Races and Classes--I has it!

$20 for such a thin paperback is steep, especially as a marketing promo book. It's not worth the price. $10 easily. $14 maybe. But not $20.

And I'm offended that they blatantly admitted they can't define the gnome race well enough to include in the PHB. I blame it on a lack of effort and creativity.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Unlike elementals, humans are not the essence of flesh...

I don't really find the arguments of why fire elementals should be harmed by fire very compelling. They are plausible, depending on game world, and would be justifiable if immunities did not exist at all, but remember that immunities are not completely gone from the game and in such a case, elementals should have them.

This is certainly not a dealbreaker for me as far 4E is concerned - it is just a nitpick. Sure, if necessary I could cook up a reason to justify fire elementals being vulnerable to fire. For example, it could be that fire elementals need fuel to burn, of which they have a certain inherent amounts stored. Being subjected to a fire of higher intensity than themselves burns their fuel up and thus harms them. Indeed, this could be a justification of why fire elementals just loooove to burn forests - they not only spread their element, but they also replenish their fuel supply!

That would work and perhaps even be quite cool, but for a creature made up of say acid - well it may be more difficult to justify why acid hurts it. I guess it could be a chemically different type of acid, but still, it just seems arbitrary.
 

Dragonblade said:
Its not that dragon's fire hurts the fire that composes the elemental. Its that it is simply so overwhelming that the elemental's life force can no longer maintain any cohesion against the onslaught. The spiritual "bond" that animates the flame and binds the spirit to the fire disintigrates and thus the elemental is destroyed.
I was going to make a dumb joke about "If I can hurt humans with a big enough piece of meat ...", but this is a lot better.

Besides, in Elder Wyrm v. Fire Elemental showdowns, the Elder Wyrm wins. That's just the way it is. Explain it however you like.
 

Irda Ranger said:
Besides, in Elder Wyrm v. Fire Elemental showdowns, the Elder Wyrm wins. That's just the way it is. Explain it however you like.

Spells of course! Oh wait, dragons no longer have spells, because that makes them complex and less dragon-like. :confused:
This despite the fact that spellcasting combined with physical prowess and breath weapons defined a unique category of D&D dragons.
I guess we have just hit another area of 4E where I am not keen on the decisions made...
 

Roman said:
Spells of course! Oh wait, dragons no longer have spells, because that makes them complex and less dragon-like. :confused:
This despite the fact that spellcasting combined with physical prowess and breath weapons defined a unique category of D&D dragons.
I guess we have just hit another area of 4E where I am not keen on the decisions made...

Dragon + Wizard class levels = Problem solved
 

Driddle said:
$20 for such a thin paperback is steep, especially as a marketing promo book. It's not worth the price. $10 easily. $14 maybe. But not $20.

And I'm offended that they blatantly admitted they can't define the gnome race well enough to include in the PHB. I blame it on a lack of effort and creativity.
Now is your chance to write a 3rd party gnome supplement. I look forward to it, but, somehow, I don't expect it.
 

I has it too

I got R&C today. No time to read it, but I thumbed through for the art. There sure is a lot of art, so I imagine the printing costs were not negligible. The paper is thicker than rulebook paper (to support the heavy printing on each page?).

First and foremost, there is no obviously bad art in book, but I do have a few comments:

THE BAD
I am not feeling the Tiefling's tail or horns (in concept its fine, but not as drawn). They are both way too large for a creature with an otherwise perfectly normal human physiology. They both feel "tacked on", rather than part of an integrated whole. As I mentioned in another thread, the horns look like carnival masks or funny hats instead of part of their body. And the tail (which is larger than either of their legs) should force them to walk at an angle or something, but somehow doesn't effect their center of balance at all? This is obviously a "design" issue though, and not a problem with any artist.

Whoever drew the "Human on horseback" on page 19 only has a passing familiarity with what horses look like. The human on the horse looks awesome though.

There's something wrong with the boots humans wear in 4E.

THE MEH
Halflings still look just like humans. Without any kind of context I can't tell what it's a picture of without the caption. I'm not sure if that's good or bad; and I'm not sure what I'd do differently; but it's on my mind.

Dragonborn boobs. I'm still not sure I buy that.

In an effort to give every race's weapons and armor a distinct "look" I think they made some of the weapons just unusable looking. The tiefling (too flamey) and the dwarven (too heavy) weapons are what I'm thinking of here. The elven weapons on the other hand are a good example of "different, but not impractical."

THE GOOD
The Dragonborn look good. I'm glad that the weird things on the arms of the dragonborn in the Michelle Carter interview are not a standard feature. Maybe they're some kind of bracer?

The Dwarves and Elves look good too, and the Eladrin's subtle difference relative to the Elves are well done. I think that as DM I will make a point though that anyone not an elf or eladrin will have a great deal of difficulty telling them apart (meaning, if you met one on the road you couldn't say what race it was).

The armor, weapons and clothes all look good. No buckle fetishists to be found. As mentioned above the boots on some pictures are weird (the heel is way too big and heavy), but that's minor. Although there are a few instances were the armor makes me go "WTF?" (like the Dragonborn on pg. 17 and the "Voltron Dwarf" on page 31 (you know which one I'm talking about)) this is the minority. We still have the occasional "chainmail bikini" issue (and you might think that a chainmail bikini on a dwarf-lady is a bad idea, but it's really more of a chainmail miniskirt and is not unattractive), but for the most part this stuff looks practical; something a "real adventurer" would wear. Even the examples of the "Epic Tier" characters make you think of something the personal Champion of the Emperor of Rome would wear in battle: fancy, really expensive and possibly magical, but in no way inhibiting his ability to kick your ass.

The rest. As I mentioned, there is no "bad" art in the book. Every picture is a more than competent rendering of fantasy art.

OVERALL GRADE: A
The only thing between R&C's art and an A+ are the problems I mentioned with the Tiefling. If all of the Tieflings had a tail like the tiefling warlock on page 70 (we've seen him before .. GenCon?) and better horn-skull matching, there would literally be nothing to complain about.
 


Rechan said:
Dude. Medusa in 3e had boobs. Pretty much anything humanoid and female has boobs in fantasy art. ;)
I'm aware. I'm surprised that they didn't draw Warforged with boobs.

But if they're going to make a reptilian, egg-laying PC race, I would think they'd make the effort to "sell the audience" on the idea that males and females look darn similar; and that they don't have boobs.
 

Ah. Someone forgot to mention that lizards weren't mammals, and therefor by definition, they lacked certain features?

Classic.

Out of curiousity...
The Dwarves and Elves look good too, and the Eladrin's subtle difference relative to the Elves are well done. I think that as DM I will make a point though that anyone not an elf or eladrin will have a great deal of difficulty telling them apart (meaning, if you met one on the road you couldn't say what race it was).
You could tell them apart, so why consider this rule? Or was the art distinction mostly clothing based?
 

Remove ads

Top