Races & Classes details from the WotC boards

[helium3]

This is no different from previous editions. Dwarves have always been under the mountain. This doesn't mean ALL dwarf characters have to be.

The only difference here is a designated niche for humans.

Actually, oddly enough Dwarves don't live UNDER mountains.

 

[Klaus]

Halflings tied to rivers and swamps, eh? I wanna make me a halfling named Tom. Or Huck.

Dragonborn are egg layers, and the female have boobs? I know! They're Platypusfolk! You heard it here first!

Humans on plains: in 2e the fluff said that the gods divided the world among them, with elves in the forests and dwarves in the mountains and gnomes in the hills and so forth, and humans would live anywhere the could make a living.

I actually like humans tied to plains and horses. Very North Africa/Middle East, which is where human civilization arose.

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

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? 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.

Sweet tapdancing Christ. Are we really to the point where we complain about assertions so broad as "Dwarves like mountains?" Seriously?

Words do not exist for a facepalm so large.

 

[Fifth Element]

Actually, oddly enough Dwarves don't live UNDER mountains.

Indeed. It was, what do you call it, a figure of speech.

I also said the mountain, singular. Did I mean there was only one mountain in which dwarves dwell?

 

[Xethreau]

For those of you who don't know, there is more information posted by the person that thread:

For those who aren't happy, look on the bright side. At least the mystery race didn't turn out to be Warforged.

Warforged is mentioned. Apart from the core races (human, elf, eladrin, thiefling, dragonborn, dwarf and halfling) gnome, drow, celestial (aasimar) and warforged is mentioned for a paragraph or two.

1) The OP says that "humans I think had the most with 4 or 5" in reference to how many pages were devoted to them. Can you tell us why that is, and what the basic gist of their entry is? Any special reason why humans rated 4-5 pages worth of text while Eladrins only got 1 1/2?

A high elf is a high elf. Most races have a little on origin, history, culture and society. Humans got more space because their status is not so clear. A dwarf is a stereotype (a bearded, small human with a gruffy attitude). Humans are variable, thus there is more musing on them. All in all I found it well writen and they worth the extra pages.

2) The OP says that "There are 4-5 paragraphs each on some other races as well.

Nope. Elves realy had 2.5 or so pages. Most have 2-3, except for humans. Take into note that there is a lot of art in the book. Full page art mind you. Cool art I have to add.

I remember drow and gnome, but there were maybe 2 or 3 more. The gnome part was titled "The problem with gnomes" or something like that."

Nothing that was not dissected on the gnome thread here. Gnome were neither elves nor dwarves, but a little bit of both. Lacked focus.

So what're these other races? And does the text for each of them indicate which ones we might see in the upcoming PHB, in which ones we won't?

The ones mentioned in depth are clearly in. But the book is about the state of the art in Aug 2007. It can change (release date changed, Eberron time progress changed)

If you could, could you tell us what sort of 'look and feel' changes have occurred to the races, and if any racial 'powers' seem evident?

Dwarves and halfling are a bit taller now. They are right, an average halfling were akin to a 3 years old (I have a daughter of that age) and it is just hard to imagine for people. Dwarves are a bit taller too (given the trend dwaves will be 6-8' be 6th edition...).

@ Georg- I imagine that the ancestral background will probably hold true for Dragonborn as it is for Tieflings: a true breeding race from a ancestor and humans. Or at least that is probably how I am going to play it, more than likely. As offended as I was by you calling Dragons lizards, I do agree that human-dragon crossbreeding should not be taken lightly.

Dragonborn are a true breeding race that has nothing to do with humans. They are lizards (egg laying). They were never a half race.

Thiefling on the other hand can breed with humans. The result is always a thiefling. I won't give away fluff from the book, but it is great! But their grandparent are definitely not demons, they are thieflings. As for their distant past ancestry, but and read the book.

1) I'm guessing the lack of info on elves in your post implies "they're like wood elves in 3.x, no more info needed"?

Yes.

2) Any indication on if they're making halflings more kender-like, or are they keeping them sane/believable? Because core kender would make me sad. I have to say that I like the idea of them being sort of tied to rivers (swamps not so much).

They said that back then when they designed 3rd, they felt that kenders are cool, but a bit too comic/not serious enough. So halfling (in 3rd and in 4th also) have some of the personality of kenders but they are a serious race.
The focus is rivers.

3) You say tieflings have a "unified" look. What would it be? I've been concerned about this. I prefer them to be only subtly different than humans, but if they're a core race I'm guessing there'll be more to differentiate the two in terms of appearance.

Unified in the sense, that they are not the son/daughter of a myriad of devils/demons with wastly [vastly] different appearance. They are a race, not a collective name for something.
They pass for humans from a distance. The text says that they have a small hord [set of horns?] extending from their brow and a narrow tail. As they grow in power these thing get more pronounced. In the arts they have very pronounced tail and horn.

 

[DandD]

Actually, oddly enough Dwarves don't live UNDER mountains.

Perhaps they live IN mountains. Like the Dwarves in Warhammer.

 

[med stud]

From WotC- board

Human
They will remain the flexible, adaptable race as in 3.x.
Their negative personality flaw is corruptible (I don’t think it is mechanic, just fluff or the basis of some racial feat).
The text mention that humans never give up, and try thing again-and-again; this can be a racial characteristic (allow retry in some cases).
Each of them know how to handle at least one weapon (fluff or ability?).
Their homeland is the plains. Horses are important to them.
Favoured class: They fit to all classes equally well (or at least more or less equally well, the text is not that clear hear).

I think the poster who wrote that may have written "plains" where he meant open spaces that aren't deserts. Like someone posted above, open areas is where humanity shines and given time a settlement of humans will most often have cleared forests around it (for building materials, security and farmland). Horses have traditionally been very useful for humans. Until maybe 150 years ago, cultures with horses had a really big edge on cultures without.

Does this mean that there aren't forestdwelling tribes or Seminole- style people? No, but they are in the minority and out of their element. Where elves preserves forests for their lifestyle, humans will cut them for their lifestyle.

 

[med stud]

Perhaps they live IN mountains. Like the Dwarves in Warhammer.

Are there any setting where dwarves live on mountains? I have never seen one that I remember.

 

[pawsplay]

Yeah, exactly, so the dwarf is better fit to be a fighter.. But there is nothing hindering him from being a rogue; or hindering an eladrin from being a fighter...

... other than punitive opportunity costs.

 

[pawsplay]

Are there any setting where dwarves live on mountains? I have never seen one that I remember.

The story of the three hill dwarves gruff?