D&D 4E Rich Baker on Gnomes in 4E

JoeGKushner said:
My only concern with the marginal races comment is I'm not sure I'd agree with 'em on what's marginal.

For example, before the core races were known, I'd have bet good money that dragonborn and tielflings would be considered marginal.

If you look at the question he answers (some others quote it below) I think his "marginal" comment is directed at the question about Sauriels and Sea Elves.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Incenjucar said:
They will, however, be in the MM1, so this is mostly just a lack of support and flavor information.
So there will be 30 levels of feat progressions for them in MM1, like the "major" races get in PHB1? Can you point to someone from WotC saying this? Because, if not, no, it's not just "flavor" that's missing.
 


Mourn said:
I assume they mean marginal as a variation of "not of central importance," meaning non-core races.

But let's not forget their own terminology if we're talking 'core' here. Isn't every PHB and DMG, not to mention other sourcebook, supposed to be 'core' now?
 

Relique du Madde said:
I fixed it for you... cause we all know drow (and warforged) are cool and should be added into the PBH while Gnomes are relegated to having one paragraph in the PHB II
Which sounds about right, judging from every gaming table I've ever seen.
 

I'm still thinking Gnomes, along with the rest of the Eberron races, will get their full PC race treatment in the Eberron Campaign Guide. Which will annoy non-Eberron gnome fans, but Eberron gnomes are much cooler than the others anyway :).
 


Whizbang Dustyboots said:
No one who actually uses leet-speak has said weaksauce in about nine months.

Well, the designer's attempts at lingo hasn't exactly been bleeding edge, now has it?
 

Saurials? Sea-elves? Avariels? Come on, people, even the most devoted fanboys of these races have to admit they're marginal at best.
 

Remove ads

Top