Races & Classes details from the WotC boards

[Banshee16]

Not necessarily. Several designers have mentioned they didn't like the explosion of subraces in 3E.

I think we're deluding ourselves to think the subraces won't reappear. They always do. In 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Ed. In 2nd and 3rd Ed. they were removed from the PHBs, and then appeared in supplements.

Subraces sell. Players love trying out new variants, and they buy books that detail those variants.

Personally, I'd rather have a limited number of subraces, rather than 1,000,000 different types of bipedal, intelligent humanoids. That right there kind of messes with my suspension of disbelief.

Banshee

 

[Rechan]

Personally, I'd rather have a limited number of subraces, rather than 1,000,000 different types of bipedal, intelligent humanoids. That right there kind of messes with my suspension of disbelief.

Really?

So Monster books with at least a thousand+ monsters, all of varying CRs that could have stomped the world flat twelve times over are okay, but just various intelligent races that could be in your campaign don't? Or the thousand plus PrCs, representiong at least a thousand organizations?

There are at least 300 different types of undead. To the point that there should be an Undead caused from people slipping on banana peels. But I can't conceptually jump Every Book into one world, no matter the size, because they'd all be stacked on top of eachother.

You do realize that just because they're published doesn't mean they're all in one setting. The Jungle Elves may be printed, but they're better off being dropped into a Jungle Setting, not just 'the kinda jungle over there'.

 

[Relique du Madde]

Let me get this straight...

So.... Smeagol was a 4e halfling?

 

[FireLance]

So.... Smeegle was a 4e halfling?

Smeagol was a hobbit.

Goldenmagic Wardragon's Smeagol is a 4e halfling.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

... other than punitive opportunity costs.

Do we know that there are going to be punitive opportunity costs? As far as I can recall, the idea was to give the races abilities that are always useful, no matter what class they take... but are most useful when combined with the race's "preferred class".

 

[Pinotage]

Why stop there? We could go on to have, "Abilities: Any. Age of adulthood: Any. Favored class: Any."

The GURPSification of D&D. Nah.

Not quite. I've never played GURPS so I have no idea. Look, there is a broad definition of each race that one can acquire from popular culture. Dwarfs are gruff, drink ale, live in caves and underground. Elves are aloof, long-living, etc. Those things are all fine. You can construct a standard core race from that without any problems. And, as far as environment goes, let's face it, when you put together an adventuring party, who cares that the elf was from the forest or the human from the plains? The campaign setting can sort that out. Pathfinder, for example, has dwarves that don't live underground at all.

All I'm saying is that you can construct a fine race without forcing it into a particular setting or 'home'. The core books don't have to have lengthy pages about elves loving trees, how they construct their homes in trees, or how halflings make their swamp boats. That kind of fluff fits in a setting, not a core book. You can define the broad characteristics of the race without needing to do this. Saying things like 'humans like horses' just shouldn't be in the core books, IMO.

As for the others things you mention, of course they can go into the core. Those are playtested abilities that define a race. Where you put that race in a campaign setting, is something I believe the campaign setting should sort out. If everybody is just going to create that halfling from the city, or the dwarf in the forest, then why bother specifying where they're from in the first place?

Pinotage

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

No Half-elves in Races and Classes!

This just posted on gleemax by kunadam:

View Post
Anything about half-elves?

Nothing. Strange as it is, as half-elves get mentioned from the announcement of 4th edition, but there is nothing in the book about them.

So, when Wizards wrote Races and Classes they didn't have half-elves, but since then they've decided to add them back in?

Have Wizards gone totally mad? They had a wonderful opportunity to get rid half-elves - both a third elvish race and another damn half-species - but they thought the game needed them! Wise heads had removed them, and foolish ones put them back!

I call on Wizards to ensure that half-elves are removed from the PHB, and the extra space used to put druids in. Or choose a more widely loved and less controversial race, such as half-vampires. Or warforged.

 

[Pinotage]

Elves are nimble and agile thus forests are a good place for them. Elves have abilities that indeed make them nimble and agile, but where did you get the idea that they get abilities that are reliant on forests? I read nothing of that sort, meaning you can have an elf from mountains that lives in mountains? Where's the restriction (other that the one in your head), because I can't see any.

Huh? An agile and nimble elf is equally suitable to a forest, a ragged mountain or a swamp. So why put the in a forest? Why not have the setting define where the elf should go?

Let's take the dragonborn example. The information we have says they're decendents from an ancient civilisation of the desert. So what it my campaign setting doesn't have ancient civilisations? What if it doesn't have deserts? Do I have to remove dragonkin?

That's a 'extreme' example, of course, since you can simply change the environment and backstory, but it gets the point across, I think. 3e was generally fine with its races, but reading this thread you get the idea that 4e is going one step further.

Pinotage

 

[Derren]

Let's take the dragonborn example. The information we have says they're decendents from an ancient civilisation of the desert. So what it my campaign setting doesn't have ancient civilisations? What if it doesn't have deserts? Do I have to remove dragonkin?

What if my world has no forests, do I have to remove elves? And it also has no mountains, so no dwarves?
What if the campaign settings consist out of 5 ft. wide floating islands in the middle of nowhere? Do I have to remove all races which can't fly and are bigger than medium size?

 

[Pinotage]

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

Sure. Pathfinder dwarves don't line in mountains. Many different dwarves and subraces don't live in mountains. Loads of elven subraces don't live in forests. And humans are certainly not only from the plains.

To be honest, I don't realy mind. The settings will move the races wherever they want in the old end. The core can do what it will. And I can see the need to put stuff in the core. I just feel 4e put too much in. Such as the 'history' of dragonkin, for example.

It's a fine point, and I don't feel like nit-picking it to death in this thread.

Pinotage