4E information

[Voss]

Well, granted. Not being drow or warforged *is* a big plus.

They just seem terribly dull to me. And if the background is even similar to their current crap, their racial background begs for Bahamut to be around (and he is part of the generic core pantheon) to justify their existence. Thats a bit too heavy-handedly campaign-specific than I want from core material. Of course, they could rework the background altogether to make them not require a god with DNA-altering eggs.

[Koumei]

I played a Dragonborn once. Wait, twice. On both occasions, the DM said "they're a race that is born, just like everyone else. They are allowed to have personalities and stuff."

With any luck, enough people said that, causing WotC to just make them their own race and not have Bahamut stick his nose in things.

And really, in other campaigns you can just sub in a draconic god. Hell, even Iron Kingdoms could have the Dragonborn of (the name of that evil dragon who rules the land that makes no sense), that spread Dragonblight everywhere.

[Voss]

Uh, Toruk? I suppose you could, but everybody in the Iron Kingdoms is fairly down with the 'Dragons are innately Evil (with the big E) and downright unnatural' line of thought. Outside the Scharde islands and *maybe* Five Fingers, kill on sight, or even suspicion, would be the order of the day.


But sure, you can adjust the core fluff. No objection to that. I'd just rather not be saddled with it in first place. Partly because it avoids the arguments that spring up with players who feel entitled to play anything that shows up in the PH, even if it doesn't fit in the campaign world. An example list of Gods is about as far as I want campaign flavor sneaking into the core rules. Well, and the <proper name> spells. Those are easily ignored, especially with the SRD route.

Of course, part of the problem with the Dragonborn is they are currently a template that goes over another race's abilities, so they don't stand alone too well.

[Koumei]

Worse still, it's only a half-template. Why they ever did something that annoying I'll never know.

[Voss]

Apparently so you can make a wizard with a 22 Con, a couple lame dragon-related abilities, and some so-so abilities at higher levels. 30' Blindsense at level 15 and full flight at level 12 (30', average maneuverability) aren't exactly stellar at those levels. Yay, I want abilities available to a 5th level wizard!

The flight has exceptionally poor wording, to boot. Technically, you could plop a dragonborn with flight on a flying mount and make a dive attack, and add yet another multiplier to a spirited charge lance attack.

[Username17]

The Dragon Born are stupid. We already have classic D&D reptillian races. The Lizardfolk, the Kobolds, the Ophidians, those fuckers from Land of the Lost. We seriously don't need people to make up new races that have no D&D history to use as a major Core Race when D&D is already completely fucking clogged with races.

There are over a thousand sapient races. Even with a large and populous world, the world has an average total nation of almost any race of just a few thousand. Seriously, when you defeat an army in battle you have probably also committed genocide on a race. We don't need more.

Bloody hell. Why write new races of furries when we already have Quaggoth and Gnolls? Why write new races of fairy fuckers when we already have Epimeliads and Nixies?

The one thing that D&D seriously does not need is more actual races of people. That's painfully retarded.

-Username17

[virgil]

But that's the thing, Frank, the Dragonborn are 'different' from all that. I remember you mentioning a cowriter for Shadowrun's Street Magic, where he made a different set of rules for the bug spirits, not using the task spirits for the job because he wanted them to be 'different'.

You can very likely bet that's going through the developers' minds as well, the need for their creative fingers to be untainted with the past. They're not beholden to refer to past exploits/canon and stand in the shadows of their predecessors. Now's the chance to stamp their name on the game, confident in the knowledge that they don't have to share the spotlight.

[MrWaeseL]

I think the designer's intent is that you only use some of the races as major players in the campaign world.

[CalibronXXX]

1195983144[/unixtime]]But that's the thing, Frank, the Dragonborn are 'different' from all that. I remember you mentioning a cowriter for Shadowrun's Street Magic, where he made a different set of rules for the bug spirits, not using the task spirits for the job because he wanted them to be 'different'.

I believe that was blood spirits.

[Leress]

1195999993[/unixtime]]

1195983144[/unixtime]]But that's the thing, Frank, the Dragonborn are 'different' from all that. I remember you mentioning a cowriter for Shadowrun's Street Magic, where he made a different set of rules for the bug spirits, not using the task spirits for the job because he wanted them to be 'different'.

I believe that was blood spirits.

Yes , it was

[Voss]

1195994978[/unixtime]]I think the designer's intent is that you only use some of the races as major players in the campaign world.

Thats disturbingly positive of you.

But... designer intent? Thats a festering load of rotten shit. Not only is it stupidly restrictive and requires every DM to be a fucking telepath, its also completely irrelevant. The only intent that matters is any way at all is the intent of the folks sitting around any given table.

Plus, given the approach WotC has taken over the last few years, their 'intent' is that you use everything. Eberron is the best example of this- the whole point of the damn setting was to include everything, no matter how ill-fitting or malformed it was. So unless the production philosophy has changed, I really doubt its their intent. After all, if people start thinking they can pick and choose what to use in a given, book, they might actually start thinking about picking and choosing what books they actually buy. And from a sales point of view, they definitely don't want to encourage that sort of thinking.

Plus, of course, the designer's attitude is that 4E is the epitome of cool, and you'll want to use everything. Check their posts and blogs. They seem contractually obligated to use the word 'cool' at least once in every post discussing 4E. You can't miss out on the coolness, can you?

[Username17]

Actually I've made very similar statements about both Bloodzilla and the special Worker spirits (I don't think that Roaches should have workers - they should have Earth spirits or something).

Seriously, the thing where people are supposed to use everything and then every writer is supposed to add a whole campaign worth of new content is simly not even sustainable. It gets into this whole Player vs. DMs mentality where everyone brings a codex to the table and pulls out secret rules.

"Hey! I'm using the berserk charge feat from Codex: Serpent Kingdoms. That one doubles my poison damage as well."
Fuck.

-Username17

[Bigode]

Just to be clear: I always hated the sentient race overflow - my setting has some thirty races, and no random species explosion. Also, I find it ridiculous to shove flavor in a core book of a game supposed to support multiple settings (Even the god list feels gratuitous to me - what's the problem with just mechanical stuff like domains?).

But I did like the original concept of the dragonborn (which should've been a proper template, of course): when Tiamat essentially does all her fighting through artificial races, her enemy made a voluntary oath into a new people; pretty good as a new fantasy race idea, IMO.

Edit: ah, I'm not necessarily saying they'd be my favorite inclusion in the last spot, but another of my my favorites (mainly goblinoids) could've been included at the expense of the eladrin.

[CalibronXXX]

I've got, let's see, between 10 and 22 distinct intelligent species in my main campaign setting depending on whether you see stuff like goblins and hobgoblins or humans and illumians as distinct races or just branches of the same species.

Edit: and yeah gobos or hobos would have been one of the best picks for the last spot.

[Bigode]

Same here: you'd count differently if you called illumians "humans" too; thirty-few would be the highest number.

[Voss]

1196020627[/unixtime]]I've got, let's see, between 10 and 22 distinct intelligent species in my main campaign setting depending on whether you see stuff like goblins and hobgoblins or humans and illumians as distinct races or just branches of the same species.

Edit: and yeah gobos or hobos would have been one of the best picks for the last spot.

Heh. I've got...
humans, elves, dwarves, goblins, gnolls, dragons (technically, there aren't exactly a lot of them running about), various demony subraces (when someone summons them), ogres, giants, and maybe a couple of the more interesting aberrations and Things Men Weren't Meant to Know the What Of. Oh, and assorted Fey, but like the giants and demons, its more of a broad category with quirky subgroups/individuals.

So maybe 12, depending on how you want to count them. I could theoretically use tieflings, given the ties that several cities have to demons, but I'm torn between my dislike of half-races and fun with demonic corruption. Granted, what I'm working on is heavily human centric, but I just don't see the point of the tiny flavor differences between Savage Race #1, Savage Race #2, Savage Race #3 and so on and so forth. Goblins get to be a fairly malevolent slave race, and gnolls are savage marauders... and I'm done.

Of course, there are a lot of savage human tribes, and the relatively cultured human Empires are fairly serious conquerors (or actually under the heel of the others). Its fun with the Dark Ages.

Its a problem with design philosphy, I think. Even now, theres the 'Here's Monster Manual N, have some boring repetition of the same tired things, we think the minor differences will fool you.'

[Username17]

Before my Lithuanian campaign went planar, the group had run into:

• Humans
  
• Halflings
  
• Gnolls
  
• Gnomes
  
• Centaurs
  
• Elves
  
• Dwarves
  
• Hobgoblins
  
• Goblins
  
• Dragons
  
• Orcs
  
• Bugbears
  
• Sahuagin
  
• Troglodytes
  
• Undead (Vampires, Skeletals, Wraiths)
  
• Unicorns
  
• Ogres

After it went planar it went all kinds of crazy. Mind Flayers, Beholders, Elementals, Tritons, Djinn, Slaad, Xorn, Merfolk, and of course: huge piles of Demons and Devils. And that's not particularly unusual I don't think. Each of the races had a place, and a breeding population. None of them were just one-offs until they started messing with planar gateways.

---

In my Karakhanids game, the players had direct interactions with (again, before plane hopping):

• Orcs
  
• Humans
  
• Kobolds
  
• Goblins
  
• Hobgoblins
  
• Lycanthropes (specifically were-rats)
  
• Ogres
  
• Medusa
  
• Hags
  
• Gnolls
  
• Lizardfolk
  
• Bugbears
  
• Giants
  
• Aboleth
  
• Dragons

And of course, when plane hopping enemies pop out it got all kinds of crazy with Nerra, Demons, Yugoloth, Nightmares, and so on.

----

In my Italian game, I used:

• Humans
  
• Dryads
  
• Orcs
  
• Dwarves
  
• Elves
  
• Halflings
  
• Hobgoblins
  
• Sahuagin
  
• Kobolds
  
• Mind Flayers
  
• Ogres
  
• Minotaurs
  
• Goblins
  
• Giants
  
• Medusa
  
• Bugbears

That game never went planar with the exception of some summoned monsters, which included an Osyluth.

-Username17

[CalibronXXX]

I've got a goblinoid empire in the east. An evil decadent Elven empire just to the west of them near the center of the continent, a swamp where the lizardfolk live jammed in between the northen halves of the two empires. A great inland sea to the west of the Elven empire. An expansive plain to the west of the sea where Orc, Gnoll, Human, Halfling, and Ogre barbarian tribes dwell(Orcs, Ogres, Halflings, and Humans all share a common ancestor in my world). The main human city is south of the inland sea an a big island in the center of where three rivers meet; the city is secretly ruled by various competing cabals of augmented humanoids like Elans, Illumians, Karsites, and such. Other human cities have sprouted up along the rivers and water courses west of the sea, ostensibly under the rule of the main human city, but mostly autonomous. Dwarves all live underground and have the stats of Deep Dwarves. Gnome's used to have a world spanning empire far superior to anything seen in the present, but it collapsed 3,000 years ago, and PHB Gnomes are almost extinct; forest gnomes just live in the forests and don't do much; also forest gnomes are tiny sized in my world. Sahauguin rule the seas unopposed(there are no aquatic elves) and everyone's so afraid of them that no one goes near the sea shore. Skarn(from Magic of Incarnum) have a rome level technologically advanced society in the western mountains and foothills there of. Civilized Halflings and Rilkans(also MoA) live among the human lands.

Hill Giants live in the foothills of mountains, Stone Giants live in the mountains, Cloud Giants live on solid cloud formations ala RoW, and the Storm Giants were actually killed off by the Sahauguin

There is a Planar Hub on an island far north of the main continent. Mostly for the purpose of injecting oddball characters into the setting with a minimum of work.

Also there might be mindflayers or something underground too, I haven't really thought about it.

[Iaimeki]

1195941166[/unixtime]]
The MYSTARY race revealed: Dragonborn.

Couldn't they have chosen something less... stupid? I mean, half-dragon would count&mdash;it's not like dragons are so inherently awesome that a half-dragon couldn't be playable at level 1 if you wrote mechanics that didn't suck.

[Voss]

They could have. But didn't. I'm rather curious about their criteria on this particular choice. The race list was weird enough:
Human
Dwarf (gotta have the stunties. They're stoic! And probably Scottish)
Halfling (apparently the 3e generic-as-muck elf/human crossbreed midget)
Elf (the woodsy kind)
Eladrin (as a vaguely extraplanar High Elf type)
Half-elf (I'm not 100% sure they're in, actually)
Tiefling (Grandmama was all about the demon cock)
Dragonborn (? Hopefully re-envisioned. Only so much you can do with 'I called on Bahamut for aid and he stuffed me in an egg-shaped gene-splicer')

They certainly have a thing for races with pointy bits, whether ears or horns.

As much as I dislike the 'my personal preferences mean WotC made a good/bad decision' arguments, I'm really only going to use 3 of those for a 4E campaign, if I run one. Well, maybe 4. I'm just not sure about the demon cock.

[Crissa]

I just see... Human Human Human Human, Elf Elf Elf Elf, Ogre.

Who cares.

-Crissa

[Tokorona]

.. it's really not that simple Crissa. Anyway, in the latest article, Collins (urg) came up with these [brilliant] ideas:

First Reaction
Tier: Paragon
Benefit: If you are surprised, you may spend an action point to act during the surprise round.

Golden Wyvern Adept
Tier: Paragon
Benefit: You can omit a number of squares from the effects of any of your area or close wizard powers. This number can’t exceed your Wisdom modifier.

^ Tiered feats. Jo... I just want to cry.

Once that decision was made, a lot of the most exciting feats suddenly looked more like class-based powers. Spring Attack, for example, now looked an awful lot like a power for the rogue or melee-based ranger, rather than a feat that just anybody could pick up. Manyshot, Whirlwind Attack, Two-Weapon Fighting, Shot on the Run—these were specialized powers appropriate for particular character archetypes.

I realize that I may be alonme, but... for crying out loud, could you stop kicking generalist types until they cry?

[Koumei]

I wish dwarfs would get the boot.

As for halflings, seeing as we're stuck with them, I prefer the "midget elves" idea instead of the "ugly little hairy people".

I mean, sure, whenever someone expresses a big interest in halflings as they are, I wonder if they are... fond of children, however if they are, then whatever, it's a game with made-up things that look like kids but think like (annoying) adults, and they probably can't help being attracted to kids, I guess. The alternative, however, for those who like the Tolkien hobbits, is far more disturbing. Because they like short hairy people.

I know that, in theory, libido doesn't actually have to play a part in it. But for all of the halfling-fans I've met before IRL, it did, so... yeah. Until proven otherwise. Dwarf fans just like being loud and obnoxious, orc fans pretty much the same, but elves and halflings, it seems to be driven by attraction to them. Probably linked to why I like human characters, advanced-HD (Medium) mephits and various Outsiders.

[CalibronXXX]

Why the hatred of dwarves? Is it jealousy? 'Cause I can't think of any other reason to hate them.

[Voss]

Oh dear gods. The entire article is definitely worth posting.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dn ... [br][quote] One of the most useful and popular additions to Dungeons & Dragons that appeared in 3rd Edition was the concept of feats: special bonuses, benefits, or actions that characters could acquire outside their normal class features.

Throughout the lifespan of the edition (and even between the covers of the Player’s Handbook), the potency, utility, effect, and coolness of feats have varied widely.

Some feats offer utilitarian but unexciting benefits, while others grant characters entire new options in combat. It’s hard to argue with the utility of Alertness, Improved Initiative, Weapon Focus, or even (for 1st-level wizards and sorcerers) Toughness, but that same feat slot could purchase Power Attack, Rapid Shot, Spring Attack, or Empower Spell.

When we started talking about feats for 4th Edition, we already knew that we wanted the bulk of a character’s powers—the exciting actions he performs in combat—to come from his class. Even character classes that hadn’t traditionally offered class-based power options (that is, non-spellcasters) would now acquire these special attacks, defenses, maneuvers, and so on directly from their class’s list of such abilities.

Once that decision was made, a lot of the most exciting feats suddenly looked more like class-based powers. Spring Attack, for example, now looked an awful lot like a power for the rogue or melee-based ranger, rather than a feat that just anybody could pick up. Manyshot, Whirlwind Attack, Two-Weapon Fighting, Shot on the Run—these were specialized powers appropriate for particular character archetypes.

So what design space did that leave for feats? After some discussion, we came to see feats as the “fine-tuning” that your character performed after defining his role (via your choice of class) and his build (via your power selections). Feats would let characters further specialize in their roles and builds, as well as to differentiate themselves from other characters with similar power selections.

They would accomplish these goals with simple, basic functionality, rather than complicated conditional benefits or entirely new powers that you’d have to track alongside those of your class.

Here are four examples of feats taken from the latest draft of the 4th Edition Player’s Handbook. The first two demonstrate the minor evolution of familiar favorites from 3rd Edition, while the other two show off some new tricks. As always, nothing’s final until you read it in the printed book, so take these with a grain of salt.

Toughness
Tier: Heroic
Benefit: When you take this feat, you gain additional hit points equal to your level + 3. You also gain 1 additional hit point every time you gain a level.

Alertness
Tier: Heroic
Benefit: You don’t grant enemies combat advantage in surprise rounds.
You also gain a +2 feat bonus to Perception checks.

First Reaction
Tier: Paragon
Benefit: If you are surprised, you may spend an action point to act during the surprise round.

Golden Wyvern Adept
Tier: Paragon
Benefit: You can omit a number of squares from the effects of any of your area or close wizard powers. This number can’t exceed your Wisdom modifier.[/quote]

utility of Alertness, Improved Initiative, Weapon Focus, or even (for 1st-level wizards and sorcerers) Toughness

Seriously? Out of those four, only improved initiative is even vaguely good. Suddenly their design philosophy is scaring the shit out of me again. And to make it worse, he thinks Empower spell is a good option!


A couple things become apparent-

Classes are straightjackets again. You can only spring attack if you're the 'right' class. Feats are now... well, based on the examples, fairly trivial bonuses that don't mean much.

surprise is a 'combat advantage', whatever that means mechanically. Maybe = flat-footed. maybe not.

We can fix toughness by combining it with improved toughness. 2 shitty feats= 1 good feat!

action points are in the core rules. Hurrah. Now I want to spit.

typed bonuses are staying, so layers of stacked bonuses probably are too. With new types, like feat bonuses. Joy of joys.

Wizards may have to care about wisdom, at least for some things/specialties/archetypes/(?). MAD can be bad, unless absolutely everyone has to labor underneath its load. And even then... But still. This doesn't necessarily have to be bad. I'd much rather the game rewarded multiple good scores rather than one uber score.

Tiers. Uh, OK, didn't know these would have a mechanical meaning. I wouldn't necessarily care, since they aren't all that different from level or BAB requirements, except... Somehow they have to be balanced for 10 level blocks. And these don't look like they are. Toughness may be just as good (however crappy it may be overall) at 9th level as it is at 1st, but every single heroic feat has to work that way. But are you really going to care about not burning the fighter in your AoE spell at 20th level? I suspect not.

Although.. the overall subtext of the article seems to be that feat problems are solved if we make them all suck. The good ones will be eaten by classes.