Feywild Excerpt: The Satyr. Gender restrictions and actual racial features abound!

679 posts / 0 new
Last post
Obligatory Link

Well, it is mythologically accurate, satyrs are all male.

Still no feats, but least a decent range of racial features, and a combat useable, and useful, racial power.

One wonders how long til someone plays a satyr in rutting season, and whether that would affect their diplomacy checks?

2cp for your thoughts?
A Beginners Primer to CharOp. Archmage's Ascension - The Wizard's Handbook. Let the Hammer Fall: Dwarf Warpriest/Tactical Warpriest/Indomitable Champion, a Defending Leader. Requiem for Dissent: Cleric/Fighter/Paragon of Victory Melee Leader Ko te manu e kai i te miro, nona te ngahere. Ko te manu e kai i te matauranga e, nano te ao katoa. It's the proliferation of people who think the rules are more important than what the rules are meant to accomplish. - Dedekine
Lure of Enchantment is a nice racial power, and it's compatible with any character type.

I'm not sure if the other racial traits are worth anything, though. Pleasant Recovery is unlikely to do anything to extend your workday past the first couple of levels, and in my experience, (save ends) fear effects aren't all that common on monsters. Bluff is a fairly rare class skill, so having it available automatically isn't a bad perk, but then, a lot of the favored classes for Satyrs are the ones that get it already.

Nothing really to get excited about.

Just anotjher race that will be only played because of flavour.
Nothing new or amazing on mechanics, and no feats makes it almost useless compared to other races.


Cha/Dex or Cha/Con is ok.    

cant seem to get the file open in any browser. What are their ability scores and racial?
Oh boy, another Cha/Dex race!

Lure being a base 3 slide is nice for an easy to trigger condition.  Some slide/movement boosters and it could be decent control. 

Without support feats though, these poor guys will just end up relegated to Black guidebook-status for pretty much everything, despite having ideal main and flex stats for quite a few builds.

Bargle wrote:
This is CharOp. We not only assume block-of-tofu monsters, but also block-of-tofu DMs.
 

Zelink wrote:
You're already refluffing, why not refluff to something that doesn't suck?
cant seem to get the file open in any browser. What are their ability scores and racial?


Try the link at the top of the topic.
If they had come out two years ago (when WotC was still in their "ALL RACES HAVE ONE TRAIT" thing for feats . . . you know, feats that assume that eladrin never do anything other than teleport, dragonborn never do anything other than breathe fire, etc.), they might be interesting, since slide boosting can be fun. That said, nowadays? Fully meh. Nothing interesting here. I'm genuinely surprised that they've got DEX/CON as their flex stat instead of INT/CON. I'd totally expect WotC to push them into being Bards about as hard as they push shardminds into being Psions.

Just anotjher race that will be only played because of flavour.
Nothing new or amazing on mechanics, and no feats makes it almost useless compared to other races.


Cha/Dex or Cha/Con is ok.    





wow another Cha/Dex... this entire book is just striker bait...oh well i guess pixie and satyrs are both getting added to my vampire handbook 

Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?

I'm glad they're medium at least. I believe some depictions of Satyrs have them quite short.


Satyr Vampires (Anti-Chupacabra?) won't be able to get much out of Pleasent Recovery.  
Obligatory Link

Well, it is mythologically accurate, satyrs are all male.

Still no feats, but least a decent range of racial features, and a combat useable, and useful, racial power.

One wonders how long til someone plays a satyr in rutting season, and whether that would affect their diplomacy checks?

2cp for your thoughts?



Well, the gender thing gets a houserule, first and foremost.  Mythology be damned.

Racial feats ... meh.  WotC has already released too many racial feats that shouldn't be racial feats, I'd just as soon they not bother than screw it up more.  There are more than enough feats for people to take.

Another entry in 'race I'll allow but won't every play'.


Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.

Well, the gender thing gets a houserule, first and foremost.  Mythology be damned.





may I ask why? I mean not to give you a hard time, but I really want to know what would drive you to need female satyrs, and I assume male Hamadryad.


on a personal level i like that fluff...  

Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?

For the most part at least, they're a flavorful alternative to Changeling and Half-Elf Bards. I'm OK with the Satyr and Pixie as races, if mainly for the fluff.
RIP George! 4-21-11 RIP Abie! 1-2-13
Funny Forum Quotes
[quote author=82733368 post=532127449]
58115148 wrote:
"You notice a large piece of mold clinging to your toothbrush. What do you do?" "I cast Fireball." "I run like hell!
63797881 wrote:
The standard d4 is somewhat (SOMEWHAT) rounded on the top, the older models are even flat. The Lego is shaped in such a way that in an emergency, you can use one as a makeshift surgical knife.
147742801 wrote:
57457938 wrote:
My wife asked me if her pants made her look fat. What do you think I said?
Wife: Do these pants make me look fat? RedSiegfried: I just killed a bunch of orc women and children.
63797881 wrote:
82733368 wrote:
28.) Making a "Drunken Master" style character (Monk or otherwise) does not require my character to be completely shitfaced, no matter what the name (and fun interpretation) implies.
29.) Making a "Drunken Master" style character does not require ME to be completely tanked, no matter how "in-character" I want to be..

Well, the gender thing gets a houserule, first and foremost.  Mythology be damned.





may I ask why? I mean not to give you a hard time, but I really want to know what would drive you to need female satyrs, and I assume male Hamadryad.


on a personal level i like that fluff...  


I could certainly see a hermaphroditic satyr! Wink

-DS


Well, the gender thing gets a houserule, first and foremost.  Mythology be damned.





may I ask why? I mean not to give you a hard time, but I really want to know what would drive you to need female satyrs, and I assume male Hamadryad.


on a personal level i like that fluff...  



Eh, just seems stupid and pointless to me.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Doesn't say anywhere that they can't undergo gender-reassignment surgery. . . er, I mean a magical spell that changes gender. Those have been around since at least ToH.



wow another Cha/Dex... this entire book is just striker bait...oh well i guess pixie and satyrs are both getting added to my vampire handbook 



WotC has forgotten that non-striker classes exist. I guess strikers are easier to develop. This makes me sad, since they're my least favorite role, but oh well.
They seem very... dull, I guess is what I'm looking for.

+Cha/+Dex or +Cha/+Con - hooray.  Whatever, there are so many races that, barring one of those horribly under-represented pairings, "too common ability score pairing" isn't really something that bothers me.

Light of Heart is... not bad?  I mean, it's not great, but it probably compares just fine with the Halfling's racial bonus on saves vs. Fear.

Pleasant Recovery is... I have no idea.  It's just odd.

Bluff is a Class Skill?  So what?  We have had backgrounds for a very, very long time now (and this is a +Cha race... I wonder which classes it'll tend toward?)

Actually, whatever, everything has already been said by other people.  The racial power is pretty much the only thing about this race that at all interests me.  But that's it.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
This race isnt bad by itself, its the lack of feats that makes it bad.

Like Erachima sayd, to make a race feels unique you need let players invest feats into it because:


1- If you make it feels unique and have really relevant advantages without investiment, its too much powerful in comparison with old races.

2- If you make a race thats in the same level as old races and no feats/itens the race becomes underpowered.

Some game designs shouldnt change. Its what defines the entire edition, the racial feats.
Changing this now only makes the entire new designs less balanced, and thats a problem on an edition were balance was the goal, even more with essencials.

   

           
reading that I have to wonder if nymphs are a D&D race. anybody know?
 
"One should not seek to control the force for it is an ally not a slave, rather one should seek the aid of the force in controlling one's own self." --Elias Windrider quoting his father
Show
According to this quiz: http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=62192 I'm a Storyteller.
You're more inclined toward the role playing side of Method Actor 100%
the equation and less interested in numbers or Butt-Kicker 100%
experience points. You're quick to compromise if you Tactician 100%
can help move the story forward, and get bored when Power Gamer 100%
the game slows down for a long planning session. Storyteller 100%
You want to play out a story that moves like it's Specialist 92%
orchestrated by a skilled novelist or film director. Casual Gamer 42%
Satyr feats maybe in the feats section and therefor not displayed with the except for the races section.

The satyr can make a fine leader, Bards or Ardents or defenders Battlemind, Chaladin, even controllers like Binders.
Blackguards don't have exactly ideal stats with the Satyr, though charisma, constitution isn't bad, but Lure of enchantment could be very useful for one. Very odd flavour fit though, at lest until they come out with Lust for a vice. In cities might get confused with tieflings.
With the Saytr's peaceful cheery fluff and features its funny that they make good assassins.
As long as it's not uber-fail like the Shade, I really don't care.
I like the racial power, but as far as everything else, it's a bit on the bland side. The option of Cha/Con is welcome, but do we really need another Dec/Cha race? I'm starting to think Wizards have forgotten how many of those we have... I would've prefered another Cha, Str/Con race myself, but thats if we had to have it be a Cha race at all...
Well, the gender thing gets a houserule, first and foremost.  Mythology be damned.

I shudder to think of what you will do to the Ecology of the Androsphinx / Gynosphinx article.

Doesn't say anywhere that they can't undergo gender-reassignment surgery. . . er, I mean a magical spell that changes gender. Those have been around since at least ToH.



I didn't think that still existed in D&D 4e.... back in high school (17+ years ago) I remember giving a problem player, who wanted to have sex with every female NPC his character saw (I indulged him the first 5 times but then it tarted to get old fast), a belt of gender changing thinking that would curb the problem, it didn't "she" then tried to roll in the hay with the still male PCs, I always wondered what the PC would have done if "she" got pregnant, should have found out
"One should not seek to control the force for it is an ally not a slave, rather one should seek the aid of the force in controlling one's own self." --Elias Windrider quoting his father
Show
According to this quiz: http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=62192 I'm a Storyteller.
You're more inclined toward the role playing side of Method Actor 100%
the equation and less interested in numbers or Butt-Kicker 100%
experience points. You're quick to compromise if you Tactician 100%
can help move the story forward, and get bored when Power Gamer 100%
the game slows down for a long planning session. Storyteller 100%
You want to play out a story that moves like it's Specialist 92%
orchestrated by a skilled novelist or film director. Casual Gamer 42%
I'll bet two s that the new bard build is Cha/Dex and the Satyr is a perfect fit. As for the racial ability bonuses, I don't see a better allotment for the race according to the fluff. Same with the male-only restriction. Racial feats have never been listed in the race description, so I have no idea why there are so many cries of foul. It's very possible that the racial feats are in the feat section.

Overall impression: Not dissapointed.

AD&D is powergaming – powergaming for the DM. And back then, DM stood for "Dire Munchkin."

 

I suppose people are entitled to their uninformed opinions; I just don’t see the point when that opinion won’t be respected. Proper research can be the difference in appearing a fool vs. a respectable dissident. 

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/3.jpg)

Is there a reason I've overlooked that most everyone is assuming there will be no racial feats for the satyr?
Simple. It's an Essentials race. There have been hardly any racial feats since Essentials became the next big thing. Revenants are pretty much the only exception.
Is there a reason I've overlooked that most everyone is assuming there will be no racial feats for the satyr?



Wizards has been moving away from racial feats over the last year, opting for more general purpose feats. None of the races in Heroes of Shadow, except the Revenant, which already had feats, had any feats associated with the race. The Vryloka and Shade had Racial Utility powers instead. If the Satyr had racial Utility powers, they should have been spoiled in this preview (IIRC, at least one of the Shade's Racial Utility powers was shown in the run up to Heroes of Shadow). 
The balance of the game is predicated on the assumption that no race gets anything extraordinary unless they invest feats, PPs, etc. into it. Lack of racial feats hurts this in two ways, first by allowing imbalanced races such as the pixie who get their extraordinary features at no cost, and second by making it impossible to distinguish your race from anyone else.


Salla does have a point about racial feats that shouldn't be racial feats. Especially some of the ones associated with both race and class. (Half-Orc Paladin's Blessed Strength comes to mind. Any good, flavorful reason that should be limited to Half-Orcs? Yeah, I can't think of one, either.)
I actually really like it. The sex (not gender) restriction is completely stupid, but it has even less mechanical impact than Fey Origin does, so it's easy to toss. After that, it has generally useful racial features in Light of Heart and Pleasant Recovery and a good racial power that's useful to almost any character regardless of class or role, so that's fantastic. The race isn't anything too original or innovative, but it's also not anything too crazy or questionable. All in all, I have to call this a major step up from their recent racial design, and I'm actually pretty excited to get to play one at some point.

My only minor nitpicky complaint is that Sly Words is going to be useless to a lot of characters that would already have Bluff as a class skill anyway and to a lot of characters that won't pick up training in Bluff anyway. I wish that it had instead done something like offer the option between adding Bluff to your class skill list and granting a +2 racial bonus to Bluff, sort of like a racially built-in background or something like that.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Why people disagree with gender restriction?
o_O


Do you know how satyrs make sons? Not? Please go to wikipedia.
Well... go to 3ed monster handbook if you wish...

Making a race and kicking all the flavour out of it would be alot less interesting then keeping it making sense. If you want a female satyr... play a nymph, its not the same thing but its the "female" for the satyrs anyway...    

Probably they will make the Hamadryad be the Nymphs that are the satyr "females".

If you remove this, then the race have pretty much no uniqueness, on role-play side. 
                
Why people disagree with gender restriction?

(It's a sex restriction, not a gender restriction.)
Because it's silly. What about a Satyr is ruined by the existence of females of the species? Remember, classic mythology is just a jumping off point. The stupid parts should be discarded. D&D frequently ditches stupid stuff like this. For example, D&D has more than one Minotaur, and some of them are female, and D&D also has more than one Medusa, and some of them are Male.

Well... go to 3ed monster handbook if you wish...

Neither the 3.5 monster manual nor the 4E monster manual makes any mention at all of the race being exclusively male. It's just not interesting enough to include.

Probably they will make the Hamadryad be the Nymphs that are the satyr "females".

And if they do then I'll be removing any sex restrictions on them as well. I see no reason why we couldn't have male Dryads.

If you remove this, then the race have pretty much no uniqueness, on role-play side.

That's ridiculous. And even if that were true, being unique doesn't stop something from being stupid. Satyrs certainly have many other interesting things about them, as evidenced by the fact that the article says many more things about them than "there are only male satyrs" over and over again. Removing that stupid restriction results in an article that's pretty much exactly the same as it is now.

EDIT: Yeah, I just went over the article again. The only sentence that would need to be altered (or simply removed) would be the first sentence of Physical Qualities. None of the rest of the article, not even the Roleplaying a Satyr section, makes any reference to their being exclusively male.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
What makes you want to remove the sex restrictions? It's not like it's sexist. It's just a fluff thing. Lol, satyrs are fluffy.
 And if they do then I'll be removing any gender restrictions on them as well. I see no reason why we couldn't have male Dryads.

You mean sex restrictions right? :D

What makes you want to remove the sex restrictions?

Because I can easily conceptualize a female Satyr character, and there's no good reason that I shouldn't be allowed to play her. The restriction does nothing but inhibit character variety. It's totally useless and actually actively detrimental.

You mean sex restrictions right? :D

You got me. ;)

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
The restriction does nothing but inhibit character variety. It's totally useless and actually actively detrimental.

Welcome to 4th Edition?

=)

Welcome to 4th Edition?

I have no idea what you're talking about because I happen to think that 4E is rather light on the arbitrary roleplaying restrictions, but even if it were more commonplace, bad design decisions do not excuse further bad design decisions.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Its not bad design. o_O

Part of the lore behind Satyrs is how they go after Nymphs...
Its not mythology "junk" its part of the core. Its like a medusa that doesnt turn the enemy to stone.

A female Satyr doesnt even make much sense.

If you wish to play one at your table, and your DM and your friends thinks thats cool, ok no problem.
But as an official rule, they need to do what makes atlast some sense. 
(Yeah i know they are really bad at this, but atlast this time they are right on gender restriction for Satyrs)

Its like if i wish to make a Warforged female and say that it makes no sense that she cant have a baby... Its just not what its supposed to be.
Its possible to imagine how a living construct is so "alive" that i can even have kids, but its not what d&d warforgeds are about.


Call it bad design when its a bad design, like the fact that they stopped making racial feats. 
If you wish to play female versions of Satyr, ok house rule it in your game, but dont come saying thatn its bad design, seriously it makes no sense.       


     

                   
Pretty all right.  Bluff always being a class skill is a nice benefit, and probably how the Shade racial Stealth should have worked.
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
Nice, the +1d8 to each surge spent during short rest should save some surges during those times where you can't take infinite short rests to recharge those Healing/Majestic/Inspiring Words till the whole party is full again. Happens to me a lot more often than I'd like. 
Isn't there a class feature (Bard's Song of Rest?) which maximises dice rolled during short rests, too?

Very nice for the low-level Satyr, though, the feature should probably scale, or it fades into irrelevancy past Heroic.
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.