The conventional pantheons are strongly influenced by the cotemporal expanse of the Far Realm which led to the stratification of the Outer Planes. Events in the nonlinear region are essentially fixed and it is convenient to think of them as causative to the Cataclysm out of which the demihuman races (and yugoloths) arose. Though seemingly made over into our own, however, the same universe still exists in which the celesternals are not divided between angels and devils, and persist in their...
View full commentThe conventional pantheons are strongly influenced by the cotemporal expanse of the Far Realm which led to the stratification of the Outer Planes. Events in the nonlinear region are essentially fixed and it is convenient to think of them as causative to the Cataclysm out of which the demihuman races (and yugoloths) arose. Though seemingly made over into our own, however, the same universe still exists in which the celesternals are not divided between angels and devils, and persist in their persecution of the demons, the giants have never ceased to rule over the apians within the spheres of light, the wildmen still contribute to the prosperity of the empires of the mind seekers, and the lesser abominations continue to dominate the gobbels. (The hermetic protoillithids are dismayed by their mind flayer descendants' decline into the subjugation of inferior servitors.) Fractured realities also exist in which the primary conflict is between Law and Chaos, for example, or the kingdoms of the giants coexist in peace with those of humanoids.
The three species of precosmological protohumans are related, though not closely, to the humanoid races. The several breeds of orcs are descendants of apians and an intermediate race between wildmen and humans, the cavemen. The interaction of wildmen and cavemen with gobbels led to the origins of dwarves, troglodytes, and also other protohuman races which diverged into bestial monstrous humanoids such as minotaurs and gnolls. Goblinoids and kuo-toa are the proud descendants of those gobbels whose bloodline was not sullied. Elves and sahuaguin claim similarly pure descent from the giants' apian slaves. The apians also crossbred with gobbels, producing another protohuman ancestor race, olbitlans, which rehybridized with apians to create halflings, and gobbels to produce gnomes. In most cases, humanoids related through a hybrid race can interbreed, but these small races are difficult to crossbreed.
Similarities in appearance and behavior have led to the existence of confusion among the original protohumans, humans, and contemporary protohumans such as gith and fey. Besides humans and mermen, shadar-kai, githyanki and githzerai are all descendants of wildmen, who were initially adopted by their protoillithid patrons because they demonstrated admirable loyalty to the group. Fey have both apian and wildmen blood and were shaped by their exposure to elemental forces, whereas the disobedient...
View full commentSimilarities in appearance and behavior have led to the existence of confusion among the original protohumans, humans, and contemporary protohumans such as gith and fey. Besides humans and mermen, shadar-kai, githyanki and githzerai are all descendants of wildmen, who were initially adopted by their protoillithid patrons because they demonstrated admirable loyalty to the group. Fey have both apian and wildmen blood and were shaped by their exposure to elemental forces, whereas the disobedient wildmen who hid from their masters in the planes of Shadow, long before the treachery of Gith, eventually became the shadar-kai.
The problem with satyrs being male only is it is not really grounded in any sort of history. Satyrs weren't originally half-goat half men, fauns were and they could be female as well. There was a god and goddess that were fauns. Additionally, though it is more modern (by the 16th century), female satyrs or satyress' became prevalent. If you want to split the genders, include fauns (the O.G. satyr) as the female version, but to not have a classic female version against the role of history and...
View full commentThe problem with satyrs being male only is it is not really grounded in any sort of history. Satyrs weren't originally half-goat half men, fauns were and they could be female as well. There was a god and goddess that were fauns. Additionally, though it is more modern (by the 16th century), female satyrs or satyress' became prevalent. If you want to split the genders, include fauns (the O.G. satyr) as the female version, but to not have a classic female version against the role of history and popular modern art of this century I think is a bad call.
I don't mind the idea of female satyrs (precedent in Fauns, from Roman myth, they were uncommon, but existed), male harpies (just makes sense to me, unless harpies come into being some other way, curse, god-spawn, etc), inccubi (male succubi, precedent in Medieval myth, tho they did have different abilities), maedars (male Medusa, but with different characteristics and slightly different powers), but I am hesitant about male nymphs/dryads. In legend, dryads where just one kind of nymph, and the...
View full commentI don't mind the idea of female satyrs (precedent in Fauns, from Roman myth, they were uncommon, but existed), male harpies (just makes sense to me, unless harpies come into being some other way, curse, god-spawn, etc), inccubi (male succubi, precedent in Medieval myth, tho they did have different abilities), maedars (male Medusa, but with different characteristics and slightly different powers), but I am hesitant about male nymphs/dryads. In legend, dryads where just one kind of nymph, and the word nymph came from a Greek word that meant "marriageable young woman," or "virgin," depending on the translation (I've seen it both ways). To that end, I think those should stay as they are, but my opinion is biased, and if they were included to have male versions, I would probably simply exclude them from my game. BUT, if they are included, I think they should be sort of like the maedar. There should be notable differences between the genders (females are lithe and graceful, males are strong and powerfully built? They are supposed to be the "ideal" of beauty, but also defenders of nature), and a difference in abilities. I'm also in favor of a variety of nymphs, however, like the Greek legends. Without male nymphs, you should explain how new, full blooded nymphs come into being. Is a nymph's daughter also a nymph, regardless of father (leaving room for inherited templates)?
As for the centaurs, only thing that bugged me was the exeption to them using their hooves as weapons. Charging centaur, dual wielding lances, with improved overrun. THAT is scary.
As for minotaurs, anything was playable in 3E, you just had to work around over inflated LA. The DM's I know worked with players wanting to play exotic characters. But I do like the two versions. Could we differentiate them with a new name, sub-race, etc? Feral Minotaurs (different from Savage Species)?
Expertise dice... Great idea but...the first iterations of the playtest were more ‘old school’. Looks like we are moving back to extreme damage die rolls again… Things like the Fighter surge.. shudder! 12d6 suddenly? Very naff! A more interesting expertise progression might be… A simple d6, d8, d10, d12, 2d6, d6d8, d610, d6d12, d8d12, d10d12 2d12. This is more than sufficient expertise dice for all classes and ensures players think when and how to spend their dice. I also...
View full commentExpertise dice...
Great idea but...the first iterations of the playtest were more ‘old school’. Looks like we are moving back to extreme damage die rolls again… Things like the Fighter surge.. shudder! 12d6 suddenly? Very naff!
A more interesting expertise progression might be…
A simple d6, d8, d10, d12, 2d6, d6d8, d610, d6d12, d8d12, d10d12 2d12. This is more than sufficient expertise dice for all classes and ensures players think when and how to spend their dice.
I also noticed the Barbar has automatic damage per hit like the fighter, rogue and cleric. Sorry guys –awful idea – just too extreme – automatic lumps of damage and in mega serviings too ! It’s a way of disguising yet another group of d6 damage lumps.
There simply no need for this extra damage at all. An extra to hit roll for the character would be more interesting and allow for a miss as well.
I like the overall thrust… but tone down the damage again. Remember the original thrust etc.
Its OK not to do 60 points per swing, in fact its better not too. Because when players can do extreme damage, so can monsters.. which means inevitably characters get hit in a fashion that roleplaying and quick thinking can’t influence – there no time.
But with less damage a smart party can turn a situation around – they’ve got time to live past that first initial damage train.
I don't like Alignment restriction for dragons or Genies... it's up DM what use or Aligment he wants his Dragon or Genie have.... been always against Aligment Restriction for those creatures.... and why is Shadow Dragon always Chaotic evil???? it like copy paste some kinde of Black Dragon again.... but if we said that Shadow dragon usually are of neutrall aligment then we will have a very interesting Dragon race.... after all the plane of Shadow are a neutrall plane... it's mortal denizens...
View full commentI don't like Alignment restriction for dragons or Genies... it's up DM what use or Aligment he wants his Dragon or Genie have.... been always against Aligment Restriction for those creatures....
and why is Shadow Dragon always Chaotic evil???? it like copy paste some kinde of Black Dragon again.... but if we said that Shadow dragon usually are of neutrall aligment then we will have a very interesting Dragon race.... after all the plane of Shadow are a neutrall plane... it's mortal denizens are most of the time of neutral aligment... only creature that have been tainted by the of pocket energi of the negative energi plane are evil (mostly undeads and some living tainted creature like Nightcrawlers)...
and were are the most interesting dragons of all time The Gem Dragons???? they are core dragon who have been neglected in 4 edition... Big Mistake i must say...
Move Shadow Dragon to Gem Dragon Family and call it Onyx dragon or something
and use mercuri dragon and steel dragon as metall dragon.. plus take back purple and brown ( brown was called yellow dragon in 2nd edition AD&D) and grey to chromatic dragon family...
I agree. Alignment has been part of the rules for a long time and should continue to be in the rules. And DMs have always ignored any rule that they didn't like so if some DM doesn't like alignment they don't have to use it, but the rest of us want it in the game.
Couldn't we just drop colour-coded dragons, please? And while we're at it, forget about fixed alignments for a whole species of intelligent creatures? Dragons encountered by the players should all be individuals, anyway. Dragons should become a toolbox: Provide a general template and pick and choose whatever abilities make sense for the single, unique dragon the party is about to encounter. Make dragons special, rather than just another random monster encounter.
One of the things that should be considered is the Idea of Multi Headed Dragons and that multi Headed Dragons possess a collective Intelligence. in essence all of the heads united together as one mind
Today I find that I am more disliking the poll questions then the editorial itself. I like some things, if not most, but the poll questions do not compensate for that. I get to tell you whether i hate them or like them or in between, but not a way to state which parts i like. So, unless i write something, my vote can be interpreted incorrectly. All that would be needed is to add in one or two more poll questions to see what i did or did not like to get a more focused answer would have been...
View full commentToday I find that I am more disliking the poll questions then the editorial itself. I like some things, if not most, but the poll questions do not compensate for that. I get to tell you whether i hate them or like them or in between, but not a way to state which parts i like. So, unless i write something, my vote can be interpreted incorrectly. All that would be needed is to add in one or two more poll questions to see what i did or did not like to get a more focused answer would have been better. And use check box options so that we are not locked to one answer. Don't get me wrong, I like the direction I see wizards going, just dont pidgeon hole the poll questions like this one here to be so black and white. Keep options in the polls to show the shades of grey like you have in other polls. Otherwise I'm afraid to answer. Anyways, just my thoughts on better getting our opinions especially if i dont have time to write "what i really mean" after each vote.
As someone who really likes the concept of golems, and constructs in general, I would really like to see them become more flexible for campaign use. If not specially "Golems" it would be nice to have a range of constructs across a wide range of levels. I feel like just lifting the 3e ones is a waste of potential for something better. For example, how often is the berserker rage of clay and flesh golems really relevant to gameplay? It's only really there to be an obstruction for PCs that...
View full commentAs someone who really likes the concept of golems, and constructs in general, I would really like to see them become more flexible for campaign use. If not specially "Golems" it would be nice to have a range of constructs across a wide range of levels.
I feel like just lifting the 3e ones is a waste of potential for something better. For example, how often is the berserker rage of clay and flesh golems really relevant to gameplay? It's only really there to be an obstruction for PCs that might want to make golems of their own. And really, why should they suffer for that? It would be awesome to play a kind of arcane puppet master with a powerful golem ally as an alternative to the summoner or necromancer concepts.
As for their spell immunity, it's a tough call for me. As an Ogre Battle fan, I'm used to the idea of a golem as a ponderous, physical wall whose weak spot is actually magical assault. On the other, there's of course the DnD tradition of an ageless, magic-resistant juggernaut. Still, while it's good for casters to get taken down a bit every once in a while (speaking as someone that loves casters) no one should ever be completely shut-out of a fight, nor have to resort to cheesing to remain relevant. I think the solution is to give them resistances, but exchange immunity off several golems for other abilities that provide interesting, even puzzle-like challenges. for instance, maybe clay or stone golems constantly heal so long as they are in contact with natural earth or stone, and let iron golems be the bulwarks on which spells shatter. Give flesh golems the potential for intelligence maybe. Just take the chance to make them something more.
Should all elves be the same body type? No, of course not. Should some elves be fat? Yes. But What is fat for an elf? It isn't the same as what is fat for a human or a dwarf. An Obese elf may well have a similar body type to a plump human. Just look at real world animals... I'll use different breeds of dogs for examples. A fat greyhound isn't very fat compared to a bulldog. .. it is still fat for its breed but the "natural" body shape of a greyhound is so thin to begin with that...
View full commentShould all elves be the same body type? No, of course not. Should some elves be fat? Yes. But What is fat for an elf? It isn't the same as what is fat for a human or a dwarf. An Obese elf may well have a similar body type to a plump human.
Just look at real world animals... I'll use different breeds of dogs for examples. A fat greyhound isn't very fat compared to a bulldog. .. it is still fat for its breed but the "natural" body shape of a greyhound is so thin to begin with that the scale is very different.
So Elves should have a range of body types from thin (which would appear dangerously anorexic for a human... apart from the bones not poking out so much) to fat (which would look slightly overweight for a human). If you really want to display dangerous weight catagories then you could go further... but I don't think those kinds of weights should be commonly depicted.
I would love to see variations in bodytypes among all non-humans, not just the standards like dwarve and elf. I think the tendency to label any somewhat significant variation a subtype to be kinda ridiculous. Races should be allowed some realistic variation while still being consider part of the same group of elves or lizardmen. consideration should always be taken to what their specific race ideal is though, lest they lose the uniqueness that makes them an identifiably non-human race. ...
View full commentI would love to see variations in bodytypes among all non-humans, not just the standards like dwarve and elf. I think the tendency to label any somewhat significant variation a subtype to be kinda ridiculous. Races should be allowed some realistic variation while still being consider part of the same group of elves or lizardmen. consideration should always be taken to what their specific race ideal is though, lest they lose the uniqueness that makes them an identifiably non-human race.
As for monster variation, I would adore seeing more of that. I'd actually like the regional owlbear thing. I like the feeling of a worldwide setting with all manner of creatures adapted to all manner of biomes.
In my opinion, there are a few things the wrong with this gnoll; a) the little braids near the ear, need to go, this is, in a sense, a bipedal, humanoid hyena, so the ear hair, looks unnatural, b) they need to look dumb, but not like Quasimodo, the hunchback thing is weird and awkward, it needs to look hyena like, so have their back straighter, but give them sloping shoulders, c) their knees do not ALWAYS have to be bent, they are humanoids, so give them something that says 'feral' without...
View full commentIn my opinion, there are a few things the wrong with this gnoll; a) the little braids near the ear, need to go, this is, in a sense, a bipedal, humanoid hyena, so the ear hair, looks unnatural, b) they need to look dumb, but not like Quasimodo, the hunchback thing is weird and awkward, it needs to look hyena like, so have their back straighter, but give them sloping shoulders, c) their knees do not ALWAYS have to be bent, they are humanoids, so give them something that says 'feral' without saying 'unevolved' or 'underdeveloped', d) they need to be muscular, but not so bulky, they're hunters, not lumbering oafs, so their necks do not have to bee 4 feet in circumference, and lastly, e) their faces need to be a tad more humanoid, they should be distinctly hyena like, but not so much it looks like someone cut out a hyena head and stuck it on a body.
View full comment
View full comment