Will there be more races?

24 posts / 0 new
Last post
I'm really sorry if this has already been covered, but searching for 'races' gave me 107 pages of threads that seemed mostly concerned with racIALS rather than the races themselves and I didn't feel like sifting through them all.

(If there's an FAQ this should be on and somebody could show me the link I'd be most grateful).

My group is pretty upset that we only seem to have the standard 4 fantasy races (IE, the species that your default heroes in a fantasy story always tend to belong to) to pick from.  (As if every fantasy adventure ever has to be closely modelled on LotR).

We're generally the type of guys who like to play as monsters or monstrous looking creatures and generally want to play as evil or as good but fear/hated because of their race's history/stereotypes/appearance).  (Only 1 of us even considered playing for the alliance back in our WoW days and he was a bit of a dick anyway).

As it stands we have; Humans, squat humans, tiny humans and  frail-looking humans with pointy ears.  (And why would somebody want to play a human in a fantasy when you get to do that every day in real life?)
There will definitely be more races. It's just that that isn't a huge focus right now, and they went with the "Classic Four" because those are the races that are most common and most easily recognized, even by non-gaming-geeks. We'll get our Dragonborn and Shardminds and whatnot, I'm sure. But that's just not the primary goal, since we're still in early playtest phases.
IMHO the game needs to have gnomes and bards at launch. Smile 
They mentioned more races should be in the next packet or 2.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

IMHO the game needs to have gnomes and bards at launch.  



My gnome thief was reincarnated into a dwarven cleric (trickster, of course).  Garl Glittergold has designs on spreading the faith beyond just the gnomish faithful.

IMHO the game needs to have gnomes and bards at launch. Smile


It has gnomes.  They're called halflings.

As for Bards, have you checked out the 'Backgrounds & Skills' section of the package?  Basically your background will equip you with your characters skills, experience and training.  I think this is a great way of addressing some of the complaints of D&D4 I've read about (I'm actually new to D&D in general so I haven't really played enough to have experienced the problems people have voiced) as it encourages people to create a back story (as short as you like, if you're not into that kind of thing) and, presumably, a reason your PC to have some goals.

Among the sample backgrounds are 'Jester' and 'Minstrel'.  A bard, (being a poet, story teller and, sometimes, occasional a singer) could easily combine elements of these.

Otherwise it only makes sense to have a bard as a secondary profession upon any martial training (or you can consider your combative abilities secondary to your profession, which makes even more sense, I guess).  It might make some sense for a bard to accompany a band of heroes on their adventures in order to compose an epic saga of the events later on (a minstrel can similarly write songs of such sagas) but they'd need to defend themselves.

But like I said; I'm new to D&D (I'd consider myself a novice; I've played 3.5 for 2 short sessions, we all had pre-made characters in a pre-made adventure and I've DM'd 2 sessions under the D&D Next rules with an adventure I composed).
@Marduk; Bard is more than a series of backgrounds and feats; it is a full class that we WILL get. 

As for Gnomes, the're supposed to be in the next "full" packet, alongside Half-elves, Half-orcs, and Multiclassing.

Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe


It has gnomes.  They're called halflings.

As for Bards, have you checked out the 'Backgrounds & Skills' section of the package?  Basically your background will equip you with your characters skills, experience and training.  I think this is a great way of addressing some of the complaints of D&D4 I've read about (I'm actually new to D&D in general so I haven't really played enough to have experienced the problems people have voiced) as it encourages people to create a back story (as short as you like, if you're not into that kind of thing) and, presumably, a reason your PC to have some goals.

Among the sample backgrounds are 'Jester' and 'Minstrel'.  A bard, (being a poet, story teller and, sometimes, occasional a singer) could easily combine elements of these.



That's not what a Gnome is and that's not what a Bard is.

Bards were the ugly stepsons of many a DnD edition.
They were rogues, they were spellcasters, they did their own (albeit somewhat limited thing).
I've heard many tales of people playing wonderful bards (Spoony, anyone?), but pure mechanicswise it was always something of a clusterfrag.

I don't see why bards HAVE to be a seperate class.

Why not "just" make them either multiclass or be a rogue that learned to dabble a bit in magic and took the right set of tools for the bard : Sage/Ministrel/Jester background, Arcane dabbler feat & Treasure hunter rogue scheme.
While he's a little light on the caster side of things, either talk to the GM about multiclassing or embrace the more roguelike things, while doing almost everything else a bard did.

It has gnomes.  They're called halflings.

As for Bards, have you checked out the 'Backgrounds & Skills' section of the package?  Basically your background will equip you with your characters skills, experience and training.  I think this is a great way of addressing some of the complaints of D&D4 I've read about (I'm actually new to D&D in general so I haven't really played enough to have experienced the problems people have voiced) as it encourages people to create a back story (as short as you like, if you're not into that kind of thing) and, presumably, a reason your PC to have some goals.

Among the sample backgrounds are 'Jester' and 'Minstrel'.  A bard, (being a poet, story teller and, sometimes, occasional a singer) could easily combine elements of these.



That's not what a Gnome is and that's not what a Bard is.



Might not be what a gnome is but DEFINITELY what a bard is, sweety.

It has gnomes.  They're called halflings.

As for Bards, have you checked out the 'Backgrounds & Skills' section of the package?  Basically your background will equip you with your characters skills, experience and training.  I think this is a great way of addressing some of the complaints of D&D4 I've read about (I'm actually new to D&D in general so I haven't really played enough to have experienced the problems people have voiced) as it encourages people to create a back story (as short as you like, if you're not into that kind of thing) and, presumably, a reason your PC to have some goals.

Among the sample backgrounds are 'Jester' and 'Minstrel'.  A bard, (being a poet, story teller and, sometimes, occasional a singer) could easily combine elements of these.



That's not what a Gnome is and that's not what a Bard is.



Might not be what a gnome is but DEFINITELY what a bard is, sweety.



Of course a bard is a performing artist of some kind. I meant that in D&D a Bard is more than just that, it's a class that has some skill in magic, some skill in thievery, and the unique power to work magic through performance. It's not just an archetype, it's a specific thing.

And yes, you might be able to make one using multiclassing and a bunch of feats and skills, but you shouldn't have to build your class out of bits and pieces of other classes.

The first line bothered me a lot more, though. The only thing Gnomes and Halflings have in common in D&D is their height.

It has gnomes.  They're called halflings.

As for Bards, have you checked out the 'Backgrounds & Skills' section of the package? blah blah blah blah blah...

Among the sample backgrounds are 'Jester' and 'Minstrel'.  A bard, (being a poet, story teller and, sometimes, occasional a singer) could easily combine elements of these.



That's not what a Gnome is and that's not what a Bard is.



Might not be what a gnome is but DEFINITELY what a bard is, sweety.



Of course a bard is a performing artist of some kind. I meant that in D&D a Bard is more than just that, it's a class that has some skill in magic, some skill in thievery, and the unique power to work magic through performance. It's not just an archetype, it's a specific thing.

And yes, you might be able to make one using multiclassing and a bunch of feats and skills, but you shouldn't have to build your class out of bits and pieces of other classes.


So you'd rather some premade, though specific, cookie cutter character than one you've completely customised?  (It's for this reason I was annoyed when they brought in paladins; Clerics already had the option of bring a knight (choosing the right deity and background could give you armour and a steed).  Between paladins and druids it feels as if I'm playing WoW again...)

To make a bard;
Ingredients:
rogue,
jester/minstrel background
'arcane dabbler' and any other suitable feats from specialities

Mix ingredients to your tastes; bake until ready.


voilà!


Alternatively; make a wizard and take cunning and rogue like feats and background skills.

The first line bothered me a lot more, though. The only thing Gnomes and Halflings have in common in D&D is their height.

Well, like I keep saying; I'm new to D&D.  The way it was explained to me was that a halfling was the D&D equivilent of a hobbit or gnome.  It certainly seems to meet all the requirements.  But does it really need more than 1 small race?  I flicked through the races sections for older versions and it seemed to me there was something of an overload of races... It seems a trifle much having gnomes AND halflings.
No, there will be no more races beyond the Core Four. In fact, Basic D&D will further constrain the race choices to Normal People and Short People (each available in only one color). Neither will have actual attribute modifications or racial abilities, but you will be required to speak in a high-pitched voice when roleplaying the latter.
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
No, there will be no more races beyond the Core Four. In fact, Basic D&D will further constrain the race choices to Normal People and Short People (each available in only one color). Neither will have actual attribute modifications or racial abilities, but you will be required to speak in a high-pitched voice when roleplaying the latter.



It seems, MardukBathory, that you're expecting something very different from D&D. D&D is a class-based game, not one where you're expected to build your character from the ground up. It does offer a lot of customization, and that comes in the form of multi-classing and feats and options within your class too, so it is not like WOW and I wouldn't call the classes "cookie-cutter." But most D&D players do expect a decent number of classes to start with, not just four that can be bent into any shape you want.

You want to make a Cleric that does the same thing as a Paladin? Great, you can do that, just like you can make a Fighter/Druid into a Ranger, or a Sorcerer/Rogue into a Bard. If you want to go that route then do it. However, many players would rather start with pre-made classes. Every edition has made a point to offer many player options.

As for Halflings and Gnomes:


  • Gnomes live in cities underground and in the wilds, Halflings live in peaceful communities above ground

  • Halflings are often nomadic, Gnomes build big cities and stick to them

  • Halflings are more often traders and merchants and don't produce much outside of farming, while Gnomes are expert artisans and thrive on industry

  • Gnomes live about twice as long as Halflings

  • Gnomes are related to fey, Halflings are not

  • Gnomes are known to be hardier, while Halflings are more agile

  • Gnomes are often skilled in magic while many Halflings find it absurd

  • Gnomes have low-light vision, Halflings only see as well as Humans.



So they have about as much in common as Elves and Humans. What you're saying makes about as much sense as removing Halflings and saying you should just play a short Human. That's how it is in D&D, which you're new to, so keep in mind that everything in the game won't be portrayed like it is in other media.

As for Bards, I agree that they are already represented finely enough. I love the concept, but I realised that making it a separate class was a bad idea when I saw 4e bards use wands as an instrument. Bard is a guy with high Cha and Perform skill(s), that`s the definition. Other mechanics should be separate. What I`d like to see added as Bard support is a couple of "Magical music" feats which have Minstrel background or even Perform (something musical) skill. A separate class? Bad idea.

It seems, MardukBathory, that you're expecting something very different from D&D. D&D is a class-based game, not one where you're expected to build your character from the ground up. It does offer a lot of customization, and that comes in the form of multi-classing and feats and options within your class too, so it is not like WOW and I wouldn't call the classes "cookie-cutter." But most D&D players do expect a decent number of classes to start with, not just four that can be bent into any shape you want.

You want to make a Cleric that does the same thing as a Paladin? Great, you can do that, just like you can make a Fighter/Druid into a Ranger, or a Sorcerer/Rogue into a Bard. If you want to go that route then do it. However, many players would rather start with pre-made classes. Every edition has made a point to offer many player options.

As for Halflings and Gnomes:


  • Gnomes live in cities underground and in the wilds, Halflings live in peaceful communities above ground

  • Halflings are often nomadic, Gnomes build big cities and stick to them

  • Halflings are more often traders and merchants and don't produce much outside of farming, while Gnomes are expert artisans and thrive on industry

  • Gnomes live about twice as long as Halflings

  • Gnomes are related to fey, Halflings are not

  • Gnomes are known to be hardier, while Halflings are more agile

  • Gnomes are often skilled in magic while many Halflings find it absurd

  • Gnomes have low-light vision, Halflings only see as well as Humans.



So they have about as much in common as Elves and Humans. What you're saying makes about as much sense as removing Halflings and saying you should just play a short Human. That's how it is in D&D, which you're new to, so keep in mind that everything in the game won't be portrayed like it is in other media.



Be patient with him - he's Horde. 
"When Friday comes, we'll all call rats fish." D&D Outsider
It seems, MardukBathory, that you're expecting something very different from D&D. D&D is a class-based game, not one where you're expected to build your character from the ground up. It does offer a lot of customization, and that comes in the form of multi-classing and feats and options within your class too, so it is not like WOW and I wouldn't call the classes "cookie-cutter." But most D&D players do expect a decent number of classes to start with, not just four that can be bent into any shape you want.

You want to make a Cleric that does the same thing as a Paladin? Great, you can do that, just like you can make a Fighter/Druid into a Ranger, or a Sorcerer/Rogue into a Bard. If you want to go that route then do it. However, many players would rather start with pre-made classes. Every edition has made a point to offer many player options.

I'm just going on what it said in the package prior to this one, where it gave instructions for making a fighter who specialises in ranged weaponry and similar customisations.  I was impressed; it meant you could make great combinations for an original character you just couldn't make with a computerised RPG. 

Then they went and gave us the ranger, paladin and druid.

As for Halflings and Gnomes:


  • Gnomes live in cities underground and in the wilds, Halflings live in peaceful communities above ground

  • Halflings are often nomadic, Gnomes build big cities and stick to them

  • Halflings are more often traders and merchants and don't produce much outside of farming, while Gnomes are expert artisans and thrive on industry

  • Gnomes live about twice as long as Halflings

  • Gnomes are related to fey, Halflings are not

  • Gnomes are known to be hardier, while Halflings are more agile

  • Gnomes are often skilled in magic while many Halflings find it absurd

  • Gnomes have low-light vision, Halflings only see as well as Humans.



So they have about as much in common as Elves and Humans. What you're saying makes about as much sense as removing Halflings and saying you should just play a short Human. That's how it is in D&D, which you're new to, so keep in mind that everything in the game won't be portrayed like it is in other media.

OK, I'm convinced.  Gnomes should be playable instead of halflings.
Be patient with him - he's Horde. 

They wouldn't let me play alliance because I was straight



Be patient with him - he's Horde. 



I struggle with the same handicap.  It's hard to imagine gnomes as a playable race when you've spent 8 years thinking of them as food.*

*Not with much nutritional value, mind you.

"Therefore, you are the crapper, I'm merely the vessel through which you crap." -- akaddk
The problem with forcing someone to build their character's CLASS with feats and backgrounds and a different class is that if the person wanted to be, say, an Archer Fighter, they could do that and still spend their feats and backgrounds elsewhere.  While if they want to be an Archer Bard, their feats and background choices are locked in. 

Bard is a broad concept that incorporates a number of different elements that cannot simply be distilled down to Rogue+Wizard and a perform-skill background (Jester, Minstrel, etc).  In myth, Bards are magicians, tricksters, shapeshifters, masters of magical music, warrior-poets, healers, seers, druids, teachers, storytellers, heroes, fatespinners, and/or all-around lucky-dastards. 

And now we have a lot more concepts layered into the character archetype.  It's JUST as big an archetype as Fighter, Rogue, or Druid is.  Perhaps most importantly from a D&D perspective, there are too many Bard characters to transfer over from previous editions to leave out the class.  Warden, Shaman, and perhaps even Warlord are able to fit within other classes (we'll see on the Warlord bit), but Bard is too different, too unique, too important, and too etched out in the game's history.


Bard is JUST as deserving of unique mechanics and abilities as any other class, and you DO NOT get to say that we don't get our Bard class. 


Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe

I have to admit, I kind of hope Bard makes it in.  If it doesn't, I'm relatively happy playing a rogue/wizard with Perform skill.  A good DM can fill in the rest.

And I hope half-orc makes the cut, too.

That said, I also hope (somewhat contradicting the above) that AD&D next doesn't keep adding classes and races and feats ad nauseam.  I haven't played the last couple editions of D&D, but I just played around with the Character Builder Tool on wizards.com and was VERY turned off by the ridiculous number of choices, even for a 1st level character.  

I realize others on this forum disagree with me...and that's cool; we can each enjoy different types of games...but I don't like the games with endless customization baked into the mechanics.  My feeling is that it shifts the emphasis from the storytelling to min/maxing.
"Therefore, you are the crapper, I'm merely the vessel through which you crap." -- akaddk
I realize others on this forum disagree with me...and that's cool; we can each enjoy different types of games...but I don't like the games with endless customization baked into the mechanics.  My feeling is that it shifts the emphasis from the storytelling to min/maxing.

TBH everybody seems to agree with you.  But I just don't get it.

If you have a limited number of classes with a number avenues to explore in its customisation then surely this only aids the story telling.  You've taken time and deliberation to make that character your own; only you (or, rather, your PC) can account for why he or she has this feat or that skill or some unusual trait.

The wider the range of fixed classes the less those feats and skills matter; first we have a small number of classes and you have to work to make her or him the character you want, then the number of classes we have is doubled, you simply pick one that just comes closer to what you had in mind straight out of the box and and feats/skills/traits become a simple bonus.  I just don't see how the latter really adds to your character's personal narrative in any way that what couldn't be done better if you were building a base class to suit your needs.

That said, I also hope ... that AD&D next doesn't keep adding classes and races and feats ad nauseam

and in contrast to anything i may have said in previous posts; I hope for the same thing.  I think the races we have to to choose from should be as diverse as possible, but that doesn't mean we should have 1 or 2 dozen on offer.  I'd much rather see a tight number but each one as distinctive from any other as possible.  (This is why, for example, I'd like gnomes but not halflings).

Well in our group I play a " 1/2 Orc " figher/barbarian.



When I built her there was no ( an still isnt ) the 1/2 Orc race or Barbarians.



So I just hacked it together using the fighter and ugly big human route.  I would really like to see them improve the packets a bit more. While we are using the play test packets just for giggles ( we play every 2 months or so ). It has been interesting seeing the new packet progress. 


I have been looking at rebuilding her to the current packet, but I wont do that until I have a proper fleshed out 1/2 Orc or 1/2 Giant by the playtest.



-R


If you have a limited number of classes with a number avenues to explore in its customisation then surely this only aids the story telling.  You've taken time and deliberation to make that character your own; only you (or, rather, your PC) can account for why he or she has this feat or that skill or some unusual trait.



In theory you should be right, but my experience has been that the more you offer special powers and feats and customizations and abilities, the more it encourages players to think in terms of min/max powergaming. When classes are simpler, with fewer "special abilities", people tend to focus more on the storytelling and less on how badass their numbers are.

A similar argument might be, "There's nothing wrong per se with owning lots of big houses and expensive cars...you can still be down-to-earth and non-materialistic."

You can, but it's harder. 
"Therefore, you are the crapper, I'm merely the vessel through which you crap." -- akaddk