Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Orius" data-source="post: 2639660" data-attributes="member: 8863">Humanoids and Undead.I'm jumping on the &quot;No more subraces and furries!&quot; bandwagon here.&nbsp; I tire of subraces; do we really need a whole bunch of different stats for common humanoids that are different only in terms of culture?&nbsp; D&amp;D models all of humanity's racial and cultural variations with just one single race, so I don't see the pressing need for a dozen different dwarf race and twice as many elves.&nbsp; Same thing with the anthropomorphic stuff, sticking an animal head and fur (or feathers or scales or whatever) on a human body and making a new PC race doesn't really take too much creativity.&nbsp; Besides, I got enough of these from previous editions of D&amp;D that I don't need new ones.&nbsp; And I don't need half-races or near human races either; I don't feel a need for that stuff either when there are already half-elves, half-orcs, half-ogres, tieflings, aasimar, genasi, githyanki and githzerai.As for undead, I think there's enough of a spread of undead over the different CRs to cover the course of an entire campaign.&nbsp; Also, templating is a good way over handling these them as well.&nbsp; Of all the monsters that were introduced for the first time in the 3.0 MM the two that least me the most underwhelmed were undead — the allip and morhg.I was tempted to vote Animal, that's just there to cover normal and dire animals and most normal animals that a DM is likely to use are statted, with the remainder being easy enough to extrapolate from existing stas.&nbsp; An exception would be strange prehistoric beasts that are now exinct that haven't yet been statted in 3e.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Orius, post: 2639660, member: 8863"] Humanoids and Undead. I'm jumping on the "No more subraces and furries!" bandwagon here. I tire of subraces; do we really need a whole bunch of different stats for common humanoids that are different only in terms of culture? D&D models all of humanity's racial and cultural variations with just one single race, so I don't see the pressing need for a dozen different dwarf race and twice as many elves. Same thing with the anthropomorphic stuff, sticking an animal head and fur (or feathers or scales or whatever) on a human body and making a new PC race doesn't really take too much creativity. Besides, I got enough of these from previous editions of D&D that I don't need new ones. And I don't need half-races or near human races either; I don't feel a need for that stuff either when there are already half-elves, half-orcs, half-ogres, tieflings, aasimar, genasi, githyanki and githzerai. As for undead, I think there's enough of a spread of undead over the different CRs to cover the course of an entire campaign. Also, templating is a good way over handling these them as well. Of all the monsters that were introduced for the first time in the 3.0 MM the two that least me the most underwhelmed were undead — the allip and morhg. I was tempted to vote Animal, that's just there to cover normal and dire animals and most normal animals that a DM is likely to use are statted, with the remainder being easy enough to extrapolate from existing stas. An exception would be strange prehistoric beasts that are now exinct that haven't yet been statted in 3e. [/QUOTE]

Verification