|
1 year ago ::
Feb 10, 2012 - 1:19PM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2008
|
The more interesting question in some cases is: which VERSION of some races? Will Gnomes be connected to dwarves, or elves? Will high elves be able to teleport? Some of the changes 4E introduced to the "trope" races really altered the flavor and "niche" they fill. I would like to see some of those rolled back to their more classic forms. Gnomes especially, though the teleporting elf thing also grinds my gears.
NO like hell no they do this and I will refuse to play. I do not want things returned to classical roots I like the 4e flavor but I wouldnt be adverese to whole new flavor either as long as that flavor is not in any sense like the classic flavor. We've already had that it's boring and bland.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 10, 2012 - 1:28PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Mar 25, 2001
|
Tolkien races ARE boring when they are the only options available to you. Seriously they've been the main races since the 70s. Time to change it up. I disagree about monster races being the ones in the main PHB. Tieflings should def be a PHB1 race. They at least have some human in them and started as humans. Dragonborn also commonly interact with humans and are honorable and good as a whole. Races that are really exotic or commonly evil should not be in the PHB 1. (such as things like Gnolls, Minotaurs, Lizardfolk, ect)
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 10, 2012 - 1:31PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
I can't imagine Wizards wanting to drop their slightly-less-public-domain races in favor of purely public domain concepts.
I hope they understand that having nothing but "generic fantasy fare" is really going to put them in the same market as the umpteen billion other games filled with "generic fantasy fare."
EDIT: Though, honestly, "generic fantasy game" sounds a lot like the goal for this edition, some times.
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
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)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 10, 2012 - 1:32PM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Feb 10, 2011
|
Honestly I can't say I'm a fan of having the "monstery" races be core. One of the big things that bothered me with 4ed was that it was expected for Dragonborn and Tieflings to be commonplace.
It's sad then, as you were fooled by your own misconceptions. Neither Dragonborn nor tieflings are supposed to be commonplacepin 4e. They are intended as exotic races,and to the people in the "points of light" setting don't see many of them. They are the last survivors of long dead empires on the wane.
What I really liked about this is it, better than anything I've seen before, captures the feeling of Tolkein's "Age of Man". Like the elves and dwarves of LotR, the Dragonborn and tieflings are helplessly watchingthe little that remains of their empire die.
Now, to be fair, not everyone plays this way. There may be while empires filled with tieflings, or as in Chris Perkins Iomandra campaign, the arkosoian empire is still going strong.
But there was noting about 4e that made Dragonborn or tieflings particularly plentiful (other than the fact that tieflings make excellent baddies).
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 10, 2012 - 1:39PM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Jan 13, 2008
|
Erm...you seem to have entirely missed the point of my comment. And yes I'm aware that you dissagree, you've already stated as much. I've rarely found racial restrictions to be a major inhibition to my enjoyment of roleyplaying. This is my opinion, you can't have it (or change it) because it's mine. I'll have fun either way, and if I don't feel like playing a tiefling, or allowing my players to run one due to setting restrictions, well then tieflings won't appear in that campaign.
I'm curious why you feel change is necessary. WHY are the tolkien races boring to you? Why should Tieflings inherrently be included?
Also if you demand Tieflings to be an auto include in PHB, I want Trolls. (Alzer loves him some trolls (and no I'm not trolling, I've played 2 troll PCs, they're SUPER fun))
Originally Tieflings were an inherrently evil race that couldn't be anything but, while Lizardfolk were more commonly neutral (yet territorial and a bit on the savage side). Where is the line drawn?
With that, should the core game even introduce fluff for race cultures? Should monsters just BE and players/DMs chose what alignments and themes they have? Or should this be defined by the fluff of the books themselves.
EDIT: When I look through a core book, I tend to place the "reasonably commonplace" label on any races that are located therin unless otherwise stated by the DM. That's why they're in the core book, because they're common, and everyone should be using them. I'm aware there was all the fluff and such to attempt to reinforce that, but at the end of the day, new player picks up book, says "hey I want to be a dragon man!" and trollops along breathing fire on everything. At least that's the way I see it. Hence why I feel there should be an expanded races book, or maybe just a "common, uncommon, rare" tier system for the races in the core book, so they can be moderated at the DM's disgression.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 10, 2012 - 1:46PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2008
|
Erm...you seem to have entirely missed the point of my comment. And yes I'm aware that you dissagree, you've already stated as much. I've rarely found racial restrictions to be a major inhibition to my enjoyment of roleyplaying. This is my opinion, you can't have it (or change it) because it's mine. I'll have fun either way, and if I don't feel like playing a tiefling, or allowing my players to run one due to setting restrictions, well then tieflings won't appear in that campaign.
I'm curious why you feel change is necessary. WHY are the tolkien races boring to you? Why should Tieflings inherrently be included?
Also if you demand Tieflings to be an auto include in PHB, I want Trolls. (Alzer loves him some trolls (and no I'm not trolling, I've played 2 troll PCs, they're SUPER fun))
Originally Tieflings were an inherrently evil race that couldn't be anything but, while Lizardfolk were more commonly neutral (yet territorial and a bit on the savage side). Where is the line drawn?
With that, should the core game even introduce fluff for race cultures? Should monsters just BE and players/DMs chose what alignments and themes they have? Or should this be defined by the fluff of the books themselves.
EDIT: When I look through a core book, I tend to place the "reasonably commonplace" label on any races that are located therin unless otherwise stated by the DM. That's why they're in the core book, because they're common, and everyone should be using them. I'm aware there was all the fluff and such to attempt to reinforce that, but at the end of the day, new player picks up book, says "hey I want to be a dragon man!" and trollops along breathing fire on everything. At least that's the way I see it. Hence why I feel there should be an expanded races book, or maybe just a "common, uncommon, rare" tier system for the races in the core book, so they can be moderated at the DM's disgression.
Alingment should die as a concept the game has moved beyond the need for it as to races, if you could find a way to balance trolls then I'd be happy to see them in the game. I HATE tolkienesque worlds. I'd much rather have a world where humans are just one of a dozen races or so, or maybe its the human empires on the wane. The more fantastic the world to me the better.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 10, 2012 - 1:52PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
Hence why I feel there should be an expanded races book, or maybe just a "common, uncommon, rare" tier system for the races in the core book, so they can be moderated at the DM's disgression.
They can always be moderated at the DM's discretion. I don't see the point of what you suggest, other than making people with different taste than yours pay more money than you to play what they want (the "other book" suggestion), or to make some people feel like their preference is the "right" one (the "tier" system).
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
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)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 10, 2012 - 2:03PM
#38
|
|
|
My own preference, and I realise this is probably an extreme minority position, would be for the 'basic core' of the new edition to have no racial mechanics at all. Then I'd put out a robust 'build your own race' module (with lots of examples of how to simulate 'classic' races from previous editions) in an expansion book. That way, any DM/group can put whatever races they want (and whatever version of whatever races they want) in their own campaign, without being limited by which races the game's designers happen to think are important/popular/interesting enough to include, and without being bound by the designers' personal conceptions of those races. It would also allow a race to vary significantly between settings - Dark Sun elves should not be mechanically identical to Forgotten Realms elves, IMO.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 10, 2012 - 2:12PM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Feb 10, 2011
|
I don't think humans, elves, dwarves, or halflings are boring. But for that SAME REASON I don't find the "exotic" races a problem. If a Dragonborn isn't more exciting than a dwarf why hate on the Dragonborn?
You have the right to play your game any way you want, but imagine if the reverse or your request happened. Instead of having a book where humans, elves, dwarves, and halflings are core, PHB1 only had tieflings, Dragonborn, eladrin, and warforged. Those other races are available in a supplement, but not in the PHB.
That's what you're asking for. You want to limit the enjoyment of those who like tieflings, a core 4e class, because you don't like them. No one's stopping you from keeping them out of your game, but you ARE trying to keep them out of ours without demanding is to put more in financially to do so.
To be honest, if it comes down to dragonborn and tieflings or gnomes and half-orcs like it did in 4e, I say gnome and half-Orc all the way, but if it's possible to get both, why limit it.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 10, 2012 - 2:15PM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Jan 13, 2008
|
Greatfrito I should rephrase: more easily moderated at the DM's disgression. They've talked about "common, uncommon and rare" class tiers. All I've suggestd here is to move races into the same range. Though it seems you've caught me in my own counterargument. Thanks for the catch. The reason I like the idea of that system is it gives the DM a quick way to say "ok we're playing middle fantasy, so tieflings are in but floating jelly brains are out" in a concise manner. This way players don't show up to the table with a half dragon sorcerer/cleric in a game that's supposed to be low-magic and humans only, and the DM doesn't need to write out a shopping list of "things the party can't have" (one of my big issues with 3.x and 4.0 alike). I highly expect alignment to be an optional rules set. Though even when I'm playing games without alignments, I personally tend to write "CG" in a margin, it helps me define my characters actions. To me they are less rules and more guidelines to staying in character (but I digress, we're talking about classes, my apologies) Duskweaver; A "build your own race" module should honestly be included in the DMG. Races are one of those "classic" things that I don't see being eliminated from core (even if I may agree with you to a point). My only worry is, "build your own race" would be waaay to easy for munchkins to jump on and fly into space, while overwhelming to new players that still want to play an elf. EDIT: To be honest, if it comes down to dragonborn and tieflings or gnomes and half-orcs like it did in 4e, I say gnome and half-Orc all the way, but if it's possible to get both, why limit it.
Well said. As we've discussed this I've considered that it is easier to put things in the game, and let people take them out later. Though at the same time, how big is the PHB supposed to be? Should I have to pay more money for a giant PHB because everyone else wants Tieflings and Dragonborn core? (purely said for the sake of the argument, I'm just here to make a point)
|
|
|
