Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mengu" data-source="post: 5773398" data-attributes="member: 65726">I think the races can be grouped, and I don't mind seeing sub-races, particularly for humans.Human: Urban man, woodsmen, highman (or mountain man, or other strong-trope), nomad, mixed breed (half-elf, half-orc, mul)Fey: Wood elf, high elf, drow, gnomeDwarf: Sun dwarf, deep dwarfHalfling: Shire halfling, river folkBeastman (or monster-man): Dragonborn, tiefling, shifter, half-ogre (half-orc could move into this category, or it could be in both categories, allowing you to play a half-orc who is more human, or a half-orc who is more orc).I want some options and ecology out of the gate. These don't all have to appear at the same time, but the grouping will help reduce the problem of "my race isn't getting any support". For all I care, Genasi, Goliath, and Deva could simply be mixed breed types of humans, those touched by the elements, those with giant blood, and those with the blood (or blessing) of a celestial.I think with this sort of grouping, races could be presented in such a way that the stats don't overwhelm the book, and the flavor of the race can manifest itself in a feature or two, while sharing features and support of the overall group.I suppose another way to go about this is to lighten up racial mechanics, and put more emphasis on backgrounds. A typical wood elf would have the wood elf background. This leads to a straight forward choice for those who want it. But for the mixed breed human that wants to be "brought up among elves" this same background could be used. To take it another step. Wood elves could be rangers by default (we are after all talking about a version mash). But if the mixed breed human wanted to be a ranger, they would have the option to do so.For classes, I'm happy with diversity, but depending on the way they design classes, some of them could be rolled together. In some form I'd like to see Fighter, Paladin, Barbarian, Ranger, Rogue, Cleric, Druid, Wizard, and Bard. But I don't care if they make Barbarian and Paladin as subclasses for Fighter, or if they roll Wizard, Cleric and Druid into one magic user class.When 5e comes out, I know one player is going to walk up to me and say "I want to play a half-orc barbarian", and another player is going to say "I want to play a bard". This is exactly what happened in 4e. For the former player, I had to create a home brew half-orc, and he resigned to playing a ranger instead of barbarian, and the latter player begrudgingly agreed to try a different class, and started up a half-elf warlock. I want options out of the gate. Really, I won't be overwhelmed if there are 10 classes. Each player is going to be playing one class. So just give me the options.</blockquote>

Verification