Races & Classes details from the WotC boards

[Bagpuss]

Didn't the poster mention that Dragonborn were able to take 'Racial Feats' that allowed them to become more Draconic? (Wings and so forth)

I like the idea that the more draconic they look like the (potentially) more powerful they are.

Ah so they could look even more human than that thing in the picture.

You aren't helping.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

I need more supporting details to come to any conclusion.

3e did a decent job of Kenderizing halflings. The fact that they're not going in the other direction and Hobbitizing them is good enough news for me.

Yup. 3e took the good things about kender (adventurous, athletic, fearless halflings who have a reason to actually join the party), and ignored the bad (kleptomania, incredible obnoxiousness).

Overall, I think this sounds good. As for the "homelands"... there have always been dwarves who live in human cities, or elves living away from the forests, and so on. So, I'm certain that in the 4e, although most elven nations exist in wooded regions, there are elves living in the hills, on the plains, down at the swamps, and so forth.

And humans living on plains actually makes pretty good sense to me; agriculture, cavalry, far-ranging travel and trade.

 

[Oldtimer]

• Half-elfs I'm disappointed with though, I'd prefer a template for half-XX or feats/talents like: Elf-blooded, Human-blooded etc

Considering they weren't mentioned at all, I'm not sure what you are disappointed about. Did you read something in that post that I didn't?

 

[Aage]

Considering they weren't mentioned at all, I'm not sure what you are disappointed about. Did you read something in that post that I didn't?

Whoops, you are right...

I must have assumed that they were listed when I wrote the response, considering they've been mentioned alot during playtests and such.

 

[Szatany]

Hmm. Ambivalent. Is it just me or are they trying to dump too much setting information into the core rules? Why do humans have to like horses?

Because horses are very useful on plains? I think they are trying to match races to a terrain that plays to their strengths. Humans' strength is mostly in numbers, so a vast levelled area is good for human troops to wage war (far better than a craggy hills where a single tough but not mobile dwarf can stop a lot of enemies). Lizards are used to heat so dragonborn dominate their enemies in hot deserts of the south. I'm sure some of them live in mountains or plains but those are not the places they have an advantage. Halflings are not warrior race and have to resort to either fleeing (rivers) or smarts. They are small and light so swamps make an ideal hidding place because every bigger enemy (and most of them are) will be simply sucked in.

What if I want a dwarf who lives in the swamp? Does he have to be a halfling-loving ostracized dwarf? In 3.5e humans had Environment: Any. Why try and stick them in plains? Ugh. I don't know.

Pinotage

Who said there isn't an occasional dwarven city in a forest or a elven town in a swamp? This is generic infomation about the setting and is by no means exclusive.

 

[Pinotage]

Because horses are very useful on plains? I think they are trying to match races to a terrain that plays to their strengths. Humans' strength is mostly in numbers, so a vast levelled area is good for human troops to wage war (far better than a craggy hills where a single tough but not mobile dwarf can stop a lot of enemies). Lizards are used to heat so dragonborn dominate their enemies in hot deserts of the south. I'm sure some of them live in mountains or plains but those are not the places they have an advantage. Halflings are not warrior race and have to resort to either fleeing (rivers) or smarts. They are small and light so swamps make an ideal hidding place because every bigger enemy (and most of them are) will be simply sucked in.

Who said there isn't an occasional dwarven city in a forest or a elven town in a swamp? This is generic infomation about the setting and is by no means exclusive.

I'm sure the terrains make sense from a certain point of view. But why bother with them at all in a core book that should be setting neutral (or at least largely)? If, as they say, they're planning on releasing a setting a year, why not make the core books as generic as possible. Why add the strange flavor? Meh. I'm not really bothered. It'll all get thrown out in the old end. It would've been nice if those pages had been used for something more useful, though (other than me sounding like a grognard!).

Pinotage

 

[tsadkiel]

yeah, not real sure how much I like that, especially pigeon-holing Humans in such a way. But, this book was sent to the printers long ago, and the 4E PHB is still being finalized, so perhaps some things will change a bit still....hopefully.

Really not digging Haflings as swamp dwellers though.

Since one of the playtest reports has the (desert dwelling) dragonborn running a maritime empire, I don't think the flavor will be that difficult to change.

 

[The Little Raven]

I'm sure the terrains make sense from a certain point of view. But why bother with them at all in a core book that should be setting neutral (or at least largely)? If, as they say, they're planning on releasing a setting a year, why not make the core books as generic as possible. Why add the strange flavor? Meh. I'm not really bothered. It'll all get thrown out in the old end. It would've been nice if those pages had been used for something more useful, though (other than me sounding like a grognard!).

Here's the problem with this: the PHB is not setting-neutral (and wasn't in 3e since it's covered in Greyhawk lore). It assumes a brand-new meta-setting, which makes different assumptions about things than previous editions.

 

[Aage]

I'm sure the terrains make sense from a certain point of view. But why bother with them at all in a core book that should be setting neutral (or at least largely)? If, as they say, they're planning on releasing a setting a year, why not make the core books as generic as possible. Why add the strange flavor? Meh. I'm not really bothered. It'll all get thrown out in the old end. It would've been nice if those pages had been used for something more useful, though (other than me sounding like a grognard!).

Pinotage

So the perfect Phb would have only the rules for dwarfs/elfs/whatever, and not a single line of fluff?

 

[The Merciful]

I'm sure the terrains make sense from a certain point of view. But why bother with them at all in a core book that should be setting neutral (or at least largely)? If, as they say, they're planning on releasing a setting a year, why not make the core books as generic as possible. Why add the strange flavor? Meh. I'm not really bothered. It'll all get thrown out in the old end. It would've been nice if those pages had been used for something more useful, though (other than me sounding like a grognard!).

Err... Aren't we talking about a preview book giving a sort of look behind the stage, not the up coming 4th edition rule books?

Anyway, short mentions of races' cultures and common habitats seem hardly waste of space to me. And setting neutrality is a rather relative thing - if going for total netrality, we would not have classes, races, weapons or monsters, but mere stat blocks. I do like some shape in things.