|
1 year ago ::
Jan 09, 2012 - 7:02PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jul 20, 2002
|
Honestly, I would like to see the classic races represented in the core materials of the new edition. The ones found in Advanced D&D and Third Edition. However, I realize that many others like the new races that were introduced in fourth edition. Furthermore, there are people who don't like races that have traditionally been a part of D&D, like the gnome or half-orc (personally I think why not have full-blooded orcs, instead if half-orcs are a problem) or who might like more recent interpretations of classic races (I personally like that elves have both forest-dwelling rangers and magically inclined city builders and see no reason to split them off into two different races, and I certainly don't see the need to call one of them Eladrin when that is a name with a lot of history as being a race of celestials. Furthermore I like the older interpretations of halflings over the new ones.).
So what do you guys think? What races should make they're way into the new version of D&D?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 09, 2012 - 7:07PM
#2
|
|
|
I'd be elated if they dropped the Tolkienesque races entirely, but I know that's not going to happen.
Elves should definitely be split into 'high' and 'wood' variants, whether you call them that or Elves and Eladrin. Elves traditionally have occupied too much space, being both 'world's greatest woodsmen' and 'we invented magic' and all their other various Mary Sue traits. It doesn't matter what 'eladrin' meant before, only what it means now.
I definitely prefer brave, slender halflings over cowardly fatlings.
They should include at least a couple of nontraditional races just for those of us who have played D&D pretty much since the get-go and are sick and tired of the same old human-elf-dwarf-halfling stuff.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 09, 2012 - 7:24PM
#3
|
- Unconventional Mafia Pro
- Dark Lord
Date Joined:
Jun 25, 2001
|
Races should include, by my estimation...
The basic array:
Humans (The Mario of races -- painfully balanced)
"Stout" (Dwarves. Sorry, there's no better Stout than a dwarf.)
"High" (Elves traditionally, but could be something else or even new if they become the "fae" race A human subrace perhaps?)
"Wild" or "Fae" (Eladrin are this in 4e. Traditionally the wood elves)
"Cute" (Halflings or gnomes. Cute is a little demeaning, but their tendancy is towards pluck over power, something common in Hobbits/TSR Halflings, Wizards-era halflings, Gnomes/Tinker Gnomes, and even M:tG's Kithkin. Oddly, I'd sort of like Goblins or Kobolds to step into this role, though they're a little less plucky and a little more comical.)
A few optionals:
"Dark" (Drow or Tieflings. I'd prefer to see Tieflings back for another go, Planescape fanboy that I am, but Drow are popular and there are plenty of other traditionally "evil" races that could get a heroic shine.)
"Brute" (Half-orcs or... why not full orcs? I can't remember the last time I've played with a half orc. "Why not just take full orc?" I'd say as a 3.x dm "They're LA +0 and better." Of course if the concept needed the half, half orc it was. Warforged also fit this role.)
"Draconic" (Dragonborn, Draconians, or Kobolds -- I'd like Draconians.)
And a wildcard or two to bring the total to somewhere between 6 and 8 total races.
"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice." THE COALITION WAR GAME-Phyrexian Praetor Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill) Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills) Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill) Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills) Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills) Round 6: (8-7-1) [current round] Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 09, 2012 - 7:25PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jul 20, 2002
|
Splitting a race based on what kind of activities they involve themselves in makes no sense. You wouldn't split up humans based on "Well these guys are the ones who wear heavy armor, wield broadswords and ride around on horses on the plains and these guys are the scimitar-wielding, turban wearing, camel-riding desert dwellers." For one things those sterotypes didn't apply to every member of the real life races I'm thinking of in the first place! There is no reason why races can't be more diverse that just one or two sterotypes. Furthermore, given that one of the stated goals of this version of D&D is to bring back old players, what D&D races used to be very much does apply.
Halflings were never discribed as being cowardly, just reluctant to get involved in adventures. The same thing would apply to you're typical human commoner. They might not run and hide if say bandits attack they're village, but neither would most of them readily rush into adventures in far away lands either.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 09, 2012 - 7:35PM
#5
|
|
|
For a core book, ditch dragonborn, tieflings and genasi. Get rid of 4E eladrin with glowy eyes and fey step, and return elves to a more classic model (high and wood/forest). Bring halflings and gnomes back, as they were, for core.
Everything else, keep for optional supplements or DDI.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 09, 2012 - 7:38PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Oct 16, 2009
|
No gnomes. Ever.
Humans, orcs, dwarves, halflings, elves, and if we must, drow or tieflings or kobolds. Simple and elegant, and no worthless dreck.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 09, 2012 - 7:39PM
#7
|
|
|
Hobbits were not exactly cowardly, just set in their ways. When those they are loyal to are under attack, they are quite brave. I always thought the same of Halflings as that's where they come from thematically.
I think Tieflings have earned a spot as an iconic D&D race, as I knew about Tieflins before I ever played D&D and not from someone I met who happened to be in D&D, I'd overheard someone say the name on a few different occasions (different people, different environments) and took a look at it. I think they're really cool.
However, I don't require they be in the core book.
Core book should be for fairly simple things, such as suggested here.
At the same time, I freaking LOVE Genasi, so I'd kind of want to be able to play one from the start.
So it's a toss-up for me.
Part of me want simplification, but I also like variety. It's a tough choice.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 09, 2012 - 7:42PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Sep 19, 2007
|
For a core book, ditch dragonborn, tieflings and genasi. Get rid of 4E eladrin with glowy eyes and fey step, and return elves to a more classic model (high and wood/forest). Bring halflings and gnomes back, as they were, for core.
Everything else, keep for optional supplements or DDI.
Guess my group's not playing for a while then.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 09, 2012 - 7:50PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Oct 16, 2009
|
Also, tieflings should have hooves (and Dex!), not look like dinosaurs. And I wouldn't say no to having my pseudo-slaadi back again, neither. 
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 09, 2012 - 7:50PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jun 26, 2007
|
Why have specific races?
Why not give 2 generic stat bonuses, one "racial" grab bag feature and one special "flavor" option from a pool? There could be "racial" talent trees and abilities tied to it. Flavor it however you like.
So instead of having disputes about the lack of support for a specific race or why isn't race x" in the game, everything is available based on whateverflavor they want.
It opens huge design space and allows each race to be completely unique t the table and system.
P
|
|
|
