medium accommodates any creature less than 5x5'. Assuming your PC is bipedal and vaguely humanoid, that means something with a 5' span from shoulder-to-shoulder should fit in the 'medium' box. I don't know about you, but in my book a 5' shoulder span is pretty darn big. If you assume a shoulder span-to-height ratio of 1:3, that guy would clock in at 15' high.

Okay, you could argue that your half-ogre doesn't have to fill the entire square to 'overflow' it if you account for a little buffer of personal space. Fine. But the next size up, Large, is supposed to take up a 2x2 squares, or close to 10x10'. A creature that controls a 10x10' space to the point where someone can't even enter it is going to be really frikkin' big.

In other words, the 4e standard of 'large' is a lot closer to the standard of 'huge' everywhere else. Meanwhile, the 'medium' size seems to accommodate a range of sizes that most people would refer to as 'large'.

There's a pretty good argument to be made that having a player race that takes up four squares is pretty nonsensical. How is that player fitting through most doors? Presumably they are also tall enough that they would be smashing their heads through the ceiling in all but the grandest lord's hall.

I think that the real issue is that 4e needs an 'extra medium': a size where the creature still takes up only one square on the grid but now has a wider threatening reach or a limited bonus to wielding two-handed weapons. I honestly don't think this would be too broken. I am sure you could come up with some deficiencies to balance out the weapon and reach bonuses.

But I don't think that we need any 'large' PC races. Not the way that 4e uses the term 'large'.

 

[Klaus]

Here's the thing: I think that in 4e 'medium' represents a much larger range of sizes than in previous editions. Thanks to the grid system, medium accommodates any creature less than 5x5'. I assuming your creature is bipedal and vaguely humanoid, that means something with a 5' span from shoulder-to-shoulder should fit in the 'medium' box. I don't know about you, but in my book a 5' shoulder span is pretty darn big. If you assume a shoulder span-to-height ratio of 1:3, that guy would clock in at 15' high.

Okay, you could argue that your half-ogre doesn't have to fill the entire square to 'overflow' it if you account for a little buffer of personal space. Fine. But the next size up, Large, is supposed to take up a 2x2 squares, or close to 10x10'. A creature that controls a 10x10' space to the point where someone can't even enter it is going to be really frikkin' big.

In other words, the 4e standard of 'large' is a lot closer to the standard of 'huge' everywhere else. Meanwhile, the 'medium' size seems to accommodate a range of sizes that most people would refer to as 'large'.

There's a pretty good argument to be made that having a player race that takes up four squares is pretty nonsensical. How is that player fitting through most doors? Presumably they are also tall enough that they would be smashing their heads through the ceiling in all but the grandest lord's hall.

I think that the real issue is that 4e needs an 'extra medium': a size where the creature still takes up only one square on the grid but now has a wider threatening reach or a limited bonus to wielding two-handed weapons. I honestly don't think this would be too broken. I am sure you could come up with some deficiencies to balance out the weapon and reach bonuses.

But I don't think that we need any 'large' PC races. Not the way that 4e uses the term 'large'.

Remember that creatures that used to be Large in previous editions (like the gnolls) are now Medium. If Large are actual 10'-tall giants, an 8'-tall goliath can be Medium well enough.

 

[KahnyaGnorc]

Here's the thing: I think that in 4e 'medium' represents a much larger range of sizes than in previous editions. Thanks to the grid system, medium accommodates any creature less than 5x5'. Assuming your PC is bipedal and vaguely humanoid, that means something with a 5' span from shoulder-to-shoulder should fit in the 'medium' box. I don't know about you, but in my book a 5' shoulder span is pretty darn big. If you assume a shoulder span-to-height ratio of 1:3, that guy would clock in at 15' high.

Okay, you could argue that your half-ogre doesn't have to fill the entire square to 'overflow' it if you account for a little buffer of personal space. Fine. But the next size up, Large, is supposed to take up a 2x2 squares, or close to 10x10'. A creature that controls a 10x10' space to the point where someone can't even enter it is going to be really frikkin' big.

In other words, the 4e standard of 'large' is a lot closer to the standard of 'huge' everywhere else. Meanwhile, the 'medium' size seems to accommodate a range of sizes that most people would refer to as 'large'.

There's a pretty good argument to be made that having a player race that takes up four squares is pretty nonsensical. How is that player fitting through most doors? Presumably they are also tall enough that they would be smashing their heads through the ceiling in all but the grandest lord's hall.

I think that the real issue is that 4e needs an 'extra medium': a size where the creature still takes up only one square on the grid but now has a wider threatening reach or a limited bonus to wielding two-handed weapons. I honestly don't think this would be too broken. I am sure you could come up with some deficiencies to balance out the weapon and reach bonuses.

But I don't think that we need any 'large' PC races. Not the way that 4e uses the term 'large'.

In 3.5, anything between 8' and 16' tall also take up 2x2 square, and therefore, 10'x10' area. Since a 2' tall race still takes up a 5'x5' space, I don't see the weirdness you seem to.

As for the architecture issue, why would a world that had a sizable (no pun intended) population of 10' or 12' tall people still build ceilings and doorways as if an adult human is the largest creature to use them?

Finally, why is having a PC that is 2' tall (a little more than a third of the height of an adult human) unquestioned, but one that is 10' tall (a good deal less than double the height of an adult human) somehow taboo? An enormous brute or towering amazon (or, say, a Firbolg) in an adventuring party is far more "normal" fantasy fare than a bush, rock (as been previously posted), or a cenobite wannabe (Bladelings).

 

[Mapache]

I think that the real issue is that 4e needs an 'extra medium': a size where the creature still takes up only one square on the grid but now has a wider threatening reach or a limited bonus to wielding two-handed weapons.

That would be the Oversized trait that lets you wield weapons one size category larger (and thus have bigger damage dice), which the monster-race writeup of bugbears has, and which minotaurs used to have prior to a the full-PC writeup.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

Heroes of the Savage Frontier
Gnoll
Goblin
Half-Ogre
Hobgoblin
Kobold
Orc

w/ a new Primal class and savage-based themes and paragon paths.

Add in bugbears (with something to replace the "lets your daggermaster roll actual dice instead of puny d4s" racial ability that was really the only reason I ever took it) and you're good to go.

Brad

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

I have run a game with a Large character--either a fighter or a barbarian, don't remember which. (The player made a minotaur and the only minotaur mini I had was large-sized.) On balance it seemed to be an advantage, but not gamebreaking. The minotaur could hit more squares, didn't have to move as much, and could block more spaces. On the flip side, he could be hit from more squares, was much easier to flank, and was more likely to get in the other PCs' way in tight spaces.

Really, being size Large is now a disadvantage, rather than the advantage it was in 3e.

Goliath and minotaurs, as well as anyone who takes the Eternal Offender* ED, can at least get most of the benefits of being Large without the penalties, and to me, that's good enough.

Brad

* - I really don't see how that ED justifies the word "Defender" in its name. It seems really more for striker types.

 

[Firebeetle]

I think 4E has enough races already.

I disagree.

As an old Talislanta guy ("Monk" was my online handle for old fans) roleplaying in a world of dozens of races is a lot of fun. Further, it allows the DM to more easily customize their world. A DM should be able to say, "No Tolkien. No elves. No Dwarves. No Halflings." or make an all-monster campaign, or an all fey campaign. More races means more options.

The only big downside, AFAIAC, is the lack of miniatures. I paint my own, and there are a handful of tieflings, few options for goliaths, and absolutely NO shardmind miniatures.

 

[Pour]

I wouldn't mind smaller, soft cover books detailing races of various planes or themes, not unlike the 'Races of' series, including racial paragon paths, a few themes, cultures and backgrounds, sample settlements or overviews of cities and nations, a few magic items and heck maybe tokens for them too. I'd buy that for 13 - 14 bucks.

I'll echo the vote for goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, and kobolds though. Hell, I'd buy a Savage Species too, especially if it had guidelines for making your own races.