Races & Classes spotted?

[Remathilis]

Didn't the playtest also mention something about the "mystery race" liking shiny things (ya know, treasure?)

Actually, the race list isn't so bad...

You have humans (the catchall). Elves, dwarves, and halflings (all divorced from their Tolkien roles somewhat) as the classics. Half-elves are the middle-ground race. Tieflings fill the dark/evil/angsty role. Dragonborn have the "born of dragon/dragons are cool" niche (bonus for being vaguely reptilian) and Eladrin are magical and fey-like (being form Feywild and akin to the old high-elves).

All the classics are covered, plus three new-guys (all unique to D&D). Seems like a good mix of old and new.

 

[Kurotowa]

You know what I think? I think the designers took note of just how many people in 3.5 were playing aasimars, tieflings, and half-dragons. And they said to themselves, "If our players like using these races so much, then let's just put them in the PHB already. It's best to listen to our audience and help them do what they're going to do anyway."

So tieflings got a bit of a makeover, and got to keep their name because it's cool and has the most history in D&D. Aasimars got fused with the high-elf trappings, a bit more of an in-depth revision, and a new name that wasn't as dorky. And half-dragons got a new name, dragonborn, and a new racial identity of their own.

I have to say, I'm all for it. Certainly I've seen more of those races played than I ever have half-orcs or gnomes. Reworking them into PHB caliber races is a brilliant move, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I am baffled why people are so peeved that WOTC is selling a book that they don't want.

That's because you've mid-diagnosed the problem. People are peeved because WotC is selling a book they do want, but don't want to pay for.

Overall, this news sounds positive to me.

Personally I don't know where all this bellyaching over fluff comes from. C'mon people; you can ignore fluff and rewrite it as you please. Call them Lizardmen, or Draconians, or Drakons. Say they're a race, or a one-off cross-breed event, or they're randomly placed under cabbage leaves by Bahamut himself. It doesn't matter in the least, except to your campaign. The only thing that matters is the rules, and how flexible they are, and what archetypes they support without massive house-ruling.

And since we don't have any rules at all at the moment, there is no basis for complaint.

We're going to need a bunch of threads to discuss each of these points individually, if we're going to discuss them in a rational matter. This monster thread will only spiral out of control, as each person finds their own personal nit to gripe about, and nothing positive gets said.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

Initially, I was somewhat startled and put off by the dragonborn. But I think they'll grow on me, particularly if they have shades of the "ancient reptilian precursor race" idea that's popular in a lot of sword and sorcery (and at least one modern day conspiracy theory! )

I'm still kinda bummed it's not the orc. WotC, if you're listening, keep the dragonborn, but drop the half-elf and put in the orc!!

And as far as every class using the same progression, that's *hugely* *awesome* news for me. On a thread in RPG.net, I had hoped that would be the case and now there's "evidence" this may be the case. Rock!

 

[Khuxan]

Every class using the same progression explains why the multiclass warload/wizard is still a warlord 10 - there's no need to switch classes per se, as long as you get different class features.

 

[ruemere]

Personally, I don't like any race which is heavily biased toward any class. In 3.* you can have Dwarven Wizards and Halfling Fighters, but you're unlikely to play Orc Sorcerers.
I'm fine with Dragonborn as long playing one would not be equal to becoming party's red headed stepchild.

Another possible problem comes with damage reduction (if that still exists in 4.0). Monks, natural weapon specialists, were severely handicapped when facing higher level extraplanars:
- low basic attack bonus against high armor class,
- low damage per hit against damage reduction,
- builds favouring low strength,
- magic implements supplementing these weak points were scarce in most game worlds.
Dragonborn, if they replace Monks as natural weapon specialists, will suffer from the same weaknesses as monks.

Regards,
Ruemere

PS. I don't like any half-something races with no means of propagation.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Or we could change the name of the game to "Taverns & Tieflings"!

I can't breathe, I can't breathe...













OW! I think I cracked a rib. :\

 

[Rechan]

Personally, I don't like any race which is heavily biased toward any class. In 3.* you can have Dwarven Wizards and Halfling Fighters, but you're unlikely to play Orc Sorcerers.

1) I think that the designers said there would no longer be minuses to stats, just positives. I really hope so, that way your Half-Orc just has a plus to str, but otherwise isn't a walking lump.

2) Since the Tieflings had an empire, I'm willing to bet they 'breed true', like Eberron's half elves and half-orcs.

 

[Goobermunch]

Something happening once doesn't really prove anything. If I win the lottery once, that doesn't make me more likely to win the lottery in the future.

Regardless, there's nothing to indicate so far that the dragonborn in 4E will be dramatically different than the dragonborn introduced in the latter half of 3.5E, so like I said, I'm not all that hopeful.

So wait a minute. We're comparing an entirely random ordering of numbers (the lottery) with the activities of a relatively small group of people with rational motivations and an overriding theory of design to determine that the actions of the people will be like the numbers? This seems foolish to me.

The fact is that the design team is nothing at all like a lottery. They've got reasons for what they do and they've got a plan (the fact that we may not like the plan is irrelevant for this discussion). I think it's more than fair to infer that their actions and decisions with regard to the eladrin race may shed some light on their decisions with regard to the dragonborn.

Just sayin'.

--G

 

[Sir Sebastian Hardin]

Just in case anyone has any doubt left about the truth of the scoop: Here are some images that show the differences between Tieflings and Dragonborn in the concept (and final) sketches. Tieflings have fairer skin, curved horns (like a satyr's) and a plain tail. Dragonborn have scaly skin, with "spikes" in their chin and tail, they have almost straight horns (at least what seems to be the "red dragonborn").

[sblock=Tieflings

[/sblock]

[sblock=Dragonborn