PHB2 Races = Mos Eisley Cantina

Status
Not open for further replies.

log in or register to remove this ad


Every race in 4e was a race in 3e, although some have been changed a bit. And while I'd love to say the weird races started in 3e, they really didn't. (Although, in fairness, 3e still takes the cake for the number of downright bizarre races which can be played by PCs...)

I've been checking out a lot of the Wilderlands material, and really, folks - bizarre doesn't even begin to cover it. You have transparent-fleshed ghuls, "bardik" who make good ... um ... bards, cat people, lion people, duck people, hawk people, sun people, moon people, star people, cavemen, smarter cavemen, purple dragon people, red-skinned people, a whole race of amazons, houri (basically succubi), and so on. And all the many-hued human races - common viridians are kinda green, people with atlantlan blood are kinda red, people up north are kinda blue, descendants of the dragon lords are kinda purple and often a bit scaly...

Weird races aren't new. They go all the way back to the earliest settings.

-O
 


I personally like the addition of all these races. Fantasy is not just Tolkien, and even as a Tolkien fan I can accept that.


Seriously, lighten up guys.
 

I've been checking out a lot of the Wilderlands material, and really, folks - bizarre doesn't even begin to cover it. You have transparent-fleshed ghuls, "bardik" who make good ... um ... bards, cat people, lion people, duck people, hawk people, sun people, moon people, star people,
Weird races aren't new. They go all the way back to the earliest settings

Wilderlands wasn't a TSR/WotC product. No more relevant than some DMs house rules.
 

I've had this problem back since 1st edition.

Norker? Why do we need norkers? Flinds? Why can't they just be big gnolls? Why do we have eight species of ugly, slightly stupid, monsterous demi-humans? Wouldn't just one work out fine? Why do we need like fourteen elvish sub-races? Couldn't we just get by with one or two, and assume that otherwise they differ by skin, hair color, and other superficial matters of appearance? Just exactly how did all of these different races get created? Do I have to develop 200 different origin stories?

I think that if you assume that the world really does have 200 different humanoid races, that you can't avoid having a science fiction feel to it, and probably are going to end up with something like Tekumel where all the races on one planet really does have a science fiction origin to it. You can either embrace that or you can say, "Not in my campaign. I'll take this small subset, thank you very much." But I don't think you can really blame WotC for wanting to broaden the palette. Nothing is more certain than the fact that each of us would consider a very different subset of humanoids to be the 'cool ones'.

I'm not sure that the problem the OP has isn't just with the art of 4th edition. The art of 4th edition has a very distinctive 'comic book' feel that is very different from the high fantasy artwork of 2e or the primitive looking woodcuts and simple line art of 1e. I think that the 'comic book' feel unintentionally or not gives 4e a very 'X-Men' style mutant superhero feel.
 
Last edited:

I like variety. As a DM, I wish more people would play humans, but variety keeps things interesting. Especially since the baseline assumption in 4E is that humans aren't the dominant species.

In my homebrew world I allow 12 PC races, but the setting emphasizes cosmopolitan societies where the various races mix. If "romance" and "half breeds" cause you problems, I solved it by splitting the races into three main groups - hume, gob, and "other." Humes can breed and are all the dominantly human-looking races (human, dwarf, elf, shadar-kai, draenei). Gobs are all the slightly monstrous races (bugbear, goblin, hobgoblin, minotaur, moogle). "Other" is a catch-all for races that don't have sufficient evolutionary differentiation - dragonborn (who vary like chromatic dragons do) and warforged (who don't mate/reproduce).

So far, the two campaigns I'm involved in (one I run, one I play in) have this sort of breakdown:
Human x2
Eladrin
Drow
Halfling

Elf x2
Eladrin
Dragonborn
Tiefling

Eh, play what you want to play, don't play what you don't. It's all optional.
 

I guess the real question (and this isn't really limited to 4E, by any stretch) is whether the DM is justified in telling the player who just spent $30 on the PHB2 or whatever, "No. You may not play your Goliath Warden. Those things don't fit in my campaign."

Having variety available to good. Options almost always are. But as options, any element -- whether Core or "core" -- is subject to inclusion or exclusion by the DM.

As a side question, what if a player doesn't want a race or class or whatever included because of his/her preferences?
 


Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top