Newbie Setting Builder Help: Looking for advice on Race construction

[Bok]

I've been bouncing around a 4E campaign idea for a while, and I like where it is going. I know that I want a few non-PHB races (plus humans) as PC-selectable. As such, I'm looking to try and create/co-opt them from smart people at EnWorld

Fluff-wise, I am leaning toward Human, Minotaur, Lizardfolk, Stonefolk (placeholder names). While the Human race is versatile as far as classes go, I want to design the other 3 to overlap somewhat as far as reasonable class options. I don't want Minotaurs to be the obvious and only "fighter race". I think multiple options allows for more interesting backstories.

It's here that I'm stumped. I don't know how to go about this in a way that doesn't over/underpower the races. How have others gone about this?

 

[Bok]

So no one has any pointers to help a novice out? I've thought about just remapping existing PHB races, but even then I'm not sure what combination would be best...

Should I just give up trying to create this racial flexibility?

 

[Eldritch_Lord]

Unfortunately, race creation is more of an art than a science. I homebrew new races for almost all of my campaigns, yet if I were told to sit down and write down the process I go through, I couldn't do it.

4e races are easier, as they follow the same basic format, but the abilities and powers are the sticking points. If you show us what you have in mind for your races, rather than asking for abstract guidelines we can't really give you, we can probably help out more.

 

[Glak]

I like giving races anti-synergy. It cements their flavor while at the same time diversifying their class options.

So for example, you have a minotaur race. You give it some bonuses that push it towards the fighter class. Then you give it free proficiency with the greataxe. Now people want to make minotaur fighters for the +2 Str and whatever else you gave it, but they also want to make minotaur clerics because they'll be able to use a better weapon.

 

[Bok]

So it looks like I've been going about it backwards. I was hoping to build up the crunch, and apply fluff afterward.

The gist is that the 4 races the PCs can select are all that are left from the "pure" original sentient creatures the First God created. The first god created them (or had a lesser god create them under his/her guidance). After a time, the First God left to create new worlds. Upon return, the First faced an insurrection, and as a last ditch effort, created a Shangri-La of sorts that he sent the remnants of the first races (the world now being overrun with various twisted creations of his run-amok underlings). This side world is almost impossible to locate from the outside world... But within it, the area is vast, and full of adventure. The races mix freely, but there are no "Halfs", the offspring are one or the other, in racial attributes. The society is achievement based, with your stature determined by what sorts of feats/adventures you survive/succeed at.

I don't know if that helps.

 

[Eldritch_Lord]

So it looks like the human, minotaur, and lizardfolk are fairly standard, fluff-wise; I'm not sure what the stonefolk would be like. Assuming you're keeping the human as-is, that leaves the minotaur and lizardfolk for the moment.

I maintain the Races Compendium on the Wizards forums, and if you take a look there, you will find 5 versions of a lizardfolk and 1 minotaur. Why don't you see if any of those work, and if not, what you like/dislike about those so we can see what kind of concept you're working towards.

 

[Azurecrusader]

Another way to approach this is to not design your own crunch at all. Instead, take the existing races and rewrite the fluff. Dragonborn become minotaurs, maybe Dwarves become stoneborn; things like that. This way you don't have to worry as much about balance but you can still make the setting your own.

 

[Bok]

So it looks like the human, minotaur, and lizardfolk are fairly standard, fluff-wise; I'm not sure what the stonefolk would be like. Assuming you're keeping the human as-is, that leaves the minotaur and lizardfolk for the moment.

I maintain the Races Compendium on the Wizards forums, and if you take a look there, you will find 5 versions of a lizardfolk and 1 minotaur. Why don't you see if any of those work, and if not, what you like/dislike about those so we can see what kind of concept you're working towards.

I'll check it out, thanks!

Azure, I thought about that too. Except I hit the problem from a different angle: which subset should I pick that covers the bases?

 

[Azurecrusader]

Azure, I thought about that too. Except I hit the problem from a different angle: which subset should I pick that covers the bases?

You know, it's funny, I completely missed your second post until just now. Sorry about that.

You're right, pulling out a subset of just 4 of the PHB races and rewriting the fluff would be hard. It seems like you are going to run into that problem anyway though if you plan to only have four races.

Another way to look at it is to say "well, my campaign setting flavor just favors brute type characters so I'm going to include Humans, Dragonborn, Dwarves and maybe Half-elves" and rewrite the fluff from there. The fewer races you have the more compromises you are going to have to make. You can either make all of your races overpowered when compared to the PHB races, or you can just take a subset of the races that focus on the core values of your campaign, whatever those might be (I only mentioned brutes because Humans, Minotaurs, Lizardfolk and "stoneFOLK" conjure up that image in my mind).

edit: I also don't know why I keep calling them stoneBORN, they are stoneFOLK

 

[Sylrae]

You can't cover all the bases with 4 races. It really seems like you're leaning towards all martial characters.

Not sure what stonefolk are, but they sound like another martial race.

All the races you listed except human seem to lean heavily towards fighter.

Minotaur is already done 4eMM p278
Lizardfolk is not. I mad an attempt a second ago, but it doesn't seem they used any logical system when making player stats for monsters. IE, youll likely just make it up.
I'm not really sure what stonefolk are, but they sound kindof like constructs. Even if they aren't the mechanics for warforged might be a good place to start.

I don't like how the 4e MM doesn't have the detail that the 3.5 ones do. It feels like I'm looking at my 2e MM but with better artwork, and less monsters.