Woot -- quality new race flavor!

[Rechan]

Because turning into a giant snake should never, ever help.

It in fact did not.

 

[Banshee16]

Did it help at all?

Because turning into a giant snake should never, ever help.

Brad

Why not? Some of those big constrictors could quickly kill a man. Swallowing them is something different. But killing them? Yeah...

It's not my first choice of form, but still..

Banshee

 

[Rechan]

Why not? Some of those big constrictors could quickly kill a man. Swallowing them is something different. But killing them? Yeah...

It's a reference to "Things I will Not Do as an Evil Overlord".

 

[Irda Ranger]

That's pretty good. Although, they are more whiney than badass (at least by Next Gen).

And that's different than elves how?


As for R&C ...

What's with all the back-story? It seems to me like 90% of this should be in a setting book. Ancient empires? Mercenary companies? I mean really now, what's this doing in a Rulebook? I feel like I'm reading a "no maps" version of the FRCS ...

Dragonborn: So, they're "honorable warriors who keep their word, but are sometimes arrogant and easily offended"? Well, I for one welcome our new cliche overlords.

"Their racial feats involve things like breath weapons and wings." At the moment I am nonplussed by Feats that someone make you grow new bodyparts.

Dwarves: Slaves to giants? The whole race? Throughout the whole world? Or does the PHB explain that DM's should pick one geographic area formerly ruled by Giants, and that's the only place Dwarves can come from?

I think the "Dwarf women don't have beards." is appropriate for race description (whether you agree with it or not, it is descriptive), but all that other stuff? Not so much.

Elves/Eladrin: Yeah, ok. Looks fine.

Halflings: I have to admit, I've always had a problem figuring out where Halflings "fit" in a campaign world. They never had a clear "homeland" that wasn't also clearly where humans would like to be. I'm not sure yet if I like the whole "river folk" thing, but I'm glad that WotC is at least trying to carve out a niche for them.

However, if WotC really wanted to make it clear that Halflings were "shallow water" types (rivers, swamps, intracoastal fens), they should go all out. Instead of differentiating Halflings from Hobbits by saying "They wear shoes." they should say "Their hairless feat are usually bare so that they gain the benefit of their webbed toes while swimming (+2 Swim Checks, +1 Swim Movement)." I'm not suggesting that Halflings should be water-breathing or anything crazy like that, but if Dwarves have adapted to living underground, shouldn't Halflings have adapted to their watery home?

Happy to hear about the stature boost being official now (as has always been the case IMC).

Tieflings: I still can't determine if I like this or not. I'm thinking not. Luckily this is just flavor, and hopefully won't be hard-coded into the rules.

 

[Klaus]

And that's different than elves how?


As for R&C ...

What's with all the back-story? It seems to me like 90% of this should be in a setting book. Ancient empires? Mercenary companies? I mean really now, what's this doing in a Rulebook? I feel like I'm reading a "no maps" version of the FRCS ...

Dragonborn: So, they're "honorable warriors who keep their word, but are sometimes arrogant and easily offended"? Well, I for one welcome our new cliche overlords.

"Their racial feats involve things like breath weapons and wings." At the moment I am nonplussed by Feats that someone make you grow new bodyparts.

Dwarves: Slaves to giants? The whole race? Throughout the whole world? Or does the PHB explain that DM's should pick one geographic area formerly ruled by Giants, and that's the only place Dwarves can come from?

I think the "Dwarf women don't have beards." is appropriate for race description (whether you agree with it or not, it is descriptive), but all that other stuff? Not so much.

Elves/Eladrin: Yeah, ok. Looks fine.

Halflings: I have to admit, I've always had a problem figuring out where Halflings "fit" in a campaign world. They never had a clear "homeland" that wasn't also clearly where humans would like to be. I'm not sure yet if I like the whole "river folk" thing, but I'm glad that WotC is at least trying to carve out a niche for them.

However, if WotC really wanted to make it clear that Halflings were "shallow water" types (rivers, swamps, intracoastal fens), they should go all out. Instead of differentiating Halflings from Hobbits by saying "They wear shoes." they should say "Their hairless feat are usually bare so that they gain the benefit of their webbed toes while swimming (+2 Swim Checks, +1 Swim Movement)." I'm not suggesting that Halflings should be water-breathing or anything crazy like that, but if Dwarves have adapted to living underground, shouldn't Halflings have adapted to their watery home?

Happy to hear about the stature boost being official now (as has always been the case IMC).

Tieflings: I still can't determine if I like this or not. I'm thinking not. Luckily this is just flavor, and hopefully won't be hard-coded into the rules.

Y'know, it occurs to me that the Eladrin have the perfect fluff... for the gnome race. I mean, otherwordly fey who are natural magicians? Anyone? Anyone?

Ferris?

 

[Irda Ranger]

Y'know, it occurs to me that the Eladrin have the perfect fluff... for the gnome race. I mean, otherwordly fey who are natural magicians? Anyone? Anyone?

Ferris?

Eh, yes and no. I can see Gnomes like that, but I also think Eladrin are great as is. So how do you make Gnomes unique? (other than "like that, but not so tall")

I can also see them as Illusionists, and Alchemists, and Squirrel-Druids. Which is the other problem with Gnomes: no one can agree on what they are.

 

[Ahglock]

other than the size ups I'm ok with it.

 

[Mistwell]

Could someone link to where they talk about the racial backgrounds? I seem to have missed it, and your discussion sounds intriguing.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

What is inherently broken with Tieflings and Halflings, etc? Its just backstory, which really does not have much gameplay impact. I had grown kind of partial to the original description for tieflings. If they wanted to create a new race, why not make somthing similar looking and give them a new name? Useful for consistency between versions at the very least.

The thing with tieflings is that, outside a setting with constant contact between more-or-less normal people and the various fiends (as in Planescape, where they originate), they should be very rare. This is a bit problematic if you wish to have numerous tiefling characters in your game, either as PCs or NPCs.

Making them a breed of their own, instead of a pre-3e take of humans with fiendish template (because that's what the 2e tieflings are), helps with this issue, but you can still have tiefling children popping up unexpectedly among normal people: changelings, love affairs with a stranger who was a bit too strange, or ancient, diluted bloodlines combining.

As for the halflings, hobbits make absolutely lousy adventurers. Frodo & co. were very unusual and exceptional people. Having one of the PC races practically defined by their unwillingness to adventure is a constant bother!

WotC's choice of making them opportunistic, family-oriented seminomads, who settle down where they can make an easy living, and wandering in caravans where it's harder, works a lot better for a race that's supposed to produce adventurers, especially skilled rogues!

 

[Klaus]

Eh, yes and no. I can see Gnomes like that, but I also think Eladrin are great as is. So how do you make Gnomes unique? (other than "like that, but not so tall")

I can also see them as Illusionists, and Alchemists, and Squirrel-Druids. Which is the other problem with Gnomes: no one can agree on what they are.

That's the thing, I'd have done away with Eladrin and gave that niche to Gnomes.