|
11 months ago ::
Aug 27, 2012 - 11:45PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Feb 25, 2008
|
So anyone else feel like the races were presented as very Tolkienesque? I did & got really mad (thankfully it is fluff & I can change it). I hate tolkien's races, they are annoy & bland. I like my dwarves as rambuncous, drunken honorable warriors (or solemn wise short dudes). Calling them greedy ponderous people made me very angry. Halfings make me further angry. They were basically hobbits. I hate hobbits more than I hate Tolkien. Why can't a short humaniod be interesting? Please don't make then boring shirefolk. Wanderlusting keen eyed kender are a better version of halflings than hobbits. Elves were mostly okay, I still would like so see some more down to earth elves that aren't so remote though. If you think about it, wouldn't elves & dwarves & halflings want to mingle together?
Humans upset me stat-wise, they shouldn't have than many bonuses on stats. How about letting them grab another background instead of giving them so many stats
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 28, 2012 - 12:58AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jan 23, 2012
|
Tolkien hates you.
With that out of the way, I agree, the humans stat bonus's is a little meh. Doesn't bother me too much though.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 28, 2012 - 4:09AM
#3
|
|
|
I love Tolkien and don't think his world and its associated cultures are bland at all. I think hobbits are plenty interesting. Kender are dreadful and I don't care to see them make a return to the game.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 28, 2012 - 4:47AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Aug 26, 2012
|
There are both kinds of Halflings aren't there? Stout are hobbits essentially, and Lightfoots are Kender. I don't see an issue with that. Mountain dwarves have always been very dour (although not as dour as Dour Dwarves), stern, and serious, Hill dwarves are relatively adventerous and drink more. It's been that way since probably atleast the 2e book on Dwarves.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 28, 2012 - 6:52AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jul 31, 2007
|
There are both kinds of Halflings aren't there? Stout are hobbits essentially, and Lightfoots are Kender. I don't see an issue with that. Mountain dwarves have always been very dour (although not as dour as Dour Dwarves), stern, and serious, Hill dwarves are relatively adventerous and drink more. It's been that way since probably atleast the 2e book on Dwarves.
What he said.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 28, 2012 - 8:20AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2011
|
Hey guys, This discussion is a better fit for Playtest Packet Discussion so I'll be moving it there. Please keep our posting guidelines in mind when choosing where to put your threads. Welcome to the Dungeon Master Playtest forum! (Please read before posting)Thanks, Monica
Monica
Wizards of the Coast Online Community Coordinator
A friendly dragon.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 28, 2012 - 8:39AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2008
|
I love Tolkien. My fist ever fantasy book was The Hobbit, followed by Lord of the Rings. He'll always hold a special place in my heart.
And while I'll always feel that some parts of D&D should always carry that influence from him, the last thing I want is all Tolkien all the time.
I'm fine with us having options for Hobbit like Halflings, or Tolkienesque Elves and Dwarves. That's fine. Just so long as options for non-Tolkienesque characters are presented alongside them.
I like that while one of the Halfling subraces is basically Hobbits with the serial numbers filed off, the other one is the more D&D-esque adventurous Halfling. We have both options. And that's great.
Likewise, I also want to start seeing my Half-Orcs and Dragonborn alongside my Elves and Dwarves.
Tolkien is fine in the right doses. Tolkien was a great writer, who influences countless fantasy writers, practically defining the modern fantasy genre. So he deserves his place in D&D.
Just as long as he's not the only choice, I'm happy.
D&D Experience Level: Relatively new
First Edition: 4th
Known Editions: 4th, 3.5
---
Magic Experience Level: Fairly skilled
First Expansion: 7th Edition
Play Style: Very Casual
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 28, 2012 - 8:51AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
You don't like it - change it.
Sounds pretty simple to me.
For the rest of the world - that which is familiar and popular sells and there is little to be gained by creating unfamilar race stereotypes to try to sell a new game. There just isn't any pont to it. Besides - changing the stereotypes is dangerous. It was thinking like that the inflicted Gully Dwarves and Kender upon the world. Better a billion boring and stale stereotypes than one more Kender or Gully Dwarf.
On the other hand, I agree. Not that I hate Tolkien - I actually like Tolkien. But that I'd prefer a different racial history for my own world. So I'll just change it.
But I don't expect the published product to reflect anything other than the historical portrayal of these races in the game.
Carl
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 28, 2012 - 8:59AM
#9
|
|
|
I love Tolkein, and I don't get why the hate for his worlds. It inspired D&D and its influence really is the only thing that should be expected at the most basic level of races. After that rewrite the races to your hearts content, its D&D, its meant to be your world.
Kender are good for one thing, Ammunition to be fired at an active volcano. *Twitching violently* The only race I actually hate.
You want interesting epic Halflings, than lets go for a stroll in the Talenta Plains of Khorvaire, in Eberron. Dinosaur riding halfling barbarians of win. I love these guys.
Humans definately need some work still. No arguement there.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 28, 2012 - 9:37AM
#10
|
|
|
If it wasn't for Tolkien, we wouldn't have all this. Okay we might, but it'd all look very, very different. I like my dwarves as rambuncous, drunken honorable warriors
I believe Tolkien's dwarves were like that, so I'm not sure what the issue is here.
Why can't a short humaniod be interesting? Please don't make then boring shirefolk.
I actually prefer halflings being mainly a race of homely farmer type characters, over the old (and seriously tired) cliche of a Cockney-speaking halfling rogue. Seriously, I've gotten to the point where whenever I meet a halfling in an online D&D game, I keep a distance from him, and as soon as he sports a Cockney accent, I immediately nail down all of my belongings.
Don't forget, also, that the guide gives these as examples of what that race is typically like. There is nothing that states that your character must be like this. Halflings might be a non-adventurous type, but Bilbo and Frodo certainly weren't. The guide also says that elves are usually good, yet I've encountered some evil elves, and ended up with a character who is convinced that all elves are like this as a result of it - such a thing can be interesting, and make for good roleplaying, if it's done well (and not overdone to the point of becoming another cliche *cough* chaotic good drow rangers with pet panthers *cough*  ).
So, bottom line: whether a character is interesting or not is up to you, not the PHB. I've always said that a human paladin from Cormyr can be just as interesting as a half tiefling paladin/ninja from the demonic plane of Kazazuth. It's all about giving him the right personality, and creating something that sets him apart from the others.
As for humans: I agree, they shoudl not have thsoe stat bonuses. +1 to a single stat of the player's choice, and give them some skill related bonuses to balance them with the other races, and to reflect their versatile nature.
Everything expressed in this post is my opinion, and should be taken as such. I can not declare myself to be the supreme authority on all matters...even though I am right!
|
|
|
