Warforged: Like them or loathe them?

[WhimsyTheFae]

I meant the way they're absurdly invincible to some things and absurdly vulnerable to others, but perhaps you knew that...

By using the word "binary," you left the door wide open for another "robot" analogy. I felt an irresistable urge to respond.

I don't fight irresistable urges too well.

 

[pawsplay]

So then they're perfect for core D&D!

Two-handed dwarven greatkluge +1! Sweet!

 

[Merlion]

Oh, tosh. If a prestige class is in the DMG, players are going to know it's there and want to have it as an option. The majority of players also have a pretty good idea of other available prestige classes, suggested wealth per level, and magic item prices, and those are in the DMG as well.

Also, how is renaming the Red Wizard any different than renaming the warforged?

(By the way, I just want to point out that I am ABSOLUTELY against having the warforged as a core PHB choice - I'm just saying that there's precedence for WotC putting setting-specific stuff into core books. I'm guessing that the warforged will most likely end up in the PHB, much to my chagrin - damn those robots!)

Well, my issues with the warforged dont really have much to do with them being "setting specific" as in that they came from the Ebberron setting. Its that their nature and their mechanics are simply not a good fit for a generic D&D setting.

And yes I realize that players will know whats in the DMG etc. But the DMG is for DMs, and the inclusion of the Red Wizards was, to me, mostly aimed at DMs as an example. Player races in the PH are a player resource, and put there for the purpose of being used in basic games.

 

[Gargoyle]

At first I disliked the idea of warforged in the core rules merely because I felt that they are so iconic to Eberron that it seemed to make Eberron less cool in some way, but then I gave it some thought....it doesn't matter if they are used in other settings. Dwarves, elves, and halflings in D&D don't make LotR characters and cultures any less enjoyable for me. Having warforged become part of the core D&D world(s) really doesn't hurt Eberron, and the idea is growing on me.

The only real objection I have to having warforged in the core rules are the stream of rules questions they seem to generate. Having new rules for constructs (or living constructs if they go that route) can avoid some of these problems by giving standard answers for questions like how do they heal, how does poison/disease/etc affect warforged....it should be the same for all constructs. If they can add warforged without adding rules headaches, I'm for it. If it adds more overhead to the rules, I think they should stay out. 4e needs to be slick and streamlined, and we don't need to stop play to answer questions like the multitude of warforged questions I see on Sage Advice all the time.

 

[Rystil Arden]

By using the word "binary," you left the door wide open for another "robot" analogy. I felt an irresistable urge to respond.

I don't fight irresistable urges too well.

Especially when they're puns. Personally, I blame FickleGM.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Oh, tosh. If a prestige class is in the DMG, players are going to know it's there and want to have it as an option. The majority of players also have a pretty good idea of other available prestige classes, suggested wealth per level, and magic item prices, and those are in the DMG as well.

Then you arbitrarily punish them for sneaking a peak into a book that's not for him.

Stuff in the DMG is optional. So is the PHB stuff, sure, but the PHB stuff is "less optional". It's in the book that's supposed to be read by players.

I'd say the idea is that a player can read the PHB and more or less expect the stuff in there to be available. The DMG stuff is for DMs. If the players look into that, fine, but they shouldn't expect to have access to the stuff they're not supposed to look at.

Also, how is renaming the Red Wizard any different than renaming the warforged?

It's not the name, it's the concept.

It's not the origin, either. It's the concept.

 

[tlantl]

It looks like warforged could be a core race in 4E. How do you feel about that?

I'm good.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

Voted "Meh", although my position is more like "They'er way cool, but not suited for PHB." And while I can see them fitting well in many settings besides Eberron, they are equally unfitting to many, more "traditional" campaigns.

 

[Remathilis]

I voted Meh, but not for my dislike of them. They are a bit more niche than changlings, tieflings, or something like goliaths. They assume a certain level of either magical or technological advancement, and they're strength (a non-biological life-form) makes them hard to account for in other areas.

That said, I have already given thought as to how they'll fit in my world IF they do make in PH1. If they don't, I'll have it ready for whatever setting they DO make it in...

 

[Jhaelen]

I dislike the warforged mechanically, i.e. I dislike the 'living construct' type.

I (kind of) like their concept.

I don't particularly like them as a pc race; I think they work a lot better as a monster/npc race.

I don't have a problem allowing a player to create a warforged pc if the concept appeals to her.

I believe they fit best in a setting like Eberron but I can rationalize their existence in any setting that also has other constructs, like golems, etc.

I have no strong feelings either way regarding warforged in general.