|
5 months ago ::
Jan 11, 2013 - 2:01PM
#71
|
Date Joined:
Aug 15, 2011
|
None. No core races at all.
Available races should be strictly a DM decision, based on the campaign the DM is running. Nobody else gets to decide, ever.
'Core' does not mean 'available in all games' and never has. Any game element's presence in the initial outlay of rulebooks in no way obligates their inclusion in any game, in any setting, anywhere.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 11, 2013 - 2:48PM
#72
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2007
|
culturally distinct
Race and culture should be completely unrelated.
Traditionally, however, that has not been the case. For example, the 3e PHB has this to say about Dwarves:
- +2 Constitution, -2 Charisma.
- Medium: As Medium creatures, dwarves have no special bonuses or penalties due to their size.
- Dwarf base land speed is 20 feet. However, dwarves can move at this speed even when wearing medium or heavy armor or when carrying a medium or heavy load (unlike other creatures, whose speed is reduced in such situations).
- Darkvision: Dwarves can see in the dark up to 60 feet. Darkvision is black and white only, but it is otherwise like normal sight, and dwarves can function just fine with no light at all.
- Stonecunning: This ability grants a dwarf a +2 racial bonus on Search checks to notice unusual stonework, such as sliding walls, stonework traps, new construction (even when built to match the old), unsafe stone surfaces, shaky stone ceilings, and the like. Something that isn’t stone but that is disguised as stone also counts as unusual stonework. A dwarf who merely comes within 10 feet of unusual stonework can make a Search check as if he were actively searching, and a dwarf can use the Search skill to find stonework traps as a rogue can. A dwarf can also intuit depth, sensing his approximate depth underground as naturally as a human can sense which way is up.
- Weapon Familiarity: Dwarves may treat dwarven waraxes and dwarven urgroshes as martial weapons, rather than exotic weapons.
- Stability: A dwarf gains a +4 bonus on ability checks made to resist being bull rushed or tripped when standing on the ground (but not when climbing, flying, riding, or otherwise not standing firmly on the ground).
- +2 racial bonus on saving throws against poison.
- +2 racial bonus on saving throws against spells and spell-like effects.
- +1 racial bonus on attack rolls against orcs and goblinoids.
- +4 dodge bonus to Armor Class against monsters of the giant type. Any time a creature loses its Dexterity bonus (if any) to Armor Class, such as when it’s caught flat-footed, it loses its dodge bonus, too.
- +2 racial bonus on Appraise checks that are related to stone or metal items.
- +2 racial bonus on Craft checks that are related to stone or metal.
- Automatic Languages: Common and Dwarven. Bonus Languages: Giant, Gnome, Goblin, Orc, Terran, and Undercommon.
- Favored Class: Fighter. A multiclass dwarf’s fighter class does not count when determining whether he takes an experience point penalty for multiclassing
Weapon Familiarity, bonus to attack orcs and goblins, bonus to dodge giants, bonus to appraise checks, bonus to craft checks, languages known, favored class- you might be able to make a good argument here and there, but those sound like cultural traits to me. And this is hardly a new thing, remember when all Elves got a +1 bonus to attack rolls with long swords? I don't have the current packet on hand, but I would not be surprised at all to see cultural traits as part of racial packages when Next finally hits stores...
"You can always judge a man by the quality of his enemies." -The Doctor, Remembrance of the Daleks
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 11, 2013 - 2:49PM
#73
|
Date Joined:
Aug 15, 2011
|
culturally distinct
Race and culture should be completely unrelated.
Traditionally, however, that has not been the case.
Tradition can take a flying leap. Keeping a bad thing simply because 'it's tradition' is a pathetic, horrible policy.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 11, 2013 - 2:55PM
#74
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
Tradition can take a flying leap. Keeping a bad thing simply because 'it's tradition' is a pathetic, horrible policy.
While I could not possibly agree with you more on this point, I still have to come out in favor of linking race and culture (at least by default). The world setting which is described in the PHB 1 is a fairly distinct place, where race and culture are closely tied, and breaking them apart would diminish from that setting.
When other distinct settings are released, I fully expect them to tweak the races as appropriate to their new cultures, but I still expect race and culture to be connected.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 11, 2013 - 2:56PM
#75
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2012
|
I'd love to see a lot of other races as well, particularly merfolk as I love underwater adventures and HATE aquatic elves...
I completely agree. It's actually really surprising to me that they haven't ever to my knowledge created a Merfolk race that was actually playable in non-aquatic campaigns. It's not like it would be hard to. Just give them "fins to feet" as an at-will racial power / spell-like ability / whatever, and you're good, especially saying not all member of the race have it but those that are appropriate to be playable probably do.
I always wanted to play a mermaid but never have because they cannot use land. It would be cool for a breed of mermaids to exist that can use land.
I can really see 2 general ways to accomplish that.
1) their tails can change to legs on land.
2) They are capable of slithering on their tails on land, like the naga from WoW.
That would be amazing. The alternative is like a 'Sea-born" race where they gain features of merfolk but do not have tails. They have a swim-speed and breathe underwater and may have gils. Although I do like the idea of being able to have the tail change to legs, however I can see it requiring an action to activate that. Slithering would also be an option that seems good because it gives one an option to play a legless character.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 11, 2013 - 3:04PM
#76
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
None. No core races at all.
Available races should be strictly a DM decision, based on the campaign the DM is running. Nobody else gets to decide, ever.
Yes, yes, yes! Abolish core. At least the term of core beyond the three basis books. 5E seems to be transform the term "core" into "modular", which I prefer. Keep everything at a basic level and let the DM and players expand from there, maybe other settings for specific fluff. I don't want "core" to impose on other settings anymore, hence why I want generic as possible with ways of changing things up a bit.
Disgruntled ghost of the Knights of W.T.F.
(Keep D&D alive, end the edition wars!)
"And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Disclaimer: Most of my posts are based on opinions (and are sometimes humorous, other times inspirational)
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 11, 2013 - 3:53PM
#77
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2007
|
culturally distinct
Race and culture should be completely unrelated.
Traditionally, however, that has not been the case.
Tradition can take a flying leap. Keeping a bad thing simply because 'it's tradition' is a pathetic, horrible policy.
And yet, so much of what people want in Next (and a lot of things in Next) are there because they always have been- nostalgia sells. Not to derail the thread, but look at all the discussions about the Fighter and why he can't have abilities that stretch the boundaries of physics. Because, traditionally , the Fighter is limited to what is physically possible. So yeah, I won't be terribly surprised if races keep culture-based traits. While it would be nice to have Elves who aren't all proficient with longbows, take that away from them, and suddenly you'll have a thousand posts of "give Elves back their bows".
"You can always judge a man by the quality of his enemies." -The Doctor, Remembrance of the Daleks
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 11, 2013 - 3:57PM
#78
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
culturally distinct
Race and culture should be completely unrelated.
Traditionally, however, that has not been the case.
Tradition can take a flying leap. Keeping a bad thing simply because 'it's tradition' is a pathetic, horrible policy.
And yet, so much of what people want in Next (and a lot of things in Next) are there because they always have been- nostalgia sells. Not to derail the thread, but look at all the discussions about the Fighter and why he can't have abilities that stretch the boundaries of physics. Because, traditionally , the Fighter is limited to what is physically possible. So yeah, I won't be terribly surprised if races keep culture-based traits. While it would be nice to have Elves who aren't all proficient with longbows, take that away from them, and suddenly you'll have a thousand posts of "give Elves back their bows".
And thus, compromise and modularity are needed. Progressive and conservative approaches to the game shouldn't out weigh each other. Appealing to one side is rife with disaster and inevitable collapse. The reason? D&D is subjective, your horrible is another person's awesome. Also, your awesome is another person's horrible! If we can't learn to share our toys, then maybe no one deserves them... We need constructive and somewhat objective feedback to provide options so that way as many people as possible will be pleased.
Disgruntled ghost of the Knights of W.T.F.
(Keep D&D alive, end the edition wars!)
"And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Disclaimer: Most of my posts are based on opinions (and are sometimes humorous, other times inspirational)
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 11, 2013 - 3:58PM
#79
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2005
|
None. No core races at all.
You want there to be no races at all in the PHB? Because that's what core means here.
Available races should be strictly a DM decision, based on the campaign the DM is running. Nobody else gets to decide, ever.
Not this again. Come on, let players contribute to the game too. It involves them and invests them more in the game.
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) TMSpeaking 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!
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 11, 2013 - 4:01PM
#80
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2007
|
Which is why I'd rather see a "build your own" race mechanic. Makes it quick and easy to populate your world with exactly what you want.
"You can always judge a man by the quality of his enemies." -The Doctor, Remembrance of the Daleks
|
|
|
